Evidence of meeting #9 for Official Languages in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tool.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
The developers of this tool came to speak to us and told us that all communications to the public must be done by a translator, through a real translation service. Users must acknowledge that condition before using the tool.
Based on your experience, have you ever heard of or seen any lawsuits or legal proceedings regarding a translation tool and the Official Languages Act?
4 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
I am not sure I understand the question.
4 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
With respect to official languages, in other provinces, have you ever heard of—
4 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
—of software?
4 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
I have never heard of any.
The only province that has a law on official languages and that has a constitutional obligation is New Brunswick. I have never officially heard of the use of tools there, but I have gotten enough correspondence from the Government of New Brunswick to know that it may sometimes use a tool. I have had to ask public servants to send the original English version, because I did not understand the French version. This has happened to me a number of times with the provincial government, but never with the federal government. This has never happened to me with a federal institution, but it has certainly happened in New Brunswick.
4 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
It happens in the federal government as well. We have heard about texts translated by machine.
4 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
I have been lucky with the federal government, but in New Brunswick, I have gotten communications from public servants that had been translated, not by Portage, but by another tool that is very well known but that I will not name. The French version was incomprehensible.
4 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
If we look at the objectives of the Official Languages Act, how do you think we could make it harder to implement such a tool? Legally, in accordance with the Official Languages Act, could we issue a warning regarding the use of such a tool?
4:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
The Official Languages Act makes it clear that both official languages are equal. The equality of both languages is the basic principle or foundation of the Official Languages Act and the constitutional provisions, such as section 16 of the charter.
Equality does not mean that one group is treated better than the other. Equality means what it means. It means that both groups must be treated equally and no one should be put at a disadvantage as a result of the language they use. There is equality of status, equal rights and privileges. All decisions made by the federal government to release documents it produces must be based on the principle of the equality of both languages. In my opinion, there is no reason for one language to be less equal than the other or for one to be more equal than the other.
The principle of equality is at the heart of all texts that recognize language rights in Canada, and this principle must be guarded here. We must ensure that texts are of equal quality in both languages, in order to respect the principle of equality.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
René Arseneault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I have 30 seconds.
I want to jump to another topic. During our committee meetings, I often hear the expression “linguistic duality”. I would like to hear your thoughts on this subject and hear the New Brunswick term that legally means linguistic duality.
4:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
There is always a debate on the meaning of linguistic duality.
I know that the federal government uses the expression “linguistic duality” to refer to bilingualism and the two official languages.
In New Brunswick, linguistic duality also has a political and administrative meaning, in that it designates linguistically homogeneous structures or structures that enable both linguistic communities to manage matters that affect them.
For example, in education, when we talk about linguistic duality in Canada, we talk about two school systems: the francophone school system and the anglophone school system. These are dualist systems, in the sense that both communities can manage their educational institutions.
In health, linguistic duality refers to recognizing the fancophone community, with a hospital like Montfort Hospital in Ottawa or the Vitalité Health Network in New Brunswick.
Linguistic duality can also be administrative. It is not, strictly speaking, about bilingualism.
4:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
There you have it, in 30 seconds.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here today.
I have Q-53 from the order paper, which I asked to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, who is responsible for the Translation Bureau. I asked, among other things, what this tool would be served for. I was told, as we heard from Ms. Achimov, that the tool would only be used to translate short, unofficial internal texts, such as emails, as though it could be used to write.
What will this tool be used for? I was told that the launch of this new tool is an important step towards encouraging and promoting the use of official languages.
They are talking about promoting official languages with a translation tool. We have to wonder. In fact, a number of questions were raised about this. I am happy that you have suggested a task force. Linda Cardinal, who was here last week, made that suggestion as well. Even if we implement this tool, it will have to be monitored and assessed, to see how it impacts official languages and what risks it carries, as you said.
When I asked departmental representatives about their studies, they mentioned two foreign organizations: the Translation Automation User Society and the Common Sense Advisory. These two organizations are from the United States and Europe and do not seem to be experts on translation or on respect for official languages.
Do you think that the Commissioner of Official Languages could examine this issue to ensure that both both languages are being treated equally, as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
4:05 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
Your question has several components.
With respect to the consultation of groups from outside Canada, we know that there are people who are very interested in translation in Europe and the United States, but not in the same context. They do not even have the same constitutional and legislative framework as we have in Canada. Our framework is rather unique.
In Europe, it is must more complex, because they use many more languages, but the framework here is unique. I think studies will have to be conducted in Canada.
Would the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages be the institution to do this? Yes, among others, but I think we need to expand the scope beyond the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Senior Canadian public servants need to be taking a close look at this issue, to ensure that we do not lose sight of our official languages obligations and of our obligations under the charter.
When I mentioned a task force on language technology and the concept of equality of language communities and equality of language, I think we need to go much further than the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. We also need to seek outside experts who can enlighten us.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
We have heard from many witnesses who spoke, in general, about the Translation Bureau, because our study is examining the Translation Bureau. These witnesses spoke about cuts, or, rather, attrition. They did not replace people who retired. If memory serves, a hundred or so translators will be leaving in the coming years, and they will not be replaced. No one is being hired.
Many people asked about knowledge transfer and expressed concerns about a loss of quality. It seems as though the bureau keeps trying to lower costs without considering the fact that it cannot compare itself to the private sector. The Translation Bureau provides many services, including terminology tools, such as Termium, and other linguistic services.
What do you think about that?
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
I find that dynamic quite worrisome. I will use the example of the translation of court decisions. The federal government has an obligation to translate court decisions. Obviously, as a francophone lawyer, I want to ensure that the translation of a decision is done by language professionals, because language is very important in the legal world. We also need to ensure that the deadlines are reasonable. Often, to save money, they will go elsewhere and use the private sector. The private sector may not have the expertise that the Translation Bureau has developed or that Canadian courts have developed in their translation services.
I think we need to be proud of this expertise. These people are in a position to produce high-quality texts. That is where I have some concerns. We are very aware of the need for quality in both versions, but in 5 or 10 years, the quality might not be there. I have some concerns about that.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Very good.
Still talking about the Translation Bureau and the approach it has adopted, the most important aspect is to consider the future of the bureau. You spoke a little about what was happening in New Brunswick. As you said, this situation is a signal for many, including New Brunswick.
Perhaps you could you add to this.
With respect to the task force you mentioned, I would like to know what groups or sectors you think should be represented.
4:10 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
Earlier, I talked about the message that the federal government was sending. My concern is that this message encourages New Brunswick to adopt the same approach and that the quality of the texts will suffer.
With respect to the task force, I think it should include language and translation experts. It needs to include senior public servants and people from federal institutions, but it should also include legal experts, to ensure that the process and all of the studies reflect the Canadian government's constitutional and legislative obligations. I think this is important.
It is not simply a translation tool. Translation is not done simply for the purpose of translation. It is done, in this case, to meet a constitutional and legislative obligation. We are talking about an obligation that has been recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a very important document.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you very much, Mr. Choquette.
Thank you, Mr. Doucet.
Ms. Lapointe, you have the floor.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Doucet. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Choquette touched on an issue that interests me. You partly answered his question about the creation of a task force when you said who you thought should be included in one.
What files would you like the task force to study?
Earlier, you spoke about language technology and about the possibility of determining which texts are sent to the private sector for translation.