How then is Plain Language to be integrated at the practical level in a context of institutional bilingualism?

2. Plain Language and the translation process

As we have seen, in the Canadian federal system and under institutional bilingualism, French is both a source and a target language. Therefore, French is both a language of translation and a language of creation. At the federal level, most communications, including legal documents, are written in English and translated into French. Sometimes, they are co-drafted in both languages, each author writing in the language of choice. In Ontario, New-Brunswick and Manitoba, legal and administrative communications are translated into French, not co-drafted. In Quebec, government communications and those of the private sector are generally written in French and translated into English and the Civil Law system applies. Bilingual or even multilingual text production is mostly done through translation, co-drafting being the best but the most expensive alternative as it requires more resources.

For the production of bilingual legal documents in Canada, we may distinguish four (4) situations:

In the first, and ideal situation, which occurs only rarely, a bilingual legal writer, trained in both Common Law and Civil Law and who is also a supporter of Plain Language, produces alone a readable document in both English and French. The substantive content is the same as no jurisdiction offers Civil Law for the French-speaking and Common Law for the English-speaking. Given the level of expertise of the author, the texts produced will be equally readable in both versions, more precisely, the French text will be as clear as the English because the writer strives to obtain an equivalent quality in both. When the text is of a legal nature, both versions should be identical in their effect.

In the second situation, the legal writer is not bilingual and is helped by a legal translator. The legal writer who works in English or French is aware of the Plain Language requirements and aims at producing Plain English or Plain French at the source level. Then, the translator will be handed a "plain" original and supposedly produce a plain version in the other language. The importance of Plain Language training for the translators appears obvious as, in this case, they must be aware of the efforts made in the source text to make it plain and replicate them; for instance, as far as length of sentences and paragraphs, choice of non-technical words, clear definitions, short titles, interrogative titles, avoidance of passive, negative or archaic forms, general structure, spelling, adaptation to the audience, amongst other aspects. This joint effort results in two equally readable versions of the same text. When the source text is plain, clear and concise, the target language product matches the level of quality.

In the third situation, which happens unfortunately, the writer is not a supporter of Plain Language as opposed to the translator who is; the latter, being a professional, judged on the quality of his or her writing, strives to produce a clear and simple text. In this case, the translator will be mindful of the clarity in the target language and make every effort to produce a plain text that does not betray the unplain source text. However, when the source text is not written in Plain Language, or is in breach of some Plain Language principles, the translator runs the risk of "betraying" the author's style if, in his or her search for clarity, he or she makes some adjustment that go beyond the source text. For that reason, translators generally tend to stick to the structure, style and form of the original document, regardless of the results.