Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 8 - Evidence - Meeting of November 28, 2016
OTTAWA, Monday, November 28, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 5:00 p. m. to continue its study on the application of the Official Languages Act and of the regulations and directives made under it, within those institutions subject to the act.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages. My name is Claudette Tardif; I am a senator from Alberta and the chair of this committee.
Before we begin, I would like to welcome new Senator Cormier from New Brunswick, who is attending this committee for the first time, and new Senator Bovey, who was present last week.
I would now ask senators to introduce themselves, beginning with the deputy chair of the committee.
Senator Poirier: Good evening. I am Rose-May Poirier, senator from Saint-Louis-de-Kent, New Brunswick.
Senator Cormier: Good evening. René Cormier, senator from New Brunswick.
Senator Maltais: Ghislain Maltais, senator from Quebec.
Senator Fraser: Joan Fraser, senator from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Good evening. Raymonde Gagné, senator from Manitoba.
Senator McIntyre: Paul McIntyre, senator from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Bovey: Senator Bovey from Manitoba.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are pleased tonight to welcome interpreters from the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Conference Interpreters. This is a global association of conference interpreters founded in 1953, that represents more than 3,000 interpreters in 89 countries. In Canada, the association has 200 members, and about 125 of them practise their profession as simultaneous interpreters in Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto.
We welcome Ms. Nicole Gagnon, Canada's lead for advocacy, and Mr. Jim Thompson, communications counsel to AIIC Canada. On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here. Ms. Gagnon and Mr. Thompson, you may present your testimony, and afterwards the senators will have questions for you.
Nicole Gagnon, Canada's Lead for Advocacy, Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Conference Interpreters: Madam Chair, honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at the end of this afternoon. Please allow me to also thank my interpreter colleagues who are working in the anonymity of the booth.
First, a word about the Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Conference Interpreters. Founded in 1953, AIIC Canada has close to 3,000 members worldwide, who reside in 89 countries and 24 regions. Our aim as a professional association is to promote high standards of quality and ethics, improve the practice through training and research, and to ensure working conditions that are conducive to quality.
One hundred and twenty-five interpreters belong to AIIC Canada. It is the only Canadian association of its kind. Most members are freelancers, but some work full time for institutions, including the Translation Bureau. Of AIIC Canada freelancers, the vast majority are accredited by the Translation Bureau to work for Conferences and Parliamentary Interpretation Services. Approximately 70 per cent of Translation Bureau conference interpretation services are provided by freelancers. Of the Translation Bureau's parliamentary interpretation services, about 30 per cent are provided by freelancers. This small community is crucial to ensuring Canadians have equal quality of access to the proceedings of federal institutions in the official language of their choice.
I myself am an interpreter. Some of you may recognize me by my voice. I must say I am more comfortable whispering in your ear than speaking from the witness chair!
Having said that, I can think of no better place to begin than the Official Languages Act itself. The purpose of the act as set out in section 2 is to:
a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice, in communicating with or providing services to the public and in carrying out the work of federal institutions.
We interpreters provide the bridge for your words to reach Canadians in the other official language. We are a small group but the work we do helps in a very important way to bring the aspirations of the act to life. We are highly trained professionals. We strive to convey not only your words but your expression, even your body language, because our job is well done when we accurately convey every nuance of your voice in the other official language.
[English]
Those who do this work must pass rigorous Government of Canada examinations to be qualified. This accreditation process is envied around the globe. It is the gold standard, which is appropriate given the essential nature of the work. However, this assurance of quality has been undermined over time.
As you may know, the Government of Canada translation examination was eliminated in 1995 when the Translation Bureau became a special operating agency with a mandate to recover its costs. As a result of this cost-saving measure, freelance translators who work for the bureau are no longer required to hold Government of Canada accreditation.
About the same time, federal departments and agencies were given the green light to contract interpretation and translation services from providers other than the Translation Bureau. As a result, interpreters who the bureau considered to be unqualified are hired.
[Translation]
During a recent study of the Translation Bureau conducted by your sister committee in the other place, experts testified that the shift to cost recovery launched a race to the bottom where lowest cost eclipsed the importance of quality translation and interpretation services.
Cost cutting vs. quality is an ongoing theme bedeviling the government's ambition and obligation to provide access of equal quality in the official language of choice. It will only get worse, not better, especially if a new system for procuring the services of interpreters is allowed to go forward unchanged.
We believe the ultimate goal of this system is the privatization of the Translation Bureau to cut costs. This option was just rejected by the only other officially bilingual jurisdiction in Canada for fear that it would unacceptably undermine quality. This should be a strong message to the officials who are designing Ottawa's procurement system for interpretation. After many delays, a request for standing offers under the new system is scheduled to close January 23, 2017. With just eight weeks to go, the new system is still in need of a major overhaul.
[English]
Structural flaws in the proposed procurement system will hurt, not help, the government meet its official languages ambitions. For example, the new system proposes to create a two-tier structure where only a handful of federal conferences and events will be assigned to interpreters with the best skill set for the job. Under the new system, all the rest — about 95 per cent — will receive the services of interpreters assigned not because they have the right skills, experience or subject matter knowledge for the job. No. They will be assigned to events categorized as "generic'' because they have bid the lowest rate. It is as if the designers of this new system think some conference events are less equal than others when it comes to the government's official languages obligation of equal quality.
[Translation]
Based on the record of changes at the Translation Bureau, we fear this flawed design could well lead to the assignment of non-accredited interpreters to cover the proceedings of most federal institutions whose work would fall into the "generic'' category. Even though the new system privileges lowest bid over best fit in the assignment of interpreters, design flaws in the new system will actually increase costs. For example, the just-in-time assignment of conference interpreters means higher travel costs.
The government has stated that it places high value on official languages and wants to be judged by how well it communicates with Canadians in English and in French. We believe these are sincere commitments and aspirations. But without major change, the fundamental right of equal access to the proceedings of federal institutions regardless of official language would most certainly be compromised by this proposed system.
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for attention and I will do my best to reply to your questions.
Senator Poirier: I want to welcome you to the committee, and I thank you for having sent us your presentation in advance. This allows us to acquaint ourselves with your concerns in advance.
According to what I understood, you are concerned by the privatization of the system or by a service procurement system, and you fear that the quality of translation and interpretation services could be greatly undermined by this.
In your opinion, what should the government do to ensure that a high quality of services is maintained in this area?
Ms. Gagnon: We think that the government has already done what was needed to provide quality service, since it has a system to accredit interpreters that is unequalled anywhere else in the country. All it has to do is keep what is already in place rather than trying to privatize services and eliminate the accreditation exam.
Senator Poirier: Can you explain the difference between an accredited interpreter and one who is not?
Ms. Gagnon: An accredited interpreter is an interpreter who has successfully passed the federal government accreditation exam, and a non-accredited interpreter has not.
Senator Poirier: Is there a code or a standard under which any interpreter provides a minimum level of quality interpretation that is quite high?
Ms. Gagnon: I am sorry, but I'm not sure I understood your question.
Senator Poirier: Is there some standard that means that anyone who provides interpretation offers a minimum level of quality?
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, the minimum is the accreditation exam whereby interpreters are recognized to be competent to work for the Government of Canada and more precisely for the Translation Bureau. However, it is comparable to any other profession; some interpreters have more experience and are more knowledgeable in certain areas than others.
You all have, if you will allow me the analogy, physicians. All physicians are qualified and they all belong to the College of Physicians, but they are not all competent in the same way because of differences in their experience, their specialization and their interests.
Senator Poirier: I read with interest the article on New Brunswick in L'Acadie nouvelle. Like you, I hope that the government will follow in the steps of New Brunswick and not privatize the activities of the Translation Bureau. It would be disappointing if the government chose that direction, because the quality of translation could be undermined.
Have you had an opportunity to express your concerns to the minister?
Ms. Gagnon: You mean Minister Foote?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, certainly.
Senator Poirier: And to Minister Joly, the Minister responsible for Official Languages?
Ms. Gagnon: We met with the parliamentary secretaries, Ms. Leona Alleslev in the case of Minister Foote, and Mr. Randy Boissonnault for Minister Joly.
Senator Poirier: What was their reaction?
[English]
Jim Thompson, Communications Counsel to AIIC Canada, Canadian Chapter of the International Association of Conference Interpreters: I think we could characterize, without telling secrets, that they themselves have a number of concerns themselves. Where that goes we won't know until perhaps January 23, which is the date when this standing offer closes. There may be some changes before then. We just don't know.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for being here and for answering our questions.
In reading your documents and listening to your presentation, I noted that in the spring of 2016, the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons conducted a study on the activities of the Translation Bureau in the course of which it heard testimony.
I believe the representatives of your association did not appear before that committee, but chose to meet with some of the members during the summer of 2016 to discuss the follow-up to be given to the recommendations of the association.
Why did your association not appear before the committee?
Ms. Gagnon: We did not ask to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons simply because the committee was mandated to do a study of the Translation Bureau regarding the Portage tool, which is a translation tool. Our understanding of the hearings was that they would be about written translation services and not about conference interpretation services.
When the committee published its report with its eight recommendations, we understood that the scope was much broader than simply translation, and that is when we asked to meet with the members of the committee and to be heard by the standing committee. We have not been heard yet, but we have reason to expect that if we do not appear before the holidays, we will at the start of the New Year.
Senator McIntyre: As you mentioned, the committee tabled its report in the House of Commons. The report contained eight recommendations including — and this is important — allocating appropriate financial resources to the Translation Bureau. In October 2016 the federal government replied to this report and subscribed to the recommendations of the committee but did not commit to allocating more resources to the Translation Bureau. Afterwards, to confuse things, in September 2016, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced the implementation of a new computerized procurement system. I believe the new system was supposed to be launched in September, but that this was delayed until October, and finally an additional delay was granted until January 31, 2017.
Naturally, your association was disappointed because the government did not make any funding commitment to the Translation Bureau, nor did it commit to examining its status as a special operating agency. To complicate things more, a consulting firm was given the mandate to examine the language industry for the purpose of establishing new strategies.
What are your recommendations, going forward?
Ms. Gagnon: The standing committee tabled its report on June 15 and the call for proposals was made at the end of June with a deadline of August 2. That date was delayed, as you said, to September, then October, and now to January 23.
We have three recommendations. The system has some serious flaws. For that reason our first recommendation would be to abandon the system, to keep the existing system for the conference service and the parliamentary service and to protect accreditation. That would be our first recommendation, simply because up till now we have assured excellent service to the Translation Bureau, as confirmed in fact by the international reputation of our interpreters, who are much sought after by other organizations such as NATO and the United Nations who come here to poach on our turf and hire our colleagues.
The second recommendation, the most important one I believe, is that you should not embrace the principle of the lowest bidder. We understand that the government wants to manage taxpayers' dollars in a responsible way, but the fact is that the lowest bidder will not give you the best value for money. That is what we encourage you to do. We urge you to take into account the principle of the best value for money.
Thirdly, there is the notion of the best fit, which is just as important. By "best fit'' I mean the assignment of the best interpreter for the day's work, given our different skills and specializations.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Perhaps I can add one other point. A lot of the events you have described, senator, have taken place behind the scenes. The work this committee is doing is very important to shine a light on what is actually happening and to bring a political filter to the discussions. So we're very pleased from that point of view to be with you tonight.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Would you agree that even if the government subscribed to all of the recommendations except for providing additional funding to the Translation Bureau, the problem remains a lack of commitment on the part of the federal government with regard to the necessary financial resources needed to assist the Translation Bureau?
Ms. Gagnon: The government did not subscribe to all of the recommendations. One of the three most important recommendations concerned the department the Translation Bureau should belong to. We submit that it should be part of Heritage Canada, which is responsible for the implementation and coordination of official languages.
The government did not accept that recommendation. Nor did it accept recommendation four regarding the financial resources the Translation Bureau needs to offer quality service. It also did not accept recommendation eight, which consisted in reviewing its status as a cost-recovery agency as opposed to what it was previously, a secretary of state agency with a full budget to fulfil its mandate.
Senator McIntyre: I'd like to make the following remark. The government supported the recommendation regarding the new generation, but it did so timidly.
Ms. Gagnon: Indeed.
Senator Gagné: Thank you for your presentation. My question follows up on Senator McIntyre's question concerning financial resources.
We know that the call for standing offers has been issued, and that 200 interpreters are accredited by the federal government. The deadline is January 23. Is that correct?
Ms. Gagnon: Yes.
Senator Gagné: Do you know how many interpreters have replied to the call?
Ms. Gagnon: We do not know how many interpreters have replied, because there is a lot of confusion around this standing offer. As Senator McIntyre explained quite rightly, things have become very complicated.
The fact is that a fair number of colleagues don't know how to answer, or they may wait until a first round has been done so that the bugs have been worked out, before bidding the next time.
Honestly, at this point, I could not tell you how many of our colleagues have made bids.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: One other point is that the offer was published on June 20, as Nicole mentioned, with a closing date of the middle of August. That was the original closing date. Between the June 20 and today, the offer has been amended 13 times. It was a 66-page document when it was first tabled. Today, there are posted online more than 300 questions and answers from interpreters who are struggling to figure out how to apply. So the point that Nicole makes about people perhaps being persuaded not to apply is a good one, I think.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: I have an additional question concerning savings. If that is the path it takes, do you agree that the Translation Bureau is hoping to save money with the standing offer system? Do you have some idea of the savings the Translation Bureau could achieve with this new procurement system?
Ms. Gagnon: We think that the system will cost more as it stands, because the notion of just-in-time service comes into play. I can give you an example.
When Mr. Pittman sent us the witness information kit, in those documents there was a paragraph about travel costs. We are encouraged, of course, to travel as economically as possible. As it happens, this was not an issue since we are in Ottawa, but my point is that if we are travelling and receive a request at the last minute, since just-in-time service is being advocated, there are cases where interpreters would be obliged to travel business class. So there will be no savings, and this will cost Canadian taxpayers even more.
Senator Maltais: First, I want to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate all of the interpreters who work at the Senate, the House of Commons and committees. They do excellent work. They work in the shadows and often greet us on the street, but we do not recognize them. They do excellent work, not only in translating, but they know how we are going to react. They know how to interpret our thoughts, not only through language, but through our expressions.
There is something I find hard to understand. We live in a bilingual country. Have we reached the point where we are monetizing our official languages as though we were buying a donkey or an old horse? Our official languages deserve better than that. Have we reached the point of hiring cut-rate translators? Have our official languages fallen so low that we want to communicate with our fellow citizens at bargain rates? Is that the point we have reached?
Soon we will be in 2017, and I wonder why we want to monetize our language. If there is something you can't do that with, it is language. The language of our parents, of our ancestors, the language we want to transmit to our children and grandchildren, is priceless. Must this be measured with money? Certain things cannot be measured with money: health, for instance. Cost is not an issue when a person's life is at stake. What are the public servants of Public Services and Procurement Canada doing? Why do they want to monetize language as though we were negotiating the purchase of an old racehorse? I don't understand their reasoning.
As far as I'm concerned, the interpretation service we have now is exceptional. As for the service provided to other government bodies, it is very satisfactory. I have never heard Céline Galipeau say on the Téléjournal that Canadians had been badly served by an interpreter. God knows that if it had happened once, it would have been reported by Radio-Canada or CBC.
What can we do to help you? What do you recommend to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages so that it can help you to maintain the quality service you offer, and so that we stop negotiating away our two official languages at bargain prices?
Ms. Gagnon: Thank you, Senator. I would reply that you have already done a lot in receiving us here tonight. We thank you once again.
As you have pointed out quite rightly, we work in the shadows. This is the first time we are on a public stage, and if we are here it is because we think the situation is critical. We do our work professionally and conscientiously and to the best of our ability. We are here to warn you, because if you want to go to the lowest bidder, there is no guarantee that you will have the quality service you are used to and that all Canadians are entitled to when they deal with their government.
Moreover, it is their constitutional right. I also submit that the federal government does not have the right to delegate this obligation or constitutional responsibility to the private sector.
Secondly, we would like to work with government bodies to improve the procurement system. We are not against the procurement system; we are against a system based on choosing the lowest bidder. We want to try to solve the problems, and unfortunately, we are running out of time.
Senator Maltais: You are explaining the choices we have, and I'm going to make a poor comparison. If someone has gallstones and consults two doctors, and one asks for $2,500 to operate on him, the patient will have a choice to make. The first is a renowned surgeon known from one end of Canada to the other and recognized by great international universities. Then there is a surgeon who comes out of nowhere, whose diploma is doubtful, and who asks for $500.
It's the choice we have as Canadians. You can't put a price on language. We have to choose quality above all else. Penny-pinching might be an option where expenditures are sometimes lavish.
[English]
Senator Fraser: For clarification purposes, Portage is a computer tool for translation of written material, whereas you are interpreters; you do simultaneous interpretation while the rest of us are speaking. I have always thought that is one of the most challenging tasks imaginable. If I had ever thought I could do it, I would have done it, but I knew I couldn't ever, so I congratulate you.
Does your association function in any way as a union? Do you bargain collectively with the government? Do you have contractual relationships with the government?
Ms. Gagnon: We do not at this time bargain with the Treasury Board, nor would Treasury Board ever accept to bargain with us. But I can tell you that there are other models of procurement interpretation services at the international level. For instance, the United Nations, they will, as you put it, "bargain'' — we prefer to say negotiate — with our professional delegation from year to year. The same holds true for other such international organizations. But Canada has not opted for that model at this time.
Senator Fraser: Canada does not insist that these freelancers it hires have any particular level of professional qualification. They don't have to meet the gold standard tests that you do, but do they have to meet any level of expertise?
Ms. Gagnon: No, the Government of Canada, through its Conference Interpretation and Parliamentary Interpretation services only calls on Government of Canada accredited conference interpreters.
However, with the decentralization back in 1995, when the Translation Bureau became a special operating agency, government departments and agencies no longer had to go through the Translation Bureau. They could hire interpreters from the private sector.
Senator Fraser: And there are no qualifications?
Ms. Gagnon: There are no qualifications there. They do not have to be government accredited, even though they are doing government-accredited work.
Mr. Thompson: It's a double standard.
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, it is.
Senator Fraser: You made quite a point in your presentation of quoting a key passage from the Official Languages Act. Are we to gather that you think the government is failing in its legal obligations? Have you any reason to believe that?
Ms. Gagnon: We feel the government to date has fulfilled its obligations inasmuch as we're dealing with the houses of Parliament, but we do have concerns regarding the government departments and agencies that are free to do as they please and that will call on non-accredited people to do the work that, because it's the Government of Canada, should be held up to a higher standard.
Senator Fraser: Is there any independent verification of the quality of the interpretation that these agencies which are not dealing with the Translation Bureau get?
Ms. Gagnon: I'm afraid I couldn't answer that question. I do not believe so, but I couldn't speak to that.
There is an evaluation of the work done by Government of Canada accredited interpreters. They are evaluated by their peers, but in terms of the government departments and who they hire, I do not believe so.
[Translation]
The Chair: Senator Gagné now has the floor.
Senator Gagné: In what way does the proposed procurement system threaten the accreditation of interpreters by the Government of Canada?
Ms. Gagnon: Currently, the system exists and we are assured that the accreditation exam will continue to exist once the new procurement system is in place. However, given our experience with the translation procurement system, we believe that the interpretation accreditation exam will be eliminated, because it was eliminated for translation. It is no longer necessary to have a translation accreditation to work for the Government of Canada. This is still the case for interpretation, and that is what we want to preserve at all costs, because the quality of the service we offer is at stake.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: I would also add that this dual stream proposed under the new system creates two classes of conference events, one that is high priority and that would be just a small number of conference events, and the other — the vast majority — of a lesser or generic category. This opens the door to offering a lesser level of accreditation to those events.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: After having listened to your presentation, it seems clear to me that what motivated the study by the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons was the implementation of the automatic translation tool known as Portage throughout the federal public service.
My question is this: In your opinion, what were the factors behind the federal government's actions? Do you think it is heading toward privatization?
Ms. Gagnon: I don't know if the government wants to privatize the service; perhaps, but I think it wants to rationalize the cost of written translation services, especially. I am a conference interpreter, so I don't want to say too much about translation.
It's the technology craze. No one is against progress, and technological tools can be a great help, but they have to remain tools. These tools should not replace the translator or interpreter who is the thinking person who does this work. This was an attempt to find a technological solution to a nonexistent problem, finally. There are other examples, like the Phoenix system. It order to save money, the government rushes to adopt systems that may certainly be useful, but are not a panacea and can certainly not replace the work translators and interpreters do. The Portage tool is there to help translators do their work, but it should not replace them.
[English]
Mr. Thompson: Let me just add something to that. We don't know what the motivation is. We don't have insight into that. I think we take at face value the government's policy statements that official languages are extremely important, and they want to be judged by the way the government communicates with Canadians in English and in French.
It may be that this plan is just coming to light and is something that the government is paying attention to now, so we are hoping for the best.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: I spoke earlier about the automated Portage system, which was supposed to be implemented last September. This was then delayed to October, and now an additional delay has been granted until September 31, 2017.
Are you hoping that things might change before the end of January 2017?
Ms. Gagnon: If I may, the actual deadline is January 23, 2017. First, this was supposed to happen in August, but the implementation was pushed back to September. Thanks to the intervention of some of you, I believe — and I thank you for this — this was delayed until the end of October.
In the beginning, people were waiting for the government's response to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages before going ahead with this new procurement system. Once the government gave its answer, a new delay was requested.
To answer your question, to the best of my knowledge, I hope so. With people of goodwill, if we have enough time to do things well, we could come up with a procurement system with the government authorities. That is what we are working on. We had meetings with the parliamentary secretaries and their staff. The idea is to correct the defects of this system as soon as possible, but we have to take the necessary time to do things properly.
The Chair: I too would like to ask a question. You have said that this new system would create two categories: a generic category for 95 per cent of the work, and another category for the remaining 5 per cent. Can you tell us which category Senate committees would be in?
Ms. Gagnon: They would be in the category known as high risk, and so in the 5 per cent category.
The Chair: Thank you. That is comforting for us, but not for the other 95 per cent.
[English]
Senator Fraser: I've been looking at the conclusion of the government's response to the committee of the other place, and it strikes me as pure bureaucracy. It says:
. . . the Translation Bureau is well positioned within Public Services and Procurement Canada and has the necessary flexibility to adapt to fluctuations in demand, invest in new technologies, continually improve its business model —
— and here I'm thinking about Senator Maltais' impassioned statement that our two languages matter —
— and, ultimately, fulfill the mandate given to it by the Government of Canada.
The Translation Bureau will continue to strengthen its partnerships, particularly with the private sector and universities, and it will focus on certain value-added tasks, such as quality assurance and post-editing, which are adapted to new client needs and constantly evolving new technologies.
Well, I can only hope that the new technologies will improve, because every time I stumble upon something that has been subject to a computer translation, I am appalled. Really, you have to speak the other language sometimes in order to understand what the "translation'' is trying to say and work it back from there.
Are you at all concerned that these "constantly evolving new technologies'' are going to apply to interpreters?
Ms. Gagnon: Well, the business of simultaneous translation, as it's commonly known, actually began at the Nuremberg trials. Before that time, interpreters worked in the consecutive or whispering mode. We still do some of that, but when simultaneous came to the fore during the trials, it was the birth of the modern interpreter, and it's been very useful to us.
As I've stated before, we're not against technology, but technology has to be our aid and we need to remain the masters of it.
Senator Fraser: But in what way could technologies be applied to your work now or in the future?
Ms. Gagnon: An easy example of that is TERMIUM, the terminology bank. We on the Hill do a great many committees in many specialized fish — fields, rather. I'm thinking of fish because the example that came to mind is if you're doing natural resources and you have 300 species of fish. I'm sorry; I don't know them all in both official languages. So if you hear doré, you just go to TERMIUM and it will provide you an appropriate translation, because we have professional terminologists who find the term. That's a practical example.
Senator Fraser: What is doré?
Ms. Gagnon: Pickerel. If I were to go around the table, we may be able to identify three or four different species individually, but when you get to 300, it's just beyond us.
Senator Fraser: But for this work, you figure there will always have to be a human being sitting with earphones and a microphone?
Ms. Gagnon: Absolutely. It might take another form, but when it comes to human thought, it takes another human being to understand and to interpret a human being's thoughts. We will always be those that create the machines, but we need to remain the masters of them. They cannot replace us. I honestly believe that.
Senator Fraser: This is just an anecdote, but I've never forgotten it. I remember reading years ago about an interpreter at the United Nations who was interpreting from Russian to English. Suddenly the Russian speaker produced a very well-known quotation in Russian literature having to do with blood and water. The interpreter, all the while translating, sought furiously to find something that would be appropriate, and on the fly like that, came up with a quotation, equally famous in English, from Macbeth about the "multitudinous seas incarnadine.'' And I thought, boy, people who can do that, you're practically another species.
Ms. Gagnon: We hear that often.
Senator Fraser: That said, I remember some years ago in another committee, when we were looking at whether and how to introduce interpretation into Inuktitut in the Senate, one of the things that committee was told was that with the best will in the world and the most competent people in the world doing your work, by the nature of the work you're going to lose on average about 30 per cent of the content. Do you think that was a fair assertion?
And I repeat, I have such tremendous respect for what you do, but inevitably are you going to lose something as we go?
Ms. Gagnon: Are you asking the question in terms of Inuktitut specifically or just generally?
Senator Fraser: No, in general.
Ms. Gagnon: I think losing 30 per cent is a bit on the high side. I would think that we're more into the 85 per cent to 90 per cent range.
It depends from one time to the next how quickly someone is speaking, if there's a heavy accent or if someone is reading. We read faster than we speak. If there's a great deal of cultural content — and I'm thinking of Toastmasters International, where they encourage people to speak publicly. They come up with texts that are a play on words. I recall one they were talking about monkey wrenches, and that doesn't go well through translation because then you're not translating. You have to find something that is culture specific in the other language.
So you're quite right; you stand to lose some content, but qualified interpreters will give you, day in and day out, 85 per cent to 90 per cent of content, if not more, and in some cases absolutely 100 per cent. I have no hesitation in saying it.
Senator Fraser: How many more gold standard accredited interpreters do you think we need? The work of Parliament just grows and grows.
Ms. Gagnon: Yes, it does. I think inasmuch as the government is willing to invest in meeting demand, it can do so. At present, the government calls on its pool of translators who are interested and show potential. It's the traditional way to go — the translators first and interpreters afterwards. They can certainly call on freelance interpreters, which is what they've been doing. They can be trained. We are trained. I was trained, definitely. And I think you should call on as many as you need because it's out there.
We have to keep in mind that the Government of Canada is the major employer of conference interpreters, not the only one but the major employer. When the government does not sit, then there's no work for those interpreters. There are some days where you will never have enough interpreters because everybody wants to meet that day and then some. Then, for six weeks, there will be no work, for instance. What happens is people have to make a living and they will move on to other things.
We've always managed. We celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Translation Bureau a few years back, and we've always managed to meet demand in both official languages.
Senator Fraser: Where does one get this training?
Ms. Gagnon: At this time, interpreters are trained by the University of Ottawa. It's at the master's level. Glendon College is now also training interpreters. And, as I've stated, the Government of Canada calls on its in-house translators, the TR-2s, who show an interest and have the potential. They are tested as to whether they can do the work or not, and then they are trained in-house as well.
Senator Fraser: Might I suggest we invite the Minister of Public Services to talk more about this?
[Translation]
The Chair: That is a very good suggestion.
Two other senators would like to ask questions. Senator Poirier will be first, followed by Senator Maltais.
[English]
Senator Poirier: As I mentioned earlier, in Acadie Nouvelle today there was an article that said the Province of New Brunswick had gone through a period of time where they were looking at the possibility of what they could do also. Today they said that based on the information they received, they discovered it would be cheaper and more efficient to keep the system that they have in place now instead of going to privatization, if I understood correctly.
We talked about the motivation that was behind this decision. We're not 100 per cent sure, but there was the word "cost" in there and that could have been a motivation.
Is there something to be learned from the exercise New Brunswick went through to get to that decision? Perhaps we can get access to that information and could help us in presenting this. I don't know if that would be through you or through us as a committee, if we can have access to that information in order to see what they based it on and if it could help with the exercise we're doing.
I just wanted to put that on the record.
[Translation]
Senator Maltais: I’d like to go back to Senator Fraser’s first question. There are translators, and there are interpreters, and the two are different. Often when we chair a committee, we ask the witnesses to slow down because they speak too quickly and the interpreter cannot follow. After all, they are not machines.
Speaking of machines, do you think the Phoenix system could translate the verb "orner" from French to English in the past perfect subjunctive? My point is that machines cannot replace the human heart and soul.
I have a last piece of advice for you. You have to publicize what you are doing and what the government is doing to you, for reasons it will have to explain. Hold a press conference. Explain your work to journalists and tell them that you have never had any complaints, to my knowledge in any case. Let Canadians know all this. I think you are taken for granted, that people don’t care and believe that you can be replaced by machines.
You said something very important. These people have master’s degrees. We have to treat them accordingly, and not so shabbily. You are in the best position to get Canadians to understand your work. You have to ask for reasons. Are the reasons really financial? If that is the case, we will do an additional collection on Sundays. Languages can’t be monetized, remember that.
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, I want to thank you most sincerely for being here this evening. You have shed some light on a very important issue for all of us, which is that of maintaining the quality of our conference interpreters.
You have an excellent reputation, nationally and internationally. We want Canadians to have quality services and we want them to benefit from full compliance with the Official Languages Act. You know you have our support, and we thank you for having testified.
Ms. Gagnon: Thank you, Madam Chair.
(The committee adjourned.)