More than half of Canada’s immigrant population lives in just three cities, Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, with Toronto having the largest percentage of its population (46%) comprised of immigrants (Statistics Canada 2017). Toronto is also one of the most linguistically diverse cities in the country: 44% of Torontonians have a mother tongue other than English and/or French, while slightly over a quarter of the city’s residents reported most often speaking a language other than English or French at home in the 2016 census (Statistics Canada 2016a). Indigenous languages are spoken by a very small percentage of the population: only 425 of Toronto’s 2.7 million residents reported having an Indigenous language as a mother tongue in 2016, and only 110 reported speaking one of these languages most often at home (Statistics Canada 2016a).

Because this paper will rely heavily on data from the Canadian census, labelling various language communities will not be straightforward. Statistics Canada offers data for both “mother tongue” (the language first learned at home in childhood, or, if a person no longer understands the first language, then the second language learned at home), and for “language spoken most often at home.” With the aim of striking a balance between concision and accuracy, this article will use the term official language speakers to refer to those who report speaking French or English most often at home (regardless of their mother tongue),[4]Indigenous language speakers to refer to those who report speaking an Aboriginal[5] language most often at home, and new immigrant language speakers[6] to refer to those who reported speaking a language other than French, English or an Indigenous language most often at home. When drawing on data that refers only to mother tongue speakers (and not to those who speak a language most often at home), this paper will specify that this is the case.

Slightly more than half of Toronto’s population has one of Canada’s two official languages as a mother tongue, with about 53% of residents being native speakers of English, and only 1% having French as a mother tongue (Statistics Canada 2016a). While more than 60% of Toronto residents speak English most often, about a quarter of the population speaks a non-official language most often at home, (Statistics Canada 2016a). Mandarin and Cantonese speakers are the largest non-official language group, comprising 24% of the non-official language speakers, while the next largest non-official language speaker groups, namely Tagalog, Tamil, Spanish, Portuguese, and Farsi, each comprise 4-6%.

The City of Toronto has published several explicit policies related to translation into official, Indigenous and new immigrant languages. The Multilingual Information Provisions Policy (City of Toronto 2017a) directly discusses the circumstances under which material produced by the city should be translated, while By-law 1176-2009 “[t]o authorize the use of languages other than English in notices, forms (other than prescribed forms) and other information for regular municipal election and by-elections in the City of Toronto” (City of Toronto 2009) discusses the translation of material related to municipal elections. The provision of services in sign languages is not included in the Multilingual Information Provisions Policy, as this is supposed to fall under the city’s Multi-Year Accessibility Plan (City of Toronto 2011); however, the plan does not explicitly describe when and how ASL interpretation should be provided, other than noting that “communication supports” (which include ASL) must be provided upon request.

Translation has clearly been a subject on which the City of Toronto has been reflecting for some time. The Multilingual Information Provisions Policy was adopted by Toronto City Council on May 24, 2017, but it replaced the previous policy, the City of Toronto Multilingual Services Policy, which had come into effect in 2002 (City of Toronto 2002; see Hébert 2016 for a discussion of this previous policy). When preparing the 2017 policy, the City conducted a survey of Toronto residents to determine whether and how they accessed translated municipal information (City of Toronto 2017b), and also issued a report discussing the financial implications and rationale for the new policy (City of Toronto 2017c).

The City of Toronto does offer other kinds of translation and interpreting services (such as telephone interpreting in 180 languages for its 311 information service, and interpreting for public meetings). The city also translates signs that are physically displayed in the city (like development areas and construction sites) but are not available online. Some of these translation services are discussed in the City of Toronto Multilingual Information Provisions Policy, and others are discussed in related policies, such as the City of Toronto Multi-Year Accessibility Plan. However, because this article is exploring translation in the context of municipal websites, I will be discussing only translation and online texts.

The Multilingual Information Provisions Policy (City of Toronto 2017a) contains nine sections: the first three contextualize the policy and define key terms, while the last two discuss compliance and reporting, and list other relevant City of Toronto policies. The remaining sections pertain to the translation of critical information that could affect the health and safety of Toronto residents, material targeted at specific neighbourhoods, municipal marketing material, and all other kinds of information.

In the three contextualizing sections, several points are worth noting: first, the city’s multilingual information must comply with existing municipal policies, including the human rights policy, and the information cannot be discriminatory in nature. Second, machine translation must be offered as an option on the city’s website. Finally, although professional translation is mentioned and defined in the policy document, the definition is rather vague, specifying only that a “professional human translator” must perform the translation, but not what qualifications or training the translator should have.

Section 4 addresses the translation of critical information—that is information that could impact the health and safety of Toronto residents, and/or communications about disruptions of critical services such as public transportation or electricity. Among other things, it notes that critical information must be translated by a professional translator “into no less than the top ten languages spoken at home as indicated by the latest census data available, and French” (City of Toronto 2017a: 3), except when the information is targeted at a local community (in which case Section 5 applies), or when the information is targeted at a specific non-localized community, in which case the division that is preparing the information should conduct an assessment to determine which languages to target. In emergencies, information is to be disseminated in English and then professionally translated “as soon as possible” (City of Toronto 2017a: 4). Members of the public can also request information about critical services in any language, and the information must be translated “within a reasonable timeframe” (City of Toronto 2017a: 4).[7]

Section 5 focuses on information targeting specific Toronto areas. It stipulates that when this information is not available on the city’s website (and could therefore be machine translated), it will be professionally translated “when at least 5% of the population in that [geographic area, neighbourhood or ward] speaks languages other than English at home as per the latest census data available” (City of Toronto 2017a: 4). When this standard is met, the information will be summarized, and the summary will be “professionally translated into at least the top three languages spoken at home” (City of Toronto 2017a: 4), unless the information is targeting just a specific neighbourhood, in which case the summary will be translated into only “the top language spoken at home” in that neighbourhood (City of Toronto 2017a: 4). In either case, though, the city can assess the need for translation and choose to translate into fewer or no languages (City of Toronto 2017a: 4).

Section 6 covers the translation of marketing material, stipulating that a translation of full or summarized information should be considered based on the target audience. Provisions exist for both international and domestic audiences: material for international audiences can be translated into the “top spoken language at home” in that region, while material for domestic audiences can be translated into the official language(s) of that province, and/or the top three languages spoken at home in that municipality. A special provision addresses the translation of material that promotes Canadian history or cultural events: Section 6.1.3 notes that in such cases, the information “may be translated into French” (City of Toronto 2017a: 5).

Finally, Section 7 states that all other kinds of information will be translated on a case-by-case basis, as determined by the head of the division based on factors such as whether the translation will help encourage certain groups or neighbourhoods to participate in city programs or comply with and use city services, whether the translated information will be relevant for at least six months, and whether there is a budget for the translation.

Several points are of interest here: first, the City of Toronto’s policy document relies on the “language spoken most often at home” census data, rather than mother tongue data: Sections 4, 6, and 7 of the Multilingual Information Provisions Policy prioritize languages based on the number of speakers (for example, the top three languages spoken at home in a given district) while Section 5 requires a minimum threshold to be met (for instance, at least 5% of the population in a neighbourhood speaks a language other than English at home). Thus, some mother tongues may not qualify as target languages if they are not often spoken at home by Toronto residents. Yet, as Grin, Marácz, et al. (2014: 10) argue, the linguistic profile of many people includes several languages, which they draw on not only for communication, but also for identity building. Indeed, more than 200,000 Torontonians reported speaking English and a non-official language at home most often in the 2016 census, while more than 300,000 reported speaking a non-official language “regularly” (but not most often) at home (Statistics Canada 2016a). These responses are not broken down by language, however, so under its current policies, the City of Toronto could not consider these census responses when deciding which target languages to choose.

Second, the city does not treat all languages equally: in some cases, official, Indigenous, and new immigrant languages must all meet the same criteria to qualify for translation, while in others, an official language (namely French) is given priority. This is not unexpected since, as Grin (2003b) notes, all multilingual states treat languages with inequality because new immigrant languages are given less recognition.[8] French is spoken at home by less than 1% of Torontonians, and the same is true for all Indigenous languages combined. Thus, whenever the policy prioritizes translation into one of the top languages spoken at home, without having an explicit exception for French or an Indigenous language, these languages will not meet the requirement for translation. Notably, Sections 4 and 6 explicitly include French as a possible target language, but no sections offer similar exceptions for any Indigenous languages. This policy therefore exhibits both “translation as accommodation” (Córdoba Serrano and Diaz Fouces 2018: 6-10), for new immigrant and Indigenous languages (and occasionally for French) and “translation as a right” (Córdoba Serrano and Diaz Fouces 2018: 6-10), for French: this language is given special recognition because French and English speakers have certain rights both provincially and federally that speakers of other languages do not.

Bylaw 1176-2009 is shorter than the Multilingual Information Policy and covers only translation situations related to municipal elections. It stipulates that the city may choose to translate election information into languages “spoken and understood in the home” by at least 2% of a ward’s population at the time of the census (City of Toronto 2009: 1). Note, however, that the bylaw does not require the city to translate election material, since it says only that translations “may be prepared” (rather than must be prepared). And, like the previous policy document, the bylaw relies on the “language most often spoken at home” census data.

Before turning to the Toronto.ca website to see how the city’s translation policies are implemented, I would like to discuss the concept that will underpin the theoretical discussion in the rest of this paper: translation justice.

A relevant framework for discussing translation justice is proposed by De Schutter (2017), who argues that translation justice involves choosing between different translation policies. He suggests that states should choose which language(s) will be “singled out for state-supported translation” (De Schutter 2017: 17) based on the underlying language goal—namely whether the translation policy aims to accommodate identity interests in a language, non-identity interests or a combination of the two. A policy that aims to accommodate identity interests is based on the principles of autonomy and dignity for target language speakers: under such a policy, individual identity, which is closely tied to one’s language, must be politically respected and secured though translation rather than by encouraging target language speakers to learn the majority language (De Schutter 2017: 21-22). A policy that aims to accommodate non-identity interests is based on the principles of efficient communication, democracy and equality of opportunity. Under such a policy, translation is intended to help target language speakers understand the source text message rather than to affirm the identity of target language speakers (De Schutter 2017: 17-18). Thus, translation is considered a temporary means of supporting communication and allowing target language speakers to participate in public life, but target language acquisition is the ultimate goal, since communication is most efficient when translation is not required (De Schutter 2017: 29). It is also possible for a translation policy to be based on a dual position founded on both identity and non-identity interests. Such a policy would involve full rights to translation in certain contexts (for instance, when exercising one’s right to vote, participating in the public sphere or communicating with government officials) but minimal translation rights, and promotion of language learning, in other contexts (De Schutter 2017: 28-29).

We could argue that non-identity (or instrumental) approaches promote assimilation, since they rest on the assumption that everyone should learn at least one of the dominant or official languages. In fact, De Schutter (2017: 20) notes that instrumental interests will most likely lead to “inculcating citizens with a shared language, because doing so is most effective, erases hurdles in democratic exchanges and, as such, is beneficial to finding job opportunities.” This is problematic, of course, if we want to preserve linguistic diversity in a region—something Grin (2003a: 26) suggests has a positive effect on the welfare of a society. However, encouraging people to learn an official language does not mean that they cannot also maintain their non-official languages: assimilation need not be the ultimate goal. Indeed, as Grin, Marácz, et al. (2014: 10) suggest, all multilingual citizens can develop close connections with the languages they have learned (whether formally or not) and incorporate these languages into their “communication repertoire” as well as their personal identity.

Instrumental interests are integral to the City of Toronto’s translation policy. Consider the opening paragraph of Section 1 of the City of Toronto Multilingual Information Provisions Policy:

The City of Toronto recognizes that providing information about its programs, services, and engagement activities in languages that reflect the linguistic diversity of the city is an important way for the public to engage, participate, and be informed of City services and programs.

City of Toronto 2017a: 1

Likewise, see the preamble to By-law 1176-2009:

WHEREAS Council [of the City of Toronto] wishes to allow election information to be made available to electors in any language which the most recent and available Statistics Canada data shows was spoken and understood in the home by at least two percent of a ward’s population at the time of the census

City of Toronto 2009: 1, emphasis added

In these two paragraphs, which contextualize two of the city’s translation policy documents, the city focuses on the instrumental interests highlighted by De Schutter (2017), namely efficient communication, democracy, and equality of opportunity, rather than affirming the identity of residents who speak a language other than English at home. The city wants to provide information about programs, services, and elections (communication), thereby encouraging participation in programs, services, and the electoral process (democracy and equality of opportunity).

Communication efficiency is evident in several aspects of the city’s translation policy and its translation practices. By basing most translation decisions on the “language spoken most often at home” census data, rather than the “mother tongue” data, the city positions translation as a way to temporarily communicate with residents who have not yet switched to speaking English most often at home rather than as a way to affirm the identity of those who once preferred to (and who may still also) speak a language other than English. Moreover, in its language services survey (City of Toronto 2017b), the city asked respondents about the factors the city should consider when determining whether to translate a document. In its multiple-choice options, the survey offered pragmatic factors—translation cost, importance of the information to be translated, number of translation requests, etc. – rather than identity-related factors such as whether translations should be produced to help preserve a language or to encourage its use in the city, indicating that such factors were not a priority when the Multilingual Information Provisions Policy was prepared. To see whether non-identity (instrumental) interests are prioritized when the policy is implemented, let us now turn to the example of the city’s official website.