1934-03-06

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.- Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: By leave of the house I beg to move:
That the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce presented to the house this day be concurred in.


Mr. BOTH WELL:: The report says 1,000 copies. Was it not agreed upon this morning that it should be 1,500 instead of 1,000?


Richard Burpee Hanson: My recollection is 1,000. If there is any error, we can have it corrected.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. STEVENS moved:: That the special committee appointed to inquire into price spreads and mass buying be empowered to print its day to day proceedings and evidence in the English and French languages for distribution to the committee and to the members of the Senate and House of Commons.
He said: This is merely clarifying a previous motion made to that effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 27, to incorporate Thousand Islands Bridge Company.-Mr. Maloney.
Bill No. 28, to incorporate Ancient Foresters' Mutual Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 29, respecting The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company.-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg).

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, the second point I wish to raise is one of privilege affecting more the privileges of the house than the personal privileges of a member, but it falls within rule 41 as to decorum in debate. The hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), as reported at page 996 of the debates of March 5, said this:
So that a half-witted, blunt or ignorant deputy minister, such as were to be found under various governments and even to this day.
Those are not words which, in the light of what has already been stated to the house, should have been used. May I be permitted to quote from page 4908 of Hansard of May 11, 1933, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), on a question somewhat similar to this, spoke as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I think that ought to be withdrawn. There are certain amenities that should be respected. Has this parliament degenerated to that sort of thing? I just leave it to you, sir. If a member can talk that way about a man who cannot defend him-

Privilege-Mr. Chevrier
self on the floor of this house, about his whiskers, then all I can say is that this parliament has reached a low level.
I quote from the same page, 490S, where the chairman said:
I would ask the hon. member ... to remember one thing; in England the House of Commons is considered a gentleman's club, and that should apply to Canada also.
May I also cite Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 358:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the speakers of the British and Canadian houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I mean, sir, that personages of high official station would include, under our parliamentary procedure, such persons as deputy ministers. I submit that even though this parliament may have certain immunities as far as excessive language in this house is concerned, such language should not be used as against those who have not the privilege of defending themselves in this house; and if the hon. member cannot be asked to withdraw at least he should be censured.


Mr. POULIOT:: Sir, I rise to a point of
order.


An hon. MEMBER:: You would!


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman has
quoted some excerpts from a speech delivered by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bour-assa). We stand here, sir, by the rules of the house and the standing orders. May I quote to you on this point of order standing order 41 which has not been amended since 1927 and which reads thus:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
The gentlemen who have been referred to by the hon. member for Labelle, and on behalf of whom the distinguished senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has just spoken, are not included in this restrictive enumeration. No one of them is His Majesty, no one of them belongs to the royal family, no one of them is the governor or the person administering the government of Canada, no one of them is a member of either house. Therefore the rule by which we all stand, rule 41, does not include those gentlemen. I am in full sympathy with them, but I contend
that what is said by any hon. member, the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) no more than any other, is not the regulation under which we sit here and debate questions that are submitted to us. I contend that any hon. member can express his own view, but a distinction should be made between any hon. member's personal view, whether he belongs to the cabinet or is a back-bencher, and the standing orders of the house. Such views are not a standing order of the house. This order contains the enumeration by which all members are governed. For the ten years that I have been a member here no hon. member has attacked the governor, no one has attacked His Majesty, they all observe this rule. The hon. member for Labelle, for whom I have great respect, enjoys freedom of speech. I believe that a member of the House of Commons is entitled-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to put out of the house the asses that are braying so loudly. When I say that I do not wish to cast any reflection upon any hon. member of the house. Sir, what I say is, that the rules of the house are contained in this green book. They are the law of this chamber. No member may do anything which is not permitted by those rules; when he does you can rightly call him to order, he has to stand by your ruling. I have great respect for opinions expressed by hon. members, other than by banging their desks; when a member shows his intelligence by reason and argument I have great respect for his views; but I do not govern myself by, and no one can compel me to be governed by the views expressed by an hon. member personally. All we have to do is to stand by the rules of the house. In conclusion my contention is-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just concluding. I
say that we are not bound by what is said by any hon. member of this house. We are bound by the rules of the house, and according to those rules the hon. gentleman, I am very sorry to say, is out of order in this case.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not know that the
statement made by either hon. gentleman calls for a ruling from the chair. As Speaker I say that, even though the wording of standing order No. 41 specifies only certain persons who may not be spoken of disrespectfully or offensively, it is not the custom or practice of the house to use disrespectful or offensive words in regard to any one for that matter,
Pool Trains

and I do not think the house in genera] approves of the use of such language, even though it may not be specifically prohibited by the rules. The words to which the hon. senior member for Ottawa referred were spoken on February 26 last. The hon. member was not under the disability that some of us are in being unable to understand the French language as spoken, he was present in tire house and understood what was said at the time, no objection was made by him, and I do not think it is incumbent upon the Speaker now, on March 6, to take any action in the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
stated his point of order, and the matter cannot be further discussed.



POOL TRAINS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I would like to get some information from the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). He may not be able to give it to-day but might give it to-morrow. It is with regard to the pooling of trains between Quebec and Montreal which is announced to take place on the 10th instant. It is a peculiar pooling, in that all the Canadian National trains are taken away and all the Canadian Pacific trains remain. This will cause much inconvenience to the travelling public, and still more to the employees of the Canadian National Railways. I would like to have full information as to the conditions under which this pooling has been agreed to, in order that we may discuss it with full knowledge of the facts.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
gentleman said, I do not know the facts at the moment and cannot answer fully. I shall do so as soon as I get them. But let me say one thing now; that is that where trains are pooled and what my hon. friend calls the Canadian Pacific trains continue to run, the fact that the time of a pool train corresponds with the time table of the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National matters not, because pooling means that the returns are pooled, so that it is as fair to one railway company as the other. I mention this so there will be no misunderstanding.
[Mr. Speaker. 1
As to questions relating to hours, with which I presume my hon. friend is chiefly concerned, I shall make inquiry and endeavour to give a full explanation.


Ernest Lapointe: Are the employees also
pooled? Are Canadian National employees going to work on Canadian Pacific trains? Because only Canadian Pacific trains are being retained, and they are 'being operated on the Canadian Pacific line.


Robert James Manion: As far as the employees
are concerned, we put a clause in last year's bill which the railways claim they are living up to, providing that whenever any pooling is done every effort shall be made to be perfectly fair to the employees of both railways. In regard to the specific instance my hon. friend refers to I cannot give a particular answer, but the railway managements are endeavouring throughout the country, wherever there is pooling of shops or trains, to balance the employees of one railway with the employees of the other. However, I will give the hon. member a fuller reply as soon as I look into it.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: 
Robert James Manion: As my hon. friend knows, as Minister of Railways I have nothing whatever to do with the pooling of these trains; this is done under an arrangement between the managements of the two companies for the purposes of economy. I did have a statement which I received this morning, which unfortunately I did not bring with me, in regard to the pooling between Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal and Toronto, showing that they claimed a saving of something like a million passenger train miles per annum. They usually estimate the cost at SI a mile, so they figure they are making a very great saving. However, I merely emphasize the fact that neither the government nor myself, as minister, has anything to do with the pooling

Translations Bureau-Mr. Jean
of these trains. This is done by the railway companies themselves for the purposes of economy, and certainly they are endeavouring to give service to all who require it between these stations. I shall deal with my hon. friends question when I deal with the question asked by the hon. member for Quebec Hast (Mr. Lapointe).



FARMERS' STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). Recently complaints have been received from Myrnam, Alberta, with regard to the refusal of the agents of five grain companies to buy any but tough grain. As a consequence the farmers in that vicinity have gone on strike, and at many other points in (northern Alberta sympathetic strikes are in progress. I should like to ask the minister if the matter of the Myrnam farmers' strike has been brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Commerce and, if so, what steps have been taken in connection with it, and also whether the board of grain commissioners has done anything to settle the grievances of the farmers in regard to the grading of grain.
Hon. II. II. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): If I had been given notice of the question I think perhaps I could have given a more satisfactory answer; I am speak-.ng now only from memory and from a casual conversation I had yesterday with the chairman of the board of grain commissioners. He intimated to me that there had been some trouble in the area to whioh my hon. friend refers, and he also intimated thait the difficulty had been adjusted. I have no further information on the subject, but I will take the question as a notice and deal with it tomorrow or as soon as the chairman of the board comes back to Ottawa. I expect him back to-night, but I am not quite certain.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Mr. L. DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on February 20, last, I drew the attention of the house to the fact that documents which I had requested in connection with the breaking up of the ice-bridge between St. Angele de Laval and Three Rivers had not been tabled, it was, however, pointed out, in these documents, that the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) had received requests from the authorities of Three Rivers,
through their member, for the help of icebreakers so as to facilitate the service between St. Angele and Three Rivers. This document was not included in the returns, and I, therefore, requested the Minister of Marine to kindly have it tabled. The latter informed me that he had tabled all the documents which the department had furnished him.
I can make inquiries, said he, and if there exists further correspondence. I shall be pleased to eitheir lay it on the table or communicate it to my hon. friend.
It is now March 6 and I have not yet received anything. These requests made by the authorities of Three Rivers through their member (Mr. Bourgeois) must have been either made orally or in writing. I do not see why the hon. minister could not reply to me orally, if the request was so made, or else table the document if it was made in writing.


Mr. DLRANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, after an
investigation, I wish to state to my hon. friend that there is no correspondence as indicated. It is quite possible that the hon. member for Three Rivers, at the time, made such requests orally. I cannot say positively.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cahan for the second reading of Bill No. 4, respect-ting the bureau for translations and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier.
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I stated, last evening, that the bill under discussion, has not the import which the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), seem to have given it. Far from being an additional guarantee of the rights of the French language, it is of a nature to restrict it by leaving to the bureau created by this bill the care of interpreting the guarantees given to our constitution. Besides, it takes away from the different departments the bilingual character which must be theirs under the present system.
If it is a fact, as has been said, that section 133 of the British North America Act limits the compulsory use of the French language to the printing of the house records and of the statutes, I fail to see how the proposed legislation shall fundamentally place the two languages on an equal footing. If the intention be really to create that equality of standing, as far as the two languages are concerned, in the various departments of the public ser-

1208	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Jean
vice, it can be done in a far safer way than through the centralization of translating staffs. Let us provide for the appointment of bilingual officers in every department. Such efficiency, production and economy as might be secured under the latter plan are surely more apparent than in the indefinite cooperation provided for in sections 3 and 4 of the bill now before the house. If it is desired to ensure the simultaneous publication of the house records in both languages, would it not-the only way to achieve the end in view-be better to leave the translators in direct contact with the ministers and officials entrusted with the preparation of such documents, as is the case at the present time.
I am willing to admit that to a certain extent there is room for improvement in the present system, but the conditions could not be improved through the crowding of the translators into one department. For instance, the French edition of the Hansard is being issued two or three days late. Why? Because of the fact that the translators have to wait for the English text proofs from the Printing Bureau. Should the typewritten copy, as it is being prepared, be handed over to the translating staffs, the French edition of the Hansard could be made available practically at the same time as the English edition. The same could be done, if desired, in connection with all other publications. But such is not the object aimed at by the hon. Secretary of State in introducing this legislation. The object in view may be found in his explanatory notes of the bill:
It is believed that the organization and' administration of the proposed bureau^ for translations will result in improved efficiency and a considerable saving of public funds.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the debates translators, as well as the other translators generally could discharge their duties in a more efficient manner than they do at the present time, and I fail to see how economy would result from the proposed bureau for translations.
Efficiency and economy can only be obtained through the competency of the translators, and whatever system is put in force, better results in every respect will be secured with qualified men and the cost of translation will be accordingly less.
On the other hand, there was no demand from anywhere for the proposed legislation. The majority of those who are more directly affected by the bill, are opposed to it. The French press in this country has declared itself against it. Most of the French speaking members in this house are also opposed to the measure. I even suspect that, at the 
start, our honourable friends from the province of Quebec who sit on the other side of the house, were not in favour of the proposed plan. Why such an insistance to have it carried out and how are we to account, Mr. Speaker, for that distorted construction which is being placed on the bill? Has the hon. Secretary of State stated at any time that the end he had in view when introducing the bill was to recognize the principle of an equality of status for both languages, and does the bill itself contain a single provision the intent or letter of which warrants such an inference? Not a single word in the whole bill justifies that construction being placed on it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the bill in its details as well of the unfairness it involves as far as the translators are concerned. The point has already been fully covered and it is needless for me to go over the same ground again. But I am of the opinion that the arguments put forward in support of the bill have not been proven and that the objections raised against it have not been refuted. Our friends on the other side of the house have taken us to task because we failed to offer to them any advice as to the position they should take. Should they be willing to take a friendly word of advice from their friends on this side of the house, I may say to them in concluding: Do not press this bill to the end, or it might prove a boomerang against yourselves.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: Translations Bureau-Mr. Parent
similar to the administration of any business concern. When a reduction of certain expenses or of certain fixed charges is desired, appropriate measures must be taken. I do not wish to criticize the hon. Secretary of State for having paid special attention to that point, because I know that in a time of depression like this, any government or business concern must try to cut down expenditure. But how does the Secretary of State propose to attain this object? It has been said that useless expenditure to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars has resulted from errors in translation, which had to be corrected on the galley proofs sent back by the King's Printer for revision. These galley proofs have to 'be revised a second time, and so as to avoid this useless expenditure or loss of money, it is now proposed to centralize the translators, in the hope of bringing an improvement. The hon. Secretary of State claims that the present system is responsible for the errors and omissions of the past. I shall not attempt to find who was responsible for the errors complained of; errors may hap,pen anywhere, nothing is perfect in this world. Even admitting that those errors may have cost the amount mentioned by the hon. Secretary of State, should he not, before presenting such a bill, consult the heads of the different departments and ascertain if all the translators have done their duty, if certain departments are not short of translators, and finally if at certain times of the year some translators are not overworked. Would it not have been possible to hold an investigation so as to find out in what departments the wohk is not done as it should be, and to try some corrective measures for six months, for one year, or even for two years, before bringing down in this house a bill which antagonizes a large section of the population of our country? If the complaints are justified, a little investigation would have removed the cause of the trouble.
I am surprised that no report whatever should have been presented to the house, and that we are not told of any efforts made to remedy the conditions and to remove the cause of the errors found in the work of the translators of the various departments. Instead, we are told: "We want to centralize the translators in order to economize public funds."
There shall be a bureau for translators, according to the terms of the bill. The hon. Secretary of State says that the bureau shall be divided in two branches, but there is not a word to that effect in the bill. There shall be a bureau; that is all. Where shall
IMr Parent.]
that bureau be located? Will it be on Sussex street, on Wellington street, a mile away from the centre of the city? Where is it going to be? We do not hear a word about that. One thing is certain; everybody knows, and it will be an extraordinary spectacle when the law shall come into force, to see messengers running around the city of Ottawa-


Mr. MEROIER (Saint-Henri) (Translation) :: On bicycles?


Louis-Étienne Parent: -on bicycles, on street cars, walking, motoring, with bundles of papers, with state documents, with departmental files concerning the smuggling of narcotics, the arrest of high placed individuals, or with other papers of the highest importance. And do you think that no errors could happen during the handling of all those documents? I have every confidence in our staff of messengers, 'but some of them may be weak; such is human nature and it cannot be changed. All those documents shall first be taken from the departmental files and registered by an official, then the chief of the department will hand them to a messenger, who will start on his journey through the streets of the city-


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: And the
country-side.


Louis-Étienne Parent: -in the
direction of the bureau for translations. There, he will deliver the papers which will be registered on an index card by the receiving clerk, who will stamp the hour and date of reception, and inscribe the nature of the documents received for translation. The chief of the bureau must then take the document and hand it to one of the translators. Then the work of translation begins. When the work is completed the translated text must be submitted for revision. The revision over, the document comes back to the chief once more and then starts travelling again-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The same messenger, with his bicycle.


Louis-Étienne Parent: The same messenger riding a bicycle or driving a car will bring it back to where it started from, the official files, whence it will be forwarded to the King's Printer who, mayhap, will receive it rather late. I have counted seven formal stages through which the document must necessarily pass.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: A genuine "pigeon hole".


Louis-Étienne Parent: And it is estimated that each department,-there are

Translations Bureau-Mr. Parent
47 of them in the service,-will handle an average of twenty documents each and every day. Multiply 47 by 20, then multiply that result by 7, and you get the fabulous number of more than 5,000 manipulations that these documents will have to undergo every day under a centralized translation service such as that proposed by bill No. 4.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The translation marathon.


Louis-Étienne Parent: Without mentioning the danger of certain indiscretions, of involuntary losses or omissions, on the part of the messengers. But there is more than that. Can one admit for a single instant that documents of the highest importance should be temporarily withdrawn from the official files and allowed to leave the premises of the different departments?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: A very serious matter, indeed.


Louis-Étienne Parent: And what would happen if at that very moment, for some important reason, or some matter of emergency, a neighbouring department should request the instant return of a document so withdrawn?


Joseph Arthur Barrette: The Secretary of State did not foresee that.


Louis-Étienne Parent: You can
imagine the frantic search that would result to find the wanted document among the two or three thousand that would be in the hands of the translation bureau.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: A game of "hide-and-seek".


Louis-Étienne Parent: All these
things must be considered when it is sought to establish a centralized organization like that proposed by the hon. Secretary of State under bill No. 4.
Mr. Speaker, the centralization of the translation service means the centralization of our translators. A translator, it has been said repeatedly and I say it again, is a specialist. I will add that his work calls for professional qualifications. Time was, when we wanted any document translated, official or otherwise, we used to enlist the services of some University graduate-


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Or some amanuensis in Montreal.


Louis-Étienne Parent: -to have that translation done. For years now the translators of the various departments, byi dint of constant application and study, have
become specialists in the terminology of the subject dealt with in their respective departments. Moreover the professional character of the translators' work has been duly recognized and a technological association founded in Ottawa. Why? For better training of the young men who graduate from our universities and who thus have the inestimable advantage of self-improvement and of specialization along one or more lines, under the guidance of the technological association. The latter is made up of translators who have had years and years of experience in translation work. A number of works have been published, and as time goes on their number will be added to, by translators whose purpose is to acquaint posterity with the fact that to be a translator does not imply the mere understanding of one language or another, or the stringing together of words from one language to another, or the spoken use of one or more languages: the translator must grasp the full meaning of a given text and reproduce in the other tongue the very intention and the thought the given text is meant to convey.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Are you in favour of the status quo?


Louis-Étienne Parent: Of the status quo, such as it is? Yes. With improvements? Yes; but notMong the lines set out in bill 4.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Confounded 1


Lucien Dubois: Crushed!


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: Amended!


Louis-Étienne Parent: We must realize, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend knows it, that no such change as that suggested in the bill can be undertaken after an experience lasting sixty years: If the centralization of the translation services were at all feasible, the thing would have been done before now. An investigation was held and committees appointed to study the proposed system; in every instance the suggestion was rejected. And with very good reason: If you take every translator in the departments, or ten of them from ten different departments, and throw them together with all their notes and encyclopedias, where will you put them? Will they be grouped in a large class room, as in their school days? Will they all be placed under the watchful eye of the superintendent? No, Mr. Speaker, a translator needs no supervision, because it might happen that being a specialist in certain subjects, he would know more about them than his chief or, as w*
1212	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Parent
often hear, he would know more than his teacher. If all the translators are grouped in the same building, or in the same room, they will not be able to work with the same efficiency as if they were in separate offices, and they will have to work under worse conditions than in the past. Why not leave them in their respective departments where they have access to the other documents essential to the proper interpretation of the texts they will be called upon to translate?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Hear, hear.


Louis-Étienne Parent: [DOT] If they are centralized, every time they will need some document a messenger will have to be sent for it. In certain cases, fifteen days may elapse before they get the papers they need. It is impracticable.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: That never occurred to any one.


Louis-Étienne Parent: Lots of things have not occurred to these gentlemen, and if the Secretary of State had taken the trouble of making the slighest investigation-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: If he had known his business.


Louis-Étienne Parent: -he would have found that the objections*raised in this house are sufficient to justify the six months' hoist moved by the honourable member for Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, as very few members have discussed this bill, I think that I should be allowed more than forty minutes, but I shall conclude my remarks. I have not yet mentioned a group of men who occupy an important place on the "staff" of the official translators.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Louis-Étienne Parent: My hon.
friend has the hiccups.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: We will have a game of croquet.


Louis-Étienne Parent: I am speaking of the translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate. In the course of his explanation of the bill, the hon. Secretary of State said that he intends to have a separate branch for the translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate. Why did the sponsor of the bill make that declaration so readily? Because, after listening to the arguments on this point, the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that they are well taken and that the bill will not detach the officials of the House of Commons and of the Senate to place
[Mr Parent.]
them in a department. Why? The House of Commons and the Senate are two representative bodies created by the British North America Act and their officials are responsible to the two houses and not to a department. That cannot and must not be changed, they are a distinct body under the terms of the British North America Act and they must remain officials of the houses of parliament and not be placed under the Secretary of State.


Mr. CAHAN:: What part of the British
North America Act is the hon. member referring to?


Louis-Étienne Parent: I am referring to section
133 of the British North America Act by which I say the translators are members of the staffs of both houses of parliament, the Commons and the Senate. They are vested with rights by the spelling of the law of that article of confederation. Therefore I say that it is impossible that a group from the staffs of both houses of parliament should be separated from those staffs and be put under a minister of the crown. There is no staff of the House of Commons or of the Senate that is directed and supervised by a minister of the crown. The staffs are the staffs of the House of Commons and of the Senate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But the hon. gentleman
knows well that other services of the House of Commons and of the Senate are performed by departments which are under the direction and control of ministers of the crown.


Louis-Étienne Parent: But the minister surely
will not put on the same footing the services of the translators because the translators are in a sense the voice of the representatives of the people of the whole country. We are not going to set their service side by side with that of the employees of a department. Certainly not. I absolutely object that the translators of the House of Commons should be considered on the same footing as employees of any staff outside the House or the Senate coming under the Civil Service Act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand the argument.
Thank you.


Louis-Étienne Parent: That is what I wanted to
point out.
(Translation):	It would greatly decrease
the prerogatives of the House and Senate, if the group of officials, placed by the Confederation Act under the two chambers, were removed. We must bear in mind that we represent the people. The hon. ministers opposite, who are held responsible for the ad-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Hackett
ministration of this country, are aware that these officials translate their speeches. What do they translate? They translate the voice of the representatives of the people, yet, it is the desire to lower their status, to remove them and place them behind a departmental screen known as a Bureau for Translations. I protest. I do so for the honour of my country, on behalf of our fathers who signed the confederation pact. When this act was signed by the representatives of Great Britain and those of Upper and Lower Canada, the spirit of this pact stipulated that both English and French should be on the same footing in both houses of parliament, and that it was an official duty for the translators to translate from one language to the other and vice versa, the words spoken by the representatives of the people in this country. I am absolutely opposed to any steps, being taken to establish a difference between these two languages and lower the standing of this group of translators of the house and senate.
I have just stated, sir, that this bill could not be enacted without doing a grave injustice to certain translators assigned to the translation of the debates of the house. The work is of a special and technical nature more than any other, because the subjects discussed here are more complicated than those met in the correspondence of the various departments. I, therefore, state that parliament would make a mistake in forsaking the authority over the translators and its privileges. There is a restriction embodied in this bill but there is also an open door so that, in the future, this bill may serve as an excuse to say to the French Canadian people: By this bill, you have agreed to a kind of compromise. You had, by virtue of the British North America Act acquired rights, which had been adhered to since 1867. By virtue of this bill No. 4, you have agreed to a kind of compromise, you have agreed to discuss the questions as to the extent of these rights and what they embody I state, sir, that it is untimely to discuss our rights. I shall therefore oppose this bill by voting for the amendment.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I do not entertain all the fears of the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) in connection with this bill. I have read it carefully and I see in it nothing but an administrative measure. However, it touches one of those topics which arouse the susceptibilities of a substantial group in this house. There are many such topics and several such groups and I need not go further back than the beginning of this session to
find an instance where the mention of a subject. however innocently intended, aroused the feeling and support of other groups.
All the arguments for and against the bill have been so broadly canvassed that I do not think I can add very much thereto. However, there is one point to which I should like to address a few remarks. I am vitally interested in good translations and I think that the house as a whole is likewise interested. At the proper time, I should like to see those translators who translate the debates of this house and of the Senate placed on a different footing from the other translators. Nothing is more difficult to translate than colloquial language. It is racy and frequently tinged with slang which, after all, is language in the process of gestation. The translators of the debates of this house and the Senate work under great pressure; they work long hours and cannot during the period of their service enlarge their acquaintance with languages and their evolution. This is necessary to the skilful performance of their task. Men of broad culture and a profound knowledge of both languages are absolutely essential to the proper carrying out of the work of translation. I suggest that it is necessary that these translators should have some leisure in which to cultivate and develop those characteristics so essential to their work. By making the position attractive a higher level of native talent and educational attainment will be secured which will assure to the houses better translators and better translations. It may not be possible to allow these translators six or seven months of inactivity each year but the spirit of the spoken word can be translated into another language only by men who have seized that spirit and who have a knowledge of literature, art and those things which go to make up culture. For these reasons, on behalf of the translators of this house and of the Senate I bespeak special treatment, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the translation of those debates which it is their primary duty to translate.
Mr. CHARLES E. FERLAND (Joliette) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, history and tradition teach us that you are invested with extraordinary powers. As a result of a miracle which tradition alone can account for, there are two persons in you. At the one time you are both Speaker and chairman. When at the request of a messenger from the upper house you leave this chamber to lead the honourable members to the Senate, for the purpose of moving the passing of a supply
1214	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Ferland
bill, you are acting as Speaker. You ar ; the "speaker", and you speak on behalf of the house. But on your return to this chamber you cease to be speaker, because you do not speak frequently enough to subsist as such, but you then become the chairman whose duty it is to supervise the proceedings in the house.
Mr. Speaker, were I invested with your powers, endowed with your authority, and had I the opportunity to discharge your duties, I would, I think, order the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) to kneel down before the mace, symbol of royal authority, and there seek pardon from the university of Montreal for the insults he directed against that institution. I would also, perhaps, give him a penance, it being lenten time; I would invite him to meditate on the eleventh verse of psalm 32, the psalm of penance, which reads as follows:
Nolite fieri sicut ectuus et mulus Quibus non est intellectus.
Be ye not as the horse, or as the mule, which have no understanding.
Mr. Speaker, it might seem rather cruel on my part to have joined others who have spoken before me in condemnation of the speech I have referred to in connection with the university of Montreal where I read law. I greatly admire and have great respect for the most dignified, most learned and eminent men who are on the teaching staff of the university of Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, bill No. 4, entitled "An Act concerning the Bureau for Translations" means a complete upsetting of the established system and I place no reliance on it. This is not the only confusion for which the conservative party may be held responsible since it has come into power. Quite an important part of its policy tends to bring about confusion in the old practices under which the people have been content and have prosperered in the days of the former regime. It reminds us of an old French ditty according to which good king Dagobert had donned his breeches inside out. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, not only has the government done likewise, but through its nefarious policy, is about to lead this country into a state of chaos. This bill No. 4 is a piece of legislation the results of which we feel to be of a harmful nature, and the honourable member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) fittingly pointed that nothing good could be expected to come out of this lump bespattered, with flour.
In the course of a well prepared speech, the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) very gracefully danced on a volcano, as he was dealing with this momentous question of the

French language in this country. He made a discovery. He found out the bill meant an additional recognition of the rights of the French language in Canada, Commenting section 133 of the constitution, and quoting the opinions of Hon. Senator Belcourt, of everlasting memory, he insinuated and implied that previous to the introduction of that bill No. 4, the French Canadians did not enjoy equal rights in the Dominion, or, in other words, he inferred and implied that our rights were not adequately safeguarded by the British North America Act. Let me in the first place reply to him on that particular point. Section 133 of the constitution to which the hon. gentleman referred reads as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act. and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
Personally, I have not the slightest doubt but that, according to both the spirit and the letter of the constitution, the two languages, in parliament and in the legislature of Quebec, as well as in the courts of Quebec, are on an equal footing in Canada.
The hon. the Solicitor General has mentioned two rules of this house, the one making it compulsory to read the motions in both languages, and the other, to translate all bills in both the official languages as well.
He also intimated that these two sections were sanctioning rights in some cases, which they are referring to. Well, the hon. Solicitor General, since he saw fit to admit that the onb' rights established by the constitution in favour of the French language come from section 133, could have added that not only Hon. Senator Belcourt never contended that English and French had not equal rights, but that he devoted his life-and what a life of sacrifices, devotion and patriotism-to claiming equal rights for the French language, not as a charity, but in virtue of the constitution and as a matter of equity, and also to claiming freedom of speech to allow one to express himself in both languages, which freedom was sanctioned by the spirit and the letter of the Constitutional Act.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: Will my hon. friend allow me to interrupt him? I would

Translations Bureau-Mr. Ferland
not like him to attribute to me words that I never uttered. I never said or intimated that we had not equal rights. On the contrary, we have equal rights in this country.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make note of the Solicitor General's admission-


Maurice Dupré: Nobody contends thht we have not equal rights.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: -which admission is after all in conformity with the traditions of all French Canadians, as regards the constitution and its interpretation. But if we enjoy equal rights in this country and in all departments of the government, so far as the French language is concerned, if we have a right to have our public documents and reports published in French, if we have all these rights, why does the Solicitor General say that this new act is a remedial measure which implements a previous legislation, namely section 133 of the constitutional act? Is it not an intimation, as some hon. member said before him, that we have not equal rights, since we must have a new legislation to implement the previous one? But is this bill actually a remedial measure? Last evening the hon. Solicitor General said so. He said: Under section 3 of Bill No. 4, the government hereafter will be compelled to translate all proceedings, documents, reports and papers mentioned in that section. I say no. The bill does not go as far as that. I think the Solicitor General gives a wrong interpretation of the act.
Let us see what the bill says in section 3:
There shall be a bureau under the minister, to be called the Bureau of Translations, the duties and function of which shall be to collaborate ... in making and revising all. translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports.
This means that hereafter the bureau of translation will be centralized in a building and shall contribute to the translation from one language into another, of all documents or of any documents. But the bill does not go farther than that.
Did not the hon. inember for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett), who has just resumed his seat, state a moment ago that there was nothing else in this bill than a mere question of administration? It is obvious that there is no sanction of rights which we did not possess previously. Why make such statements to the people of this country? Why prepare electoral literature which will allow them to say in the next election: We have gone a step forward with regard to the French
language; we have won a splendid victory, and God knows, at the cost of great hardship and painstaking. Our leader, the Prime Minister, had stated last year that Canada was not a bilingual country. Our leader, the Prime Minister, had stated-


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Let me finish my sentence and then you may ask one.
If we believe the statement of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), deputy speaker of the house, our leader, the Prime Minister threatened to resign last year if we voted for bilingual currency; and we French Canadian Conservatives of Quebec, we won a splendid victory; we have provided in the statutes that hereafter the government will be compelled to translate in French all parliamentary documents, all departmental reports, when at present there are in the Department of Interior 185 documents dealing with natural resources that are not translated into French, 37 very important ones in the Department of Agriculture that are not translated into French,, and more than fifty per cent of the documents in other departments which are distributed to the public only in English.
This bill, a victory? No, it is not a victory. But if it is sought to interpret it in that way, I say any such claim is pure camouflage. Indeed, I defy the hon. Secretary of State to maintain that this bill means that in future the government will be obliged to have all the documents of the various departments translated. I defy the Prime Minister to so state on the floor of this house. I defy the hon. Solicitor General, as also the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau)-two of my friends and two of my distinguished colleagues at the bar of the province of Quebec-to move an amendment to the bill specifying in black and white that in future all documents mentioned in section 3 must be and shall be translated into the French tongue. I repeat that I defy them to so move; I know they will never propose any such amendment, because section 3 cannot be interpreted in that way and the government would not accept any such measure.
Now you may ask your question if you wish.


Onésime Gagnon: I wanted to ask my hon. friend from Joliette to say when and where the right hon. Prime Minister- who is absent to-day, and my hon. friend knows he is absent-stated that he was opposed to bilingualism in Canada.
1216	COMMONS
Translations Bxireau-Mr. Ferland
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	He is
absent; but he is well represented by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon).


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Ask him
to deny that he said it.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, if the question interests my learned friend I shall obtain the quotation for him; I haven't it at hand just now. I refer him to the French speaking members of the press gallery and to the general opinion throughout the province of Quebec, where it is held that he made the statement.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: That is
not an answer.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: And I
shall bring him also a declaration by the Prime Minister of the love he bore Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in days gone by, when the Riel question was a burning one in the west.
The hon. Solicitor General attempts to convince the country that the government is doing us a favour or presenting us with a gift. It is evident that if by the terms of this bill the government were to be obliged to have French translations made of all documents, whatever their nature, that would be a genuine victory, a privilege, a gift; but until it be so -written in the bill, until a responsible English speaking member of the government so declares, until we are given some definite assurance, I say that I refuse to believe it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman has
been defying those on this side of the house to state this and state that. What I say to him is that this bill provides for the translation into French and English of all official documents of general import. There may be private documents that will not be and never have been translated.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Why does the minister
not insert that provision very clearly in the bill, if it means that in future the government will be obliged to have a translation made of all documents mentioned in section 3?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought the bill as drafted carried with it the implication that official documents are to be translated. Of course there are in the departments certain documents in English or in French which relate to the ordinary daily intercourse between officials of departments, and which are more or less private; in such cases translation is not necessary. But I am dealing with official documents published in connection with the administration of federal affairs.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, this bill, in my opinion, and according to the interpretation made of it by the French press of the country, does not imply that in future all documents will be translated into French. All the bill says is this: all official documents translated will in future be translated in the bureau instead of in the different departments. In other words, not only does the bill offer no guarantee for the French language, but the French language is not even mentioned; it is reduced to the same status as Chinese, Arabian or Russian. We must have translators of foreign extraction. Under the bill such translators will be on the same footing as the other translators. I say that this bill not only does not grant any new privileges or additional guarantees to the French tongue, but that it reduces French to the same status as foreign languages, which would please a certain number of English fanatics in this country-I am alluding to no one in this House of Commons-* certain narrow-minded people who are forever claiming that we, of French Canada, have no more rights in this country than the Chinese or the Poles.


Maurice Dupré: Those are
unfortunate words, not at all helpful to the present cause.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. Solicitor General notes a lack of skill on my part. Alas, genius is not a boon of daily occurrence. But I am under the impression that he went the wrong way about this matter.
I do not want the impression to be carried abroad that this diffuse, obscure and indefinite bill means that all public documents shall be translated, when no particular section of the bill says so, and when all presumptions are to the contrary. In fact, what have been the arguments brought forward in favour of the present bill? Is there a single word in the bill to the effect that the French language shall have better consideration? Not one.
Let us read the explanatory notes. Briefly, they state that the object of the bill is to ensure more efficiency in the translation and a saving of public funds. How can you reconcile this idea of saving with the prediction of the hon. Solicitor General that we shall have a French translation of hundreds of documents formerly published exclusively in English? Considerable amounts shall then be spent in the name of economy. But who shall profit from those economies? Surely not our French speaking compatriots. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we know that this bill does not apply to one single

Translations Bureau-Mr. Ferland
English translator. We know also that, with the exception of a few translators of foreign languages, the majority of translators are French-Canadians. They are the ones who are concerned in the present bill. Then, who shall have to carry the burden of this measure of economy if not our French-speaking compatriots? Why look for insignificant savings at the expense of French-Canadians when we know that for years, if not for generations, we have never had in the different departments and in the public service the proper share of representation to which we are entitled by reason of our situation and of our numbers? Why stop at such ludicrous savings? For the last two years, the government has been spending millions for all kinds of works. Why, in the name of economy, make an attack upon three millions of French-Canadia-n citizens?
Mr. Speaker, I can see in this bill no guarantee that the rights of the French language will be safeguarded. It should never have been introduced in this house and should not be passed. If our lion, friends wish to be sincere, it is easy to come to an agreement. Let them be generous and add to this bill just two or three words to the effect that, in the future, all documents shall be translated into French, instead of deceiving us with words, and using language which might be interpreted one way in one province and differently in another province.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Quebec will understand the situation made for our compatriots who shall witness the abolition of a certain number of positions of translators for the sake of economy.
Mr. Speaker, one of the objects of this bill is efficiency in the public service. It has been said that the translators are not qualified and, as an example, three so-called wrong translations of words have been quoted: "incomber," "auditeur general," and "orateur" to designate the Speaker of the House of Commons. I shall establish that those three expressions are conformed to tradition, to our parliamentary usage, to the rules, to the genius of the language and to the best dictionaries. The words "It is the duty of," in subsection 2, of paragraph 3, have been translated by "il in-combe." It has been contended that it is not a good translation. I am of the opinion that it is excellent translation, as a matter of fact, it is the most elegant. Let us look at the dictionaries; we shall see that this expression has received the seal of the French Academy. Mr. Speaker, could there be a higher authority than the French Academy? "Incombe," according to the dictionary of the French Academy, vol. 2, p, 22, is said of a function,
of a duty imposed upon a person, of a responsibility which falls upon some one.
In the bill, it is said that the department or the officers shall have the duty to do such or such a thing.
Incomber, v.n.-II se dit en parlant d'une charge, d un devoir impose a quelqu'un, d'une responsabilite qui retombe sur lui.
(Dictionnaire de 1'Aeademie frangaise, II, p. 22).
Incombcr, v.n.-Etre impose. (Dictionnaire Hatzfeld et Darmesteter).
Incomber, v.n.-Etre impose, en parlant d'une charge, d'un devoir. "C'est a moi que ce devoir incombe." (Littrd.)
Incomber. v.n.-S'emploie quelquefois dans le langage ordinaire, en parlant d'une charge, d une responsabilite, d'un devoir qui est impose il quelqu'un, qui est au nombre de ses obligations. (Beseherelle.)
Incomber. v.n.-Etre impose, revenir comme une obligation, "Les devoirs qui nous incom-bent." (Larousse.)
Incomber, v.n.-Se dit d'une charge, d'un devoir, d'une responsabilite. "Il s'effraya de la lourde charge qui lui ineombait." (Paul Guerin, "Dictionnaire des dictionnaires.")
Incomber: to be the duty of . . . (Hamilton et Legros, "Dictionnaire international frangais-anglais.")
Incomber: to be the duty (of) . . . (Clifton et Grimaux, "Dictionnaire frangais-anglais")
I now come to the translation of the word "auditeur general." Father Lejeune, who has enriched the spiritual inheritage of our people with a work entitled "Dictionnaire general du Canada" authorizes the use of the expression "auditeur general," as being the exact and correct translation of auditor general. Our compatriot Pierre Daviault, a translator on the staff of the House of Commons, in a volume entitled "Questions de langage" at pages 26 and 27 expresses himself thus:
Auditor General-Auditeur general-The etymology of the word "auditeur" dates back to the period when accounts were, in practice, so complicated that, at the "eour des comptes" there were young members specially appointed to note the numbers and figures called out, then to repeat them, saying: "Audivi."
Whence the name "auditeur" which has remained with them and which has become synonymous to "verifieateur" in France. The "Cour des comptes" comprises, to-day, twenty-seven auditors.
May we add to this definition that the rvord "auditeur" is in use only in the administration of a state, and, in Canada, only to translate "Auditor General. " In the commercial vocabulary "auditor" is translated by "verifieateur." In certain cases, "apurateurs, controleur, censeur" may be used.
Dictionnaire financier, international, theorique et pratique of Mr. A. Meliot, fourth edition, Berger-Levrault, editors, Paris, 1912, page 305.
Censeur. Censure-La censure-namely the auditing of accounts-is done by auditors known as "censeurs, commissaires des comptes ou auditeurs," just as they still are known at the "Cour des comptes." The etymology of


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is reading what purports to be, if I followed him correctly, a personal letter addressed to me.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This letter certainly should
be laid upon the table of the house where I may have access to it and an opportunity to reply.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I say, on the point of order, that not only did I receive a copy of that letter but that a large number of hon. members of this house have also received it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I think I have a right under the practice of this house to have the original laid on the table where I may have access to it.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay the letter on the table of the house.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Every French member
of this house has been circularized.
1220	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Gagnon


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I assure the house I
do not remember seeing it, although it was addressed to me, therefore I ask that it be laid on the table.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gobeil):: The letter is now filed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand then that the
hon. gentleman will table a copy?


Charles-Édouard Ferland: This is a copy.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: He has
acceded to your demand.


Samuel Gobeil: A copy is on the table.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the elaborate and conclusive speeches of the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) I did not think it would be necessary to discuss at any great length the bill relating to the translations bureau. It seems so apparent to all those who have studied the bill and heard the admirable presentation of his case by the Secretary of State that the proposed legislation consists essentially in the improvement of the work of translation and .thereby the maintenance of the rights of the French language in all matters pertaining to departmental administration. The eloquent speech of my hon. friend from Labelle demonstrated beyond any shadow of doubt that the regrettable campaign conducted against the government in the Liberal press, and, I am sorry to say, in some independent newspapers circulating among the French population of Canada, is uncalled for, unjust and unfounded. This unjustified opposition is discouraging not only to those French Canadians who sincerely believe that in voting for this bill they fulfil their duty towiards their race in securing the improvement of the status of the French language in parliamentary business, but also to all broadminded, just, courageous and enlightened English-speaking members such as the Secretary of State, who perhaps more than any of his compatriots of his own generation has seized every opportunity to show his sincere sympathy and appreciation of the French race and the French language and the rights of minorities.
Those who heard the masterful defence of this bill last night by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), and who remember his clear, well presented and unanswerable arguments will see, I hope, their apprehensions dispelled. But hon. gentlemen opposite persist in following the tactics adopted by their board of strategy and attack the bill on the ground

that it unnecessarily persecutes the translators and may destroy the efficiency of translation. Briefly -they insinuate that in voting for this bill we are unfaithful to our duties, our race and our language. The speech of the hon. member who just resumed his seat is an illustration of the narrow and partisan view some hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted towards this beneficial legislation.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I rise to a point of order. I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to impute partisan motives to any hon. member on 'this or the other side of the house.


Onésime Gagnon: I did not impute motives at all; I said the speech and the arguments used by the last speaker illustrated the narrow view taken by some hon. gentlemen opposite. I have a sincere regard and a great sympathy for the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Fer-land); I think he is a nice gentleman.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I ask for a ruling on my point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Onésime Gagnon: I like the hon. member for Joliette, and I am sure he will regret-


Paul Mercier: A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), and he has asked for a decision.


Samuel Gobeil: I do not see any imputation of political motives in the remarks of the hon. gentleman.


Onésime Gagnon: I like the hon. member
for Joliette, and I am sure he will regret having intimated that the Prime Minister said, either last year or this year, that he was opposed to the rights enjoyed by the French language in Canada. I am sure no one can challenge my statement when I say that if anyone, inside or outside of this house, ever intimated that the Prime Minister has said that he is against the French language, this gentleman, be he a member of parliament or be he not, has uttered an absurd and infamous lie.
Let us approach this legislation with an unprejudiced mind; let us discuss it as calmly and as coolly as possible. The hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard), whom I am pleased to congratulate on his remarkable progress as an English speaking debater, said he was surprised that no French speaking member on this side of the house had risen to defend this bill. The hon. gentleman was quite right; we were purposely silent during the first two days of the discussion of the bill. We were anxious to see if hon. gentle-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Gagnon
men opposite would have the audacity to pretend that they are better patriots and better serviteurs de la pensee frangaise than the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa).


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Has the hon. gentleman a monopoly of that?


Onésime Gagnon: No, I never pretended to
have a monopoly of it, but hon. gentlemen opposite have pretended to have a monopoly of patriotism. I do not hesitate to say, Mr. Speaker, that, at first, the French Conservative members of this house were alarmed when this bill was introduced. This legislation took us by surprise, and the translators complained bitterly. Before the session opened we had not heard that any such bill was being drafted, and when we read the arguments against the bill coming from certain quarters and appearing in some French newspapers we did what might reasonably be expected of members of parliament; we thought over the whole problem, studied the proposed legislation carefully and compared it with the provisions of article 133 of the British North America Act. We discussed the bill among ourselves and with our ministers; we met some translators and heard their views. Then we forwarded to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) a memorandum in which we expressed our opinions and requested that the bill be sent to a special select committee in order that all interested parties might appear and defend their rights, and in order that the whole problem might be fully investigated and studied. We did not do what has been done this afternoon and on previous occasions; we did not rise in our places and read copies of letters which have not been seen by the Secretary of State. We asked that by all means the translations be kept as efficient as possible and that French translators should not be discriminated against in any shape or form. Unmindful of the campaign of insinuation and slander that was being launched in some quarters, we arranged to meet the Secretary of State, and we asked some translators to submit their views to us. It is true, sir, that we did not ask the views of the translators who apparently are leading the opposition to this bill and who have supplied our Liberal strategists with the arguments with which they think this bill should be met.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to tell me the names of one or two of the translators who were interviewed, so that we may judge as to whether or not they were competent?


Onésime Gagnon: That question certainly is not worthy of my hon. friend; he cannot expect that I will give any names, but he need only look to the galleries of the house to see what is going on. Finally we became firmly convinced that there is nothing in this bill which in the slightest degree is unfair or unjust to the translators. On the other hand it brings about a great improvement over the existing situation with regard to translations not only in the House of Commons and the Senate but in the different departments of the federal administration as well.
I am very glad, sir, that the French Conservative members of this house have been able to help the translators instead of doing as some hon. gentlemen opposite have done and spreading through the province of Quebec the idea that the government was attempting to destroy and abolish the rights of the French language by creating a bureau for translations. The hon. member for Maison-neuve (Mr. Jean), raised the constitutional issue. Of course that might be expected, but I say to him that if he had listened carefully to the speech of the Secretary of State in moving the second reading of this bill he would have noticed that the minister mentioned that it was intended to organize two branches of translators in this bureau. One branch will comprise the translators of the House of Commons and the Senate while the other branch will include the translators of the different departments. This creation of two distinct branches is not set out in the bill, but I sincerely congratulate the Secretary of State upon having decided to keep the translators of the House of Commons and the Senate under one administration while the translators of the different departments are to be under another. I do not pretend, Mr. Speaker, that this amelioration of the bill is due only to the efforts of the French speaking Conservative members of the house. No; other gentlemen whom hon. gentlemen opposite attack slyly have proven to be true friends of translators and have constantly defended the sound principle that the House of Commons ought not to abandon the con>-trol over its own officers.


Mr. VENIOT:: The hon. member has no right to accuse hon. members opposite of attacking gentlemen slyly. He has no right to do it, and I demand that he withdraw the statement.


Onésime Gagnon: I shall abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. When very often in this house I hear attacks made by hon. gentlemen
1222	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Gagnon
opposite against people who cannot defend themselves, for instance against the Clerk of the House, I say that such attacks are unworthy and are not courageous.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member should not say attacks are "unworthy." He has used two expressions which are unparliamentary and I demand a ruling upon them. We are waiting for a ruling.


Onésime Gagnon: Now,-


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, what is your ruling? The hon. member has no right to proceed until a ruling is given.


Samuel Gobeil: To what rule does the hon. member refer?


Paul Mercier: It is in the book.


Samuel Gobeil: It may take some time.


Onésime Gagnon: In order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw the expressions which have displeased the house.
Coming to the merits of the bill, is it necessary that I should repeat the arguments used so eloquently by the Secretary of State, the hon. member for Labelle or the hon. Solicitor General? Hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken against the bill have delivered very interesting lectures about translations, and about what they ought or ought not to be. But do hon. gentlemen opposite sincerely believe that hon. members on this side of the house are ignorant of the great difficulties in connection with the science of translation? Do they believe, seriously, that we remain indifferent to the future of translators who are in almost daily contact with hon. gentlemen of this house? What advantage would there be in our approving of the proposed legislation if we were not seriously convinced that it constitutes a great improvement and will not be at all harmful to the work of translation?
It has been said, and I repeat emphatically, that the object of the bill is, mainly, to ensure that French copies of all documents, reports of departments, reports of proceedings of this house and reports of commissions submitted to the government or to parliament, be printed, published and delivered to the public at the same time as the printing and distribution of English copies. If such laudable results were to be obtained, I ask you sincerely, Mr. Speaker, if they would not constitute a great improvement upon the existing practice. Must we not consider with a sympathetic mind a bill which contemplates such happy consequences?

I regret sincerely that a few minutes ago the hon. member for Joliette said that by this legislation the French language was not more protected than were the Chinese and Japanese languages. Surely the hon. gentleman has not read the bill very attentively, because if he had read section 4 at lines 6, 7 and 8 he would have found that the only two languages which are expressly mentioned are English and French. If, sir, the French language is expressly mentioned, and if it is provided that documents in French shall be translated into English, or vice versa, I believe it is unfair and unjust to say that the French language is not more protected than are the Chinese and Japanese languages.
For the last fifty years I have been curious enough to study the Hansard of the House of Commons, and I have found some very interesting details with respect to translation. Some of these details of course are well known to all hon. members. Nevertheless I shall quote what I have found in order to prove that the situation has not improved very greatly upon the condition which existed fifty years ago. One of the first protests lodged about the delay in the production of French papers and documents was made by the Hon. T, C. Casgrain who is reported in Hansard for the year 1898 as follows:
I tlo not think that the French version of the debates has yet been published. It had not been some time ago. The English version was received on the first days of this session.
I find that one of my predecessors in the county of Dorchester, Mr. J. B. Morin, on May 6, 1902, spoke in connection with this matter; and he is reported in Hansard for 1902, volume 2, page 4354, as follows:
I would like to know why it is that the Hansard printed in French is too late in being distributed to the members. I only see the French Hansard ten or twelve days after the speeches have been delivered, and during the recess I do not receive it for four or five months. I do not see why it should not be sent to us in a couple of weeks at least. I was down there a couple of weeks ago to see if there were any printed in French, and was told that they would' not be ready for four or five months. Tf they are not ready for four or five months is it any use to have them at all When we come here at the beginning of the session we cannot get a French report of any kind.
In 1906 the Hon. T. C. Casgrain complained again, and is reported in Hansard of 1906, volume 2, page 3323 as follows:
Although a number, of bills are on the order paper for second time, they are not printed in French. I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way seeing that the session is well advanced, however, I do not want this to be a precedent.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Gagnon
In a debate in this House of Commons in 1907 the hon. member for Labelle, the same hon. member who represents Labelle to-day, is reported in Hansard of 1906-07, volume 2, page 3663, as follows:
The ground of complaint is that though the quality of both languages has been conceded by all governments and by the house, the French translation department is treated as an unimportant department. If we had an adequate number of translators for the work of translating both the debates of the house and bills and other documents published under the authority of this parliament, there would not be any such delays.
And then, later on:
We receive letters almost every day from our constituents asking us when they can get a certain document in French. The French version of the debates are often from two to three weeks behind, and those of bills and other public documents are often a month or more. I have known of a delay of six months before we could get the French translations of certain public documents. Almost every year there is an extraordinary case. For example, the records of committees of this house have to be translated and printed.
I will be fair enough to admit that in 1910 Sir Wilfrid Laurier was alive to the situation and saw that the question of translation was discussed before a special committee of this house. A committee studied the matter, following which Mr. Frechette, to whose report reference has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, was sent abroad in order to study the matter. The committee of 1910 studied the matter of centralization of translation, but as Mr. Frechette reported in the negative no action was taken. I have quoted the extracts from Hansard to show that notwithstanding complaints which had been sent by public bodies, by French newspapers and by many public corporations in the province of Quebec and elsewhere we are not much more advanced than we were forty or fifty years ago. Of course, there have been some slight improvements with respect to the translation of debates of the house. With respect to the translation of documents of departments the situation is still so imperfect that French translations of committee reports and reports of departments are sometimes published six months and more after the issue of the English copies. Is it not imperative, sir, I seriously ask you, that appropriate measures should be taken to achieve a considerable and definite improvement? The proposed bill will put a stop to such an undesirable state of things. When this bill becomes law the members of parliament who have done nothing during the long years of parliament to improve the situation, and who may have been tempted or are now tempted sometimes, 74726-78
no matter to which political party they belong, to make political capital out of the late production of French translations must admit that when the French copies are delivered at the same time as the English copies the whole of our French population will be very much better satisfied and will be grateful to members of parliament for this new legislation. There is no doubt, I humbly submit, that this bill ought to receive the unanimous support of all the French members of this house irrespective of party affiliations.
The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois), for whom I have a great admiration, have spoken of the disapproval of this legislation by a certain number of French newspapers of Quebec and Ontario. That is unfortunately true, but after having read all these articles carefully wTe cannot do other than draw the conclusion that the writers have been unduly apprehensive or that they have been misled by some of the translators or their friends. They argue as if it were true that the translators would be dismissed or their numbers considerably lessened on the passing of this bill. I sincerely believe that with the new bureau for translations in operation the number of translators will have to be increased instead of being decreased. The economy that the government is endeavouring to bring about does not consist in the reduction of salaries of translators or in their retirement or dismissal, but in the stopping of that obnoxious and ridiculous practice of having two, and sometimes three or four galley proofs prepared before the typewritten document is finally printed and published. The Secretary of State has said, and has not been contradicted, that last year $75,000 was misspent in the revising, resetting and reprinting of documents which should have been corrected, not on the printer's galley proof, but on the typewritten document written by the translators.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman has made reference to the amount that it costs for the correction of galley proofs of the French translations. Does he know how much it costs for the correction of the English galley proofs?


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. gentleman cannot expect that I can answer a question like that. He has only to read the speech of the Secretary of State where he will find all the details set out.


Peter John Veniot: He did not refer to that.

1224	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Gagnon
Mr. GAGNO'N: Is it not true that more translators could be employed if we could save $75,000 a year and bring about the reforms that we ask for. The attitude of the men at the printing bureau who are fathers of families and are receiving small wages compared with the translators ought to interest parliament as much as the attitude of the translators. The Secretary of State has explained that because the service of translation is improperly and imperfectly organized he has been obliged to dispense with many French-Canadian printers who in December last had no means to pay for food, fuel and shelter. The creation of the new bureau will enable the government to economize and keep these people in their jobs. Need I recall to hon. gentlemen opposite that printers of French are French-Canadians just as much as the translators of this house or of the departments? The poor printers may be less learned in the sciences than the translators. They may have fewer friends among the newspaper men, because a great number of the translators are old journalists, but on the other hand I respectfully submit that the case of the poor printers is just as deserving of sympathy as that of any other civil servant who painfully and honestly performs his duty and earns his daily bread.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) has given a somewhat exaggerated picture of the operations of the proposed bureau. Speaking at page 1021 of Hansard he said:
Suppose this department is organized and a head is appointed to supervise all translations coming therefrom. The Secretary of State has a document, to be translated and he calls up the bureau for translations and asks for a man. Possibly the subject relates to agriculture, and of course the bureau, following railroad rules, first in first out, in order to divide up the work, so that no one will be overloaded and everyone will have the same proportion, sends out a man who probably has taken two years at university in the study of medicine. This man knows all the medical terms, and he is called upon to translate something relating entirely to agriculture. There will certainly be a good' many technical terms quite unknown to him, and he accordingly produces an erroneous translation. What will be the state of affairs if the minister happens to be a gentleman who is acquainted with one language only? Vice sersa, suppose the Minister of Health calls for a translator to give him a translation of something dealing with medical questions. He calls up the bureau and as translators 5, 6 and 7 are out, No. 8 is assigned to this work. He is quite familiar with agricultural terms but he knows nothing whatever about the terms used in medicine. Could anything be more ridiculous?

Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke seriously believe that the bureau for translations will function in the ridiculous way which he described in a rather humorous fashion? Surely he must credit the chief of the bureau with some common sense. The hon. member has had much experience in the lumber and papermaking business. What would he say if the foreman of one of hia mills would indifferently call a chemist to do the work of an engineer or a chauffeur to do the work of a paper-maker? He would think his foreman had gone crazy. Why would the future chief of the bureau for translations use less common sense and good judgment in the management of the bureau than the foreman of one of my hon. friend's lumber or paper mills?
Other hon. gentlemen opposite have described the pitiful fate of the translators and have depicted the future bureau as being a place where the translators will be pressed together like sardines under the terrible eye of a supervisor who will impose silence upon them just as a schoolmaster does upon his school children. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite where in the bill do they find even the suggestion of such ridiculous proposals which, as a matter of fact, they can find only in their own imagination. The chief of the bureau for translations will have to be a man thoroughly conversant with the French and English languages. Very likely he will be a French-Canadian, and eventually one of the translators will become chief of the bureau. Does any hon. member seriously contend that the future chief of the bureau will be a despot or autocrat who will think only of cutting the translators' throats? Some hon. gentlemen smile, but nevertheless that is the kind of argument that we have read in some of the newspapers and which has been used by some hon. gentlemen opposite in opposing this bill.
Many hon. gentlemen have referred to the report of Mr. Achille Frechette, who in 1910 was chief of translation of the House of Commons, and who declared himself against the centralization of translation. I have nothing to say against that gentleman, but it seems to me that many changes have taken place since 1910. At that time radio was nonexistent and aeroplanes were very imperfect. Bleriot had only recently been hailed as a great man for crossing the English channel. Do hon. gentlemen seriously believe that because a suggestion was considered impracticable in 1910 it could not. be acted upon in a practical fashion in 1934? The translators will not lose their liberty under the

Translations Bureau-Mr. Marcil
provisions of this bill. Those who are experts in certain lines will continue to do the work for which they have special training and experience. Those who are experts in agriculture will not be called upon to translate matters relating to mineralogy. The Secretary of State has stated in unequivocal terms that the translators of the House of Commons will remain under the jurisdiction and control of that house. The vacation which these translators use for historical and literary studies may be preserved. A section of the Civil Service Act protects them in that respect. I am surprised that hon. members opposite who have been so free in picturing French Canadian Conservative members as traitors to the French language have not invoked that special legislation which has so far protected the translators and ensured them a long and restful vacation.
This is not the time and place to attempt to improve this legislation; it should be done when it is brought before the committee which has been specially constituted to study the bill and make a report to the house. Hon. gentlemen opposite seem to have acquired lately a great knowledge of translation matters and I invite them to appear before that committee and suggest any remedies they may have in mind. In order that the translators may have assurance with respect to their salaries, I suggest that a special clause be inserted to guarantee that these salaries shall not be decreased and that the privileges which they have enjoyed so far shall be maintained. The committee will have to bear in mind that the translators assigned to the different departments sometimes work until only five o'clock in the afternoon, whereas the translators connected with the House of Commons and the Senate sometimes work very late into the night; so much so, that after a long and strenuous session these translators find themselves exhausted and in need of a good rest. I should be pleased to recommend that their vacations be as long as possible and I am sure that this phase of the matter will be considered carefully and sympathetically.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It would be a new
bill with those changes introduced; we have to vote on the bill as it is at present.


Onésime Gagnon: We have voted on bills
before which have gone to a committee and come back in a state hardly recognizable. Why should it be otherwise with this legislation?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: We hope so.
74726-78J


Onésime Gagnon: The hon. member for
Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) has had a great many years of experience and he should know that the procedure followed by the committee considering this bill will be the same as that which has been followed ever since parliament has been sitting.
The strongest criticism against this bill is that it will have the effect of reducing the importance and influence of the French language. No one has attempted to prove that the creating of a new bureau will have such michievous results. On the contrary, instead of translations being left entirely to the discretion and good will of the heads of departments, henceforward they will be under the direction of a chief of translations appointed by order in council or statute who, by his culture, training and functions, will be interested in maintaining, defending and improving the status of the French language. The definite pronouncement made last evening by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) should go far to reassure those who are unduly apprehensive in this regard. Should this bill pass, for the first time since confederation the translation of departmental reports and public documents will be upon a permanent statutory basis. The hon. member for Ottawa has referred to section 133 of the British North America Act. Many hon. gentlemen opposite invoke this section more often when in opposition than when in power. I am sure Le Droit, which attacked the view presented in the speech of the hon. member for Labelle, will be interested in knowing what Senator Belcourt said about this in 1912 when speaking at the Congres de la langue frangais a Quebec.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Hackett):: The hon. gentleman has spoken the allotted period of forty minutes.
Hon. CHARLES MARClIL (Bonaventure): Mr. Speaker, I have been very much interested in the reminiscences of the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). I was a member of this house when complaints were made by his predecessors from Montmorency and Dorchester. I have been hearing these complaints all during the thirty-four years I have been a member. I was Speaker of the House in 1910 when Mr. Frechette was instructed to visit Belgium and Switzerland to ascertain the best method of carrying on translations. Belgium is a bilingual country, French and Walloon being the official languages, while Switzerland is a trilingual country, with German, Italian and French. During the thirty-four years I have been a member there has
1226	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Marcil
been constant complaint of the lateness and delay in the publication of documents in French. The older members of the house will remember these complaints. The translators have always contended that the delay was due to the printing bureau. Canada is English by an immense majority, but it seems to have been forgotten that both languages were put upon an equal footing at confederation. In this country French is just as official as English. The statutes are not translated; they are supposed to be originally French. All documents should be printed simultaneously in both languages.
What would happen in this house if French members were to speak nothing but French, if they were to move amendments in French, raise their points of order in French, make their motions in French and ignore the English language completely? Where would we be? Could the business of this house be carried on? Those who are familiar with the work of this house will know what would happen. The French members have always made it a point to learn the English language, and I think this is greatly to their credit. I have known some of the most brilliant members of this house who, in their early manhood, knew hardly any English at all. They later became masters of the English language and they set a fine example to the English speaking members. I am glad to know that to-day it is becoming fashionable throughout Canada to learn French. If a Canadian wants to realize the importance of this language all he has to do is to go to Europe; unless he knows French he is lost entirely on the continent. English is the business language all over the world, but French is the language of the day in Belgium, in Switzerland and everywhere on the continent, as the minister himself will admit.
I am sorry I have only a few minutes and cannot fully discuss the bill, but the hon. member for Dorchester has discussed a bill which is not before the house; that is the unfortunate part of it. The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is a distinguished gentleman, an outstanding Canadian, a man who represents in this house a constituency which is largely French-Canadian, and it cannot be conceived that his object in bringing before the house such a measure is to deprive the French people of their constitutional rights, which, if this bill as it stands passes, they will not possess hereafter, but which they possess by virtue of the constitution which made confederation possible. We all know that without Quebec there would not have been confederation; Quebec was the connecting link between the maritime

provinces and Ontario. Those who are interested in the subject need only read the debates of confederation, the words of Sir. John A. Macdonald, Sir George Etienne Cartier, and others to realize that both languages are official; that Canadians, whether French or English, are equal in the eyes of the law and that in this parliament the French and English languages are equal. Of course this is not so in a number of the provinces, but it is fast becoming so. As people become more learned and know the advantages of two languages, they appreciate the value of a knowledge of French. I can remember some distinguished men who have entered this house, among whom I could mention two or three prime ministers, who have consulted me as to the best books to read in order to learn French rapidly and who admitted afterwards that they were sorry they were handicapped by not having begun earlier in life to learn the French language.
The question now before the house is: How should we give satisfaction to the two or three million French people living in Canada? If we are going to spend $250,000 a year to translate, as under the law we must, the translation should be done in accordance with the best traditions so that we shall get value for our money and the people will have these publications in their proper season. Fancy the English speaking members of the house having to wait for three days for the English Hansard, or sometimes six months or more for reports of some of the departments! That is the difficulty with which we have to contend. Similar complaints to those voiced by Thomas Chase Casgrain, former member for Montmorency, Jean Baptiste Morin, former member for Dorchester, and others, who sat here thirty-five years ago are rampant to-day. Almost every day w'e have people write us to send them such and such a report in the French language. AVhen we reply that we cannot do so because the report is not printed, they ask: When will it be printed? If the members of the house and of the committee which is going to study this bill want to know the real facts of the case, they should just summon the press gallery representatives of the French newspapers of Canada and find out how they are treated in the way of translation, how they are handicapped, how all documents, announcements and pronouncements are invariably thrown at them in the English language and they must translate them on the spur of the moment otherwise the French population of Canada, reading those newspapers, will be deprived of the advantage which they should possess.

Buffalo-Fort Erie Bridge Company
I understand the minister intends amending this bill very materially and making probably two sections of this new bureau of translation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not necessary to amend the bill in order to accomplish that.


Mr. MAKCIL:: I understand he intends to amend the bill if amendments suggested are shown to be advantageous.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can assure the hon. gentleman in that regard.


Charles Marcil: The minister knows the
difficulty of translation of parliamentary language; it is a language of its own. In parliamentary language there are forms and expressions which are not found in any other. Those who read the debates of the French House of Representatives will find that a large number of our expressions are unknown in the parliamentary language of France and that it is only with time, experience and study that a man becomes competent to translate parliamentary language. Therefore, if we have a staff specially trained in that work, it would be very unfortunate to disperse them, to put them to other work after they have become expert in the work they are at present doing. The same thing applies in the case of every other department. For instance, a man has spent years making a special study of mining, agriculture, finance, if you like, or any other branch and he is put at a moment's notice at some other work. The invariable result is that the work he will do will not be as good as that to which he is accustomed. I am sure the minister is willing under the circumstances that this bill should be materially amended, and he should remove any suspicion of doubt that the French people of this dominion are being unfairly treated in this matter. It is the duty of every member of the House of Commons to work to bring about a cementing together of and a better understanding between the people of this country, because therein lies its salvation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I entirely agree with the
hon. member.


Charles Marcil: Minorities, as the minister
knows, are always very sensitive in regard ^ to their rights, and if there is the least suspicion that they are going to be deprived of any of the advantages they now enjoy, a great deal of harm will be done. In the meantime I shall have to vote for the six months' hoist, but if, when the bill comes back from the committee for third reading, it is materially improved, I have an open mind and I shall dead with it then on its merits.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. II. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.) moved the second reading of Bill No. 13, an act respecting the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: It is not my intention at the moment to oppose the second reading of this bill, but I would like to call the attention of the house to it, particularly the attention of those members who may be on the private bills committee. There seems to be some misapprehension in the minds of hon. members, and also in the mind of the public, as to the position we put ourselves in when we vote for or against the second reading of a private bill. Those of us who were in the house when the Georgian Bay canal bill was discussed will recall the situation that arose then. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was then leading the opposition. The Prime Minister of the day propounded the view that when a private bill came up for second reading it got that second reading as a matter of course, unless the house was opposed to the principle of the bill. The hon. member for South Wellington accepted that view, but there was a difference of opinion between the two hon. gentlemen, the Prime Minister of the day contending that the principle of that bill was the construction of a canal, while the hon. member for South Wellington contended that it was the construction of the canal by private interests. So we had a sham fight in the house for three or four weeks, and finally the bill went to the private bills committee and was killed.
I make these remarks because of a report that appears in the Montreal Witness from its parliamentary correspondent referring to a private bill that was before this house a few days ago, providing for the establishment of a company to loan money. The remark is this:
The five Liberals voting for the bill were Hon. W. R. Motherwell, Hon. P. J. Veniot, J. L. Ilsley, F. W. Gershaw and Ross Gray, even after he had spoken against it.
I want to point out that it is not at all inconsistent for an hon. member to speak against a bill and yet vote that it be allowed to go before the private bills committee where the measure can be discussed on its merits and where those promoting the bill may have a chance to present their views. Private in-
122S	COMMONS
Buffalo-Fort Erie Bridge Company
dividuals certainly have a right to come to parliament and present their views to the private bills committee.
As I said, it is not my intention to oppose the second reading of this bilk As far as I understand the bill at the moment, I am opposed to it, but I conceive that it is quite possible for me to be opposed to it and yet be willing that it should go to the private bills committee to be discussed on its merits. I think it desirable that there be a full attendance at the committee so that we may hear the matter discussed from all points of view. Certainly if some of the objections that occur to me at the moment are not removed I shall oppose the bill not only in committee but when it comes back to the house.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Hamilton East):: I can state in two minutes my objections to this bill. They relate to section 1, and to paragraph 23 of the schedule, which says:
Bonds and property to be tax exempt. The properties of the Buffalo and Fort Erie public bridge authority shall be exempt from all taxes and assessments by the state or any municipality or municipal subdivision thereof and the bonds shall be exempt from taxation except for transfer, estate and inheritance taxes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if this principle is to be carried into the bill, I contend it is absolutely unsound. This bridge was not built for the benefit of the people at large; it was built to make money, and now having run into deep water like many other concerns during this depression they come to this house and ask for a change in the bill providing for their incorporation. If it is sound and logical to grant that exemption to this particular company, I think it is sound and logical that it should be granted to every business organization in this dominion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Humphrey Mitchell: -that finds itself in
difficulties at this time. I think it is a sound principle that this and every organization of like character should stand on its own feet.


Mr. HANBURY:: That is good Liberalism.


Humphrey Mitchell: It may be, but it is
sound common sense.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Quite a difference.


Humphrey Mitchell: I merely express this
opinion so that when the bill comes before the committee the committee will have some knowledge at least of what I consider the clause of the bill that is of sufficient im-
portance that it at least should be thrown out.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cahan for the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier.
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, after listening to my hon. friends opposite, this afternoon, discussing the stand taken by the press of this country on this bill No. 4; I wondered whether their mind had not been influenced by editorials which we have read of late. It might be interesting to know who organized and spread the campaign undertaken by a number of French Canadian newspapers, even before this measure was introduced in the house.
We did not intend, sir, to carry on a long debate over this bill. We had even hoped after the masterful statement made by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), followed by the convincing speech of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who is unquestionably an expert on the subject, that the house would have adopted the second reading and referred the bill to a committee.
However, our hon. friends on your left, sir, put up a concentrated opposition; however, I do not doubt it is genuine. But judging from the speeches delivered this afternoon, I cannot do otherwise than state that this opposition is directed by the general staff of the Liberal party and aims at influencing public opinion.
I listened, to-day, to the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland), who stated that this bill had been so draughted that it could be interpreted one way in one province and another way in another. Judging from the standard of speeches delivered, this afternoon and for some time past, my opinion is, that they were delivered in view of influencing public opinion and intended as political propaganda. I have, sir, not only read-
. Mr. VENIOT: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has just made a statement in French, with regard to the speeches made on this side of the house this afternoon, attributing a motive to the speakers on this side. He says that in those speeches hon. members on this side wish to influence the public for election purposes. He has no right to make a statement of that sort.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau


Onésime Gagnon: I humbly submit, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order is absolutely uncalled for, because the Minister of Marine is entitled to say that the speeches made on the other side of the house were intended as political capital. There is nothing unparliamentary in that.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) be good enough to elaborate the point of order? I did not quite comprehend it.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Marine, in his remarks, said he was convinced that the members on this side, in opposing the bill, were making their speeches with the main object of influencing the public for election purposes. He is attributing a motive to us, and he cannot do so.


Maurice Dupré: I have listened to the words uttered by the Minister of Marine, and I submit that they are absolutely in conformity with parliamentary procedure. No one was mentioned; it was simply an allusion to the fact that on the other side of the house * speeches were made with such and such a motive, merely a political motive.


Robert James Manion: On the point of order, I suggest in all frankness that a great many speeches made on all sides of the house are for the purpose of influencing public opinion. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister of Marine is ruled out of order for making such a statement, most of us, when we make speeches in this house, in which we endeavour to influence public opinion by explaining our position, would be ruled out of order.


Peter John Veniot: I do not suggest that we are not allowed to make speeches to influence public opinion. My point is that no hon. member has a right to stand up in this house and say to any other member, "You are making 'that speech to influence the public for political purposes." That is attributing a motive, and under the rules of the house no motive may be attributed.


Mr. ERNST:: Not an improper motive.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot believe that the hon. member for Gloucester is serious in raising the point of order.


Alfred Duranleau: I was stating, a moment ago, that a campaign had been cleverly organized, even before this bill was introduced in the house. And when I read in a newspaper that this bill was directed against French influence in this country, I greatly regretted that the author of this article had summarily set aside the
statement and the clear, sound precise and genuine explanations made in the house by the hon. Secretary of State. Moreover, that he had summarily disregarded a career well fulfilled, in the course of which, the sponsor of this bill, the hon. Secretary of State, has always given proof of fairness towards all races and languages in this country and shown much sympathy towards his fellow-citizens speaking the French language-no one can deny this fact-often at the expense of his popularity. I invite the author of this article to visit Montreal where he will meet in all quarters French Canadians who will uphold and praise the attitude which the hon. Secretary of State has always taken towards all races of this country. He will also become aware that, in his constituency, our colleague has no more devoted, sincere and enlightened constituents than those speaking the French language.


Mr FAFARD (Translation):: Is the hon. minister aware that the Secretary of State has no translator in his department and that he does not speak the French language.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: We shall have some.


Alfred Duranleau: Glancing over the speeches made by the opposition and reading the articles published in newspapers, we must conclude that the opposition to this measure can only come from an inexact or even false interpretation, to some extent, of the provisions embodied in it. After all, if we consider these speeches and articles, there are only four objections to the bill; first, it would deprive this house of one of its most cherished privileges; secondly, it would result in lowering the value and efficiency of the translation in the various departments; thirdly, it would make the position of translators in this country more precarious; fourthly, it would endanger the status of the French language in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, all these points have been fully discussed since the opening of this debate. I want to be as brief as possible, but I must admit that the first objection does not impress me very much. The house is the ' sole guardian of its own privileges, but it is never prevented to waive them from time to time in the interest of a more efficient conduct of public affairs. These privileges, however, are but a sequel to our duties as mem-i bers and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our primordial duty is to ensure, through sane and proper legislation for the country and its people, the wise conduct of public affairs.
1230	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau
Should our rights and duties, in the fulfilling of this task, become conflicting, and if the ones have to supersede the others, who is the member of this house who would dare maintain that our duties ought to give precedence or bow to our privileges? Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if this measure is a wise one, as such, if it is a proper one, if it is calculated to improve the translation service in this house and in all departments, would it 'become bad, as such, just because it would slightly infringe upon the privileges of the members of this house?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: There are many "ifs" in that.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard) says that there are many "ifs". If he listened to the speeches delivered on the other side of the house, he must have realized that all the arguments of our hon. friends opposite are based on "ifs".
Mr. Speaker, the second objection to this bill is that it will result in lowering the value and efficiency of translation in all departments. That is a serious objection, because it strikes the very principle of the bill; but I wonder, Mr. iSpeaker, where one can find either in the spirit or in the letter of this bill, any proof of the claims of our hon. friends opposite. In order to judge, you must first ask yourself whether the present system is giving all the results that you are entitled to expect from it and whether it works out efficiently and rapidly enough. It is an extraordinary thing that although our hon. friends made long and frequent speeches and carried on a splendid effort, not one of them cared to suggest any improvement that might be brought into the present system. It is surprising that it is the press of the country that complained most frequently and most violently about the present system, about the documents being published in one language only and also about the delay in the translation. I may add, Mr. Speaker, that- very often these complaints were fully justified. Therefore, it is strange that when we are about to remedy that condition, when we wish to improve the translation system through a bill that has been thought out and studied during many months by men who,
I believe, know something about translation, [DOT] it is strange indeed that these same newspapers, even before the bill was submitted to the House', protested most strongly against the improvements which we wanted to bring into the present system.
Is there one member in this house who will maintain that the present system is perfect?


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: Nothing id perfect in this world.


Alfred Duranleau: Will you say that there is no place in the present system for improvement, that there is no need to change it, considerably if necessary, in order to make it fully efficient? For it is the French race, the French section of this country that has had and still has to complain about the present system of translation. It *was for us to complain, because, quite often, the French editions were useless owing to the tardiness of the translation.
What we want to secure with this measure is precisely a more elaborate translation of all official public documents, a translation which might not be any better than it is now -because I do not wish to criticize our translators or the translation that has been done up to now-but which will be carried out in the shortest possible delay.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: There is
nothing to that effect in the bill.


Alfred Duranleau: The
idea of centralization seems to terrify our hon. friends of the opposition and especially the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). In his speech the other day, he depicted the continuous parade of " Baby-Austins " and messengers hurrying to and fro between the central bureau for translations and the different departments. More than that: he attempted to show the superintendent distributing work to his 87 or 88 subalterns and ordering, for instance, the specialist in geology to translate the report of the investigation on milk production and distribution. Better still: at certain times, my hon. friend for Ottawa seemed to think that the different specialized translators would leave all their knowledge at the door of the central bureau, which is also the fruit of his imagination, because no central bureau is mentioned in the bill; that question is left entirely in the hands of the superintendent or of the minister in charge of the department.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I said
nothing of the kind.


Alfred Duranleau: This
is a reasonable deduction from my hon. friend's remarks. He even went so far as to exhume the report made to this house in 1910, by Mr. Acbille Frechette, and which has since been quoted so often. That report had been made at the request of the Internal Economy Commission of this house following a special survey trip to Belgium and Switzerland. That report shows that Mr. MARCH 6, 1934	1231
Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau
Frechette proposed Belgium as a model. But, Mr. Speaker, what were the conditions in Belgium, in 1910, according to Mr. Frechette? This is what he says on this subject on page 4 of his report:
Each of the different departments has its own translation staff, except the department of Foreign Affairs, the occasional translation business of which is done by the very comprehensive staff of the Ministere des Chemins de fer, Postes, Telegraphes et Marine, counting sixteen members. Beside the work for the foreign affairs, this staff is also expected to do that of the Universal Postal Union, the international conventions and the proceedings of the peace conference. The Finance department has one translator proper; science and fine arts, two; interior and agriculture, two; war, three; justice, three; colonies, two; public works, one.
Briefly, 16 translators were centralized in one department and were at the same time doing the work of two or three other departments, while 14 others were scattered in the remaining departments. If I am not badly mistaken, even at such a remote period, as has been said this afternoon, we can discern the beginning of a system of centralization.
But will such a centralization be carried as far as the hon. member for Ottawa and some of his colleagues of the opposition seem to think? As I said a few moments ago, nothing in the bill justifies such a thought or supposition, and in his illuminative explanation the Secretary of State proved the contrary. In fact, nothing in this bill will prevent a translator, specialized or not, who has enough work for every day of the year, to remain in his present office while being subject to the supervision of the superintendent; that would entirely conform to the letter and to the spirit of the act. I say, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in this bill provides for the grouping in one office or in one building of all the translators, including those of the House of Commons and of the Senate. And I have been pleased to hear the Secretary of State declare that a special department would be organized for the translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate. The technical and specialized translators shall remain so under the new system resulting from this bill. Is it because they would be under a unified control, or under a minister responsible to this house, that the translators would cease to be employed as specialists? The contrary is evident, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. members of the opposition should do the Secretary of State the honour to believe that the superintendent would not be such a fool as to trust the translation of laws to a specialist in geology. The only conclusion which we may draw from the
speeches of my hon. friends is that the translators are going to be thrown helter-skelter in the different centralized offices. The superintendent, and the minister in charge also, will be acquainted with the competence and the special qualifications of each translator, and will distribute the work accordingly. In the first place, the object of this bill is to ensure a fair distribution of the work.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear! hear!


Alfred Duranleau: The
hon. Secretary of State has proved in black and white that such is not the case presently.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Rather
in black.


Alfred Duranleau: -and not one single member of the opposition has been able to say so. It is plain, too, that at the present time all the translators are not treated in the same way, both as regards promotion and as regards the work itself. Another thing we want,

and I feel convinced that the bill now before the house offers a means of obtaining it-is the translation of a greater number of documents from the different departments.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Hear, hear.


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: A greater
number 1


Alfred Duranleau: At the present time the number of documents to be translated is left to the discretion of the various deputy-ministers. Under the bill a chief will be appointed who will see to it that all public documents, from all the departments, will be translated into both languages.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Will he be given more authority than the deputy-minister?


Cyrille Dumaine: Section 6 of the bill refutes all that.


Alfred Duranleau: Our
translation service will be under a minister responsible to the people and to this house. As things are, Mr. Speaker, if we have any fault to find with the translation, we must complain to \ our Honour, and you have no responsibility in the matter; when the translating is under a responsible minister we will at least be able to obtain a hearing for our complaints and have things set to rights. I say that is extremely important for the French element in this country.
1232	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, what we want most of all is to ensure a service sufficiently prompt to permit of the simultaneous publication, in both languages, of all reports, bulletins and documents of immediate interest that a delay in translation might cause to become absolutely worthless, such as the French reports on the cattle industry, on dairy products and divers other farm produce, mentioned in "Le Devoir' of February 20th, over the signature of Mr. Albert Rioux.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: We
obtained simultaneous publication by getting away from centralization.


Alfred Duranleau: It is by having a competent superintendent who will see to it that the translating is done efficiently and rapidly, in all the departments-


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Will the hon. minister allow me a question?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend made his speech the other day without being interrupted.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I'll make another one.


Alfred Duranleau: I have only forty minutes at my disposal. The hon. member will have a chance to speak on the main motion; if he so wishes, he can then produce his arguments.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: He can also appear before the committee.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Read the article by Mr. Rioux.


Alfred Duranleau: The
fear exists, apparently, that the present bill will make it difficult, if not impossible, to recruit and to train specialized translators. This is another statement based on a supposition that is entirely gratuitous, that is, that the superintendent of the bureau will have no consideration for the proficiency of each translator, and that the men will be continually transferred, constantly shifted around from one place to another, as it has been alleged. It is absolutely unreasonable to presume any such thing. At the present time our foremost experts have assistants who are being trained under them. Do the hon. members of the opposition really believe that when the service is brought under one head this excellent practice will disappear? What is there to justify any supposition of that kind? After all one is bound to recognize that the minister

who will be made responsible for this service, the Civil Service Commission and the General Superintendent, who wiM be called upon to organize it with him, without being endowed with genius, will at least have ordinary intelligence and ordinary judgment.
Well-deserved praise has been given the initiative and the zeal shown by a number of translators who are forever on the look-out for technical information to perfect themselves in their art, who prepare dictionaries and technological manuals of all kinds, and who have established a system of reference-files where they store up their acquired data and their discoveries. Putting the service under one head will prevent, what has sometimes happened in the past, the loss of the fruits of such persevering study and research, and will facilitate the creation of a sort of library, of a. card-index system, that the effort of every translator will make more complete every day, and which will be an inexhaustible mine of information. In the past certain translators took all their notes with them when they left the department. Under a direction such as we intend to establish for this service, nothing of that sort can occur.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: They will simply laugh at the very idea.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I say it again, the intention is not to pile up the translators into one large office, nor under one roof, but to secure uniformity, as well as equalize results, in order to obtain greater production and higher efficiency in the translation service.
Once more, Mr. Speaker, it is indeed strange that, in all the speeches delivered against the proposal by the hon. members sitting at your left, and after which the sound argument put forward by the hon. Secretary of State and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), remains unimpaired, in ail these speeches, do I say, one would look in vain for the assertion that the existing system is faultless, that it fully meets with the requirements of the conditions at the present time as well as the legitimate demands of the public at large. But, when the hon. Secretary of State, who has given considerable time to the matter, introduces a bill drafted after due reflection and meant to put an end to legitimate causes of complaint, we are at once confronted with a mass onslaught from within the ranks of the opposition^ specially from the members representing my own province


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Quite so. Hear, hear!
MARCH 6, 1934	J233
Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau


Alfred Duranleau: [DOT]-the very one which, in the past, has had to suffer the most as a result of the delays we are endeavouring to eliminate.


Maurice Dupré: Hear, hear!


Alfred Duranleau: From
the very outset, in this debate, we have been told time and again that translation is a complicated art requiring a full knowledge of languages and even, quite frequently, a great sum of learning. We oftentimes hear hon. members extoll the high competency and the unceasing efforts of our translators, a tribute to which I am only too pleased to associate myself with as much sincerity as any one else, if not in so many words; we have heard the commendation of decentralization so ardently advocated, would it seem, in 1910, by Mr. Frechette who, after all, only approached the problem in so far as the debates of this house, the sessional papers and the legislation were concerned, a fact which detracts to a singular degree from the value of the conclusions it is sought to draw from his report. It must be pointed out that, the author of this report referred incidentally to the various departments of the government, for he had been appointed by the Commissioners of Internal Economy of this house for the sole purpose of reporting on the translation service of the house and of the Senate, a fact which, in my opinion, considerably lessens the importance of that report in this debate.
As I was saying at the outset, I read every one of the speeches delivered by my hon. friends; I have listened to those delivered this afternoon and I was wondering where, in these various speeches, could be found a single reason, a constructive argument warranting the continuation of a system which led to the deplorable state of affairs so clearly set forth by my hon. friend the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Labelle.


Jean-François Pouliot: You could
not have read my speech for I have not spoken yet.


Alfred Duranleau: The
other day, I heard, and then read, the speech delivered by the hon. member for Kamour-aska (Mr. Bouchard). He himself found fault with the present system. In fact, did he not complain of the translation of the treaty on the St. Lawrence ship canal? Therefore, it is to be inferred that my hon. friends admit that a change is necessary in the translation service.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is because it was translated without charge by a friend of the Secretary of State.


Alfred Duranleau: At least, so far as this bill is concerned, the change we are making is commendable.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is not
the result of translation and these changes are not contained in the bill now before the house.


Alfred Duranleau: My
hon. friend shall be given the opportunity of giving all the explanations he may desire to give at a later date.


Onésime Gagnon: He is the specialist in interruptions.


Alfred Duranleau: To the hon. members on the other side of the house we ask: Why such a strong opposition to this proposed legislation? The answer which we get is that it shall entail the elimination of comparatively high positions and lower some translator chiefs to the rank of subalterns. Mr. Speaker, I already stated, and I feel bound to say again, how I hold in high esteem the translators generally. I am pleased to pay tribute to their ability; I know that most of them, are not of the kind who would be content with getting through their actual work in a more or less indifferent manner; on the contrary, they are constantly delving into research work, following closely the evolution of languages, familiarizing themselves with recent discoveries and inventions, in order to add to their technical vocabulary-


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon.
minister differs with the hon. member for Labelle.


Alfred Duranleau: I am
giving my personal opinion; I agree with the hon. member for Labelle when he says that this measure is calculated to improve considerably the present conditions.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you agree with him, he must be wrong.


Alfred Duranleau: I thank the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He said
it just the same.


Alfred Duranleau: We are told, Mr. Speaker, that our translators were deeply moved by the announcement of this measure.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): And rightly
so.
1234	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Duranleau


Alfred Duranleau: They are uneasy and fear wholesale dismissals. Where will you find in the bill that is now before us and especially in the principle of this bill, the least thing to fear for these competent and hard working translators?


Jean-François Pouliot: If there are
dismissals, you will he held responsible for them.


Alfred Duranleau: They
will certainly not complain in the future when the work will be more equally divided, in order that one translator may not be called any more to translate 1,719 pages within the year, and another only a few pages.
Then did our translators and those who, in this house and outside, mean to hasten to their rescue, read carefully paragraph 7 of section 3 which promises plenty of work, much more than they had in the past, therefore surely preventing a reduction of the translating staff. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this section contains the sanction of a principle that has been perhaps imperfectly recognized in section 133 of the Confederation Act, And, protected as they are by the Civil Service Act, how could they fear any lowering in rank involving a reduction of salary? Again, it is not a concentration camp for translators that the measure is calculated to establish, but an intelligent centralization and even a rather mitigated one, in practice, of the various services, with the sole object to ensure a greater measure of efficiency. I do not see what could prevent the chiefs from remaining chiefs, because the superintendent to be appointed, as it was already stated, will not claim any relationship to the great man referred to the other day, who is known in history as Pic de la Mirandole. Our superintendent will not claim to be possessed of the learning and special knowledge of our chief translators. Therefore he will have chiefs in the various translation branches.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: So much the better.


Alfred Duranleau: His duty, if I understand the bill aright, will consist mainly in co-ordinating and distributing the work, with a view to having it carried out promptly, but without meaning to so teach anything to the specialists and technicians under him.
Having always in mind the interest of the translators, there is another aspect of the question that our hon. friends seem to have missed. Do they fully realize, that the present

system is liable to depreciate the value of the translation service, especially for the French language? With the tardiness and considerable delays that it allows, the present system will finally make the translation of many documents useless, because by being so delayed they have lost all their value.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is not
the translators' fault.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	It is not the
translators' fault; it is that of the departments.


Alfred Duranleau: It is
the fault of the present system, because the French edition of reports and journals of present interest are published only several days and even weeks after the English edition.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Whose fault
is it?


Alfred Duranleau: Then
what happens in such a case? The ratepayer, merchant, manufacturer or farmer, who needs it immediately, takes the habit of reading it in the English text and therefore does not ask for the French edition. Our hon. friends opposite should realize that when the deputy ministers see the French editions being piled up in the cellars, they cease having these documents translated, and that is at the expense of our race and of the French language.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): But it is their own fault, because the English original is sent too late to the translators.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will have the opportunity to answer; he might even be called before the committee.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: But he won't go.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): I won't go? I shall go if I am called.


Alfred Duranleau: If I understood correctly some of my hon. friends this afternoon, they have raised a weak opposition to the bill now before the house-I am speaking of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). He even suggested that it would be a good idea to refer the bill to a committee where it could be amended.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It certainly does need amendments.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friends will be called upon to make suggestions.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cardin
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): I suggest that you call before the committee the translators whom you have accused when they have no way of defending themselves.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I concur in the opinion of those who think that a measure such as the bill now before the house may be discussed without resorting to dishonest or disloyal arguments, and without inflaming public opinion. It is wrong to say that the present bill concerns only the French-speaking members and the people of the province of Quebec. It should interest as well all other members of the House of Commons, because translation is not only made from English into French, but also from French into English.
This bill rests on two principles which have been clearly defined by the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). By the way, I hope he understands that all those who oppose the bill have not the least intention of casting reflections on his personality, his character, his sincerity and his broad-mindedness. We have known him in public as well as in private life; we respect him as a private citizen as well as a statesman, and we have the highest consideration for his professional and legal ability. Therefore, this bill should be discussed in the light of the reasons and principles to which he has given expression in the course of his explanations. What are they? They are neither a safe-guard for the rights of the French language, nor a reinforcement of the position it occupies in the parliament of the country. It is childish to say so. Here are his reasons: economy and greater efficiency in translation. They are the only two arguments brought forward by the Secretary of State, and they are also the inspiration of this bill.
The translation of documents costs too much, and the printing costs too much because the translation is not ready in time. Those are the true reasons. It is useless to look elsewhere in trying to justify the position taken by the government, or in the desire of crowning with a halo the Secretary of State and the government for this so-called recognition of the principle of the rights of the French language. This bill adds nothing whatever to the rights of the French language, which shall continue to exist even if this bill be rejected or withdrawn. It does, not add one iota to the rights of the French language, as we have them to-day. In my humble opinion, I prefer the present recognition of the rights of the French language in the several departments to the recognition which would come only from a central bureau of translations.
Economy? Shall the enactment of the present bill result in any saving? Not at all. From the discussion and the answers given to the questions from this side of the house by the hon. members sitting at the right of the Speaker, an increase in the cost must be anticipated.
My hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) has just said that a greater number of books and documents will be translated than in the past. This should be more expensive. I have no complaint on that ground. But it is a flat denial of the argument of the Secretary of State who wants economy. Further, every member of this house knows by experience that centralization, in all spheres of human activity, has not resulted in economy. Generally speaking, the methods of administration have become worse when centralization has been introduced in the public services. It has resulted in poorer service at a higher cost. The centralization of all .the translators of the public service, or of certain translators will produce no saving in the cost of government. We shall see a great number of officials in charge of this new bureau of translations, an increase in the number of translators and supervisors, a new staff of employees who will be going forward and backward between the bureau, the different departments and the House of Commons; in other words a general increase in the number of employees. If there are, to-day, translators who are remiss in the accomplishment of their duty, there will be men directing this department who will earn their salary less than the translators earn it to-day: they will act as overseers.
The hon. Secretary of State said: It may very well be that a complete centralization will not be brought about in the one place, the one building; we may establish certain departments in certain government buildings, small staffs where a certain number of translators, accustomed to a particular line of work, will be retained under the direction of a special official. It is evident that this will incur additional expense. The more there are of these branch translation offices the heavier will be the appropriations voted to defray the cost of the translation service. Therefore, from the standpoint of economy, let us not deceive ourselves; it is childish to pretend that any saving may result from a like reorganization of the service.
Will there be an improvement in the translation? I doubt it. WThen instead of being under several heads who control them or who are supposed to control them, the translators will be brought together in one building, under the direction of one chief, it is quite
1236	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Cardin
possible that there may be just as much neglect as the translators are accused of today.
I think it is unjust to say that the translators attached to the different departments are not useful and do not do their duty. Among the translators-I make no claim to knowing them all; but I do know some of them-are some who are officials of sterling worth who render valuable service to their respective departments. In this service as in every other may be found certain civil servants who are not up to standard; but if we look into all the branches of the public service we find the same faults that the present bill seeks to remedy.
The translation will be not one whit better than it is to-day. It may well be, and I am quite prepared to admit it, that my experience is rather limited with respect to the translating done in the House of Commons. If I understand the matter aright that is where the evil lies that the hon. Secretary of State is trying to eradicate. Then why not restrict the reform to the translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate, adopt measures suitable to this category of translation, appoint a translator as chief of the service, and give him the requisite authority to direct the employees under his jurisdiction. Why not leave the translation in the different departments entirely independent of that done in the House of Commons and the Senate; in this way, as the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) so well pointed out, the translators at present attached to the various departments would remain in line for promotion in their respective departments. If these employees of the several departments, Frenchspeaking employees mostly, are organized into a central bureau or placed under a new director, they will lose their chance of promotion, will no longer be able to try for the position of departmental chief or of assistant deputy minister. Oh, I know quite well that the hon. Secretary of State told us beforehand that these men will be entitled to promotion in the translation bureau. But there the chances of promotion will be meagre indeed. When the hon. Secretary of State will have the power, under this bill once it becomes law, to order the transfer of a translator in the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) to the central bureau of translations, because of his exceptional proficiency, that translator will have to leave the work he has been doing in the Marine department and come under the direction of the translation bureau where 
he will be barred from all prospects of promotion, save the opportunities, few and far between, afforded by the bureau itself. He will be deprived of the advantages he enjoys at present in the department, where he can aspire to any position in that Department of Marine. You have there a serious consequence of this measure, brought to the attention of the house by the former Postmaster General and other hon. members; an argument that remains unanswered by our friends on the other side.
My very good friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has not answered it; my very good friend the hon. Minister of Marine has not answered it; and, foreseeing the objections, the hon. Secretary of State did not answer it either. He insisted that the translator could be promoted within the translation bureau. But promotion within the translation bureau would not have the same importance, far from it, as promotion in the different departments of the public service, as things are to-day. There you have a disadvantage; the employee will have fewer opportunities for promotion if this bill, in its present form, becomes law. In future those who enter the government service through the translation bureau will be deprived of their chances of rising to higher positions in our civil service.
Efficiency! I doubt that the proposed system, once adopted, will ensure greater efficiency. But if certain evils exist, if certain employees are remiss in their duty, why not deal with them in the translation service as they are dealt with throughout the government departments? Does the hon. Minister of Marine expect us to believe that if a translator, in his department, does not do his work properly but loafs away his time, that my hon. friend has not the necessary authority to make this man attend to business as he should? Why does the hon. minister wish to throw this responsibility on the superintendent of the Translation Bureau or on the hon. Secretary of State?
It may be that when we ourselves were administering the affairs of this country certain unpalatable things occurred and that we might be charged with neglect in certain instances. I do not agree with those who claim that the administration we set up was absolutely above reproach: like the present government, ours was made up of human beings, with the usual measure of human frailty. I say in all sincerity that if I were to be called once more to-day to administer the affairs of the Department of Marine there are certain things I would not go about in just the same way. There is always room for im-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cardin
provement in any situation; but I maintain that each minister should not be relieved of his due responsibility. The minister who has a translator directly under his authority is better fitted to make that translator toe the mark than would be any official appointed to preside over the destinies of a Translation Bureau. I repeat:	When errors or faults
crop up, correct them; indolent and careless employees, people who fail to give proper attention to the tasks assigned them, should be dismissed. When in any department certain employees are found who are not properly fitted for their work, do you reform that department, do you abolish it and merge it with some other department? Is it fair to solve the problem in such a roundabout way, when you can strike directly at the root of all the trouble? Once more I say: let the faults be corrected, you have all the authority you need.
I cannot accept the eloquent plea made by the hon. Secretary of State in explaining his bill, when he stated that he had to go outside the service to have a translation made of the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. OASGRAIN (Translation):: A pretty
weak argument.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty in imagining the hon. Secretary of State, with the English copy of the speech from the throne in his hand, going from one department to another looking for some one to translate it, and coming back to his own office without having found a translator. It may be that from a technical viewpoint, and with microscopic hairsplitting, one may conclude that, technically speaking, certain employees of the House of Commons, of the Senate and of the different departments, might refuse to do this work. Well, I am very humble if I compare myself to the hon. Secretary of State, I am quite a small man, intellectually as well as physically, compared to him. But, were I in his place, I would like to see the translator, employed by a government of which I was a member, who would have told me he refused to translate the speech from the throne. It appears to me that the government cannot very well be proud of t>he fact that they must publicly declare: We had to go outside the translation service to have the speech from the throne translated because we could not find a translator to do this work. It is certainly not an argument in favour of the bill; and if I were the Secretary of State I would not have advanced a reason of that sort in a public document. I am convinced that if the hon.
Secretary of State and the members of the government had applied to the officials of the House of Commons they would have found somebody to do this translation. Furthermore, if they had applied to some of the secretaries of the present ministers they would have found five or six only too glad to translate the speech from the throne, and their translation would have been of a high order. There would have been no necessity of going outside, and for a poor translation, at that. That is not an argument. Even supposing, from a purely technical standpoint and, I repeat, by splitting hairs with the aid of a microscope, the statement might be true, from a strictly legal point of view, there is a remedy to hand for a situation of that kind. Without interfering with what has been termed the privileges of the House of Commons and the Senate, this house could certainly pass a simple resolution saying that the debates translators shall be required to translate such and such documents under the direction of the House of Commons. A resolution of that kind would cause no disruption whatever and leave untouched a system followed since confederation; it would also meet all requirements in the way of translation.
So, Mr. Speaker, in the reasons put forward by my good friend, the distinguished Secretary of State, I fail to see any argument justifying the introduction of this bill. That instrument is called a bill but, strictly speaking, it is not a bill. Upon examination and after a single reading, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that is a mere statement to the effect that there shall be a bureau for translations and that all departments shall collaborate with that bureau. How will the new body, thus created, function? By means of regulations to be made at a later date by the minister appointed to administer that bureau. The powers of the superintendent or of the minister in charge of that particular branch of the service are also to be determined by such regulations as may be made at a future time. To-day, the only thing asked from parliament is leave to adopt regulations, the right for the Secretary of State, or any one else acting in his stead, to make regulations of his own choice or which the government in power at the time may be pleased to authorize. There is nothing else in the bill; it merely contains a statement concerning the establishment of a bureau for translations and the power to make regulations.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, this is not how it should be done and the opposition should


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I was paired with
the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. HEENAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis (Mr. Short). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BLAIR:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Charters). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOYES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Elgin West (Mr. Hepburn). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOWEN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SEGUIN:: I was paired with the hon.
Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendement.


Mr. GOULET:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon.
member for Northumberland, N.B., (Mr. McDade). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Verville). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is now on the main motion.
Mr. CA'HAN: If no one else wishes to speak, I intend to close the debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the Secretary of State speaks now, he will close the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, may I for the second time speak on the bill before the house? I have the right, after speaking to the amendment, to address myself to the main motion, and I do so for the purpose of drawing the attention of the house to some of the arguments advanced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). I listened with great attention to his remarks and I

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot
wish to congratulate him on the purity and eloquence of the English which he used while speaking in a tongue not his own. But I would have been better pleased had the hon. gentleman continued his speech in English so that the English as well as the French members might have understood the situation as he laid it before the house.
There was no necessity for the Solicitor General to heap eulogies upon the head of my good friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in order to convince this side of the house that the Secretary of State was broadminded and sincere in introducing this measure. I am sure the Secretary of State believes down in his heart of hearts that this is the only method of remedying an evil, if I may use that word, that for years has crept into the translation of the debates of this house and of public documents in general.
My hon. friends opposite who have spoken on this question, especially the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), and the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), threw across the floor in the face of French members on this side the taunt that we were influenced in our opposition to this bill by a desire to arouse an uncalled-for agitation in the public mind, especially in Quebec. Far be it from me to wish that anything I might say should be interpreted as an attempt to arouse any such feeling. I am proud of the fact that I am of French extraction. My ancestors came to this country around 1700 and they preferred to accept deportation at the hands of unjust officials of the home government rather than give up their rights so far as their race was concerned. We Acadian people of the maritime provinces long thought the blame for that injustice should have been placed upon the home government, but as we grew older and as the historians of the French Acadian race made researches, going not only to England but to France and searching the archives of those countries, they were able to convince us that the blame at that time lay, not with the home government, but with the unjust officials who were acting without the authority or consent of the home government. Therefore we Acadian people have changed our views somewhat; we are proud of being numbered among the French race of the Dominion of Canada, and being proud of that fact, had I thought the interpretation placed upon the bill by the Solicitor General was the correct one, I would have hesitated to some extent to oppose the measure as I have opposed it. But the reason I say it would have been better had the eloquent Solicitor General continued his speech in English is
that the house as a whole, English and French members, would then have seen at a glance that it was unjust and unfair to impute to the French members on this side a desire to raise the race cry. The whole contention of the Solicitor General was directed to an appeal to the French Canadian members on this side not to oppose the bill because it was giving them greater privileges than those contemplated under the British North America Act. I am going to quote a translation of the speech of my hon. friend, to show that it is poor grace on his part or on the part of the Minister of Marine or of the hon. member for Dorchester to impute the motives they have imputed to the French members on this side of the house. The hon. gentleman made the following statement in French:
May I, sir, summarize from a legal angle, by submitting the following argument: in a word, Bill No. 4 completes article 133; it implements the spirit in which article 133 shall be construed, or, if you wish, it is the recognition, in legal form, of what article 133 intimates but does not say. Article 3 of Bill No. 4 confirms, in a federal statute,-
And this is what I want the members of this house to listen to.
-the interpretation that we of the province of Quebec, have given to the spirit of article 133 of_ the British North America Act. In my opinion it is a step forward in the laying of our claims, and, sir, is this not the most essential aspect of the question?
I am sorry that the Solicitor General is so narrow in his outlook that he has left out the French part of the population of the rest of Canada. Then he goes on:
You must make a distinction between the principle and the accessory. Here, Mr. Speaker, the principle is the additional guarantee given to the French language and the sanction of rights unceasingly claimed during many years. The accessory is how, when, and by whom translations will be carried out.
In conclusion he says:
I appeal to my compatriots on the other side and to the French press, and I say to them: if my argument is wrong keep on the fight. But if I am right I call on them to cease firing on their own troops.
Was there ever a more deliberate attempt to raise the race cry in this house than that of the Solicitor General in that speech? Mr. Speaker, may I say to him that we French members on this side of the house have never brought into question the status of the French Language under the British North America Act as far as the parliament of Canada is concerned. We feel that in that respect the status of our language is fully safeguarded by section 133 of the British North America Act. An argument may be made
1242	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot
as to the status of the French language outside of parliament, that it has not found protection under section 133, but I am not arguing that point at present; that will be argued in due time if ever the question arises again. But let me say this: believing as we do that the status of the French language is protected as far as this parliament is concerned by section 133, the evil that exists in connection with the translation of the English debates into French can be remedied without enacting a measure that has aroused such strong opposition. Our friends on the other side who have spoken, dew though they were, seem to believe that they are the only ones to be looked upon as true champions of the French rights and the French cause in this' country. Let me say to my hon. friends that I have never been afraid to raise my voice in the province of New Brunswick-and for that matter in the province of Nova Scotia where I was brought up and where I lived until I was twenty years 0f ^-on behalf of my people, and I have always received a hearty response from a large number of those who differ from us in both religion and nationality. I want to pay that compliment to the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In opposing this bill we are actuated by motives just as sincere and just as honest as the motives which prompt hon. gentlemen on the opposite side to support it.
There is a remedy for the existing evil. It is not fair to criticize a measure unless one is prepared to submit something constructive. I have never contended that the translation system in practice at Ottawa is perfect; I know it is not. I know there are poor translators on the different staffs-not many, but sufficient, perhaps, to cause the question to be raised as to what can be done to improve the system. Let me, sir, offer some suggestions. First, have it arranged that each department shall have departmental reports ready before the fall of the year and handed to the translators before the English text of the report is printed. At present what do we find? Departmental reports in English are handed to the translators in many cases only after the English edition has come from the printing bureau. This suggests one way of avoiding t'he tardiness that has worked itself into the printing of the reports. Matters should be so arranged (that these reports shall be given to the French translators as soon as the English version is complete, or, better still, as twenty, thirty or forty pages of the copy are completed and certified by the proper authorities, those pages should be handed over

to the French translators. It would then be found that the French version would be ready to go to the printer within two or three days after the English version is ready. In this connection it is said-and I hope the Secretary of State will not take umbrage at what I am going to say-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I fully agree with what the hon. member has said so far.


Peter John Veniot: It has become an almost universal practice among ministers of the crown-I am not going to include myself in this category; for when I was in the government these reports were ready in time-to delay sending to the printers until the fall of the year the reports for the year ending the previous Mareh 3lst. If the minister would issue an order that these reports must be ready soon after parliament prorogued, say the last part of July or the early part of August, there would be no further cause for complaints about tardiness in the printing of those reports. I do not think that I am far astray when I say that the Secretary of State himself is a sinner in that respect. It may be that 'the excess of work in his department, and the necessity for his travelling to Europe on important Canadian affairs, has put him in the position where he could not see that that work should be carried on in the manner in which I suggest.
Third, do not pass documents to persons outside the service for translation. Now, the Secretary of State cannot make me believe- and I always like to accept his word-that of necessity he was compelled to go outside the service to get somebody to translate certain important documents. He did not tell us that he had applied to the various departments for the purpose; he did not tell us that he could not find a competent translator in any of the departments to do that class of work. I say to the Secretary of State the implication is that among the translators no one could be found to do the work.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is true, nevertheless.


Peter John Veniot: I should like to accept my hon. friend's word, but I cannot accept it, knowing the qualifications of certain translators in the employ of the government.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But they were not under my control or direction.


Peter John Veniot: What did the ex-Minister of Marine say? He would like to see the translator that would refuse, should the Secretary of State make a request, to comply with that request.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have seen some.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: Then you should have done your duty and you did not do it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They are not under my
control. If the hon. gentleman wishes to provoke a full discussion of the weaknesses and frailties of the present translation system, he had better continue along that line, because I am prepared to go into a discussion from which I have refrained absolutely up to the present moment.


Peter John Veniot: The Secretary of State has refrained from revealing the contents of some secret investigation he made, and this house is entitled, especially when a bill of the kind comes before it, to have that information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It will have all the information. If this goes to a committee for investigation it will have ample opportunity to ascertain the facts.


Peter John Veniot: I understood the hon.
gentleman was going to close the debate; he had better wait until I am through.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then please don't address your remarks to me personally.


Peter John Veniot: I am addressing them to the Secretary of State, not personally to the hon. gentleman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot in this parliament separate myself from my official position.


Peter John Veniot: I am addressing the Secretary of State through the Speaker.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is better.


Peter John Veniot: Now let me go further. Fourth, do not allow young bilingual clerks and typists to handle the translation of any documents. This is carried on too much and I know it, and the Secretary of State agrees with me. No. 5: With reference to the debates of the commons, see that a typewritten copy of the English transcript is handed to the Commons staff of translators just as soon as the English reporters can furnish it, and have the French translators begin translating when they receive that typewritten copy. Instead of doing that, what happens? Why, Mr. Speaker, the French translation of Fridays' debates is not out yet-why? Because the French translators are not allowed to handle the translation of these debates until after they have gone to the King's Printer and come out, not in galley form, but on loose page forms and transferred to the translators of the Commons and Senate for publication. Is that fair? Mr. Speaker,
the Secretary of State I believe knows that; and I believe he has known it for some time. Why then did he not attempt to apply that remedy?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know more than that. I know that the debates of one of the chambers of this parliament, which should have been in in September, 1932, are coming only within the last month, into the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for printing- more than one year's delay. Talk about three or four days!


Peter John Veniot: Is that the fault of the translators?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know, but it is a shameless condition.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is leaving that impression and that is why I ask the question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know that it is the fault of the translators.


Peter John Veniot: No. 6: Weed out any irn-competent translators. I would not stand for a moment having in the translation service of the country any man who did not carry on his work faithfully and properly. Weed them out and put in men who will do their work properly.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we were told the other evening by the Solicitor General-and if I quote him incorrectly I hope he will put me right; I do not wish to misquote him-that translators will not be removed from departments to the central bureau if the heads of the departments do not wish it. I understood from him that that was what he had in his mind. Now, if that is the case what will happen? The Secretary of State has told the house that there will mow be two branches of the translation bureau, as I understand; one will be the branch in charge of the translations of the House of Commons and Senate, and the other will be the branch in charge of the translators from the various departments who will be transferred there. If what the Solicitor General says is correct, what will happen if ministers of various departments refuse to allow their translators to go to the central bureau? There is absolutely nothing in the act that compels them, and therefore you will have a disarrangement of the whole shooting match, so to speak.
I have another objection to the central bureau; I find it in my notes and I will deal with it right away. That is to say, there will be no privacy, as in the various departments, in connection with the translation of important documents. Perhaps forty or fifty
1244	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot
or sixty from the various departments will form the central bureau, and there cannot be that privacy which exists in the various branches of translation of the different departments. Again, may I call the attention of the Secretary of State to this fact? There is nothing in the bill which compels the production at an early date of the reports from the various departments. No doubt, when a close scrutiny is made of this bill, the Secretary of State and the committee will discover things that are lacking, which we may not discover at the present moment. I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to that part of it. Under this bill there is no control given to the chief superintendent of the bureau over the production of papers for translation. That being the position I cannot for one moment understand how it will be possible to create greater efficiency unless some of the methods I have suggested are adopted. If they are adopted there is no necessity for a central bureau; if they are adopted the remedy is easy, and the evil could be eliminated without the organization of what must become a very costly bureau. It is well known that concentration or centralization in all branches of government are, in the end, more costly than before centralization has taken place. What is necessary to-day, as I stated when I spoke previously, is specialization. If specialization in translation is carried to the proper point we shall not have the spectacle of the enormous number of mistakes that the printer has to correct after the proof is read.
While I am on that point, let me ask the Secretary oif State how it is that in talking about extra costs incurred because of these numerous mistakes he did not at the same time take the house into his confidence and tell us what cost was involved in the correction of the English version.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The cost which I mentioned applies to both the translation of the English into French and of the French into Flnglish.


Peter John Veniot: That is not what I asked. There is an English version published entirely in English, which is not a translation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It contains translations.


Peter John Veniot: In many cases they do not contain translations.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is preliminary copy
we get from day to day.


Peter John Veniot: No. Some of the departmental reports are not translated into French; many of them are not. None of the reports of the Department of Mines is translated into French.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which one does the hon.
member say is not translated?


Peter John Veniot: I say there are several.
You are in a better position to find out than I am.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have a complete list before me.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, and you may deal with it. The Secretary of State has told us on many occasions he has had to procure outside help for translation. In particular he mentioned the translation of the speech from the throne. Hon. members know that the speech from the throne contains expressions to be translated into French which would almost require the services of a technical translator. Many of the ordinary translators do not begin the work of translating such a document having in mind the thought that one cannot attribute to His Excellency the Governor General the first person singular. In many instances that mistake is made.
I do not know who translated the last speech from the throne, nor did I attempt to find out. I do know, however, that it is an example of the worst French that has ever appeared on paper. I make this reference, sir, in order to prove my argument that specialization is necessary. Had this document been given to a translator who had specialized in such documents, the errors which have crept in would have been avoided. I do not pretend to be an authority on the French language. Unfortunately for me I did not have the opportunity of obtaining an education in my native tongue; my tuition was entirely in English. But I do know the significance of a translation from English into French which does not indicate in French the meaning of the English text. Let me refer to one or two points in the speech from the throne in connection with which the translation must be criticized. I find the expression:
You are summoned for the dispatch of public business at a time when there are sound reasons for believing . . .
And so on. What translation do we find? This is the translation:
Au moment ou je vous reunis pour expedier les affaires du pays, de fortes raisons . . .
And so forth. Where does His Excellency the Governor General say "je vous reunis pour expedier les affaires du pays"? He says: "You are summoned," and it should have been easy for the translator to find a phrase which would give a proper translation. Let us consider another translation which puts an entirely different meaning on one part of His Excellency's speech. Referring to the unem-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupuis
ployed young men in the camps, it is stated in the speech placed in the mouth of His Excellency by the government, that these men are employed in the camps because they lack employment. In the French translation the impression is left that they are not so employed because they are out of work but because they are unmarried. That is an entirely different version from the one which appeared in the English text.
Then, referring to the trade arrangements with Germany and Austria, what do we find? His Excellency refers to the favoured tariff treatment given by those nations to Canadian products. The French version does not refer to the products of Canada receiving such treatment, but indicates that the tariff of the other countries is receiving it. I could go on with more examples, but there is one remarkable rendition of English into French to which I wish to refer. His Excellency uses the expression, "after the fullest discussion," and 1he translation of the words "fullest discussion" appears as "d'une abondante discussion." It would not take a Frenchman versed in the principles of translation to give a better translation than that. Who ever heard of "abondante" in that sense? Nobody.
I could give many other instances, but before concluding may I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the interpretation placed by the Solicitor General upon section 3 of Bill No. 4, that there is a greater status given to the French language in the parliament of Canada. As I have stated before, under section 133 of the British North America Act the status of the French language is recognized. But the Solicitor General states that we have before us a bill which, by act of parliament, will give a still greater status to the French language. When the Secretary of State rises to conclude the debate, will he say whether he is prepared to subscribe to the interpretation placed upon Bill No. 4, so far as the French language is concerned, by the Solicitor General?


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, may I briefly express my views of the present discussion? I have not the presumption of being able to add much to the speeches delivered on both sides of the house; however as the representative of the constituency of Laprairie-Napierville, destined to disappear from the electoral map, I deem it my duty,- on behalf of my constituents,-to state my views on the present bill.
Previous to discussing the merit of this measure, I am greatly pleased to associate myself with the hon. members who preceded me in this debate in expressing my appreciation and proclaiming the ability, equity and broadmindedness of the Secretary of State, the sponsor of this bill. I take pleasure in expressing to the honourable Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) my sincere appreciation of the distinguished tone of his remarks and of the high plane on which he has placed this question. I think it is perfectly useless, in an assembly like this, to indulge in vulgar personalities, and it is a real pleasure to hear an honourable member of this house, from any party, speak with dignity and respect the opinions of his opponents, while upholding his own views.
It has been a labour of love for me to study in all its details the history of my country. I have noticed in our parliamentary history that in the time of John A. Macdonald, Laurier, Tarte, Lemieux, Tupper and all the other illustrious men who have graced this parliament, public affairs were always discussed in the same spirit that the honourable Solicitor General has shown in the present debate. It seems to me that we should be inspired by that exalted spirit of our forefathers, and that we should be respectful of that tradition in this house. It is for that reason that I take the liberty of expressing my sincere gratification to all those who have spoken in the spirit we have noticed in the Solicitor General's remarks.
In the part I intend to take in discussing this bill, I shall give first place to the personality of the honourable member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Our honourable friends sitting to the right of the Speaker attach much importance to his authority. Mr. Speaker, I shall say that since my early youth I have followed closely the political struggles which have characterized the history of recent years, and I have always taken great interest in the speeches and opinions of the honourable member for Labelle. I have not always shared his views, but I have always had some admiration for his character. Although I dislike violence in discussion, and while admiring the great moderation shown by our illustrious leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I used to take pleasure in going to the political meetings where Bourassa was thundering with his fervent eloquence and proclaiming his patriotism, which nobody ever questioned.
We must admit that times have changed. I do not think that the honourable member for Labelle, with his customary modesty would deny or resent my opinion that he was representing no other views than his own when he spoke in the present debate. He certainly was not expressing the opinion of his electors, and
/246	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupuis
notwithstanding all the respect we may have for his character, I do not think that the people of the province of Quebec would follow him in the direction he has taken a few days ago.
Mr. Speaker, any man may change his own mind. I think Mrs. Asquith said one day that only God and fools never change their mind. She was perfectly right. The honourable member for Labelle has changed his mind many times in the course of his career. That may be a proof of his intelligence. But too frequent changes of mind may be the cause of errors. In my humble opinion, the honourable member's attitude towards this bill may be one of the worst blunders of his political life. The honourable member is undoubtedly sincere; nobody will question his integrity or his sincerity, but he may have erred.
On the same subject, I shall call the attention of honourable gentlemen opposite to the opinion of a man who ranks high in the history of our country, especially in the history of the great movement which had the honourable member for Labelle as its chairman and leader for a good number of years, I mean the nationalist movement. I am going to quote the words of one of the principal apostles of that movement, Mr. Oliver Asselin. Referring to the honourable member for Labelle, his old comrade of the nationalist movement, he said in the course of an interview given to a newspaper, on June 2nd, 1925:
The contradictions which are to be found in the last twelve or thirteen years of Mr. Bou-rassa's political career would fill a large volume.
I shall not read the rest of that article, and I have not quoted that paragraph in any derogatory sense to the honourable member for Labelle. He would be the first to have a good laugh at it. I only wish to say to the honourable Solicitor General and to the other members opposite, that they make a mistake in relying too much on the authority of the honourable member for Labelle, as he did in his eloquent speech of yesterday in favour of this bill.
Allow me now, Mr. Speaker, to discuss certain points of this bill. The honourable Solicitor General says that section 3 of the bill shall result in greater efficiency in the translation services. But he insists especially on the point that the rights of the French language are enlarged and made more secure by this bill. He gave us his interpretation of section 3. But he did not say a word of section 6 .
I respectfully submit that, from the legal standpoint, section 3 has not the force claimed for it by the hon. Solicitor General. The section says:

3. (1) There shall be a bureau under the minister, to be called the Bureau for Translations, the duties and function of which shall be to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the Parliament of Canada and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament, or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
For the accurate understanding of the consequences of this section and should add, after the word " correspondence," that the minister under whose authority the department will be placed, will be empowered to decree, by order in council, under section 6 of the same bill, what documents are to be translated, and the said documents will be translated on the order of Secretary of State. To prove this, may I be allowed to read section 6?
6. (1) The minister, with the approval of the governor in council, may make all regulations which are by him deemed necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the provisions of this act.
Section 6 goes further still. Here is subsection (2):
(2) Any such regulation so approved by the governor in council in pursuance of this act shall be of the same force and effect as if it had been enacted herein.
The broadmindedness of the hon. Secretary of State is admitted by all the members of this house, without distinction of party. But what guarantee have we that at some future time there may not come on the scene a Secretary of State, of whichever party it may be, who will take a narrow-minded view of the situation and, for instance, restrict the use of the French language in the various departments, by having translated only such documents as he sees fit? He is empowered, under section 6, to have translated only such documents as he deems proper. That part of bill 4 causes some anxiety. I submit that the powers granted the minister in charge of the translation service are far too wide and may lead to radical departures, the consequences of which can readily be foreseen. We should not grant such wide powers to any one individual; let us keep our prerogatives.
Mention has been made of privileges. I think the hon. Secretary of State admitted that when the bill is up before the committee he intends to move that the translation service be divided into two branches. But then, to repeat the question asked by the former Minister of Marine, why bring down a bill for the purpose of regulating the translation service in the House of Commons

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupuis
and the Senate? This house has the power to regulate the said service by a resolution of its own. I will go even further than the hon. member for Richelieu: I say that the government, by an order in council, can regulate the translation service in the House of Commons and in the Senate, just as the Senate has the power to regulate its own translation.
We are told that the privileges of this house are not affected. It seems to me that the British people, and, following in their wake, the Canadian people, have, for generations past, fought enough and striven enough, at the cost of untold sacrifices, to gain the privileges, the prerogatives and the rights that we possess; and we should not consent to have them done away with through any such bill as this; we should not allow any further breach in the constitution.
The British North America Act, section 18, defines the privileges and the powers of the House of Commons. Section 18 was substituted in 1887, for the previous section. This section provides that no act passed by parliament must exceed the privileges that the House of Commons presently enjoys. I quote, in English:
-but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament cf the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof.
It is evident, therefore, that the section was drawn up with the most scrupulous care, so as to jealously preserve the prerogative of this house. We are told that the matter is not one of importance. I noticed, a while back, that the hon. Minister of Marine said that no importance attached to the sacrifice of these privileges, if the rights of the French tongue were increased thereby. I take the liberty of quoting his hon. leader to contradict him.
In his speech on the address, at the beginning of the session, speaking on the subject of titles and the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, January 30, 1934, the right hon. Prime Minister said, page 100 of Hansard, speaking of the House of Commons and of its members:
They may pass a resolution, if they so wish, asking, nay instructing the Prime Minister by a majority of the chamber that they do not wish any further recommendations to be made.
And he added:
That privilege lies in this House of Commons. But I do entreat those who are concerned about the maintenance of our institutions, who love our constitutional liberties and realize the extent to which they rest upon the exercise of
prerogative, and extent of which some have little understanding because they have not investigated, not for one moment to conclude that the House of Commons by a majority vote in 1919 could divest the soverign of this empire and of this dominion of the prerogative which he possesses in respect of honours and awards.
If I may interpret freely the words of the right hon. Prime Minister, I would earnestly urge the hon. members opposite to abstain from concluding that the House of Commons, by its vote on the bill now being considered, can divest itself of its prerogatives which are in respect of constitutional liberties secured as a result of the struggles waged by our ancestors.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how it happens that, in this year of our Lord 1934, the government decided to introduce this bill. Was it really a case of emergency? Would it be that the defects referred to by the Secretary of State and concerning which information was denied to us, are of such seriousness, so far reaching that, in his wisdom, he deemed it necessary to introduce his bill at the present time? Could he not have waited another year or so, or, as was quite properly pointed out by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), wait until the house had obtained further information through a full investigation, by a committee of the house or a royal commission, of the charges laid? Why the urgency in connection with the bill? I do not know. I think the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa) himself has given us the real reason. We are told that the bill will result in a considerable saving of public funds. A few minutes ago, with the eloquence that characterizes him, the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) has shown that instead-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: You should not spoil his speech.


Vincent Dupuis: -instead of resulting in a saving, the proposed system would prove most costly.
The hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge, may I say incidentally, will be kind enough to refrain from interrupting me. I think he should save up his energy in order to obtain from the government a million dollar subscription in behalf of the university of Montreal. That would offset to some extent the aspersions made by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). Mr. Speaker, I fail to see what motives are actuating the government in pressing the bill. From my hon. friends opposite, and particularly the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), I may inquire whether they could not have devoted the energy, the time

Translations Bureau-Mr. Dupuis
and the money now being spent in connection with this totally unwarranted bill, to a better end than that now sought by them, to more urgent and' worthy matters. Surely, in the constituency represented by the honourable Minister of Marine, there must be some people in want. Far from me the idea of appealing to popular feelings, but after all, we must be mindful of the people since we are their representatives, we must realize their hardships, their needs, and remember the promises made to them in order to come into power. So, I urge the hon. members on the other side to implement their pledges instead of exerting themselves to secure the passing of a bill which perhaps might be considered in days of prosperity but should never have been introduced at a time when hardships prevail in every home, despair is assailing the hearts of the people, and doubts are entertained as to the future ahead of us. AVould it not be more useful and a hundred fold more appropriate for the honourable members of the government to try to redeem their promises of 1930? These pledges have been so often recalled in this house that it would be a waste of time for me to mention them once more. The government knows what was promised. In order to avoid being considered as vain boasters, as men lacking in sincerity and unmindful of the people, the members of this government should, from this very day, devote the time we are spending now in this house on a bill that could perhaps be considered at a later date, for which there is no urgency to the passing of measures likely to bring relief to the people, and thus redeem the pledges taken by their leader as well as the false promises made after him.
I would ask the honourable minister, whom I hold in great esteem, with whom I have always dealt fairly and whom it is my intention to always treat with the fairness that should become a representative of the people, to redeem the promises he made in his constituency and elsewhere in connection with the Victoria bridge, when he undertook to abolish or reduce the tolls charged for the use of that bridge, in the interest of the farmers of the south shore who transport their products to Montreal.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	That
has no connection with this bill.


Vincent Dupuis: Could he not better employ the time he spends uselessly and come to the relief of farmers who are on the verge of starvation, and whose selfdenial is so greatly admired by all? The Canadian farmers, whatever race they belong

to, have set an example to all the countries of the world as well as to our various social classes. They have shown their courage and self-denial in the present crisis. But the people's patience and spirit of sacrifice must not be taken advantage of. It is high time that the hon. gentlemen who hoisted themselves to power through pledges that they soon forgot, although they may have been genuine at the time, it is high time, I state, that they redeem these pledges. The people clamour for relief, the more so because members of this government made promises which then seemed genuine.
To use the words, sir, of one of the greatest geniuses the world has known, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Canada has her eyes on you, she expects you to redeem your pledges, she awaits your help. I do not expect you to relieve the crisis which, at present, prevails over the whole world; however, I am honest enough to admit that the crisis has somewhat to do with the distress existing, to-day. May I ask hon. gentlemen opposite whether they were as frank in 1930? Why did hon. gentlemen not mention that the distress which had made its first appearance in 1929, was the result of a world wide crisis? Yet, at that period, the people were more prosperous than to-day. They are becoming impatient. Of all nations, the Canadian people have shown the greatest fortitude. No doubt they are still willing to bear up; however faced with the distress of the people, hon. gentlemen must act, they must discontinue these useless discussions, these measures which have no earthly reason to exist; relieve the people and they will be grateful to you. What I desire-hon. gentlemen also desire- is the welfare of our country. The constituency I represent will disappear after parliament is prorogued; let the government fulfil its promises and I shall support it. I shall willingly lend a hand to the hon. Minister of Marine, if he will only redeem one-tenth of the pledges of his leader! Are hon. gentlemen ready to redeem these pledges?
The hon. Solicitor General explained the difference between the principle and the accessory; he informed us that the principle was an additional guarantee to the rights of the French language which the bill assures us. That is establishing such a fine distinction between section 133 of our constitution and this bill, that I am at a loss to follow him. The subtlety is so great that my answer to the hon. Solicitor General is: of what service are the laws which are not put into practice?

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan
I do not wish to appeal to race prejudices and my hon. friend the Solicitor General has neither the right to do so. Whatever may be the races which form the population of this country, I am certain that the monopoly of justice, equity, truth and of all that is good in the human heart is not centred in one race, in particular. It does not belong more to the Canadians of French origin than to the Canadians of English or Scotch origin. It is in the heart of all well thinking citizens -and they are the majority. I place more trust, sir, in what is good in my fellow-citizens, whatever religion or race they belong to, than in any useless law text. To use, in closing my remarks, the thought of one of the greatest writers of modern France, may I say:
What matters whether justice is embedded in the law, if it is not deep in the heart. And if the heart is bad of what good is the equity which governs the law. Keep the compass and the level away from the crafty surveyor, for with well adjusted instruments, he will apportion unfairly. As long as men are misers and cruel, they will interpret the kindest laws cruelly and will despoil their brothers with words of love.
Mr. Speaker, the law counts for little. It is the spirit of the law, the spirit born from feelings existing in the heart which counts. I shall close my remarks by stating that the whole of this discussion is futile; we have thrown away considerable money uselessly; we have wasted too much time in the discussion of this bill, and were I permitted to make a suggestion to the government, I would say: Set aside all these measures, do not endeavour to decoy the people with such humbug as that of the inquiry on the spread of prices. The government endeavours to becloud public opinion with investigations such as the committee on agriculture held on milk, last year. I ask the hon. Minister of Marine, as well as all his colleagues: Where is there a farmer who sells his milk at a higher price since this inquiry was held? What authority has this house to interfere, even by a whit, with the rights the farmers possess in each province, in connection with milk? This question is within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures; however, hon. gentlemen opposite wished to justify themselves by holding this investigation and it had absolutely no results. At present, there is an endeavour to lull the public by holding investigations such as the spread of prices, the radio and another one, the name of which has escaped my memory. Forget all this useless legislation and get down to brass tacks so that the people may say:	Party lines have
been broken, we shall support you if you
come to our relief-the government has set aside party strife, they endeavour to prove their goodwill, give us proof of this goodwill and I feel certain the Canadian people will feel happier than at the present time.
Hon. C. II. CAHAN (Secretary of State): Mr. Speaker, no one has been more surprised than I at the reception which tihis bill has received from certain of my hon. friends who sit to your left. There is evidently a misapprehension in the minds of my hon. friends who think that this bill is projected to attain some partisan end or some political advantage. I can assure them that I was never les9 partisan than when I introduced this bill and endeavoured to place it fairly before the house for consideration of hon. members on both sides. I find that there is a considerable difference of opinion, but I trust that when this bill is referred, as it certainly will be, to the select special committee, those who are interested will appear and give evidence with regard to the utility of this measure.
There are some matters in connection with the present translation system which must be amended. A political institution cannot survive unless it is efficiently maintained and utilized as an instrument of public service. The present translation system is defective. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot), even the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), and other hon. members have suggested that modifications and changes might be made in the present system which would prove to be of great public advantage.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is i>t the desire of the house to continue the discussion of this bill or to adjourn, it being now eleven o'clock?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 7, 1934