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.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Doucet. I really appreciate you taking the time to be with us.
As you know, we receive a wealth of information at this committee. However, we do not work directly on the ground, as you do. To have you here truly allows us to expand our knowledge and enrich the debate, with a view to submitting a report that could lead to changes within Parliament and elsewhere. It is essential work.
You said that in the federal context, French is generally a language of translation. I love when Anglophones ask for a copy of a document that was written in French. I am pleased to tell them that it has to be translated.
You also talked about documents that have to have the same authority in both official languages. That is a very important aspect, but I do not know how that can be achieved. I quite like the idea of a working group. Let us not forget that world wars have started over bad communication.
I am worried about the rules of law in Canada. We have common law, which relies on precedents, but if the translation of those precedents are not the best quality, the meaning of the text can truly be diluted.
Could you elaborate on that?
4:30 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
As far as legislation is concerned, we have to keep one thing in mind, that federal legislation is no longer translated. Laws are now co-drafted. In other words, two groups of law clerks draft the text at the same time.
Translation is still used for rulings and can be of very good quality. However, no matter how carefully the translators go over the texts, we still find ambiguities in the translations. When we read two texts side by side, quite often we see that they do not say the same thing even if the translation was done by a translator. In that case, at least we are dealing with human beings who may have detected these ambiguities and limited them as much as possible. My concern about software is that we do not have this human aspect that can clarify these ambiguities.
From a legal standpoint, I always come back to the basic principle, and it is what I teach my students, that what the Canadian government adopted in terms of official languages is equality of the two languages. We must ensure that no one feels disadvantaged because of the language in which he chose to read a text.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you very much, Mr. Doucet.
Unfortunately, we must stop there.
Thank you for your presentation.
4:35 p.m.
Professor, Director, Observer of International language rights, Moncton University, As an Individual
I am the one who should be thanking you.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Thank you for the clarifications you provided to the committee.
We will now suspend the meeting for five minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Denis Paradis
Take your places, please.
We have to resume our deliberations. I am told there is a reception at 6 p.m.
Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you know, I tabled a notice of motion calling on Minister Judy Foote to appear before the committee. I will wait until the end of Wednesday's meeting to move the motion. I think it is extremely important.
I received an answer to my question number Q-53 in the Order Paper. I had it sent to the committee. You all should have received it. The document is thick, but quite interesting nonetheless.
I would like Mrs. Judy Foote or a representative from the Department of Public Services and Procurement to address some of our questions and tell us where things stand at the translation bureau with the Portage translation tool. If the committee agrees, it would be important for the Order Paper question to be tabled so that it can be incorporated in the study. I am talking about government information about the translation bureau, the translation tool, and the translation that is sent out to the private sector. All this data has been made public.
Does the committee agree to have this document included in the study? You should all have a copy.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Mr. Choquette, when should we have received this document? I didn't get it.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC
My assistant tells me it was sent to the clerk. If you agree, the clerk will get it to you. You could take a quick look at it and then we could come back to it.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Excuse me. I haven't read it and neither have my colleagues. Perhaps we could wait until everyone gets it and reads it and then go over it on Wednesday.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I won't be here on Wednesday.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Yes. Very briefly, on Mr. Choquette's motion, I think we'll discuss it on Wednesday, but at that time, there might hopefully be agreement to have a friendly amendment to it, to perhaps include representatives from the National Research Council, whether a project manager or someone from the design team who actually worked on the Portage tool.
I think it would be worthwhile for the committee to have some interaction with the tool, see exactly what it is and how it was designed. Perhaps at that time, a friendly amendment—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Yes.
I want to receive the documents properly. We can start there and then move on to the next steps.