1934-02-27

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Stevens presented the second report of the special committee appointed to inquire into price spreads and mass buying and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Railway Act (rates on grain).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of replying to a question put to me the other day by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) in which he called into question the figures published in the Commercial Intelligence Journal and in the report of the bureau of statistics. The hon. member pointed out that in his opinion there were certain discrepancies as between those two sets of figures, and at page 916 of Hansard he said:
One can imagine how an exporter or importer would be deceived by figures like that,- 74726-62
And further he states:
If it is not useful and if it is not accurate, what is left?
He invited me to look into the matter, which I have done, and in justice to the importance of the matter and the desirability that the public should be assured of the accuracy of published figures I desire to make a brief explanation which I think will clear up the whole matter to his entire satisfaction.
Briefly, the complaint was that in connection with the exports of canned salmon from Canada over quarterly periods, the figures of the dominion's exports did not agree *with the figures of the British imports for the same period. The reasons are as follows: Exports to Great Britain going from the Pacific coast would take nearly a month to arrive in Great Britain, and it is quite understandable that a very substantial portion might be shipped from the Pacific coast in one quarter and not reach the British Isles until the next quarter. In the second place the imports in Great Britain are set forth in hundredweights of 112 pounds while exports from Canada are set forth in the Canadian standard of 100 pounds. If one will take the year 1933 it shows the following: Exports of canned salmon from Canada to Great Britain amounted to 11,151,800 pounds. Imports into Great Britain from Canada amounted to 11,397,680 pounds, almost exactly the same; the slight variation might be accounted for by the possible non-arrival of a shipment within the year period.
I have another statement which I will hand to Hansard which shows in detail the monthly, quarterly and annual exports in hundredweights and the imports into the United Kingdom, from the United Kingdom figures. In explanation of the statement I might say that it shows 111,518 hundredweights of 100 pounds exported from Canada, while the imports into the United Kingdom are shown at 101,765 hundredweights of 112 pounds. The total figures, as I said a moment ago, are very close in actual pounds. This statement, which shows the monthly, quarterly and annual exports from Canada and imports into the United Kingdom will give to the hon. gentleman the assurance he requires that the figures are quite accurate, and that the importer or exporter may have no fear or alarm as to the accuracy of the figures published in the government publications.
The figures are as follows:

97S
Cairo Postal Congress

Canada's Domestic Exports of Canned Salmon to the United Kingdom contrasted with United Kingdom Imports from Canada
Exports from Canada 1933
January	
February	
March	
April	
May	
J une	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
Total-1933	
Imports into United Kingdom 1933
J anuary	
February	
March	
April	
May	
June	
July	
August	
September	
October	
November	
December	
Total-1933
Cwt.	Cwt.		
100 lbs.	100 lbs.	Pounds	Pounds
7,068		706,800	
656		65,600	
5,254	12.978	525,400	1,297,800
			
128		12,800	
5,520		552.000	
11,717	17,365	1,171,700	1,736,500
			
6,412		641,200	
30.567		3,056,700	
18,441	55,420	1,844,100	5,542,000
12,162 4,190 9,403		1,216,200 419,000 940,300	
			
	25,755		2,575,500
			
111,518	111,518	11,151,800	11,151,800
Cwt.	Cwt.		
112 lbs.	112 lbs.	Pounds	Pounds
11,727		1,313,424	
7.230		809,760	
1		112	2,123,296
			
2.032		227,584	
3.145		352.240	
3,183	8,360	356,496	936,320
8,318 7.049 11,822		931,616 789,488 1,324,064	
			
			
	27,189		3.045,168
31,049 10,124 6,085		3,477,488 1,133,888 681,520	
			
	47,258		5,292,896
			
101,765	101,765	11,397,680	11,397,680
Note.-For the calendar year 1933 the corrected figure for the United Kingdom is 100,988 cwt. or 11,310,656 pounds.



CANADIAN LEGATION AT TOKYO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, some nine months ago, I think it was on May 24, 1933, an order of this house was passed authorizing the tabling of some orders in council and some other documents in respect of the Tokyo legation. I do not wish to hurry the government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: -but I
should like to have those documents tabled at the earliest possible moment.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister):	My memory is that only yesterday upon the motion of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) an order for return was passed, and papers are being prepared.


Edward Joseph Garland: The order
to which I refer was passed on May 24, 1933, and my information obtained from the office is that these documents have not yet been tabled.



CAIRO POSTAL CONGRESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions
to ask the government, and they will be the two last ones I shall ask. I should like to know if the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) is travelling at the expense of the Canadian exchequer or at his own expense, and if at the expense of the Canadian exchequer, the government positively refuses to give any information to the house as to how that money has been spent.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster
General did not desire to go personally to attend at Cairo, but inasmuch as the conference held there is a world conference, and the preparation took place in the Dominion of Canada, he spoke to me about the matter and, as Postmaster General, he attended the conference. His expenditures are covered by order in council, as is usual in such cases, and he is receiving exactly the same compensation as did his predecessors when they attended similar conferences.
In addition to that I think it is only fair to say that the questioning to which he has been subjected in his absence I am sure he will endeavour to answer personally on his return. I was going to make this further observation in regard to the question which has been asked, and it is this: As far as the accountability for moneys received for travelling or for other expenses is concerned, there need be no fear in any sense that the Postmaster General will not afford such returns as the auditor general in the exercise of his powers will require.
That covers the questions which have been asked, but I might say that abroad it does not help to have it thought that one who represents all parties in this House of Commons, and the whole of this dominion, at a world conference, in his capacity as Postmaster General, and not in his political capacity should be in his home parliament, and in his absence, subjected to the type of questions which have been asked here with respect to our Postmaster General.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have another question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member said
that was the last one.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member asked
two questions, and they have been answered.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have two further questions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put them on the
order paper.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I want to know
is this: Is or is not the postal congress at Cairo concluded? In the event of it being concluded, when did that conclusion take place, and if it is not concluded-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -is the Postmaster General at Cairo or in any other country or continent-not in Africa or Europe-and I want to know why?
74726-62 J


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not aware as to
whether or not the conference is concluded. My advice is that it has not been. Wherever the Postmaster General may be I am sure that upon his return he will satisfy the very laudable curiosity of the hon. gentleman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is he with Ambrose Small?
PRIVILEGE-Mr. LAPOINTE
On the orders of the day:


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish also to satisfy the laudable curiosity of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). It now comes to my notice that last night he commented on and was worrying about my absence from the house while a certain resolution was being discussed. I have much pleasure in informing him that I was engaged in Quebec city, speaking in favour of the League of Nations, the promotion of peace and justice to minorities.



BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations.
He said: This bill has been the subject of rather violent criticism in certain sections of the public press. These criticisms, I believe, are due to lack of information as to the provisions of the bill, or an entire misapprehension as to its purpose. The government, let me asure you, is not endeavouring to destroy the confederation pact, or to preclude the use of the French language in the debates of parliament, in the reports of proceedings of parliament, or in the administration of the several departments and agencies of the government of Canada. I am hoping I may be able to remove some of these misunderstandings, and for that reason I beg the indulgence of the house while briefly I review the circumstances which convinced the government that the public interest demanded the moderate measures of reform embodied in this bill.
As soon as I became Secretary of State in 1930 I was informed, as the minister responsible for the administration of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, that the publications of French translations of public documents were frequently so long delayed as to impair, if not to destroy, their usefulness to the government and to the public. A cursory review at that time showed that a very considerable number of the documents translated into and published in French were not published until at least six months after the English edition had been issued, and later the
980	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan
treasury board in making an investigation through an investigator appointed by them ascertained that a considerable number were not published and distributed until one year, at least, after the issue of the English edition to the public. These delays, it was urged, destroy the usefulness, to the people who were most interested, of these documents published in the French language. Oftentimes the documents could not be used in the French language until six months or more after the English edition had appeared. In a province, such as ours, and a city such as Montreal, which is now doing a very considerable business with European countries in which the French language prevails, it was reported to me that their business operations were hampered by the fact that the French editions were not available at an early date for transmission to their correspondents in France, Switzerland, Belgium and other countries.
I also received complaints from the heads of various departments that the cost of printing at the Department of Public Printing and Stationery was frequently in excess of the estimates obtained by them independently from printing establishments in Toronto, Montreal and also in Ottawa.
Such personal investigations as I was able to make into the conditions prevailing in the printing bureau convinced me that its overhead expenses were excessive, due I think chiefly to the fact that for many years under successive governments important appointments had been made to the printing bureau on the ground of political services rendered, rather than that such appointments were absolutely necessary for the efficient administration of that branch of the public service. Other important matters absorbed my attention, particularly matters dealing with reparations and matters relating to my ministerial duties as custodian of enemy property, and as you all know, in 1930 I had to proceed to Berlin where I was engaged for some time in making a settlement and an adjustment with the 'German government as to the respective liabilities of the two governments arising out of the war.
Again, after I returned, the matter came up and I was informed that the cost of printing, particularly the cost of printing translations into French, was frequently increased by the carelessness, if not incompetence in the preparation of the copy which was submitted by translators to the printing bureau for printing. After the type had been set up in the French language in accordance with the typewritten copy received by the King's Printer, such excessive alterations were fre-

quently made in the printed text as in some cases to double the cost of typesetting by way of corrections. I then ascertained that little if any governmental or administrative control was exercised over the preparation of translators' copy for the printers.
These matters, coming up from time to time, were brought to the attention of council by my colleagues and discussions were invited, I having to assume responsibility largely for the delays and excessive costs as minister in charge of the printing bureau. But the obvious remedy then seemed to be entirely beyond my official control. Nevertheless in the summers of 1932 and 1933 it was found impossible to give full-time employment at the printing bureau, especially to those who were employed by the month at prevailing rates. Out of the five hundred employees of that bureau I think four-fifths are temporary employees who have been so employed on monthly prevailing rates for ten, fifteen and even twenty years.
To meet the lack of employment we were compelled during those two summers to reduce the hours of labour at the bureau. We reduced the number of working days a week. Then we reduced the monthly employment by one week's compulsory vacation out of four, and finally it came down to two week's compulsory leisure or vacation in each month. This reduction bore heavily, in fact most severely, on compositors and others whose maternal language is French because, as is natural, they are largely engaged upon compositions in the French language at the printing bureau. The customary delays in the delivery of French copy for the printers, due largely to delays in furnishing the translations into the French language, prevented the bureau from working continuously on French composition during June, July, August and September.
Hon. members will recognize that the printing bureau is an absolute necessity during the session of parliament in order to cariy on the printing and publishing of debates and of the proceedings in parliament, but the summer time is the time when, to keep the printing bureau employed, it should have available for printing blue books, parliamentary returns, and other documents which are not immediately related to the work of the session. The delays in the delivery of the copy for these blue books, so called, gave rise to very considerable hardship, and especially to those employed at the bureau whose maternal language is French.
The printing work of the bureau, exclusive of cost of material, has been somewhat curtailed by a restriction of the activities of the

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan
administration in various departments. Although the public printing done outside the bureau in the printing houses in this and in other cities has been reduced from $462,000 a year in 1930-31 to $140,000 a year in 1932-33, a decrease of over $320,000 a year, nevertheless the printing done at the printing bureau has been reduced from $1,211,000 in 1930-31 to $1,056,500 in 1932-33, a reduction of $154,500; that is, a reduction in the cost of wages at the bureau. That is to say, that of the receipts of the bureau $154,500 less was available for the payment of salaries and wages of the people so employed. As a result of this in less than five months it became necessary to reduce the number of employees by 77, including 5 deaths, and these 77 were receiving aggregate annual salaries of $155,286. That was done in order to balance the account at the bureau. A few were retired by death but nearly all because they had reached the age of sixty-five or over. Many of those who were retired were under the Superannuation Act, and in the case of those who were not under that act an effort was made to give them a reasonable solatium. Of that entire 77 only six were hand compositors who had reached the age limit. There still remain in the bureau for hand composition alone 87 compositors and 36 linotype operators out of a total staff of 595, of whom 415 are temporary employees, so called. That is, they are employed on monthly wages at the prevailing rates in printing houses in Toronto and Montreal; but they are not under the Superannuation Act, and if they receive a month's notice they have to go out under the law without any compensation. Nevertheless I assure the house that I made every effort to keep these printers engaged by the month at the prevailing rate. The situation was somewhat relieved by a reduction in the large overhead expenses to which I have referred, an overhead which was greatly in excess of the reasonable needs of the establishment.
In October last, the copy, especially for the French copies of the so-called parliamentary returns and bluebooks, was not coming in. Notice was given in that month to forty employees who were on prevailing rates at a monthly wage that their services would be no longer required although the working hours and the days in the week worked had been reduced. These employees were notified of their retirement on December 31. On November 27 I went away for a month's holidays and returned on the day following Christmas. I was reliably informed that some of the employees under notice of dismissal had been unable, through lack of employment, to
save up sufficient during the summer to provide their families with fuel and food during the month of January. Hon. gentlemen who sometimes discuss in boards of trade throughout the country the necessity of reducing employment in the public service cannot realize the sense of personal responsibility which lies upon a minister when he approves of forcible retirements under such circumstances. These representations were made to me by clerical gentlemen and others who knew the condition of these families, and, when I reflected upon the hardship which would be imposed upon them by retirement, I found I could not sleep the Saturday night before New Year's day. In the morning I got in touch with the King's Printer and asked him to notify these forty employees to return to work on the Tuesday following. We decided to make some division of labour which would enable these men to keep their families warm and provide them with food during the succeeding winter months. These employees were brought back but there had to be a sharing of work by other employees with the result that they and others in the establishment could be given work for only two weeks during the month.
These facts have been before the government for nearly two years. I say deliberately that after giving conscientious supervision to the work of that department I find it impossible to give a continuous and fair measure of employment unless all departmental reports both in English and French are furnished as soon after the close of the session as possible in order to provide work for the intervening months before the opening of the next session.
I was absent from this country from the autumn of 1932 until the first week of February, 1933. During my absence complaints with respect to the furnishing of French translations from the printed translations by the printing bureau became so acute and other complaints as to the cost of operating the printing bureau under these circumstances became so numerous that the matter was brought up for careful investigation and reconsideration. On March 3,	1932, some
rumours with regard to the condition which then prevailed must have got abroad because I was asked in this house a question as to what recommendations had been made for a reduction in or the centralization of the translation services in the government departments and in parliament. I replied that an arrangement had been made for the appointment of an official in the Department of the Secretary of State who was to take charge of the translation of languages other than
[Stage Direction]
Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan
French and English into English and French as might be required by the several departments of government. I stated also that the suggestion had been made and the government was considering the possibility of the organization of a bureau to take charge of translations other than those usually made in the different departments by the regular staffs. This bureau for the translation of foreign languages for all departments was attached to my department and proved to be entirely satisfactory. I am prepared to lay on the table of the house a statement which will show that some fifteen or sixteen departments and agencies of government have made use of this department from week to week throughout the year.
Later on, during my absence in France, an investigation was made by the treasury board with regard to matters relating to the administration of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. This investigation disclosed that careful preliminary revisions by authors and expert translators of all typewritten copy, which is prepared by authors and translators for the printer, would save large expenditures now made in resetting the type when revisions are made after the text has been printed in galley form at the printing bureau or after the printed galley forms have been divided into printed pages.
I would have preferred that this matter should have gone directly to a committee where it might have been inquired into, but in order that hon. gentlemen may see the sort of complaint that is made to me, I show them a proof which has been printed, set in type, read by the proofreaders at the printing bureau to see that the printed text is in accordance with the typewritten copy, and then sent back for further correction. These corrections which were made in this printed text necessitated practically a complete reprinting of the entire text. These corrections would be entirely unnecessary if the French copy were revised by one of the experts, of which there are many in the employ of the government. I show the house one example of a translation of a report in the Senate from English into French. The French copy is sent to the printing bureau where it is set up in type. It is then read by the proofreaders to ascertain that the type so set is in accord with the copy received. It then comes back with all these corrections. This is a photograph and the white marks show the red ink corrections. Such examples are brought up week after week and month after

month to show how impossible it is, even after the French proof has been obtained, speedily to print and issue the final revised French text.
Mr. MARCIL:: Are those Hansard speeches the minister is showing ?


Mr. CAHAN:: One of them happens to be
Hansard, but the others are departmental. It does not make any difference for the present, and I do not wish to make special reference to particular translators. Here for instance is a report made by one of the departments. It is not only set up in galley proof, but the galley proof has been read; then the galley proof was sent back to the translator, who has also read it and revised it, and the translator's changes have been made and set up in the printed text in page proof and after that this page proof comes back with all these corrections made.
Now it was ascertained by one of the committee under the control of the treasury that the setting up in type of these corrections made in the text after it had been set up in type and sent for revision-not all French, but a great deal of it, some of it being in English-over a series of years, in wages in respect of the resetting of that type after it had been first set up in the printed text varied in cost from $75,000 to $80,000 a year during a number of years preceding 1933; and in the first ten months of 1933 the setting up of such changes as those I have mentioned cost $52,000.
It is improper, I think, to hold a minister of the crown responsible for these expenditures unless he has some control or supervision over the work. I am responsible as a minister of the crown for the work of five hundred men engaged in the printing bureau. I keep, when I am in Canada, very close contact with them; I do not think that any predecessor ever kept closer contact with them, because large reductions had to be made in the public service, and I was anxious that such reductions if made should cause, to persons employed in the printing bureau, as little hardship as was possible under the circumstances. These expenditures would have been reduced very largely if the typewritten copy of translations for the printer were at first carefully prepared and then subsequently revised by the more expert translators before being sent to the printing bureau.
The investigations made in my absence in Paris in the early part of 1933 disclosed that the inefficiency of the translation service is due largely to the fact that it has developed

Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan
in a haphazard way and has never been organized with a view to distributing the work, so that no translator would be idle, apart from a reasonably long holiday for rest and recreation during the summer months, and that no translator should be underworked or overworked, underpaid or overpaid.
In the House of Commons staff, in addition to the translators of debates, there are ten bluebook translators who are engaged in translating departmental reports, which have no direct connection with or relation to the work of the House of Commons and its proceedings. These translators engaged on bluebooks are not translators of the Hansard, but they are under the sole direction of the Speaker of the house. I contend, and the government contend, that they should be under the direction of the government or of that minister of the crown who is responsible for the translating and the printing of these departmental reports.
This bluebook branch of the House of Commons staff was organized as a temporary expedient in 1913, with a view to abolish, or at least curtail, the practice of sending departmental reports for translation outside of Ottawa to political friends as a means of political patronage. Both parties did it and successive governments were responsible for farming out that sort of patronage. Then there were added to the Hansard staff, as a bluebook section, translators from time to time, and bluebooks have been sent to them for translation. But they are not under the supervision or direction of any government authority except the Speaker of this house, and I contend that the independent position of the Speaker of the house really precludes him from being responsible for the efficient translation of governmental or of departmental reports. His Honour should not be exposed to criticism or reprimand for neglect of duties which are by law assigned to ministers of the crown as the executive heads of the several departments over which they preside.
It was under these circumstances that this government bill was prepared, and as Secretary of State I was instructed by council to introduce it to parliament.
It is contemplated that the Bureau for Translations, which will be created by this bill, may be divided! into two branches. One of the two branches would be known as the Parliamentary Translators Branch, whose first duty would be to translate the debates and proceedings of the Senate and of the House of Commons, and the second, that is, the Departmental Translators Branch, whose
first duty would be to translate departmental reports, documents and despatches as required.
It is also suggested that the organization of the departmental branch might well follow the plan of organization recently adopted when, pursuant to the provisions of section 36 of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, the accountants of all departments were placed under the supervision and direction of the Comptroller of the Treasury.
Any translator really required by the officers of any department for the efficient, independent work of that department would continue to be attached to that department; and it is proposed, if it is possible so to arrange, that the translators required for the work of all departments located in the east block shall be located in that block under one supervising head, and in the west block and in each of the other government buildings in like manner under similar supervision, all of whom will be under one superintendent.
I remember that when this act of 1931 was put into force I had in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery twenty-one accountants, and in my own office of Secretary of State we had three or four. Many of these accountants thought that this reform for them was the end of all things and they were very anxious and apprehensive with respect to the proposed reorganization. It was [DOT]arried out in a most systematic way under the supervision of the Comptroller of the Treasury and of the Civil Service Commission. For instance, in the west block, the accountants, who were general accountants who had formerly attended to the work of the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Trade and Commerce and some minor branches located there, were simply segregated in the same building and continued under the general direction of the Comptroller of the treasury, their oversight and supervision of the accounting of all departments located there. The same occurred in the east block and in certain other departments. The result was that these three or four accountants in the Department of Secretary of State, where there was no opportunity for advancement except as one of them died or retired, found themselves in a larger branch with scores of other accountants, where the path of advancement was freely open to those who had ability and who were assiduous in their employment, the result being, I am confident, that to-day not one of the accountants who was so transferred would revert to the old system.
The superintendent of the proposed translation bureau, which will consist of these two
9S4

Translations Bureau

Mr. Cahan
branches, will be under the direction of the minister who administers the proposed act and the minister will be responsible to parliament for the effective cooperation of all officers and employees in each translation branch, and, subject to the Civil Service Commission, for promoting efficiency and removing existing discrimination in working hours and conditions. The superintendent will have general supervision and control of the bureau and branch officers under him will be responsible for such careful preparation of the typewritten copy for the printers as to avoid very largely the wholly unnecessary annual expenditures, which I have just mentioned, in resetting the type of printed proofs and pages before binding and distributing the printed documents to the public. AH these translators will be eligible for promotion in and throughout the whole translation service of the government and not as now, in one department only, and their respective positions in the civil service will be determined from time to time by the Civil Service Commission just as in the case of all other civil service employees. The commission will determine the relative value of the services performed by the respective officers and employees and their qualifications for promotion in the service.
The government, I assure hon. members, has not the intention of using the proposed Bureau for Translations as an indirect means of procuring the dismissal of individual translators from the public service, but will use it rather as a means of distributing evenly the work of translating and of supervising translations so that all departments and agencies of government may be satisfactorily served, and that the work of translation so speedily and efficiently performed as to avoid all unnecessary delays.
I notice in a certain section of the public press that there has been a discussion of a return which I brought down showing that a number and, indeed, a very small one, of translators had been retired in recent years, particularly from the Department of the Interior. But we must remember that there were no less than 1,794 retirements, transfers, resignations and deaths causing vacancies in the staff of the Interior department, and those retirements and resignations were due chiefly to the transfer by the dominion of certain natural resources to the prairie provinces. Therefore it is not surprising that out of, in round figures, 1,800 retirements and resignations, the translation staff of that department was reduced by five. I know we in each of our departments did all we could to make places for those retired from the Department of the Interior; many of us have not under 
any consideration appointed any other applicants to positions in our respective departments. I remember my department took two of those who were retired, one of them coming to me as librarian and the other in some'other service, I have forgotten which. Again it is complained that five temporary employees of the House of Commons translation service were released on February 1, 1932, but these employees were not under the direct control of the government, and of all other retirements there were only three vacancies which occurred by death and three by retirements which have not been filled simply because the various departments are waiting to ascertain whether this proposed central bureau shall be organized.
No one can underestimate the competency and efficiency of the translators of the first-class from French into English and English into French, but it is evident that there has not been careful, responsible supervision and direction of their work. I find that in the House of Commons staff at the present time there are ten translators and a chief translator, or eleven* in all, who are translating blue books which have no connection whatever with any work of the Commons. This work, which is part of the ordinary administration of government should, we think, be finder the direction of a minister of the crown and not, as at present, under the Speaker of this house. The government is held responsible to the public for the speedy and efficient performance of this work, but at present it has no direction or control over this branch of its own administration. The Speaker should certainly be relieved of responsibility in such matters as these, as he has no more interest or concern in the work of translating such blue books than he has in the administration of the patent office or the copyright office or any other branch of the public service.
There are at present fourteen translators of commons debates and a chief translator, or fifteen in all. It is suggested that it would be an infringement of the privileges of this house to organize the translators of debates into a parliamentary translators' branch of the proposed Bureau for Translations. The organization of such a branch, when authorized by parliamentary action, can hardly be deemed to be an infringement of parliamentary privileges, and this matter is brought up by the terms of the bill now submitted in the hope that the Commons will give it second reading and send it to a special committee where these matters may be inquired into and where it may be ascertained whether it is for the convenience of the Commons and in the

Translations Bureau

Mr. Cahan
public interest that such a parliamentary translators' branch should be so organized.
I recall to the attention of the house that time and again parliament has deemed it expedient to vest certain of its own powers in judicial and administrative offices of government. The trial of election petitions, which was formerly one of the privileges of this house, was long ago relegated to the courts. The furnishing, cleaning, heating and lighting of the House of Commons, which, in earlier days, was the function of a committee of this house, was later placed under the direction of the Minister of Public Works, who is directly responsible therefor to parliament 'In the earlier days a committee of the house controlled the printing of Commons debates, *bills, votes and proceedings and even acts of parliament, and such printing was farmed out to privileged private printing houses in this and other cities. But scandals arose in connection with the distribution of such printing and the payment of private concerns therefor, and parliament decided to enact a statute creating a department of public printing and stationery, to be charged with the performance of all work relating to printing, lithographing and the like. Parliament also decided that this new department should be placed under the direction and supervision of a minister of the crown, who would be directly responsible to the government of the day and to parliament for the efficient administration of that department.
We are therefore proposing this measure for the consideration of the house. There is no desire to force an innovation upon the House of Commons against its wishes, but we are asking that the facts be elicited before a special committee and duly considered, and that those who are employed in the translation of the debates of the Senate and the House of Commons should be organized into this parliamentary translators' branch of a general bureau for translations, under a minister of the crown with the responsibility I have stated.
It is suggested in the press that these translators of the debates of the Senate and the House of Commons, who receive annually about $60,000 a year in salaries, are so busiiy employed during the four or five months of the session of parliament that they require rest and recreation during the remainder of the year. The Hansard translators of this house are a very efficient body, and I will not say one word in disparagement of the services which they daily perform. The House of Commons staff dealing with the translation of Hansard are busily employed
during the sessions of parliament, but inquiry will show, I think, that they are not overworked as compared with other employees of parliament, and certainly not as compared with the officials of many of the departments of the government.	The Senate
translators of Hansard are not, I am told, so busily employed; in fact it is alleged that they are the least busily employed body of men in the public service of Canada. Undoubtedly those who perform an excess of work during the parliamentary session should be granted longer periods of holidays for rest and recreation, and those who are engaged day by day in translating Hansard should have accorded to them under the civil service rules a longer term of holidays than the ordinary employees in the public service are granted, but there seems to me no valid reason why, during two, three or four months of the recess of parliament, they should not be available on special occasions for the translation of special documents such as the reports and proceedings of government commissions, inquiries and the like, and for the translation of special documents which require extreme care and supervision.
I merely desire to place these facts fairly before the house as I see them. If this bill receives second reading, full inquiry then may be made into all relevant facts and considerations, and I am confident that the special select committee on the civil service will do full justice to all parties concerned. I think it is in the interests of good government that those who have any representations to make should appear before that committee where their representations will be received. In regard to those translators who are not now employed in special departments, I think they should be organized in like manner as I have already stated the accountants were organized. I am confident that the position and the prospects of translators in the proposed organization will be very greatly improved and I am assured, though I cannot vouch for the reports that come to me, that a great number of the translators who are employed in the public service, upon a review of the bill and of the facts relating thereto, are very favourably impressed with this proposed change in their employment. As I have already stated to some of them, it is the opinion of the government that a reorganization such as that proposed in this bill will place translators from French into English and from English into French on a higher plane in the public service. It will avoid duplication of translation services and re-
Translations Bureau-Mr. Cahan

search work in relation thereto. It will ensure the effective cooperation of all officers and employees in the existing translation services. It will establish coordination and uniformity in the proper use of technical terms. It will improve the means of acquiring expert knowledge and competency and will promote the advancement of those employed in this very essential branch of the public service. It will tend to remove all discriminations in working hours and working conditions, and it will promote-and this is essential-the contemporaneous publication of public documents in both English and French for the use of parliament and of the public.
During the recess the government might have appointed a commission under the Inquiries Act to inquire into these matters and report, but, as this does affect to a rather slight extent the privileges and powers which this house now exercises, it was deemed rather an impropriety to make that investigation when parliament was not in session. Therefore this bill was drafted with a view to placing it before a committee of the bouse for consideration, by which committee all relevant facts may be ascertained.
I should like to add one personal word, because I have attended conscientiously, as best I could, to the administration of the duties imposed upon me as a minister of the crown. It is true that my maternal language is English and that I am of the Protestant faith, but I confess that during the past few weeks I have felt somewhat embarrassed and even humiliated in reading the charges made in certain sections of the public press that I am now attempting to destroy the confederation pact and to relegate the French language to an inferior place in the federal administration of this country. I should have thought-and I say it with modesty-that my past public life and my consistent conduct in matters relating to race, language and religion, should have protected me from such personal assaults as those I have sustained. This bill is not a Caban bill; it is a government bill, which the members of the government deem to be detrimental to no particular interest, but a measure the terms of which will tend to conserve public interests and ensure more efficient administration of the public services of the country. It is a bill which we trust will be given second reading and sent to a special committee, which will have full liberty to inquire into every interest which may be thought to be prejudicially affected by the terms thereof.


Mr. E. R. E. OHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, I entertain the most kindly sentiments of friendship for the hon. minister who has just taken his seat, and he knows it. For that reason I believe he will excuse me and not consider me in any way discourteous if I do not traverse the whole of the speech he has just delivered. At the outset may I thank him for the kindly disposition which he has shown towards those unfortunates in the printing bureau during a very crucial time last year. But the hon. gentleman is a bast master in the art of preparing a case, and he has set up a wonderful stage, he has prepared a wonderful picture, and has shown but one side of the situation. He has brought into this House of Commons a big sheaf of something about which we know nothing. Had I had the same opportunity as he had I might show as great a sheaf as the one he has shown where corrections are made on the printed copy and sent back to the prin-ing bureau, and charged to translation.
1 As I have said, the hon. gentleman has given a wonderful exhibition of window dressing. He knows the French language quite Well and will take no offence if I refer him to this particular fable, namely that he has forgotten to light the light of his lantern. He has not in any way attempted to show what this bill would mean in the way of economy. He has shown only the dark side of the picture. I do not intend to follow him through the various points he has raised, except to do so as I go along in the ordinary course of my speech.
The question is as to whether or not this bill will be read a second time. When I shall have finished my observations I shall move, seconded by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) :
That the word "now" be left out and that the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.
Under our practice and our rules it is a well established principle that the proper time to discuss a bill is when it comes up for second reading. I am not here to lecture nor am I competent to lecture upon the interpretation of the rules of the house. Nevertheless I may be permitted to remind hon. members and, more particularly, sir, those hon. members of the province of Quebec who for the time being happen to sit to your right, that when an hon. member votes for the second reading of the bill he inescapably Votes for the principle of the bill, and that it is no defence to say that all he intended to do was to vote for the second reading so that it

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
might be sent to a committee. On this occasion I leave hon. members coming from that great province with these words, "Let duty be their law and conscience their rule." At this stage I believe the easiest way out for the minister would have been to withdraw from his difficulty, and simply and graciously to withdraw the bill. In all friendship and sincerity I say to him that he has needlessly got himself into a whirlpool of trouble. In all frankness, sir, I say to him through you: Why not admit it now ? In one's public career-and the career of the hon. gentleman has been long, honest and honourable-one can make mistakes. This is the mistake of his career. I say that if the minister will withdraw this bill we will forget it, as we would a bad nightmare. At this stage I cannot nor shall I go into the merits or, rather, demerits of the proposed legislation. The minister has done so at considerable length. Unfortunately however I have not the same latitude to follow him to any great extent. I find that the principle of the bill is contained in clauses 3, 4 and 5, and I shall confine my remarks to those sections. To some extent, also, I shall refer to the explanatory notes accompanying the bill.
The reading of those sections indicate, notwithstanding what the minister has said, that it is intended to abolish the existing classes and categories of translation services, in whatever departments they may be, and to blend them into one-the minister now says two, but that is not shown in the bill-into one huge bureau of translation or, as the minister now says, into two bureaus, under a superintendent. Sir, this bill should not be called the Translation Bureau Act, but because of its effects it ought to be called, " A bill for the translation of the remains of the translators, and of translation."
There are two very distinct spheres of activities in which translators take part. One is in the two houses of parliament and the other outside in the various departments of the ministers. The translating staff of the House of Commons is fourfold. There is the law translating branch, where there are three translators; the journals, where there are two; the debates, where there are sixteen, and the parliamentary, where there are twelve. In all there are thirty-three translators. In the other house there used to be three, but as one has now left the service there are only two. In the translating services under the various ministers, to which I have alluded, there are forty-one. It is now desired, under sections 3, 4 and 5 to bring all
of these translators into what I now call because I find no better word, a hotchpotch to operate under a superintendent and under a minister. This superintendent has to supervise the work of ninety-one translators, engaged in all of the most diversified activities of government.
Sir, there was born in the year 1463 a genius named Pic de la Mirandole, possessed of what one might describe as universal knowledge. His knowledge of things was phenomenal, and particularly his knowledge of the foreign languages. Upon reaching the age of thirty-one we are told there was no language he had not mastered. But in that year, sir, he died. Has the minister in mind a distant relative of Pic de la Mirandole as the genius who will supervise these ninety-one translators engaged, as I say, in most diversified activities. Under this plan, and under the direction of this superman would be translated references to paleontology, recipes for making maple syrup,-geology, laws passed by the House of Commons, entomology, the science of bugs, and probably the translation of the speeches of eminent statesmen. This to anyone who has any knowledge of the practical work of a translation bureau is seen to be not feasible and impracticable. For instance, at present if a translator of Hansard is not sure of the meaning of a particular sentence in an hon. member's speech, and there need be no wonder at that, he can at once get in contact with the member and find out what the meaning is; and in the departments, if some expression heretofore unused crops up, the translator in the department has the benefit of immediate contact with the one who made the report and can tell him ivhat is required in the way of interpretation.
The minister says that this bill would remove the existing discrimination in working hours -and) working conditions. At present I say there is no discrimination as to working hours. There are several staffs that work from nine to five and are paid for that amount of work. There are others who work after five and are paid no more. But there are others who work during the night and are paid the same yearly statutory salary. On the translating staff of the houses of parliament there are many who work during a session of four or five or six or seven months just as many hours, and under much more difficult conditions, than others who work simply from nine to five throughout the year.
How does the minister think that he will manage this new organization? Of necessity

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
he must retain shifts of translators when the house is sitting. Then he must devise some way of having these translations sent back and forth. He would need to have a continuous army of messengers to enable the work to be carried on. The minister knows the meaning of the proverb, "Tot caput tot sensu," so many heads, so many opinions. He desires to bring into this hotchpotch a large number of men who have specialized in their own particular departments. He would have as many ideas of translation as there are men who would be engaged in that particular translation. Instead of having but one revising officer there would have to be quite a number to take care of the work of the shifts as they come and go.
The minister says that there has been a centralization of accounting. That is perfectly true. That was a wise move. Figures and numbers are not susceptible of translation. That is elementary; so why talk about it? There is no reason at all why there should not be a uniform system of accounting of all the government's activities. After all a ledger is a ledger, a credit balance is a credit balance, and a debit balance is a debit balance. That is so true that I do not know that up to the present any of these accountants has been changed from his own particular department, and that is well because the accountants in the various departments may refer their statements to one central office, no matter where they themselves may be located, in which central office the final auditing may be done.
But the minister must realize that that cannot be done with translation bureaux, if the staffs are as he says to remain in their present offices. If they stay where they are, how will the superintendent be able to supervise? How will he be able to allocate the work to the various departments? Will the minister create a special office to which all the translations will be sent as they come to the superintendent so that they may be sorted out and distributed among the most efficient translators for that particular work? If so, how will he quickly get the allocated parts of different work to those who are to do that work? He may hire a fleet of baby Austins and messengers to distribute the work around to the different departments, but will the cost of administration thereby be reduced?
If the translators are not left in their respective bureaux and I apprehend that that will be the effect of the bill, the work will be distributed amongst all the translators to keep everyone working, and a translator who has been accustomed to translate works on chemistry may be called upon to translate something 
about aeronautics, while the translator on geology may be called upon to translate the report on the milk investigation.
When these French experts of to-day are superannuated or die they will be replaced by juniors from this hotchpotch. It will not be a case of one expert translator replacing another, but of a junior being assigned to the work of the expert in order to keep the number in that particular bureau even; but certainly there will not be the same level of efficiency, and that is where the evil will be twofold. The quality of the translation will be impaired and the number of efficient French clerks will be reduced, and the status of the French language will to that extent thereby suffer. It cannot be contradicted that if a head clerk at $3,800 retires and is replaced by a junior at $1,800, the efficiency of the translation will suffer and the status of the French language thereby also suffer.
On the other hand, if there is no centralization, if the translators are left where they are to continue to specialize in their own departments, the junior translators will come into daily contact with the work they have to perform and will of necessity familiarize themselves with it, and in that way will one day be able to secure promotion.
Judging by the experience of other bilingual countries which have at some time or another tried centralization, I ask why are we dropping the substance for the Shadow?
There is another aspect of the matter. One may think it is very easy to translate. Well, we may say in French, "Le Secretaire d'Etat est un grand homme," meaning that the Secretary of State is a famous man. But if we say, "Le Secretaire d'Etat est un homme grand," it means that the Secretary of State is a tall man. The words are the same but they appear in a different order, and make the meaning very different.
Everyone who possesses the knowledge of two or three languages knows that the difficulties in adhering to a precise translation appear sometimes to be insuperable, and that is why it is always with the greatest diffidence and a sense of apprehension that I address the house, fearful as I am lest at some time I should innocently misplace or still worse misuse some expression.
But why labour the point any further? It must be obvious to you, sir, and to hon. members of this house that translation is a science, and a science of a very particular nature. Translation is not the mere substitution of words or the mechanical interchange of idioms. It implies a subtle interpretation of analogies, and a delicate appraisal of terms and ex-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
pressions so as to render even the finer shades of meaning. The Italians, in their own picturesque language say, "il tradittore il tra-hittore": a translation is very often a treason.
Would the Secretary of State be content to send one of his speeches upon constitutional law, pronounced in the masterful command of the English language which he has, to one of the translators in this hotch-potch, one perhaps who had been a specialist in translating reports on diseased potatoes, the fertility of the malaria mosquito or the physical structure of the tsetse fly ? Would he be content to have such a translation in French circulated through the European universities where his name is not unknown? A translator is not made in a day. His science is the result of years of labour and special study. By reason of those labours and studies he acquires a special knowledge of the subjects, the expressions and the shades of meaning in a language not his own. I am sure hon. members would be astonished if they were brought into contact with the accumulated experience of the translators as it concerns words, expressions and sentences and which has been acquired by diligent study and comparison of other idioms.
This is a trial of centralization or specialization. In 1910 the government of the day desired to know what was being done in the bilingual countries of Europe. Mr. Achille Frechette, former law translator and chief of the translation branch of the House of Commons of Canada was appointed to visit Belgium and Switzerland to investigate this matter. I think some extracts from his report should appear on Hansard. He states first:
My inquiry has been directed to the translation of the debates, of the sessional papers and of the laws.
As is the case in Canada, the debates may be carried on in Belgium and in Switzerland in either or any of the official languages of the country.
At that time the House of Commons and the Senate were operating under a system of centralization but that has since been changed to one of specialization. The report continues :
In Belgium each of the different departments has its own translation staff.
And he continues:
In Switzerland the various departments have their own translators.
Thus it is seen that nowhere in these two countries is translation centralized. And in both countries satisfaction is expressed with the system in use.
Let us now' consider the system that obtains in the Canadian House of Commons. The
service, there, is centralized in an office recruited-may I be permitted to say-independently of any idea of specialization in the work.
And again:
It is evident that so many various translations, for which the most extensive dictionaries and the usual language are altogether inadequate, must require from the translator vast erudition, constantly supplemented through long hours of research and tireless application. Would it not be too optimistic to expect great success from the anomaly of an organization where it is required of each man to be a universal specialist in order to be fit for expert work in all directions?
That is what one would find in this hotchpotch. The report continues:
All the efforts that the chief translator- Under this bill, the superintendent-
-may make towards specializing the abilities of his staff are rendered vain by the manner in which the documents come from the printing office and by the necessity of having the work done quickly. Without entering into more details. I will say that constantly a given work has to be divided' among several translators, either in the office or outside.
Here again is a comparison with the bureau which it is sought to be created by this bill. The reports goes on:
And what is the consequence? If each man, although he feels no personal responsibility for the work, makes the study it requires, no time will have been gained. If such studies are not made, that part of the work which is improperly done will swamp that done by the conscientious translator who knows his subject and its terminology.
This gives an exact picture of the bureau for translation which the minister is seeking to create. The report continues:
The tendency of all this is towards the demoralization of the service. And the French version of the documents suffers in quality, although, in spite of all efforts, it still reaches the public much later than the English version, for the main reason that the latter is received too late by the translators.
The present system, established some seventy years ago, may have answered the needs of the time, when the public documents were very far from being as voluminous, as numerous and as specialized0 as they are to-day, and when the greater part of them, being already in French, had not to go through the French office. But now that the publications of the public service deal with so many activities unknown to the primitive country that we were then; now that all the human interests, more and more specialized find their expression in the papers presented to the Canadian parliament, a centralized translation office can no longer do justice to so much work that calls for specialists. The experience I have acquired during thirty-six years of service in the Commons has convinced me that in centralization rests the vice of our system.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
Just a word in passing as to what the hon. minister has said with reference to the general translation branch. He knows that that branch of the House of Commons, although on a few occasions it has translated outside reports, translates a long series of documents and reports from this house, such as the grain investigation, the imperial conference and the innumerable reports which emanate from committees like the milk inquiry committee, the civil service committee, the banking committee, the shipping committee. The report continues:
Therefore, and from my observations in Belgium and Switzerland, where I everywhere found specialization carried as far as possible by the establishment of provisions for translation in the various administrative branches, and where there is thorough satisfaction with the system in existence, I conclude that it is desirable to extend in Canada to all the departments, the practice already intelligently introduced in some of them, as, for instance, the Department of Agriculture.
That was the first department to start specialization and up to the present time I do not think there has been any difficulty or any complaint in connection with the work done there. The report concludes:
The departmental translator having a narrower field of work could comparatively soon master the two languages in the specialties dealt with every year in the documents issued by his department. He could do his work much quicker and much better, all other things being equal.
I do not want to quarrel with the minister as to the diversified statements he has made, though I find it very difficult to reconcile many of them. Taking the bill as it stands however, while perhaps not in the immediate future, at any rate at some later date, the various translating branches will be brought into this Bureau for Translations. The minister has stated the move contemplated will result in a saving of public funds. How that can be accomplished he has failed to show, and one can only anticipate the future by what has happened in the past. The minister has indicated that since 1930 some eighteen translators have been let out. It is quite true that in the Department of the Interior there were five; I think that is a fair statement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There have not been
eighteen translators dismissed or retired by this government since 1930.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: May I ask then how
many there were? It does not matter however how many there were; I am quite prepared to say, in all fairness to the minister, 
that the five that were let out in the Interior department should not be taken into account. At any rate, there were some seventeen altogether-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Or fifteen; the minister can reply later on. No matter however how many were let out, none has been replaced, and the fact is that there are many heads of departments, French Canadians, holding important positions who have not been replaced. The minister goes on to say that this bill will improve the standing of translators of the French language in the department. Here may I make a special point. If this bill ever becomes law the translators will ultimately leave the Houses of Parliament and all departments and with them such junior clerks and stenographers as are associated with translation work. Not only will so many translators be removed from the departments, but probably double and treble the number of clerks will go with them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are to-day, or there
were yesterday, eighty-six translators with twenty-nine clerical assistants, making one hundred and fifteen in all employed in translation work, and I am sure that there has been no time since 1930 when there have been fifteen dismissals.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I submit then that the minister will have to explain this return which has been brought down to the house, wherein I count nine translators, and there are five or six others whom the minister is overlooking.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The statement which the
hon. gentleman is taking from Le Droit is not reliable. Moreover, if he will leave out the translators retired by the Senate temporarily, and the temporaries retired by this house, over whom this government has no control, he will find that the five from the Interior department are the larger number. There are three others who died and three others retired who have not been replaced, and I have stated the reason why: we were waiting to see what would take place under the reorganization.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: However, there was no replacement of the one retired from the Civil Service Commission, nor was there any replacement of the one retired from the Finance department. In all the different translating branches there have been seventeen or eighteen translators who have been retired; otherwise, why did the minister bring down this return which appears in Hansard?

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman says that the government is responsible. The government is not responsible for the retirement of temporary employees of this house, over whom it had no control. It is not responsible for the retirement by the Senate of three or four temporary men on weekly wage. Events were responsible for the retirement of five from the Department of the Interior, and when you consider that 5,800 members of the civil service have been retired since 1930, it is not surprising that there were three of four translators among the number.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I will not labour the point, but the minister will have to admit that there was one retired from the Civil Service Commission, one from Finance, one from Immigration and Colonization, one from Marine, one from Trade and Commerce-all the way through. The minister himself submitted that report and it appears in Hansard.
Now, these events have taken place lately and they are likely to occur again; and notwithstanding the minister's professed desire for the maintenance of the present status of the French language, I am very much afraid that higher positions now filled will meet with the same fate. I am not asking for more than we have. There are some who say that what they want they get, but all that we Canadians of French origin say is, what we have we hold. We are not asking for anything more at present. In the discussion of this unfortunate measure we are asking for no new rights; nor does this measure, notwithstanding what the minister says, give us any greater rights than we have presently.
The Secretary of State tabled sessional paper 137, wherein he is reported as having said, among other things:
Speaking generally, I may say that it has been orally represented to me that such a reorganization as that proposed in Bill No. 4 would place translators on a higher plane in the public service.
It would be most interesting to know who has orally represented to the minister that the proposed reorganization would place the translators on a higher plane, and it would also be quite interesting to know who. started all this discussion. One wonders whether the minister wishes to copy the Arthur Young classification and have another Griffenhagen disruption in the service.
Who wants this legislation? The minister says that it will improve the standing of the translators. Judging from what I have seen and heard, however, it is certainly not the
translators themselves who are asking for it, because every one of them seems to be in a high state of excitement and apprehension. Surely they are intelligent enough to know better than anyone else whether this legislation will place them on a higher plane in the public service. Place the translators in a better position! Well, the French Canadian press of the country is in deadly opposition to the bill, and surely they could not have come to that conclusion without having given the matter some consideration. The following Trench Canadian daily newspapers have editorially opposed the measure: La Presse, La Patrie, Le Devoir, all of Montreal; Le Droit, of Ottawa; Le Soleil, L'Action Catho-lique, of Quebec; La Tribune, of Sherbrooke; Le Bien Public and Le Nouvelliste, of Three Rivers; L'Action Populaire, of Joliette.
Then I ask the minister: How is it, if this bill is to elevate the standard of the French language and improve the efficiency of the translators, the following French Canadian societies are all opposed to it and have sent resolutions protesting against it:
La Societe Saint Jean Baptiste.
L'Association Canadienne de la Jeunesse Catholique.
L'Association Catholique des Voyageurs de Commerce.
L'Aetivite Nationale.
L'Union des Cultivateurs de la Province de Quebec.
T>a Federation des Clubs Ouvriers.
L'Assoeiation de Jeune Canada.
If this bill is to produce all these wonderful changes for the betterment of the translators and the improvement of the status of the French language in Canada, how is it that the select committee reported to the house in 1932 as follows:
No complaints as to the quality of ^ the translated texts were made to the committee. It was found' that throughout the departments a general policy of decentralization is in effect. The adoption of such policy was the result of the question being explored in 1910 after a report was made by Mr. Achille Frechette who, under instructions from the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons, visited Belgium and Switzerland to observe the practice in effect in those countries. From the information before the committee, the general consensus of opinion in the departments is in favour of the statu quo.
How is it, if this bill is to promote efficiency in the service, to effect economies in public expenditure, that in 1932 all of the deputy ministers, when they were asked to give their views upon a scheme of centralization, declared themselves against it because it was harmful to the good administration of the departments, and because of the necessity o'

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
having in each department a translation service where correspondence and confidential documents would continue to be translated without delay and without fear of indiscretion.
Who wants this bill? No one who can understand its pernicious effect, who can visualize the disastrous results it will have in lowering the present standing of the French language will vote for it. But there is certainly one thing that the minister cannot do, even if he desires to press this matter to the bitter end, and that is to include both houses of parliament in so far as translation is concerned. I am quite sure voices will be heard in another place protesting vigorously against any encroachment on the rights and prerogatives of both houses.
This bill provides by clause 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 with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the parliament of Canada.
No one will deny and I hope the Secretary of State will be the last to deny that both houses of parliament have had and always will have certain rights and prerogatives and they should have untrammelled authority to discipline and control the servants of their respective houses. It is quite true that for some years in the past, officials of the house, so far as their appointments have been concerned, have been removed from the control of the house and placed under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Whether that is a good move or not, I am not going to say at the moment, nevertheless I can say this: It was undoubtedly an unwarranted encroachment on the rights and prerogatives of both houses, and apparently it was consented to. By that I mean that by the 1919 Civil Service Act all staff positions, including that of the assistant clerk and sergeant at arms, in the House of Commons were taken away from the jurisdiction of this house, and were placed under the Civil Service Act, but this house did not take long to find the mistake it had made and in 1925 the Civil Service Commission returned to the House of Commons the appointment of the assistant clerk and the sergeant at arms.
It is quite true that parliament is supreme, and can at any time it so desires, divest itself of all its rights and prerogatives. It is also quite true that if the members of the house desire to divest themselves of any or all of their rights and prerogatives which under the constitution they have, they may do so, but I am one of those who believe that thait should be the last step to be taken.

I am one of those who believe in the spirit of the constitution and, moreover, I believe any attempt, however small it may be, which attacks or takes away from the constitution should not be allowed. I am one of those who believe the spirit of the law and the fabric of the British constitution and parliamentary system, under which it is our privilege to live, should be preserved. But if the members of this house and of another place continue to let go their rights and prerogatives, some day we may find ourselves no longer in control but under the jurisdiction of some irresponsible 'body.
Bourinot says:
The control and management of the officers of this house are as completely within the privileges of the house as necessary to the conservation of dignity and the efficient conduct of public business by a legislative body as any regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls. These officers are under the guidance of certain rules and standing orders of the house, which are among the regulation of its proceedings and are as essentially matters of privilege as the appointment of committees, the conduct of public business and the procedure of the house generally, including the acts of the speaker himself in the chair.
The minister cannot take away from the houses of parliament its employees. In 1908 it was sought to bring the staffs under the Civil Service Act which was then being framed. The commissioners said this in their report, as it appears in the sessional papers of the house, No. 15, 29-A, at page 10:
The commissioners considered that it would probably be beyond their powers to ask that members of the staffs of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Supreme and Exchequer courts should come before them, seeing that in 1892, the civil service commissioners were authorized to extend their inquiries to the staffs of the Senate and House of Commons, but on constitutional grounds the clerks of the two houses objected thereto.
The quotation may 'be found in the sessional papers of this house for 1892, volume 25, No. 11, at page 14. I shall not trouble the house by reading it.
In 1'902 an attempt was made to interfere with the salaries of the debates translators of the House of Commons, and I take this extract from the debates of May 6 of that year as reported at page 4244. The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
This is a matter which is more in the hands of the house than it is in the hands of the government. The house has thought proper, and with good reason, to keep in its own hands, everything in connection with the reporting of the debates of the house. The reporting is not done under the supervision of the government; it is done directly under the supervision of the house through a committee which is appointed every year l'or that purpose.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
Then another attempt was made in 1908 to remove from the jurisdiction of the house a certain portion of its staff; that was when Mr. Fisher, on June 29, 1908, introduced an act to amend the Civil Service Act. At that time Sir Robert Borden said:
I do not desire to withdraw the permanent official staff of the House of Commons from the operation of the Civil Service Act, but I do suggest that the proper constitutional way would be to have the object of the bill accomplished by a resolution of the house and not by an act of parliament.
Mr. Lennox said:
I feel very strongly that we should aim at keeping a very effective control over the staff of the House of Commons in the hands of the members of the house.
Sir George Foster said:
1 think the house should retain full control of its officers in every way.
Mr. Fisher then at the last said:
I will not insist, I thought that was a point on which the government should be guided by the judgment of the House of Commons and of the Senate.
Mr. Sproule added:
Does the minister think the Senate will give up its right to appoint and to supervise its own employees?
Then Sir George Foster said:
. Neither would we like to have the Senate interfere with our rights and privileges. Nor would we like to have the cabinet interfere with them. I do not think the house proposes to consent to either.
It must foe clear that at least the staffs of the houses of parliament cannot be included in this bill.
There is a final point that I wish to make. There are some who say that the passing of this bill will be the official recognition of the French language. The official character of the French language is dearly recognized and established by section 133 of the British North America Act and nowhere else. It is indeed a poor section, and I know it is, because I am one of those who in the ranks were privileged to follow and to fight side by side with such leaders as Hon. Senator Landry and Hon. Senator Belcourt, who have crossed to the great beyond but whose memory will linger long in the hearts of men of goodwill who struggle for the recognition of the French language in Ontario. Both these gentlemen many times rested their case with those men of goodwill upon section 133 of the British North America Act. Yes, indeed, the official status of the French language is contained in that section like the maple seed in its shell. Place the seed in hospitable ground; place it in soil adapted for fermentation and develop-74726-63
ment, and that seed will develop into one of the mighty maples of which we are so proud. Place that seed among stones or in the arid soil, and nothing will come of it. In other words, that section must be fairly interpreted.
My forefathers, in their gallantry, placed their confidence and trust in section 133. Your forefathers, sir, accepted it like the loyal men they were. The few written words given by the French were accepted by the English; they were gentlemen and men of honour. In those days it was needless for our forbears to call for a notary or for a man learned in the law to write a long document in order to express what they put in three words. So it came to pass that section 133 became the scabbard of the French language on Canadian soil. True, the letter of the law is not there for hairsplitting demagogues and fomenters of disunion; but breathes there a man with soul so dead who would dare say that section 133 does not establish the official status of the French language in Canada? It is there in all its naked truth, and it is up to those with clean minds to understand it.
There will be those who will say that the present bill is the crowning piece of legislation that will at last and forever, in the most unmistakable manner, establish the official character of the French language; but who will believe that? A statute passed by this parliament has about as much stability or permanency as a permanent position has in the civil service these days. We are told that by this bill this parliament will proclaim the official character of the French language in matters not mentioned in section 133. Who will believe that? A subsequent parliament can repeal this statute just as easily as the present parliament can pass it, and the French language, if it depended upon this bill becoming law, would be about as official in stability as the loves of Ninon de Lenclos. At this moment I defy the Secretary of State to affirm in this house that this bill will be the official recognition of the French language. I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman does not answer.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You do not expect me to answer, surely.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I know my hon. friend
will not answer, because he never has been placed on the horns of such a dilemma, and he knows what I mean. I feel great commiseration for the minister, because he has been forced to bring this adopted child into this chamber. If he desires further to establish the official character of the French language let him do so in the way he knows it can be done, by



Translations Bureau-Mr. Chevrier
a proper amendment to section 133. If he is so solicitous of the interests of those of whom he has spoken; if he wants to put them on a higher plane, let him take the means at his disposal in a constitutional way. The French language is one of the two official languages of Canada; that is not by virtue of a statute of this parliament, but by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act. I quote Bourinot, fourth edition, page 208:
When the two provinces of Canada were united under one parliament, it was provided by the 41st section of the Act of Union, that the journals, the legislative records, of what nature soever, shall be in the English language only, although translations of them could be kept among the records, or be deemed in any case to have the force of an original record. This law naturally created great dissatisfaction among the French Canadians, and it was finally repealed by the Imperial parliament after an address to the Queen had been passed by both houses.
From that time to the present, by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act, the acts of parliament, the journals of this house, the orders of the day and the votes and proceedings, as they appear daily in French, are not translations but are originals just as much as these documents are originals when printed in English. Both languages are official. 'If an hon. member speaks in this house in French, the French which he uses is just as official as though he spoke in English, and any record or entry that is made in the journals or that may find its way into the orders of the day or the votes and proceedings in the French language is in the original official language. There is no translation, so called, into the French language of any of these documents I have mentioned. All acts of this parliament are printed and published in both languages, according to the provisions of the British North America Act. That act contains nothing which says there must be a translation from one language into another, because any act is official in either language.
Therefore the question resolves itself into one of interpreting what is an act of parliament. I am one of those who believe that anything which results from a deliberation, recommendation, statute or anything else of this house, which may be called an act of parliament, must be in French and in English; there is no translation about it at all. So it is my contention that when parliament decides that bonds or money, whether printed or coined, should be issued, that is an act of parliament, and the bonds or money should be printed or published in both languages.

In a speech delivered on May 19, 1915, on the subject of the French language ini Canada, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said:
Article 133, the legal expression of the beautiful thought voiced by Sir John A. Macdonald, establishes the equality of status of both languages in all spheres of governmental activities and' in the administration of national affairs. Any French Canadian taxpayer of Toronto or of Montreal, of Winnipeg, of Halifax or of Vancouver, has the right to exact that all documents of state be printed in his own tongue. He has the right to speak and to write in French to all and any of those in the federal employ.
That is the status of the French language to-day, sir, and to that status this bill does not add one iota. I am not complaining, because I understand that it cannot be done in that way. There is nothing in the bill that in any way heightens the official character of the French language, but on the other hand it does considerable harm to the status of that language. There is nothing in the bill, either explicitly or implicitly, that may be construed to give the French language in the houses of parliament or elsewhere any greater official status than it has at present under the constitution. Section 3 states simply that there shall be a bureau under the minister whose duties will 'be to collaborate with all departments of the public service in making a translation from one language into another. Further than that there is nothing. There is no direction or no order to the effect that all the reports and documents produced shall be translated into the French language. Moreover, under his direction and with the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make all regulations which by him are deemed necessary or expedient for carrying into effect the provisions of this legislation. The minister will have absolute control over what may or may not be translated. If any minister does not wish to have a translation made he simply need not order it or an easier way, he may ask for no appropriation with which to have the translation made. The select standing committee on printing may order that certain reports be printed. But there is nothing in this bill which places upon them the obligation to see that the reports for which there is an order for printing in English should also be translated into French.
Finally, this bill does not add one bit to the status of the French language, and in many ways decreases its present status. For these reasons, and for many others which,

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
because I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, I have not mentioned, I now move, seconded by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette):
That the word "now" be left out, and that the words "this day six months" be added at the end of the question.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for once to have to speak in, may I say, fiat contradiction of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) for whom I have the greatest esteem, and whose zeal for the people he represents, as well as for the broader rights of French people in general, I know full well. I do not propose to discuss now what I might term the constitutional principle of this measure. Without any disparagement of my friend I shall wait to see if some of the more authoritative members of his party take the same attitude, and reserve to myself the right, if necessary, to' prolong the discussion on the second reading of the bill itself. I am now speaking to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ottawa. For that reason I propose to deal exclusively with what I may call the administrative principle of the bill, and the practical results which will likely arise out of its application. As this is of special interest to the French members of this House of Commons, to the French press and to the French people at large, I shall take the liberty of presenting my views on that aspect of the question in the French language.
Translation:	For at least forty years, sir,
have I taken a great interest in the use of the French language in all that concerns the administration of public affairs: Parliament, the various departments, court of justice, etc. I think I can state in all seriousness that, owing to my age, I am somewhat entitled to discuss the French language, its rights and application.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I may even say that there was a time when it was not as fashionable and as popular to speak the French language as it is today. I often stood alone, in parliament or elsewhere, in vindicating its rights. However, let us proceed.
This question of translation is most interesting. May I add, without slipping into the rut where old people often tumble, personal reminiscences, that, among all the members of this house, I am, perhaps, the one who has done more translations either from English into French or French into English. I began
74726-63|
fifty years ago and have kept it up. I have translated public documents, parliamentary speeches-first, my own-from English into French and vice versa; and a hundred perhaps two hundred times have I realized in practice how true is what the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) stated, just now: that a translator's task is not an easy one.
An hon. member (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Indeed, it is not a question of picking out the words which a bilingual dictionary places at your disposal to translate a French expression into English or reciprocally; one must possess the genius of the two languages and convey in appropriate French-or vice versa-the thought of the author whether it is a written document or a speech, and the exact meaning of an act or legislative measure, when it refers to a public document. Again, do I state it is not an easy task. I have often worked on texts when, after translating readily four or five pages from one language to another, I had to pause over a sentence or word which required an hour or two of pondering before being certain that I had translated the English expression by the exact and technically corresponding French expression. It is precisely on this ground where not only I disagree with the hon. member for Ottawa but where I also find that the measure brought down by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) is apropos and beneficial.
I have visited, more or less, all governmental departments for nearly forty yeiars. I have read numerous public documents. I have, in the old Parliament building, the one that burnt alas! Why were not more of the microbes we left burnt!-I have, myself, drawn the attention of departments and ministers, sometimes Liberal, sometimes Conservative, to the defects existing in translations, in the terms used, in the sense conveyed by the expression and, consequently, to the defect in the translation mechanism-namely the practical distribution of translation work among the various departments and the placing of translated documents within the reach of the French speaking public. After, tall, that is what we want. It is not simply a triumph of national pride, the desire, legitimate no doubt but childish, to contemplate on shelves of public libraries a mass of books, blue, gray, yellow, whatever colour they may be and which are useless to the public because their publication was too long delayed. For fifteen, twenty years-even more, because I had done so previous to founding the " Devoir "-the Devoir, a newspaper which I founded and for

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
more than twenty years had the management, had persistently, in season, or out of season, so to .speak, requested the publication, without delay, of annual statistics, trade bulletins and all documents which the public, professors, libraries and trade people-this is more pressing-require when such documents are useful to them. What happened and whafc is happening to-day? People require a trade bulletin, which is of interest to commerce, industry, dealing with a question of immediate interest upon which merchants, traders and importers wish to be posted. They write to Ottawa. The English copy is published, the French version is not. It is urgent, they request the English bulletin; so that when the French version is published, it remains in the cellars of departments. I came across such bundles, thirty, twenty years ago, also last year, in every department, here in the basement of the library and at the Government Printing Bureau; there are bundles and bundles of French documents which have cost hundreds of thousands of dollar's to the country, yet were never useful to the French speaking public, because of the defect existing in the organization of the translation system.
The hon. member for Ottawa will permit me to state that here is an aspect of the question which is as interesting as that of discussing whether the number of men living at the government's expense shall be cut down by ten or fifteen. We shall recur later on to this question of organization.
To have a good translation, of course, competent translators are required. Here again, I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa, that qualification for the work cannot be acquired in one day. It is clear that a translator who has worked-providing he is somewhat intelligent and knows his business-ten or fifteen years in translating documents and reports of the Department of Agriculture, will necessarily be more competent in this task than he would be at translating diplomatic despatches in the office of the Secretary of State or External Affairs. That is a fact. But, just so, this bill the enactment of which I have personally been looking to for the last twen-ty-five years, in the interest of the French speaking public, French Canadian trade dealers and farmers-has for its further purpose to organize a translation bureau independent of all departments, so that a half-witted, blunt or ignorant deputy minister, such as were to be found under various governments and even to this day-will not prevent the translation of a document or will not deliver to the public a document which hardly holds together or is

poorly translated, simply so as to have the satisfaction of saying: "Why complain? I had it translated into French, it has been issued." Yes, but if it is Iroquois French, or again, if it arrives six months too late? At present, it is left to any deputy minister's whim to first hand over to the Printing Bureau and then to the public a poorly translated document which comes too late. I do not state that they are numerous but there are some. It is high time, for the honour of the French language, for the honour of the French Canadian nationality throughout the Dominion of Canada, not only for the French Canadians of Ottawa whom I esteem and respect, but for all French Canadians, it is high time that we should have a bureau for translations which will do honour to French culture, and, at the same time, remove the translation of documents from the whiffs and whims of a crowd of officials, of whom some are capable and may have knowledge of agriculture, but for the reasons set forth by the hon. member for Ottawa and myself, are not competent to revise translation.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit to ask this question: Would he be kind enough to point out where is to be found such provision in the bill.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Do not take too much of my time, if you please. I have but forty minutes at my disposal. The bill, to my mind, embodies such provision sufficiently in paragraph 2, clause 3; in paragraph 2, clause 4; in clause 5 itself; in clause 6, with the regulations which it authorizes and, still more by the economy which the act contemplates. I have not the privilege of being a lawyer-


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: It is even better.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Don't be sarcastic!	-however, I have had the
opportunity of studying many acts, judgments and law-suits, and one thing always struck me, especially a good advice that I was given in my youth by a lawyer almost as competent as those who sit in this house, Lord Herschell, with whom I came in touch at Washington. Young man, he said to me, be very careful, in the course of your studies, not to linger too long over the particulars of an act, while failing to grasp its principle. It is of more importance that the law maker and the magis-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
trate should first master the guiding principle of the law in order to be in a better position to interpret its various provisions.
If we wish to provide for an excellent knowledge of the French language, which we can display with pride before the eyes of those speaking the French language, throughout the world, we must have a bureau of translation organized from top to bottom, with a chief whose legal and administrative status would correspond to that of a deputy minister, in whatsoever department. That is the first consideration.
Let us now examine the service in connection with our international relations. In this matter I am pleased to give due credit to my old friend, the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Thanks to others, but especially thanks to him, let us recognize the fact, Canada, to-day, holds, in the international world, a position unknown to it previous to 1923, or 1926; Canada, to-day, is in touch with the various foreign governments and the League of Nations, at Geneva; this was unheard of twenty years ago. I travelled in the past quite a good deal in Europe, and I recall the time when out of one hundred Europeans I met, ninety-nine would say to me: How is it you come to Europe without adorning your head with feathers? That was the way we became acquainted. I do not find fault with these Europeans; because many of our Canadians, although they have dispensed with their feathers, they still convey the impression of having a mentality of the Hurons of days gone by, and even of the Iroquois.
The hon. Secretary of State has just found out just as my friend the former Minister of Justice had done so, Sir Robert Borden and Senator Dandurand as well, that most of the documents forwarded from Canada to foreign governments or to Geneva, are drawn up in English owing to the lack of organization which the Secretary of State pointed out and because a translation bureau was not organized. It was impossible to obtain, when required, documents translated into French which the government could forward to Europe. For, although we boast of speaking French as it is spoken in Europe, the best French, we, however, speak a French somewhat tainted with anglicisms-and sometimes with quite a number-with some loose and improper terms. Especially in the legal and official terminology, or in the civil code of Canada, the sense or the notion of the proper expression is lest, this applies to administration, scientific subjects, agriculture, geology
or whatever it may be, but especially in what pertains to international law.
I need not go beyond this bill to find an example. There is a line where it is stated in English. "It shall be the duty of all departments of public... etc." How did our translators, whom the hon. member for Ottawa *wishes to place above the French Academy, because of their superfine knowledge, translate this expression? "II incombe a tous les depar-tement"...
Many words have various meanings in numerous languages. "II incombe" has various meanings. In the common parlance, it designates a duty of some sort incumbent on one. In the legal terminology it is something entirely different. To say "II incombe" in translating "it shall be the duty" is not correct. In the legal phraseology: I have met with the expression, such a document of the file "incombe" (pertains) to such a case, such an exhibit "incombe" (pertains) to such a file. It is not in the sense of a compulsory duty which an act enforces on the head of a department.
Take for instance the translation in connection with this parliament. For forty years have I been fighting my good friends, the translators on the ground floor, so as to have them cease making us say, in their translations, when we address in English the "chair," "a la chaise", as they call it at the Quebec legislative assembly, the only French speaking legislature in America,-"Monsieur l'Orateur" to the only person, out of the 245 members of this house, who has not the privilege of speaking. It is fortunate that there is one at least who upholds the honour of the house by holding his tongue. In order to translate English parliamentary phraseology, the first thing one must be acquainted with, is British history. Why say "Monsieur l'Orateur", Mr. Speaker, to the only person who has not the right to speak, but who is there simply to render decisions which, at times, are not worth much? It is because in London, when the house wished to protest against the encroachments of the crown or the aristocracy, the Speaker of the House of Commons proceeded to the House of Lords, his three-cornered hat on his head, and addressed the King, on behalf of the members of the Commons. He was "the spokesman of the Commons" which later became "the speaker"; and the translators of the house designate him as "Monsieur l'Orateur."
On many occasions I have personally translated my own speeches when, long ago, I attached some importance to what I said.
99S

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
That is no longer the case. Why did I do so? It was not because I judged myself more scholarly than the translators; than some of them, yes; than others, no. I ranked myself as one of the average. It was because I felt that when I dealt with a constitutional question and spoke on subjects-precisely subjects which have interested me most in the course of my forty years of public life-when I discussed the conflicts between the people and the crown, or between the dominions and Great Britain, I drew from my knowledge acquired in the history of England, while these gentlemen, who. perhaps, are well acquainted with the textbooks on history which they studied with their a, b, c, at the primary schools in the province of Quebec, but who, nevertheless were ignorant of British history, and especially of its spirit, translated my speeches with words drawn from French dictionaries and distorted my thoughts. I have already stated in the house that I do not like to see my speeches slashed or otherwise distorted. I could give further instances, by referring to the Department of Agriculture. That would afford me the pleasure of doing justice to an old friend of mine, a true friend of the province of Quebec, of French Canadians and of Canada at large; I refer to Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture in the Laurier cabinet. Sydney Fisher, as old parliamentarians will recall, was a highly cultured man. He belonged to that class of people, unfortunately now too few, English by birth, education and intellectual culture. He was a graduate of Oxford. He resided in the province of Quebec, where he unceasingly sought, in his humble way, which made him too little appreciated by his contemporaries, he unceasingly sought to bring the two races on grounds of mutual good will. The day he was appointed Minister of Agriculture or a few days later, he said to me: " Bourassa, my ambition is to avail myself of the Department of Agriculture so as to raise the intellectual, social and technical level of the "habitants" of Quebec. I have lived among them and like them, but they have not kept pace with the age, either as farmers or citizens, owing, perhaps, to the conquest or domination by an aggressive minority during so many years; or whatever may be the reason, they have not acquired the pride, but especially, this acumen of mind more necessary to-day than ever, even more so to farmers so as to maintain their position and economic condition, etc. Well, what did Mr. Fisher do? He gathered here all the most competent men whom he could find in the various branches of agriculture in Quebec. He placed some

at the experimental farm, in his department, and I think I am right in stating that the chief translator of that department is one of these employees he brought here, a Frenchman from France, but very much a Canadian, just as a number of our colleagues in the house *who were born in England, Scotland, Germany or elsewhere, and who have become excellent Canadians.
Let us now take up the Trade and Commerce department. This is one of the departments of which we complained for years, and not without cause, about the delay in the publication of documents, at times, about the defective translation, but especially, about the delay. I wish to-day to give due credit to the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) for having accomplished so much within the last two years. The trade bulletin now is issued in French almost at the same time as the English version. The preparation of the Year Book is quite advanced; and numerous other documents from that department are issued to the French Canadian population with much less delay than in the past. However, there is still room for much improvement.
Well, for all these reasons, I rely on the enforcement of this act to harmonize the work of translation, so that a chief not connected with other departments, relying simply on his conscience and attainments, may say: Here are all the translators, I am keeping track of them; there are three here, two there, five to the right and one to the left. I bring them under the same roof and endeavour to judge of their qualifications; moreover, bearing in mind their years of service, each in their own work, I confirm them in their post and promote them according to their abilities.
The hon. member for Ottawa states that it would take a Pic de la Mirandole! I have somewhat studied history. The Pics de la Mirandole, people who have become too learned, at seven or eight years are generally poor administrators. Do not talk to me of brains that have been crammed too early in life. As Richelieu, the greatest statesman that France has had, and one of the ablest statesmen known throughout the world, as Richelieu said to Louis XIII: The qualifications required for one at the head of a state- and I would apply this to all heads of departments-is not the fact of being a book worm in each and every department placed under one's charge; but to be. sufficiently acquainted with them so as to judge whether the men he employs are, each of them, competent in their department. A

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
chief must not be a book worm, because the latter are generally short sighted, and as they require powerful glasses to examine a small text, they lose sight of the general perspective.
A chief of translation who would assemble his whole staff, distribute the work fairly and with circumspection-one cannot take for granted that the minister who is responsible will intentionally choose an imbecile, that is what a number of ministers have done in many departments; however, we must take a chance.
The whole question is whether or not, for the reasons I have pointed out, speed and efficiency in the performance of the work, a bureau for translation would be desirable.
Let us step down to the level where the hon. member for Ottawa has placed himself. I understand his position and sympathize with him. I recall the time when our old mutual friend Belcourt, had a weekly fit of bile, because people in Ottawa were ever seeking positions and promotions. The hon. member is obliged to take that stand, that is part of his parliamentary duties.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes.
The hon. member for Ottawa should not say no. He carries out his task diligently and conscientiously, which permits me to state that he is one of the most efficient members that Ottawa has ever had. I shall not say that he is either a great man or a tall man. A tall man, he would be the first to deny it. A great man, time will tell, fifty years hence. Let us leave to posterity the care of erecting the moral stature of all and each of us. But, as a matter of justice towards employees, does he think that it is common sense, do my French Canadian colleagues think it common sense that, in one department, Agriculture, seven translators, in the course of the year, translate each 568 pages; that in another department, Immigration, two translators translate each 46 pages, in a whole year; that in the Labour department, two translators translate each 548 pages; that in the Public Works department, three translators translate each 108 pages; that in the Trade and Commerce department, four translators translate each 1719 pages; that in the department of Mines, three translators, the same number-no, one less-translate each 148 pages.
As the present system works out, it is most unfair to translators. So long as this system is in force, there will always be a number of parasites and lazy persons who will live at the public's expense and at the sacrifice of a
colleague who does the work of two persons and-I place this consideration before you, my colleagues speaking the French language -live at the expense of the good name of our race.
The hon. Secretary of State stated that it was not his intention to dismiss any translator. So much the better, if he can find work for them all. However, on behalf of French Canadians, I request the Secretary of State that when he finds a lazy, good for nothing fellow or a drunkard, whether he is a French Canadian or not, let him put him out.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There are too many good people, heads of families who are starving in our respective counties, so that we have no right of taking to task a minister whose intentions are of the best, in order to force him to keep lazy men, when, every day, poor people knock at our doors.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the bon. member allow me?
, Mr. BOURASSA (Translation): No. I do not wish to be personal however, the hon. member is aware that there are some.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No, I an not.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
be adhered to, but under the control of a superintendent not connected with the other departments; but nevertheless, responsible to the minister.
Let us now pass to the question of parliamentary debates. The hon. Secretary of State gave us to understand, to-day, that there will be some change made to the bill, in order that this new department may be divided into branches. I think he is right.
I may even add that such are my views expressed more than once, in an intimate way, to a few persons who may have had some hand in the draughting of this act. I think that owing to the considerable difference between the work of the translators of the house and that of the translators of the various departments-always under one sole supervisor-it is quite proper that there should be two branches.
I repeat it, there is no constitutional question to be raised, on the second reading of the bill. One could prolong the debate on this question. Parliament, under the rule of Alexander Mackenzie, and having as sponsors Edward Blake, Mr. Fournier, later on a judge of the supreme court, Laurier, who was to be the future leader of the Liberal party, enacted two of the most beneficial measures that have ever been adopted in Canada: the act relieving the house of its jurisdiction over the mandates of its members, one of the fundamental principles of the liberty of the Commons; the other relieving the house of the daily and efficient control of the disposal of funds which it votes, by creating the Auditor General's office which our translators designate as- " auditeur general "-a man who is listening, that is the translation given to designate the Auditor General's office. We have at present an auditor general's office over which parliament has no authority; and parliament, indirectly, has to bear up with this control over the funds we vote. This was found necessary for reasons of a political order. I need not go into details, the reason for such legislation may be found in the debates of that period; and I think that no Liberal can feel ashamed of these two acts, draughted by the most respected and eminent men of their party. I do not think that the Liberal party in Canada has ever produced two more eminent men than Edward Blake and Laurier.
Therefore, the question of parliamentary control does not strike me as being very important. However, I think that the two branches should be separate. Does this mean that about fifteen employees who work four months each year should, with the conditions

that prevail at present in this country, remain inactive during eight months or earn some money elsewhere? We are paying them from 83,000 to 84,000 per year in round figures, to only woi'k four months, or let us say five or six months. I ask the hon.. member for Ottawa, but- in particular the hon. members for the city of Montreal: When this measure is explained to their constituents, what figure will they cut? When their constituents are starving, fathers have no bread to give to their family, will they boast of having voted in the house to allow fifteen gentlemen, some of them bachelors, to earn 84,000, in five or six months, so that they may rest seven months? They will soon find out what French Canadians think of this so-called claim of race rights. This also applies to the house stenographers. Here are employees that I have known for thirty years, and I have always considered a number of them as intimate friends. However, my duty to my country and social justice takes precedence over my friends; I therefore state that it is unprincipled at the present time, when we cut off 10 per cent of the salaries of all public employees, fathers of families who earn 81,000 per year, working the year around, and having to sacrifice 8100; I say it is unprincipled not to make about thirty employees, whether stenographers or translators, work two or three months more, when commissions are sitting such as the ones investigating bank affairs, tariff or others which are not connected with parliament, but which, however, were appointed by parliament. Will hon. members contend that it is divesting ourselves of our privileges to force these gentlemen to work or must we allow them to loaf as we do? There are enough of us!
My dear friends-pardon my familiarity -a few weeks ago I told you: Feel the public's pulse. It is not a question of coming here and contending that to be in the good grace of our friends we must comply with the " Droit " or " Devoir," so as to draw their praise or avoid their abuse. I have been aware of this fact for forty years. We hold a mandate from all classes of people; I therefore, contend that we should, first preoccupy ourselves with the common welfare, especially that of the average.
I do not wish to prolong the debate, you will allow me, sir, to apply the five or ten minutes which remain of my time to discuss the question of the rights of the French language. The hon. member for Ottawa spoke with much skill and wit, as to the value of this bill in guaranteeing the rights of the

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
French language. He contends that it adds nothing and even may lessen this guarantee. Again, I do not claim to be a lawyer, however, I have devoted much time to the study of constitutional law. I once heard Sir Charles Tupper, with the energy which characterized him and his powerful voice, state that if, to become a lawyer, one must learn how to split hairs in four and lose one's common sense; he preferred not to be a lawyer.
I thought I heard the hon. member, while quietly smoking my pipe behind the curtains so as to seek some inspiration-because it is usually while smoking a pipe that I find such inspiration-I thought I heard the hon. member quote one of my speeches, I do not exactly remember the year, in which I quoted Article 133 of the Constitution as a basis for our rights I have not the quotation here. May I immediately confess: I have said a lot of nonsense in my life; that may be one, however, from where I stood, I think I caught the sense of this quotation ten years old or more. I then spoke, often, of the "right'' of the French Canadians to their language in all spheres of our national administration; but then, as to-day, I was aware of the chasm existing between right and law.
According to the spirit, article 133 recognizes, in principle, equal rights for the two languages; however, in practice, in the words of the act, it restricts the compulsory use of French-compulsory, remember-to the printing of documents of the house and the printing of the statutes; that is all, then a period. Even as regards to the debates of Hansard, instituted four or five years after confederation, I have strong doubts, if from a strictly legal angle, this privilege of taking down stenographic notes, each in turn, of the French and English speeches, and after having both texts translated, I have strong doubts, I state, that such a privilege is covered by article 133. Let us suppose that it is a moral right. Since when in history, have you seen a moral right recognized when it is not backed by the wording of the act? What I find in this case-that is why I approve of this bill-is that, for the first time, in legislation introduced by the government, bearing the seal of government responsibility, and adopted by the house, the French language, both in fact and right, in law as well as in the spirit of the constitution, shall in the future be on an equal footing in the administration of all departments, and that it will no more be left to the whims cf a minister or deputy minister,
however narrow-minded or dull he may be, to restrict this right by a narrow and Pharisaical interpretation, because he will then have before him the wording of the act.
The hon. member for Ottawa states this act may be abolished next year. No doubt Such may' be the case with all laws. We can do so to-morrow, if we are silly enough-if the session lasts long, anything may happen- we can enact a measure, to-morrow, to abrogate the criminal code and give "carte blanche" to all our criminals; we can enact a measure to do away with hon. gentlemen, the minister, and proclaim that the country will govern its ownsellf-perhaps, it might not be worse off. It is hard to tell, we can abrogate any statute. Since the Westminster statute has come into force, we can, if we wish, amend any article of our constitution, including article 133. But that we should add to the incomplete and embryonic article 133, an act adopted by this house so as to give effect, in practice, to the principle embodied in that article, I contend that we raise the wall which protects our rights in all the administrative spheres of Canada. I maintain that we give a legal form, a term no more restricted to the Imperial parliament.-because we must remember that, in its original form, the British North America Act is an imperial one, if we wish to look at it from a strict legal interpretation-however, by a measure enacted by ourselves, we give our sanction, we spread it, we make its enforcement practical in all departments. And I stated that, in my opinion, the measure introduced by the Secretary of State is an excellent one and is well deserving that we should overlook certain questions of detail.
In the study of acts as in all other measures, let us beware of this tendency of the French character to peer into, as I stated just now, details with a magnifying glass and lose sight of the fundamental principle and the [DOT]general economy of legislative measures.
It is with both hands that I welcome this bill, as a crowning event of forty years of conflict carried on in defence of the French language, when three quarters of the French Canadian Liberals fired in my back and called me a traitor to Laurier, a struggle which I carried on in agreement with the Liberals and Conservatives of goodwill-there were always some not only among the Canadians speaking French, but also among the Canadians speaking English, in the other provinces. When a rational question is placed before them, supported by arguments not drawn by pinches-

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bourassa
from such and such a text of law, but arguments which appeal to common sense, to the sense of fair play, I state we always obtain results; not always immediately and such as we expect, because an Englishman is slow, deliberate in his movements, it is hard for him to cast aside his prejudices; but once his thick skin has been pierced, when he has become convinced that a measure has common sense, that it is practical and just, one has sometimes to knock hard to pierce that skin, but once that is done, we usually find among most of them, an upright conscience, a well placed heart; and they apply the act in a broadminded way.
I shall therefore support the bill, leaving to the committee which will be appointed the care of examining it in its details, improve on it if necessary and send it back to the house so that we may give it a final sanction, to which, I feel certain, after studying and thinking it over, the large majority of French Canadians will support it, in spite of the beclouding of the question by newspapers and patriotic associations which have been hand' ing to one and other scraps of papers without, I feel sure, having closely studied the question.
At six o'clock the house recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (North Timis-ka-ming) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, we
had, this afternoon, the good fortune of listening to the splendid speech delivered by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) as well as that of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). It brought back my happy boyhood days, when I resided in Montreal, where, on many occasions, I was fortunate enough to hear these two gentlemen discussing national questions which interested the whole country. Useless to state that I was in no way disappointed in listening to their speeches. One thing struck me; the hon. member for Labelle thought fit to confess that in the past, on various occasions, he had talked nonsense. I accepted his statement in the way he intended it to be understood, because the hon. member was then replying to a question of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) with reference to the question which at present interests us, and which was threshed out to a certain extent, in a masterly way by the hon. member for Labelle. No doubt had

the Bill No. 4 been introduced by the hon. member for Labelle, that would have been sufficient for me to endorse its second reading. However, to a question put by the hon. member for Ottawa, the hon. member for Labelle refused to reply, namely, would not this bill do away, to some extent with the practical establishment of the French language in Canada, basing such an argument on article 133?
To another question, sir, put by the hon. member for Ottawa, the hon. member replied very discourteously. He stated, however, that certain statements he had made in the past were purely and simply nonsense. In fact, the hon. member for Labelle, in the past, did make statements which smacked of nonsense on certain questions which interested the country at large. Does the same principle apply to the speech which the hon. member has delivered in the house on the present debate ?
What also amazed me, was the hon. member's little reliance in the press of this country. When the author of the present amendment pointed out - that the French Canadian press feared that the bill under consideration might be a blow to the French language, the hon. member for Labelle asserted that the press had no reason to protest as it did. The hon. member, therefore, proved that he placed little reliance in the press of this country. Nevertheless he was a director of the excellent French Canadian newspaper "Le Devoir"; he was its manager for years, if not the proprietor and editor. He fails to uphold the press when he states that he places no reliance in it, moreover, the hon. member gives the impression that he is against the entire press of the country. If he places no reliance in editorials he wrote in the past, and in the editorials which will again be written by him, what will the people of Quebec and Canada think, whether they be French or English speaking when they read articles, editorials penned by the hon. member for Labelle, on various occasions, with reference to our great political problems? His references to the press of this country, implies also a newspaper of Ottawa the "Droit." The hon. member for Labelle, this afternoon, without making a solemn declaration, gave us to understand that he also, in the past, worked to have justice done to all classes of this country. I have, sir, no direct or indirect interest in any newspaper. However, I am strongly of the opinion that the press should inform the public on questions in which they have an interest at stake. The "Droit" for fifteen consecutive years has

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
considered it a duty to put clearly all facts before the people of Ontario. Hon. gentlemen are aware as to what happened, when in 1912, the famous regulation XVII was placed in the statutes of Ontario. Under the direction of this independent newspaper, interested in this question, the cooperation of not only the whole of Ontario but of Canada was asked, all were called upon to do their duty and to inform the people of the facts in this respect.
Thanks to the hon. gentlemen that we elected to the Ontario Legislative Assembly and thanks especially to the work accomplished by this excellent newspaper, the "Droit", peace reigns in Ontario and there is a complete understanding between the various classes in the community, between French and English Canadians. This result is due for the major part to the campaign waged by this newspaper. That is why I rise to protest against such a statement made in the house. I could point to a long list of distinguished persons who also did their utmost to solve the problem to which I have just referred. I may say that I also did my bit to improve conditions and help those who had to suffer on that account. That is why I feel quite at liberty to deny certain statements made this afternoon.
The hon. member for Labelle alluded to the conduct, of certain officials in the house, of certain public employees, and particularly to certain translators. When he was asked and pressed to name them, he refused. He called them lazy fellows, drunkards, etc. Remember that such a statement falls from the lips of a distinguished and able man. The hon. member for Labelle attacks all public employees outside this house when he makes such a statement. When an hon. member makes a charge, he should, at least be very sure of his ground.
Other assertions were also made in the house by the hon. member for Labelle. He stated that certain translators in such and such departments translated so many pages-however, he mentioned no names. In one instance, a translator only translated 44 pages per year. When the hon. member refers to such translators he should give their names and not hide behind the immunity he enjoys in the house to make such charges.
I repeat that if the object of the bill was really what the hon. member for Labelle endeavours to make us believe, I, myself, would endorse the measure. Certainly, the hon. Secretary of State was not so clear in his remarks. In fact, he spoke of uniformity and economy, but he did not go so far as the hon. member for Labelle who stated that the object
of the bill was to increase French influence, to ensure greater recognition of the French language in all dominon government matters. I shall not endeavour to further reply to the statements of the hon. member for Labelle. However, there is one thing that hon. members of this house must have noted, it is the fact that the discussion has carried on outside the field of politics. The hon. Secretary of State, for whom I have the greatest esteem, must have noted that the hon. member for Ottawa made out a strong case from the viewpoint of translation, the efficiency of the service and even from an economic angle; he also found it possible to discuss this question without entering the field of politics. However, I greatly regretted to see that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) thought fit again to make insinuations stating that he could understand the sympathy displayed by the hon. member for Ottawa towards the civil service employees and that it might be to his interest to act thus. Such charges cannot be levelled against me because I do not think I have ten public employees in the constituency which I have the privilege of representing. However, it is recognized that the hon. membei for Ottawa has proved himself greatly competent in discussing all questions which pertain to the civil service and those having a national issue. He again proved this fact, this afternoon. That is why I took this opportunity to refute the Charges which the hon. member for Labelle thought fit to level against the hon. member for Ottawa.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, I fully realize the importance of the problem under discussion today, and I am sure it must have been gratifying to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) as well as to others who followed him, to find this debate lifted entirely out of the realm of politics. The Secretary of State certainly put his case wonderfully well before the house, and he approached it to some extent from a different angle than he did on the first reading. At the time of the first reading of the bill the impression was created that the intention was primarily to promote efficiency and economy; this afternoon the minister enlarged upon his former explanation. We had the gratifying spectacle of one of his old colleagues-I refer to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-supporting this legislation. Speaking for myself, in view of all that was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle, in view of what he propounded, if he had himself intrddueed this bill I do not think that any member of the house could find it possible to vote against it. In reply to a direct question asked by the senior member for Ottawa

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
(Mr. Chevrier) this afternoon, however, the Secretary of State did not discuss the subject from the same angle as did the hon. member for Labe'lle. As for the two reasons advanced by the minister when he first introduced the bill, the reasons of efficiency and of economy, I do not think that the members of parliament can find fault with it. Everyone wants efficiency, not only in the matter of translation but in every department of government; and while undoubtedly there are times when it is rather dangerous to go too far in the direction of economy, I do not think that on that score it can be complained that we shall not obtain greater efficiency.
If my recollection is correct, when the bill was originally introduced, the Secretary of State tried to build up his case for the centralization of the translation services on the fact that his own department had found it impossible to have a translation of the speech from the throne. Well, I know enough about the administrative powers of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to feel assured that if the Secretary of State had brought to his attention the fact that there was any difficulty about obtaining any translation in his department because of an insufficiency of money for the purpose, the Prime Minister would have seen to it that an adequate number of translators were provided for the purpose; because after all the Prime Minister would never sacrifice efficiency to economy.
On the question of the centralization of translators, a good deal can be said both for and against it. Personally, as a layman not very well versed in civil service matters, I think I could point out several departments that could be brought under a centralization scheme. But, as was pointed out this afternoon by the senior member for Ottawa, in the work of translating reports and so forth there are a certain number of experts, technicians, in the various departments, men who have spent long years of training to equip themselves for a particular type of translation. The question might be asked, for instance, as to what the Secretary of State would do with regard to centralizing chemistry. We know that throughout the activities of the government there are several departments in which chemistry plays an important part; we find this in the mint, in the mines branch, in the Department of National Revenue and in several other departments in each of which there are chemists working on the same kind of formula and each has had special training for that particular work. I know the Minister of Agriculture would certainly criticize anyone who would dare to transfer to the National
IMr. Bradette.1
Research Council the chemists under his own supervision.
While it can be easily proved that certain departments could be centralized, it could also be easily proved that so far as ability and efficiency are concerned, there are certain other government departments which it would be impossible to centralize. What I have said in regard to chemists could apply as forcibly to other specialized type of employees. I have in my hand a memorandum by the Civil Service Commission under date of April 15, 1924, reading as follows:
Most departments have a small but expensive translating staff, not only to handle French correspondence, but also departmental publications and general translations. ... A central unit would handle translation other than departmental correspondence. . . .
Under proper organization there would be a saving, not only by the elimination of positions which would naturally become surplus on amalgamation, but also by reduction in the classification of others, for example, eleven head translators would scarcely be required in the new branch.
From reading that part of their report one can readily see that it is not in conformity with the statement made by the Secretary of State this afternoon. Speaking of centralization he presented a picture that, if I understood him correctly, would lead one to believe that while this is called centralization, it is really decentralization because he will maintain as an entity the translating staffs of the House of Commons and of the Senate and in addition a certain amount of liberty in all the departments. He almost implied that in all the other departments they would maintain practically the same staffs. The only difference I - can see is that over and above all the translators there will be a deputy minister or a man having the qualifications necessary to be at the head of the branch who will have complete control of all the translating. That is the inference I drew from! the speech of the Secretary of State. If my inference is correct, we are not going to have centralization. It means simply that the Secretary of State now recognizes that centralization of translation is impossible of application.
This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle spoke of the superman, the man under whom we could centralize all the different translators and under whom the translating work would be perfect. He made allusion to certain words: he mentioned, for instance, the fact that " the Speaker of the house " is always wrongly translated in the French language. He should not be called " speaker " because as a member of parliament he never

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
says a word. This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle mentioned the word " sottise." In English it means " silliness, foolishness, folly; silly thing, foolish trick, nonsense, indecency, insult; abusive language," and in French it means " defaut d'esprit et de juge-ment, action sotte." This simple illustration will make us realize that even if we have only one man at the head of all the translators, we would find some anomalies; we would not have perfect service.
The Secretary of State this afternoon made out a great case by exhibiting in the house a number of documents that were printed at the printing bureau and that were returned with a large number of corrections to be made. If those were all the corrections that would have to be made in a year, surely he could not say that that was too much, because even in the beat organized printing bureau in Canada or any other country, there would always be corrections to be made and surely we could never expect that under a new head the work would be so perfect that there would be no need for correction in work sent back from the printing bureau.
Personally I do not contend that some improvement could not be made in all departments, including translating. While the translation service is loyal and has given good work, no doubt it could be improved in some respects, but surely no one can tolerate the reflection cast this afternoon on the translating staff as well as on the whole civil service.
As regards the matter of centralization, why has the government singled out the one branch of translation? A great case is being made at the present time of the fact that the accountants are under one branch. This matter was well explained this afternoon by previous speakers, the senior member for Ottawa, and the hon. member for Labelle. Accountancy is practically the same the world over; an accountant is recognized in Montreal, in Vancouver; ledger entries are practically the same everywhere. Expert men are not required; those that are needed are men who have certain qualifications, who go through a specific course and who prove by passing a civil service examination that they have the qualifications for filling the position. The Secretary of State made a great point of the fact that government accounting work had been centralized. In the same memorandum that I mentioned a few moments ago the Civil Service Commission also recommended the establishment of:
1.	An engineering and scientific service to assume the work for the Departments of Public Works, Railways and Canals, Marine and Fisheries, water power branch.
At the present moment, so far as those departments are concerned, there is no mention of amalgamation or centralization.
2.	A central accounting service for all government departments.
So far as I can see this is the only service that has been centralized and again we do not need in that work the same measure of expertness as in the translation service.
3.	A central purchasing service for all government departments.
Everyone knows that there is an overlapping in the purchasing branches of the government, and again I do not see any sign of any measure to bring about centralization of this work.
4.	A central multigraphing and duplicating service.
Again there has been no discussion on this matter and there are no signs of centralizing it.
5.	A central photostat, blue-printing, photolithographic and photographic service.
No one has heiard of centralizing those activities.
8.	Amalgamation of income tax service and Department of Customs and Excise.
Instead of these two departments being centralized, they have been put apart. For instance, the income tax branch has been placed under the Civil Service Commission and instead of centralization of these two departments, for the last three years there has been decentralization.
7.	Amalgamation of Surveys branches.
This has not been accomplished so far as
I know.
8.	Possible amalgamation of Departments of the Secretary of State and External Affairs.
This amalgamation has not been brought about, although it was suggested in the memorandum.
9.	Transfer of all legal officers to the Department of Justice.
I am not so much in favour of the centralization of that service because the principle applying to translators and chemists applies just as forcibly to the law branches of the different government departments.
10.	Consolidation of departmental libraries and establishment of a central reference library.
So far as I know, there has been no centralization along those lines. Therefore, when the Secretary of State to some extent

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
decried the campaign that has been going on for the last two months in the French speaking section of the press of this country, he should not be surprised because the question is: Why was the translation service singled out from all the other recommendations that were made a few years ago? There is also the fact that when the deputy ministers were asked to give their views in regard to centralization of the translation staffs in their various departments, they unanimously declared that the system in vogue was giving satisfaction to all persons concerned. I agree with the hon. member for Labelle that if the present bill will assure us better translation service, certainly we would all be in favour of it, but the Secretary of State this afternoon mentioned the fact of delays of months in the printing bureau. Will he place the blame wholly on the translation staffs of the different departments? He was not very clear when he made that statement. Nevertheless the impression was given in the house that the blame should be placed1 entirely on the translators in the different departments. I do not believe the condition is so bad as has been stated, and surely the translators should not be expected to take all the blame.
Then there is the matter of more efficient service; as I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, everyone wants efficiency. This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) made some reference to the wonderful improvement that had been made in the Department of Trade and Commerce. That is absolutely true. Some documents which were not printed simultaneously in both languages a few years ago are printed in that way now. I remember that last year I directed the attention of the House of Commons to the fact that a certain document dealing with statistics was being issued in the English language only, and a few days later we had that document translated into French. Surely the same improvement could be made in all the departments of the government. I know enough of the present Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the government in general to be sure that they will never sacrifice efficiency for the sake of economy.
I hope the Secretary of State realizes that the criticism expressed this afternoon was not directed at him personally. We all know his personality and his true Canadianism; we all know that he always has been fairminded and just. The criticism was directed to the bill which he brought into the house, and the criticism was to the effect that he has been ill advised. We think this bill is illtimed; that it did not originate with the Secretary

of State but with some of his advisers, for some unknown reasons. Last fall I ' was fortunate enough to assist at a banquet given by the university of Ottawa at which the Prime Minister made a wonderful address. At that time he demonstrated his knowledge of the different elements which make up the population o>f this country, and their aspirations; and at the conclusion of his remarks he received great, spontaneous applause. That is why we do not direct our criticism against the Secretary of State personally; we know he wants to be fair to every section of the population.
With regard to the question of economy, I could enlarge on that subject at great length, but I believe it has been shown that no real economy will be brought about by this measure. According to the minister the present staff will be retained, at least, and presumably there will be some superior officers appointed. If the idea of centralization is carried out to the full, it will mean that the present translators in the different departments will have to be housed in one large office, and a staff will have to be engaged. I ask hon. gentlemen to visualize the number of messengers who will have to be employed if this central office is to keep in hourly contact with every department of the government. I should think a staff of at least sixty messengers would be required for that purpose, so I do not see where this measure will bring about any economy.
This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle made out a wonderful case against the translators and reporters of the Senate and House of Commons. I know something about stenography, and I can tell you that those people earn every cent they get for their work in this house. It is always possible to single out certain people in the civil service and say that they earn $4,000 per year while other men are out of employment at the present time; that is what the hon. member for Labelle did. Surely it is not to the credit of the hon. member for Labelle to reflect on the civil servants employed in this house in order to build up a case; as I say, I know something about stenography and something about the work the reporters are called upon to perform, and they earn every cent they get. The same statement applies just as forcibly to the translators. They do not work in shifts; they work very long hours, but they are just as loyal as are any other civil servants. The senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) demonstrated this afternoon that these translators cannot work in shifts; you will not have efficient service if you try to

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
adopt that method of procedure. So I believe I have shown that under the present bill there will be no economies brought about, and I am sincere in my statement, because I believe in the sincerity of every hon. member of this house. It would never enter my mind to cast any reflection on the sincerity of any hon. gentleman, no matter in what corner of the house he has his seat.
It may be said that it is impossible for the Secretary of State to withdraw this bill gracefully, but if a faux pas has been committed surely a way can be found to withdraw without dishonour. I have in mind a condition which existed for many years in the province of Ontario; I refer to a certain rule that was put on the statutes of Ontario in 1912 by the then Minister of Education. In all sincerity the French speaking minority in Ontario thought they were being done an injustice; we felt that we were being treated like the poor relation in the household. Through our press and our representatives in the Ontario legislature we created a feeling in Ontario which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the rule. We were not violent in our campaign, but we knew we had justice on our side. In 1927, fifteen years later, the gentleman who in 1912 had been Minister of Education was premier of the province of Ontario. I did not always agree with his political opinions; on a great many occasions I found it possible to criticize his administrative actions, but after that gentleman visited every section of Ontario, understanding our viewpoint, he realized that we only wanted to play our part in the development and advancement of the province, and eventually that rule was withdrawn from the statute. Do you think the then premier of the province of Ontario decreased in political stature in the least as a result of that action? No; he became not only a provincial but eventually a national statesman. Certainly he was not dishonoured, and I do not believe the Secretary of State will bring any dishonour on himself in withdrawing this measure. In his own speech this afternoon he practically admitted that there has been criticism of the bill from many organizations in all sections of Canada.
This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle said that you should not listen to the press. I was astonished at that statement, because I read with almost religious ardour several of the articles which I found on the editorial page of the newspaper of which he was the founder and, until recently, the owner and editor. The motto on the front page of that publication, in which I understand he has no
interest at the present time, is: Fais ce que dois. So I think we must believe in the sincerity of the things that are done both in and out of this house; I give all credit to the Secretary of State for being sincere, but I am afraid he has been badly advised in this connection. Should he find it possible to withdraw the bill he will not be disgraced because, as I have said, there was almost a parallel case in the province of Ontario.
Again I want to remind the Secretary of State that the criticism he has read in the newspapers and to which he has listened in this house was not directed at him personally. No one, I think, could cast any doubt on his sincerity, because we all know what he has done for every section of the population in Canada. He typifies to every citizen, and most particularly to French Canadians, the Anglo Canadian, the man who is naturally broadminded, and who speaks bilingually, and thinks and acts nationally. I believe, the same as he does, in our great British institutions, in the purpose of our parliaments. I am perfectly at ease making an appeal to him, knowing that my message will be received in the spirit in which it is given.
This afternoon the hon. member for Ottawa made allusion to the Frechette report. I was going to answer the hon, member for Labelle on the statements he made this afternoon, but I find that for a very good reason I am not in a position to do so. He built up a strong case in favour of centralization, stating that for the last ten, twenty or thirty years in the several visits he had made, almost weekly, to several government departments he had found great masses of documents in English which had not been translated into French. I thought we had had centralization prior to 1910, but the information I have received since is to the effect that in fact we have never had centralization in Canada.
This afternoon the senior member for Ottawa read almost the whole of the Frechette report into the record, so that at this time it is not my intention to go into it at length. This report was made after inquiry into the conditions in some bilingual countries. It was made by a man who did not belong to the civil service and who, because of that fact, was in a position to give an impartial and a just report of what he found. Upon returning he expressed himself as absolutely opposed to the centralization of the translation services, so far as efficiency was concerned.
I wish at this time to quote an article which appeared in Le Devoir in the month of February this year. No doubt this is the article to which the minister referred this afternoon
100S

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bradette
when be mentioned the campaign in the press which he had had to face for the last few months. This article will give an idea to the House of Commons of the constructive criticism which was levelled at the Secretary of State, and the respect which was shown, even in the criticism, for his personality. I have made the following translation:
In the first place, whatever be the intrinsic merit of the proposal, whatever peril it may conceal, we are one of those who, being cognizant of Mr. Cahan's early activities and of the heavy sacrifices-much heavier than one is apt to surmise-toward vindicating the rights of minorities, find it impossible to consider him in the light of an enemy of our ethnic group, and are unwilling to do anything towards diminishing the share of influence which rightly belongs to him in the sphere of dominion affairs.
In the second place, it may be-while we are ignorant of it-that the present organization, either through a defect inherent in the system, or through individual failings, does not give complete satisfaction.
But that being granted, and this is our third argument, it seems clear to any one who takes time to go into the details of the scheme that this measure making for the centralization of translations would neither answer the purpose of efficiency, nor even that of economy, -which it purports to procure.
It seems also-and that is a fourth point to note-its outcome might quite possibly be to result, without appreciable economy, in a lower standard of efficiency, as regards both the quality and quantity of the translation turned out, and thus would the standard and importance of French, even as matters now stand, insufficiently recognized in the dominion government service, be further reduced.
To all these points and a few others we shall recur in the near future, with facts and illustrations in support.
Improvements may be in order; but the remedy is quite of a different nature from that proposed in the bill. And we believe that it would be comparatively an easy matter to prove our contention to the satisfaction even of the Secretary of State.
I believe in the sincerity of this article, and I know the Secretary of State also believes in it. It is not my intention to deal at greater length with this matter, because I believe the house is seized of the sincerity of the objections we have made to the bill, and I know that no ulterior motives are behind this discussion. In a discussion of this nature everyone must naturally and necessarily be within the bounds of logic, and be honest in his motives. On the coat of arms of the royal family of Great Britain are the words "Honi soit qui mal y pense." All we want is perfect coordination and understanding of every branch of this great Canadian family.
I believe that to a certain measure I have proven that this so-called centralization would not give us the measure of efficiency which,
fMr. Bradette ]
at first glance, it might seem to offer. Secondly, I say that no economy would be accomplished by centralization. There are several other bureaus, several other governmental departments to which that principle could be applied. I can see where there would be objections from different ministers through the fact that they would lose some of the prerogatives they enjoy in their own departments.
I was not quite satisfied with the statements made this afternoon by the Secretary of State when he mentioned that the Speaker of the house should be satisfied by being Speaker alone. Surely we have enough faith and confidence in our Speakers, men who are honoured with that high office on account of their great training, on account of their understanding and personal knowledge, to believe that they can look after at least the administration of the House of Commons and its services.
Again may I say I know the Secretary of State will realize that hon. members on this side of the house are sincere in their appeal, and we are confident we shall receive the hearing to which we are entitled and which we expect from such a person as he is.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga): Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) has many features deserving of most careful attention. In fact, after the recital delivered by the hon, member in explanation of this measure the bill leaves us somewhat in confusion as to the true reason for submitting to parliament such a drastic and revolutionary piece of legislation. First of all, centralization of translation services is net a matter which is being studied for the first time. It has been discussed in the past. As far back as 1909 the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons of Canada sent Mr. Achille Frechette to Belgium and Switzerland to inquire into and report upon the system of translation obtaining in those countries. At that time there was more or less a system of centralization for the translation of departmental and parliamentary reports and documents.
Let us see what this investigator had to say in regard to centralization. Quoting from page 7 of the official report of Mr. Frechette, dated at Paris, September, 1910, I find the following:
But now that the publications of the public service deal with so many activities unknown to the primitive country that we were then; now that all the human interests, more and' more specialized, find their expression in the

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
papers presented to the Canadian parliament, a centralized translation office can no longer do justice to so much work that calls for specialists.
And further:
The experience I have acquired during thirty-six years of service in the Commons have convinced me that in centralization rests the vice of our system.
And among the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Frechette we find one to the effect that translation services should be established in the departments. He does not say to do away with the existing services, as is proposed in the present bill, but to maintain them and to establish similar services in all the other departments. Let us quote again from the original report:
Therefore ... I conclude that it is desirable to extend in Canada to all the departments, the practice already intelligently introduced in some of them, as, for instance, the Department of Agriculture, and very recently, that of Marine aud Fisheries; . . . and' that department officers be given the duties of translating the annual reports of their departments and, among the other papers furnished by them to parliament, those which the printing committee would recommend to be printed.
And further on he insists that as a result time would be gained and the quality of work improved.
We have thus on record a man of high standing, of long experience in the Commons, eminently qualified and competent to offer judgment and advice in the matter, who is unequivocally against centralization.
But we may add to this testimonial. Later, in 1919, the Union government brought from the United States the Griffenhagen people, and the Arthur Young Company, efficiency experts, giving them the task of classifying and reorganizing the public service of Canada. The least we can say is that these experts had a certain reputation for high-class achievement. At all events, they were chosen by the Union government supposedly on their good record in that class of work. They were consequently given a free hand. Their work was tremendous, and they made a good job of it as a whole. They did some reorganization in various departments but, although familiar with the diverse needs of government services, they ignored or were not impressed by the alleged necessity of centralizing the translation services of all the departments. About the year 1913, the Hon. Mr. Blondin organized a central bureau of translation with a staff of twenty-one translators whose work covered the annual reports and documents from almost every department, including re-74726-64
ports from royal commissions and parliamentary committees. This staff was gradually decreased as the years went on because various departments found it more convenient to appoint their own translators: the Work was' done more rapidly and with more 'accuracy. Thus we find that after only a few years' trial, centralization was being abandoned and translators were being appointed to the Mines branch, to the departments of Public Works, Finance, Secretary of 'State, Post Office and Customs, and to the railway commission, the Auditor General's office, and so forth, leaving a staff of only ten or eleven translators in the bluebooks branch which is now functioning under the name of the general translation branch. Thus We have had a regular, a fair and extended trial of centralization, and it has been found wanting, unsatisfactory, cumbersome and totally inadequate to the needs of the administration.
Not so very long ago the government appointed a committee to inquire into the cost of printing and stationery, and, incidentally, into the cost of publishing, printing and distributing public documents. The question of translation naturally came under discussion as a contributing factor. This eom-'mittee, known as the Sellar committee, was composed of members highly qualified to deal Vith such an important subject and these men had to study a great number of reports, some of which were strongly in favour of centralization of translation services. Others were equally forceful and pronounced against such 'a plan. No doubt the pros and cons were eon-'seientiously considered, and I am credibly informed that the unanimous conclusion arrived at by the committee was to recommend to the government to make no change 'so far as a central bureau for translations was concerned, but to leave well enough alone.
So we have centralization condemned by a special investigator who made a strong report against it; it was also ignored by the Griffenhagen people and the Arthur Young Company; it was abandoned after the test of actual experience and thrown overboard by a reoently appointed committee. Therefore the hon. Secretary of State had very little to fall back upon in introducing the bill now before the house. The minister says that he received a report from the Civil Service Commission. But what kind of report did he receive? Who was the author of this recommendation? From what I have heard, the report comes from a third rate man who is not competent to pass judgment on such an



Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
important matter-a man who has no standing as a literary critic, as an organizer, or even as a translator; and further, this report was written at a time when there was no French commissioner to approve of such a report. In fact, I am sure that if the present French commissioner had been in office, that report would never have left the Civil Service Commission, at least in its original form. It was speeded up in the absence of one of the recognized representatives of the French Canadian minority in the cabinet.
Now let us see what the minister has to say in reference to this bill. I quote from Hansard, pages 7 and 8, of January 29:
In January last it was ascertained that there were employed in the public service 91 translators. . . .
The salaries of these 91 translators amount to $252,000.
And further:
Yet some time ago, when a treaty dealing with the waterways was signed between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, there was not a single translator to whom I could apply or to whom I had the right to apply to make a translation of that document from English into French for circulation as required. In respect of private, confidential documents such as that, I had to enlist the services of a personal friend to make the translation. There were other documents such as the convention between Ontario and Quebec in regard to the same waterways, and in connection with them there was no one in the public service to whom I could apply for a translation. I had to go outside to procure the services of a friend to make such translation. And so it is that the different departments are from time to time called upon to prepare in both English and French very important state documents.
These remarks, to say the least, are confusing and may leave the house under a false impression. We would think that the minister has no translator available in his own department. The truth is that at least three translators are listed as being under the authority of the Secretary of State. One of them is even a graduate of the Sorbonne in France.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Who is he?
Mr. ST-PERE: He is connected with the Archives department, Air. Marion. His services were very easily available to the minister. If we follow the same process of reasoning used by those who made up the return in answer to the question of the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice last year, we will find five of them, namely: One principal translator in the patent office, one principal translator in the Archives branch, one editor-translator for the Canada Gazette, and Mr. Van Veen, and Mr. Emond, a re-

mission officer who was also listed as a translator. Perhaps the hon. minister did not at the time realize that he had so many. At all events, why complain that he had no translator to whom he could apply for making the translation desired?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because it is the truth. I
have none.
Air. ST-PERE: All right. I am sure the hon. gentleman did not want deliberately to deceive the house, but his statement would have us believe he had no one available. The minister says he must go outside or ask other departments to get his translation done. It is strange that such would be the case after what we now know about the number of translators under his own jurisdiction. At any rate, it proves that translation services are essential for the proper administration of his own department-we have his own words for it-and if they are essential in his department, they are just as essential in all other departments. The hon. minister's recital is simply an implied condemnation of the government's policy in regard to translators in general. The present government has abolished nearly a score of translators in the interior and finance departments and the civil service commission. They even dismissed a translator actually on duty and who had just been appointed to the railway board. If these services are essential, why abolish these positions? Why could not the Secretary of State appoint a few more translators for his own work? Instead of doing the practical thing, he brings down this bill to rectify a personal grievance, according to his own statement. By withdrawing the translation personnel from other departments to merge them in a central bureau, he is putting the other ministers or heads of departments in the same position as that about which he so bitterly complains. If the hon. minister finds fault in having to call upon outsiders to have his translation done, why should the House of Commons, for example, have to call upon the Secretary of State to have its parliamentary papers and official documents translated? The reason given by the hon. gentleman is not very convincing. Passing the difficulty to others is not a solution and I submit that the only and proper remedy is to add to his own staff according to his needs.
I should like to saj' a word as to the number of translators in the public service. The hon. gentleman says that ninety-one are employed by the government. No doubt he took this figure from the return made last.

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
year in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). This return shows that outside of the House of Commons and the Senate, fifty-eight translators were employed. With those employed in the House of Commons and the Senate we have, all told, ninety-one translators. But at the time of introducing this bill one more position had been abolished, that of chief translator of the Senate debates. So there are now only ninety. The return to which I have referred included many stenographers, clerks and interpreters, so in reality there are not ninety or ninety-one translators in the service. The return included even the name of a remission officer who is not actually a translator. To prove my point, I ask hon. members to refer to the estimates of last' year and those of the current year. In both cases we find only seventy-three or seventy-four translators classified as such. Why should bilingual clerks or stenographers be included among the translators? Why include interpreters and other officers having a completely different classification? The reason is obvious. It is to show that these services are overmanned and although the axe of the guillotine has been operating to the extent of decapitating five thousand civil servants in the short time hon. friends opposite have been in office, it is still sharp enough to cut off a few more heads at the expense of the due and rightful representation which a minority should receive in the public service.
This bill is a direct attack against the privileges of this house. We should have independent control over all officials, officers and employees of the House of Commons. This bill provides further for the abolition of the position of chief of French journals. It does not say so in so many words, but the inference is obvious. Why this attack against the constitution which established the French and English languages as official? Proceedings in this house can be carried on either in the French or in the English language. Let us see what some of the accepted authorities have to say about the House of Commons. Giving his evidence before the select special committee on the civil service and the Civil Service Act on April 13, 1932, as reported on pages 465 and 466 of the evidence, Mr. Beauchesne quoted Mr. Bourinot, who he stated was one of the most distinguished clerks, as follows:
The control and management of the officers of the houses are as completely within the privileges of the houses as are necessary to the conservation of dignity and the efficient conduct of public business.
Mr. Beauchesne also quoted the late Sydney Fisher, whose opinion on this matter will be found in Hansard of June 29, 1928, as follows:
The House of Commons is not a department of government. There are no departments of the service in which the duties are similar to those in the House of Commons.
In placing certain officers and employees of this house under a responsible minister of the crown, the government is acting in direct contradiction to the opinions of the well known authorities quoted by Mr. Beauchesne.
The duty of the chief of English journals is to record the proceedings of this house. The position which this gentleman occupies is one of the utmost importance. He has charge of the drafting of the votes and proceedings and his work forms part of the regular routine of parliament. Therefore, he cannot be removed and placed under a minister of the crown. I submit that the same can be said of the chief of French journals, because the proceedings of the house can be carried on either in French or in English and the French journals hold the same important place in the regular routine of this house as do the English journals. Any attack or any measure tending to remove this official or to abolish the position of chief of French journals is a direct attack against the privileges and authority of this house as well as an attack against the principle of equality between the French and English languages as guaranteed by the constitution.
This change is said to have been inspired for reasons of economy and through a sincere desire to increase efficiency in the services concerned. In this connection I should like to refer to the Beatty report, dated February, 1930. I did not refer before to this report because I wanted to do so at this stage. This report makes no mention of centralization of the translation services as a means of improving this important branch of the public service. I do not doubt that a more competent body has never been called upon to report on matters pertaining to translation and its related subjects. After a careful and complete study of the situation in general and of every aspect of this complex problem, the Beatty commission did not recommend centralization and its report says nothing about it. I contend that had this plan appealed to these investigators as being proper, advantageous and practical, both as to efficiency and to economy, they certainly would have made a recommendation to that effect. One of the most striking recommendations contained in this report is to be found

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
on page 16. It is that a higher rate of salaries should be provided in order to ensure greater efficiency. Therefore, the closer you get to efficiency the further you are from her twin sister, economy. The hon. minister would have us believe that they are like the Siamese twins, but I am afraid that when the real test comes they will be due for a rude separation.
The minister speaks of economy, of efficiency, of improving the lot of these trans-.ators and so on; in fact, he says anything and everything. There is nothing but contradiction in the different assertions of the minister, both in his explanatory notes to the bill and in his statements made in and outside the house. How in the world is it possible to have greater efficiency with a reduced staff? How can we realize any economy by increasing the work? Taking the hon. gentleman at his word, how can he increase the number of translators and reduce it at the same time? How can he save by spending more? I am asking hon. members whom they will believe. Will they believe the minister when he says that a greater number of translators may be appointed later on, or believe the minister when he says that there is no need for any more translators if the work is properly divided amongst those now in the public service? Will they believe the minister when he says that translators will be placed on a higher plane, or believe the minister who says that the bill will result in a considerable saving which cannot of course be realized otherwise than by a downward revision of salaries or a drastic reduction of personnel?
Economy and efficiency are just empty words, meaning nothing. They are no indication of the real reason behind this bill. "Ce bloc enfarine ne me dit rien qui vaille." I am giving my hon. friends this timely warning lest it be too late to repent. Study this bill; compare the notes, the statements and the contradictory claims of the Secretary of State, and tell me sincerely if one can depend on such flimsy promises, vague assurances and problematical results. No, no; for my part I will not be a dupe to such a bargain.
This afternoon the Secretary of State assured this house that the translators of the various departments would) be left in those departments though coming under the new centralized bureau. I will ask the hon. gentleman one question. He knows that according to the Civil Service Act the translators in all departments can be promoted to higher positions and can even be appointed deputy
'Mr. St-Pere.]
ministers. Will my hon. friend tell me whether the transference of translators to this new bureau will deprive them of such promotion?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not answering questions now. When the bill is in committee of the whole house I will answer questions, but I say .this, that under this bill the translators will be under the Civil Service Act and there will be open to them the highest positions possible in the service.
Mr. ST-PERE: But not in the departments to which they formerly belonged. I would be the last to deprive any English speaking citizen of this country of rights he is entitled to in the civil service, but at the same time, as one representing the minority in Canada, I will be the last one to accept anything that will deprive any French Canadian of promotions and rights he is entitled to in the public service of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is no position in the public service to which he will be deprived of promotion under this regime.
Mr. ST.-PERE: He will belong to a new bureau; he will be taken away from his old position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman is
making a speech without even having instructed himself as to the contents of the bill.
Mr. ST.-PERE: The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) inquired of the Secretary of State as to the day on which the investigation mentioned by him on January 29 had taken place, and by whom, and the hon. member received the following answer, which is not an answer at all but only an evasion of the question. The Secretary of State said:
The said committee, in March, 1933, reported to the treasury board on the matters submitted to it, including a report upon "Translations."
The Secretary of State, at the request of the Prime Minister, also interviewed Mr. Beau-chesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, and Mr. C. H. Bland, of the Civil Service Commission, and certain statements were prepared by them, which they probably deemed confidential, for the information of the government.
The Secretary of State is very careful to say that these gentlemen made certain statements which they deemed confidential, and he refuses this house a positive answer with regard to those statements made to his department. Are we not entitled to receive real answers to questions we ask on different matters? Once more we realize that this government does not want the House of Commons to be clearly informed about what

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
took place during this inquiry. If those documents were deemed confidential, will not the Secretary of State tell me and this house where the hon. member for Labelle this afternoon got all those documents with regard to the number of pages translated in every department? I am refraining from accusing the Secretary of State of giving documents to the hon. member for Labelle-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have certainly not, directly or indirectly, given documents to the hon. member for Labelle.
Mr. ST.-PERE:	I cannot therefore subscribe to this bill and I will certainly vote against it, hoping that our friends on the right will realize that the principle at stake is one going far beyond political considerations. It is not a proper time, I submit, Mr. Speaker, to shake the foundations of our constitutional structure and to enact a measure such as the one sponsored by the hon. gentleman, which cannot but aggravate the general situation in this country. This is a time for constructive policies and the hour has come to put an end to this reign of terror which has a demoralizing effect on the whole civil service. There is no more permanence, no more security in office; therefore the government should withdraw this bill and work towards binding all elements in this country in a common feeling of faith and confidence in the future and towards uniting all the energies in order to overcome our present difficulties; but instead of doing this, they add to the unrest and increase the people's misery. Instead of giving work to every man willing to work, as they pledged themselves to do, they throw out of their jobs five thousand civil servants and boast of it as the Secretary of State did in his radio broadcast of last November. At the rate at which these dismissals and retirements have been progressing, the government need not go ahead with the project of building another governmental block; they will not need it. All I suggest that they do is to dean up a large square and build therein a high platform where they can put their guillotine and publicly execute a few more thousands of civil servants whenever they feel like making any retrenchment. So far the only retrenchment accomplished has been at the expense of the civil service.
In conclusion, may I appeal to all those hon. members who uphold the principle of equality as between the French and English languages as the official languages of parliament and stand by the constitution, to vote against this bill. We must have courage; we must be above all party interest. Let us stand
against this bill as contrary to the general interest of the country, as impractical, and above all, as a direct violation of the rights and privileges of this house.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues of the House of Commons, it was with some apprehension that I listened to the statement made by the hon. Secretary of State, when introducing this bill in the house.	As I stated in the
speech I have just delivered in English, I place no reliance in the advantages expected from this bill, considered either from the efficiency or economic viewpoint. I regret that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa, this afternoon, by a process of reasoning peculiar to himself endeavoured to justify this bill, leaving this house under the impression that among our translators, as well as in other departments of the service, there were to be found lazy fellows and drunkards, etc, etc. I never took upon myself to champion the cause of civil servants; however, I have among the translators a large number of former colleagues in journalism and I cannot find one member of the debate staff who has not fulfilled his duty or who has not, quite the opposite to what the hon. member for Labelle endeavoured to convey, worked on an average of ten to twelve hours and even fifteen hours per day in translating from French to English or vice versa the numerous speeches delivered in this house.
No intelligent person would establish a basis of comparison between the work performed by a highly educated man and that of an ordinary worker in our mills or a city-labourer. I have for these workers all the sympathy which is due to them. On many occasions, in this house, I have requested on their behalf higher wages; however this is not a reason for me, to-day, to be unfair by endorsing the statement which the hon. member for Labelle made this afternoon, when he said that among the translators there were to be found lazy fellows and drunkards whose work was out of proportion with the salary they received from the government.
The hon. member for Labelle is always full of compassion for his colleagues in the house. This afternoon, he warned us, we the members for the city of Montreal, to be on guard because, at the next election, these workmen who, at present, are out of jobs or those artisans who are not drawing a salary equal to that of translators of the House of Commons, will be the first to make them give an account of their mandate. Personally, I have no fear to appear before my constituents to prove to them-they are intelligent persons, and

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere
hardly need proofs-that the employees of the House of Commons, those intellectual workers who have passed part of their life in our classical colleges and another part in such an important work as the translation of our public documents, are entitled to the fair salary they receive. My constituents, may it please the hon. member for Laibelle, understand what is meant by distributive justice and a man is appreciated according to his real merit.
The hon. member for Labelle gave us to understand that the translators of debates were very fortunate; once the session is over, these gentlemen could take a three or four months' holiday. But the hon. member for Labelle, who claims to be an expert in translations, a connoisseur, a purist of the French language, must not ignore all the work pertaining to translation: such as scientific researches, the exact terms to be used, etc., and that they are entitled to a rest after such strenuous work.
Would the hon. Secretary of State be kind enough to inform the house whether all documents prepared in his department-namely type-written copies of bills, etc., have been always sent early enough so as to be translated by the House of Commons staff? I am informed from a reliable source that many of these typewritten copies, these documents the translation of which is required immediately in order to issue them without delay to the public, as the hon. member for Labelle stated this afternoon, are sometimes handed in at the last minute to the translators of the house, even after they have been issued in English.
Most of the complaints which were made to-day, were not on account of the delay in the publication of official documents in French, but that too small a number of reports and department documents were not translated and printed in one of the official languages. Must we place the blame on the translators?
My hon. friend may pound his desk. I do not mind being interrupted, but I prefer to be interrupted by an intelligent man.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the speeches made pro and con this bill this afternoon and during the evening. The Secretary of State, (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) have given all the reasons available in favour of this measure, and the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for 'North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) and the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. StnPere), 
have given their reasons for voting against it. May I summarize the reasons given by the hon. member for Eabelle and then state why I am going to oppose this motion and vote in favour of the amendment moved by the senior member for Ottawa.
The hon. member for Labelle stated that under the present system there were delays in the translation and printing of documents and on this account they became useless so far as public interest was concerned. He mentioned that forty, thirty-five, twenty-five years ago he had found under different ministries bundles of documents which had been translated and printed after a long delay and [DOT]which had not been distributed to the public, but which had cost enormous sums of money find had become absolutely useless. He stated that the same thing occurred fifteen years ago, ten years ago and again last year. This was one of the main reasons for his favouring the bill presented by the Secretary of State.
A further reason given was that among the translators many did not possess the qualifications required to occupy the position; that some were lazy and that others were drunkards and did not fulfil their duties. Another reason given was the limited time during which the translators worked; that after four or five months of work they had a vacation for the remainder of the year, a-nd were paid an annual salary of S3,000 or S4,000. From these facts he deduced that the quality of the translations suffered, and he referred to many cases in which translations were not well made. Furthermore he pretends that having all the translators united under the direction of one superintendent would be preferable to the system of having translators in different departments under the various deputy ministers. This comprised the first part of his speech, and he concluded his remarks by referring to the constitutional aspect of the question, stating that by the passing of this bill there would be a further recognition of the French language in the different departments of the government.
The reasons given by the hon. member were all mentioned in 1909 and 1910 when the committee of the House of Commons, after receiving numerous complaints, appointed a former translator of the House of Commons to investigate the situation in European countries where duality and plurality of languages existed. This former clerk made his report to the committee and to the house in 1910, and in his report he mentioned that during

Translations Bureau-Mr. Fournier
the previous seventy years in this country we had a centralized bureau for translations. During the course of his report he gave the same reasons that were advanced this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle in recommending a change in the system. This report was adopted by the House of Commons and the change went into effect in 1911. Before 1910 it was complained that delays were occasioned in the translating and printing of proceedings of the Commons and the different departments; that the French versions were prepared too late to be of much use and that large sums of money were spent because of this faulty system. At that time there were also translators who did (not possess the necessary qualifications to fulfil the position. The report also mentioned that the system of having translators in each department would be far more efficient than the system of centralization.
I particularly refer to this interesting report which was made by Mr. Frechette. He visited Switzerland and Belgium, in which countries duality of languages exists as it does in our country, and after explaining that in Canada the service was centralized in an office he went on to say:
-recruited-may I he permitted to say-independently of any idea of specialization in the work. Of course, the great variety of different technical matters which find their place in the sessional papers is too well known to the members of the board for their enumeration being otherwise than superfluous here; however, it is proper for me to say that all the arts, the sciences, the industries, the interests with which the government of the country is concerned, in turn call for the earnest labour of the House of Commons translator. It is evident that so many various translations, for which the most extensive dictionaries and the usual language are altogether inadequate, must require from the translator vast erudition, constantly supplemented through long hours of research and tireless application. Would it not be too optimistic to expect great success from the anomaly of an organization where it is required of each man to be a universal specialist in order to be fit for expert work in all directions?
All the efforts that the chief translator may make towards specializing the abilities of his staff are rendered vain by the manner in which the documents come from the printing office and by the necessity of having the work done quickly.
The main argument advanced by the Secretary of State this afternoon seemed to be that large amounts of money were spent because of the delay in making the translations in the different departments. Let us ask ourselves whether, by centralizing this staff of translators, the translations will be
made more quickly and whether they will be of better quality. In section 3 the bill states:
(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.
(2)	It shall be the duty of all departments of the public service and all such branches, commissions and agencies as aforesaid to collaborate with the bureau in carrying into effect the provisions of this act and the regulations made thereunder.
Actually there is a staff of translators in each department, who are under the supervision of the deputy minister. The minister and his deputy decide which documents, reports and correspondence shall be translated. In every department we have efficient deputy ministers; they are men of ability and men who know their work, and they have this work done by translators under their immediate control. If all these translators are sent to a central bureau under the superintendence of one man, every department will have to communicate with this man as to translations. Certainly time will be lost in sending work from the different departments to this head office; it will require more messengers and a greater staff of assistants, and the technical officers of the departments will not be at 'hand to advise the translators during the progress of the work. Under the present system the translators can communicate every day and, if necessary, every hour with the technical officers of the different departments; they can receive advice and work accordingly. At page 5 of the report of 1910 I find the following:
The present system, established some seventy years ago, may have answered the needs of the time when the public documents were very far from being as voluminous, as numerous and as specialized as they are to-day, and when the greater part of them, being already in French, had not to go through the French office. But now that the publications of the public service deal with so many activities unknown to the primitive country that we were then; now that all the human interests, more and more specialized, find their expression in the papers presented to the Canadian parliament, a centralized translation office can no longer do justice to so much work that calls for specialists The experience I have acquired during thirty-six years of service in the Commons has convinced me that in centralization rests the vice of our system

Translations Bureau-Mr. Fournier
I understand that this gentleman had occupied the position of chief translator of the commons for quite a number of years, and he was supposed to be an expert in matters pertaining to translation. At all events he had the confidence of the committee of the house which sent him to Belgium and Switzerland. What did he find in those two countries? Mind you, I do not betlieve we should copy everything that is done in other countries, but we should take from those other countries the best that is in their policies and their methods of administration. This gentleman found that each department in Belgium had its own translation staff.
Thus it is seen that nowhere in those two countries-
Speaking of Belgium and Switzerland.
-is translation centralized. And in both countries satisfaction is expressed with the system in use.
For these reasons he concluded his report to the committee of the House of Commons in this way:
I conclude that it is desirable to extend in Canada to all the departments the practice already intelligently introduced in some of them, as, for instance, the Department of Agriculture, and very recently, if I am not mistaken, that of marine and fisheries;
I believe that at the time Hon. Sydney Fisher was Minister of Agriculture. This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle spoke at length about Hon. Sydney Fisher and related certain conversations he had with the hon. member in connection with his wish to do the best he could for the French element of this country. It was under his administration that the Department of Agriculture appointed translators for that department, and this gentleman stated that the work done by this staff was far better than the work done by the translators under the control of the centralized bureau. From 1911 up to date we have had the system of having these translators in each department. We do not pretend that their work has been perfect, but we say that if under the centralized' system there were delays in the translating and printing of documents there were also delays under the system which succeeded it, and we have no assurance that these defects will disappear under the system introduced by the present bill. We have no guarantee that under any system unqualified persons will not occupy positions to which they are not entitled. There will always be some lazy members of any department; human nature is not perfect and mistakes will be made under whatever system you may introduce.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion it was not necessary to introduce this bill simply because translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate have long vacations. Surely some means could have been easily devised, without changing the whole system, to give further work to those people. Will this superintendence give more efficient service than is given at the present time under the deputy ministers of the various departments? I am sure whoever may be put in charge will not be acquainted with all the documents, reports, correspondence and other papers which will have to be translated. He will have to rely on what the deputy minister sends him for translation. The work will only pass under another hand, and that will not increase efficiency. So the reasons given by the hon. member for Labelle are contradicted by the report made in 1910, and the actual facts do not bear out his contentions.
In the last part of his speech the hon. member dealt with the constitutional aspect of the question; he stated that a further recognition of the French language was made by this bill. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), however, told us that the rights of the French language in Canada were to be found in section 133 of the British North America Act, wherein they are clearly defined and restricted. Section 133 of the British North America Act 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; . . . The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
This is the only section which gives any legal right. I am not speaking of moral rights, or of privileges granted or given, or concessions made. I am saying that the only legal right for the use of the French language seems to be in this section of the British North America Act.
What does the bill state further, or add to this section? Part of section 3 of the bill contains the words:
In making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.
This bill does not add to any rights in regard to the French language, and I believe it comes down to a matter of administration.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot
The reasons for opposing the bill may be summarized as follows: that there will be loss of time in the translation in going from every department to the central bureau; that the translation will take more time, and that there will be no economy, owing to the slowness with which the work will be done.
At the end of the bill there is a provision stating that every translator must take an oath of secrecy. This means that the work they are doing is of a confidential nature, and should not be reported to the public. How can there be secrecy in confidential matters if the documents and papers are to be transported from the several departments to the central bureau, passing into the hands of messengers and into those of other people before they reach the translators?
Then, speaking as to specialization may I say that we do not expect any translator to be efficient in every branch of knowledge. Actually, they do specialize, and become specialists. Although they may make mistakes and have difficulties, and although they may not always do their work properly, they have more chance of doing it properly under the present system than they would under the new one. The fact that they will not be in a position to see the technical officers of the departments for which the translations are made will not help in the work of translation; perhaps it will hamper, and the work may lack in quality.
I shall not discuss at length the fact that there are from 91 to 115 translators operating. They work under the Civil Service Commission and, if I am well informed, have been doing so since 1919. Their appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission. If they have not the proper qualifications, who is to blame? Most certainly it would be the Civil Service Commission. If they are appointed by the minister, the man to blame is the deputy or the minister who would make the appointment. Under the new system they would still be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. The hon. member for Labelle has suggested that the minister should make the nominations. Certainly in the appointment of translators mistakes will be made. It is human to err and there will always be some of these people who will not be up to standard and will not possess the qualifications necessary for the position. Such would be the case even if this bill passed the house. If they remain under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission I understand that they will not lose their chance for promotion. If they are to be placed in a single bureau, having a superintendent as their chief, it seems to bar them from opportunities of
getting promotions to other departments of government. In that way they are deprived of a right which they now enjoy.
I have summarized my remarks, and wish to take no further time of the house in explaining my reasons for opposing the motion and supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I could not see this bill receive second reading without taking this opportunity oi making a few remarks. What I have to saj may be of a somewhat rambling nature and will be based on arguments which have been adduced this afternoon and this evening.
One of the grounds urged by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) was that of economy, and in that connection he spoke of the tremendous cost occasioned by corrections having to be made to galley and page proofs of translations. Is the Secretary of State reasonable when he places this extra cost upon the shoulders of the translators? I would also ask him who wrote the proofs. Were those proofs read and the corrections made by the authors of the articles translated, or the authors of the speeches made, or the persons responsible for the reports in English? This afternoon the Secretary of State did show us a sample of a speech made in another chamber. After being translated and the galley proofs made it was subjected to considerable changes. Who made those changes? Were they made by a specialized translator, a superintendent of translators, or-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say to the hon. gentleman that I would refrain from mentioning names; I do not think it is proper to do so.


Peter John Veniot: I am not asking for names.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member is asking who made the changes. I will show him the document, with the name of the man who made it.


Peter John Veniot: I am asking whether the
corrections were made by the person who made the speech in the Senate. I am not asking for the name of the person.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was made in English by
a gentleman who I do not think knows the French language.


Peter John Veniot: - But who corrected the translation?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: An officer of the Senate.


Peter John Veniot: Who?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A translator of the Senate
who ostensibly prepared the report

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: Why did not the translator of the Senate translate the speech in the first instance?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what he did, possibly.


Peter John Veniot: Why did he correct his own translation afterwards?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Because he found it so imperfect, probably.


Peter John Veniot: Which goes to show that it is not centralization which is needed, but specialization in a particular work, to bring about the economy to which the Secretary of State has referred.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would suggest that proper
supervision is needed.


Peter John Veniot: I did not interrupt the
Secretary of State when he was speaking, and I hope he will not do so with me.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. member asked a
question.


Peter John Veniot: The minister is not answering any questions just now, when he is interrupting. He has no right to do that. In these few rambling remarks I will not be interrupted by the Secretary of State except when I ask him a question which, if he wishes, he may answer. He may do that.
As I have said, if anything was needed to prove that specialization is required, most certainly the Secretary of State furnished an example to the house this afternoon when he said he had to go outside the departmental translators to get someone to translate a paper in connection with the St. Lawrence waterways treaty between Canada and the United States. If we had the system of specialization carried to a greater degree than it is to-day, there would have been no need for the Secretary of State to go outside for special men to do that translation. Let me point out to the Secretary of State, and I know whereof I speak because in my public career I have had considerable to do with translators, interpreters, and so forth, that it is one thing to be able to get a man to translate a speech, and it is an entirely different thing to get a man to translate technical subjects. A speech can only be well translated from English into French or from French into English by one individual. You cannot distribute the speech over a period of hours and to a number of different translators, giving one man fifteen pages of the speech to translate and another the following fifteen; the chances are that if you do it in that way the trans-

lation made by the second translator is not going to fit in with the idiom of the language used by the first. There you have the reason for specialization for efficient translation.
Take another case. Take a translator in the Department of National Health and place him in the centralized bureau which the Secretary of State wishes to establish. The Department of National Health has some medical subject to be translated and passes it over to the bureau. It is likely to be handed to the first translator who is idle, and that translator, not having any technical knowledge of medicine, cannot possibly do justice to his subject. Let me further point out, and I am sure that hon. gentlemen of the medical profession will agree with me, especially the French medical gentlemen in this house, that when you undertake to translate English medical subjects into French you very soon find that the technical expressions used in the one language do not correspond with the technical expressions used in the other. There is an entire difference between the technical expressions used in the English study of medicine and the technical expressions used in the French study of medicine. That again shows the necessity for specialization.
Or take the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works or of the Department of Railways. Take your translators out of those departments and place them in this centralized bureau, and what will you find? You will not have a man to do your technical translation of engineering subjects correctly unless you get hold of the very man who has been almost brought up in that particular department and has been accustomed to handling the translation of that technical work. There is another reason why specialization should be encouraged rather than centralization.
I also wish to refer to some of the remarks which the hon. Secretary of State made. He said that if one would read the bill, and he ratheT threw a slur at the hon. member for Hoehelaga (Mr. St-Pere) because he had not studied the bill, he would find that the translators coming into the central bureau would be protected in the matter of promotion. I would point out to the Secretary of State that the only clause of this bill which touches on the question of these translators coming under the Civil Service Act is clause 4, at the end of which I read that these men " may be transferred to the bureau as herein provided, and such officers and employees shall thereafter be subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Act." There is not a line

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot
in the whole bill which protects the principle of promotion, as it applies to these men who are to-day translators in various departments of the government. When they are taken out of the respective departments in which they are at present employed and are placed in the central bureau, they become subject to the jurisdiction of the minister who will be in charge of the bureau, probably the Secretary of State, and when they come into the bureau they come under the Civil Service Act. They are eligible for promotion under the Civil Service Act but only in so far as that promotion pertains to the central bureau for translation, and not otherwise. On the other hand, if these translators are left in their respective departments, the French translator, for instance, in the Post Office Department is eligible for promotion to any branch within that department; but once he is placed in the central bureau he is eligible for promotion only to such positions as fall within the jurisdiction of the bureau, and they are mighty few. So far then as promotion is concerned there is absolutely nothing in this bill that gives to the translators placed in the central bureau any chance-in fact, it takes away the great opportunity which they have to-day-for promotion in the department from which they are being transferred.
There are two other points, Mr. Speaker, which I should like to make. I am convinced from the experience I have had in the past twenty-five or thirty years with the system of translation we have in this country that the Secretary of State, no matter how sincere he may be in his advocacy of this bill, and I give him credit for being sincere, has been ill advised in placing this measure before the house in the form in which we now have it. If he would bring in a bill looking towards specialization to a greater degree than it exists to-day in the translation services I would be wholeheartedly in favour of it, but I cannot see from the experience that I myself have had that efficiency will be attained in translation by adopting the principle laid down in this bill. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should not only oppose the bill in committee on particular sections of which I have made a study, but oppose the principle of the bill as it is now before the house.
The Secretary of State has also told us that one of the main reasons why French publications have not been issued as rapidly as they should have been was the fact that French translations could not be made in
time to allow the publications to come out any earlier. In making that statement he left the inference that the fault lay entirely with the translator. But let me point out, and this is a fact which I think cannot be gainsaid, that the delay in translation is not caused by the fact that the French translators do not do the work early enough, but in the majority of cases it is caused by the fact that the English matter is not handed over to the French translators in time. You will find, for instance, a report of perhaps four or five hundred pages being prepared as English matter, and the whole preparation of that report must be completed in English before a French translator can lay his finger upon a single page of it. As progress is made in the preparation of an English report; as a chapter or so or a certain portion of it is completed, say fifteen, twenty or thirty pages, why should not that portion be handed over immediately to the French translator? He would be able to keep up with the English preparation and when that preparation is ready for the press, the French translation would be completed within a very few days. The Secretary of State should direct his attention to this phase of the matter in order to bring about a more speedy issuing of these different reports and parliamentary papers.
As I said at the opening of my remarks, I could not allow this bill to go through without expressing my opinion. I appeal to the Secretary of State to consider carefully, before this bill gets too far, whether some amendment cannot be made along the lines of specialization instead of centralization, as is the present intention of the bill. I desire to say that I have the warmest feeling for the Secretary of State; I am not attempting to criticize him personally, but I think I have the right to criticize the method adopted to reach the object he has in view. I believe he is sincere in trying to effect an amelioration of existing conditions in his department in the system of translation as carried on to-day. So far as I am concerned, I do not think any question of race or nationality should be raised in this matter. I need no guarantee that this thought is not entertained in the mind of the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill, as I know what stand the Secretary of State has taken in the past in matters religious and national. I have every confidence in his feeling of fair play along these lines, but I do criticize the method he has adopted to bring about the changes which he thinks are necessary in the operation of his department.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Howard
Mr. CHARLES B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke) : Mr. Speaker, I think it is only right that I should express my opinion on this bill and tell the house why I oppose it and intend to vote for the amendment moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). In the first place I consider the translators as being a highly specialized department of government, and there should be no centralization. I think the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) will agree with me when I say that centralization is against the trend of the times.
For instance, take our banking situation. One of the greatest troubles the banks have is caused by complaints they receive from certain sections of Canada that the people of those districts cannot obtain satisfaction from the head offices. These head offices are not closely in touch with local conditions in the outlying districts. Take our railway situation. One of the main reasons advanced by many for the non-success of our railways is centralization; they are not receiving the support they should from people in the outlying districts. The centralized management is not alive to the situation which exists in the different parts of the country. Take the Gibb report, for instance: The government brought a gentleman from another country to investigate our harbours. A committee was formed which visited the harbours of this country. Its report has been brought in, but so far no legislation has been submitted to this house to bring about the centralization of control mentioned in that report. Why? It is because public opinion in Canada is against centralization. I state publicly that no control from Ottawa could know the wants of Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec, Chicoutimi, St. John and Halifax.
If this department were an ordinary department of government, the same argument would hold, but it is something different. It is a specialized department and those in it require training of an entirely different kind. Canada is not the only country having translators; they are found to be necessary by all the bilingual countries of the world and even by the unilingual countries. Translators are found to be necessary in unilingual countries not only to translate from other languages into their own, but because they are depended upon to know the mentality of the country from which a document is received. They are able to translate not only the words of a document but the attitude, the feelings and the sentiments of the nation from which the document comes. These translators keep in touch with the translations made fMr. Veniot.]
of the literature of the different countries in order that they may know the sentiments of those countries. The translators in our service translate foreign languages into English and French but their most important work is the translating of French into English or English into French. In order to translate from English into French or from French into English the translator must know the mentality of the two peoples. He must have studied the histories of the different nationalities and must be able not only to translate a document word for word but to translate the sentiment behind those words. Hon. members should realize how difficult it is to translate from English, a severe, concise and businesslike language, into French, a beautiful, sentimental, poetical and flowery language; and vice versa. As I have said, it is not only a matter of translating words into words; it is a matter of translating the sentiment behind those words.
Something has been said as to the correctness of the translations, and in this connection I should like to quote from an authority on the subject and then refer to two other items of translation. Pierre Daviault says: (Translation)
To translate is not to substitute words for other words. To the translator the text is merely the author's thought in its raw state, that he must fashion into words. It in incumbent upon him to shape it into a form which will make it convey its full meaning. The translator's task is nothing short of a literary essay, and to translate, presents all the difficulties inherent to the essay, but is even more difficult. Translation is not the expression of one's thought, which is familiar and always present to one's mind. The translator must assimilate a thought that is not his own, a frame of mind and the shades of thought of another. Besides, he has to be imbued with the author's style, because the translation must preserve the original tone.
That is written by an authority on the subject. Now let me show how easy it is to transform certain expressions. By way of illustration I will give three quotations, indicating that an entirely wrong sense may be conveyed by the translation. For example, this phrase was given in English-and it is a common one:	"The general realized the
enemy's intentions." This was translated into French: "Le general a realise les intentions de l'ennemi." I know that those who are acquainted with both languages will realize how wrong that translation is; yet in many ways it is a fair rendering. Let me cite another one that nearly got certain people into trouble at one time: "Le gouvernement francais demande." This was translated:

Translations Bureau-Mr. Howard
"The French government demands", which entirely changes the sense of the expression.
In several remarks this afternoon I think the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Labelle intimated that it was difficult to get certain translations made which they wanted to have. That seems to me most extraordinary. I hold in my hand a book written by J. Lucien Hudon, of the Departe-ment des brevets, entitled L'Automobilisme et Radio. He is evidently an authority on the subject. I want also to quote another authority in the employ of the department.
I have, too, a book by M. Daviault, from whom I have already quoted, and at page 21 of this work, entitled Questions de Langage,
I find the following:
(Translation)
No one can appreciate Francis I, unless he transports himself in thought to his period.
This shows how specialized these translators must be in the particular work they perform.
I have also a book by S. Mari oil, who as everyone knows has written several works on this subject and who is also a docteur de la Sorbonne. He is, I think, a fair authority on this subject and is also employed by the department. Now, there is no dictionary intended especially for translations; for as I have already said the translator must know the mentality of the peoples from whom he is translating. Let me give another example that possibly will come even closer home to us. Many hon. members have no doubt read a book written by the hon. member for Ivamouraska (Mr. Bouchard), Vieilles Choses et Vieilles Gens. The title of that book, in English, is Other Days, Other Ways. I give these two to show how very different they are, and yet the mental idiom expresses the same pensee. I have read this book both in English and in French, and I can tell you that if you want to appreciate its sentiments you must read it in French, the language in which it was written.
Nobody wants a mechanical translation. Moreover, there is this fact that impresses me very much: I cannot see how any member of the government could support this bill. The ministers are responsible not only to their constituencies but to Canada for the translations that come from their departments. Every cabinet minister has his own personal peculiarities, and if he wants a translation made properly in his department he must call upon a man who knows the minister, who knows the department, and who is familiar with the subjects he has to deal with. 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 versa, 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?
I will go a step further. Let us take mining, for instance. We are talking a good deal about mining development in this country, and if there is one subject more than another in which a thorough knowledge of technical terms is called for on the part of the translator, if an accurate translation is to be produced, that subject is mining. But if you happen to get a translator who is expert in rendering medical terms and put him to work on the translation of a document in which there are all sorts of mining technicalities, I do not know what sort of translation you can expect. Or take the House of Commons. Just imagine the difference between the work of a man translating a speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the work of a translator giving us in French a quiet speech made by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in order to produce an accurate translation a man must know the speaker whom he is translating; he must know the type of speech that man is going to deliver. Then he can give a fairly accurate translation and one which will, while not changing the sense, convey to our French Canadian citizens an exact replica of the speech made in English, or, on the other hand, an exact reproduction of a speech delivered in French.
I submit therefore that this subject is most serious-I think-more serious than was contemplated when the bill was drafted. In reply to the hon. member for Hochelaga a few minutes ago, I believe the Secretary of State said that

Translations Bureau-Mr. Howard
the hon. gentleman had not read the bill. Well, I have read it several times. I have a marked copy of it with certain words underlined, and there are in the bill many points which I am sure have not had due consideration by the cabinet. I will not take them up in detail, because the subject will be studied in committee unless, as I hope, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa carries. For instance, in section 3 there appears these words:	"for all departments of the public
service." This means, just as I have said, that a minister of the crown, in his own specialized department, with his own particular method of doing things and in regard to a subject of which he has most intimate knowledge, will have to call in a man by number- 7, 8 or 9-who knows nothing about the minister's idiosyncrasies or the subject concerning which he must do translation.
May I direct the attention of the house to a few more words in this bill. In clause 4 it does not say that all these men " shall " be transferred to this bureau; it says that they "may" be transferred. In this I think the bill is wrong. If the house passes this legislation, what right have we to say that employees may be appointed or may be left out according to who they are?
Clause 5 says nothing about " may," but it states:
An officer to be called the Superintendent of the Bureau for Translations shall be appointed.
It does not say that he may be appointed; it says that he shall be appointed. In this way in certain parts of the bill it says " may " and in other parts "shall," I-f we are going to have a bill to centralize, to which principle I am entirely opposed, we should have uniformity.
I am one of those who believe in two official languages, English and French, and I am pleased that most of the French Canadians in Quebec can speak the English language. I should like to suggest that every hon. member take the trouble to do what was done by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) who, when they first came into the house, could not speak a single word of English, and who to-day can make speeches in English to which not only this bouse but the people generally throughout the country are pleased to listen. Not from a political standpoint or from any other consideration in connection with this bill, but from an educational point of view, I hope every person in Canada will try to learn as much as he can of the two official languages. I am also one of those who

believe in treating in exactly the same way the people who use these two languages. This bill cuts off from ultimate promotion, or, to put it miore mildly, restricts the promotion of, our French Canadian fellow citizens. I am entirely opposed to that, just as I would be against restriction in regard to any promotion our English speaking fellow citizens might merit.
Having regard to the present situation in the country, to the demands that the Canadian people make of 'this parliament to-day, and to the expectancy with which our distressed citizens are looking for legislation, after going over the bills that have so far been introduced I feel there are other types of legislation much more important than a bill to put expert translators into a specialized, centralized bureau.
To go a step further, I would say that if this bill is to be put through I should like to have this added to it: When I was sitting on the flther side of the house behind a government, I suggested that if any change were to be made I would favour giving a preference to French or English speaking citizens who had a knowledge of both languages. The Civil Service Act should be amended so as to carry at least a five per cent preference for bilingualism.
I hope the Secretary of State will either give some genuine reasons for introducing this bill or withdraw it. Before the bill passes, he should at least consult with the three authorities whom I have already quoted, who have written 'books and who are men of standing in literary matters, and get their candid opinion as to the translators.
If I may be pardoned a personal reference,
I put in twenty-two years of my life among French Canadians in order to learn their language and their mentality, and I would not attempt to translate any document from English into French. While the Secretary of State is a citizen of the largest French Canadian city, with all his sympathies, which 1 admit, towards the French people, he cannot speak their language. I do not consider he is sufficient authority on the floor of the house to introduce such a bill as this, which is calculated to deprive our French Canadian fellow citizens of a right which belongs to them. This right to promotion is not a favour; it is their right. Therefore I trust the Secretary of State will reconsider his decision and withdraw the bill.


Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamou-raska):: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: From what is the hon. gentleman reading?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am reading from a copy of the Sellar report; if it does not suit the minister perhaps he will tell me. The committee reported as follows:
No complaints as to the quality of the translated texts were made to the committee. It waa found that throughout the departments a general policy of decentralization is in effect. The adoption of such policy was the result of the question, being explored in 1910 after a report was made by Mr. Aehille Frechette, who, under instructions of the Board of Internal

Translations Bureau-Mr. Bouchard
Economy of the House of Commons, visited Belgium -and Switzerland to observe the practice in effect in those countries. From the information before the committee the general consensus of opinion in the departments is in favour of the status quo.
I ask the minister, is that a reliable report? Anyhow the committee did not approve of centralization. I fail to see much in favour of amalgamation in any of these reports. I fail to see on what ground the minister bases his policy. Is it the result of deep thinking or of intense dreaming? Perhaps some have been moved by the complaints made by the minister in his own case. Let us read what he said in introducing his 'bill into this house on January 29 last at page 8 of Hansard:
The situation is such that the department of the Secretary of State either must have a number of translators attached to it or must be able to avail itself of the services of some one or more of -these ninety-one translators. For instance, the Department of the Secretary of State has to procure a translation of the address of Hi-s Excellency the Governor General at the opening of parliament, but there is n-o translator to whom I can apply to have that work done, so I have been dependent upon the gratuitous service of personal friends, or to pay others to make that translation from time to time. In addition we have a very considerable number of important state documents of which the Secretary of State, as Registrar General, is the conservator or keeper or guardian. Yet some time ago, when a treaty dealing with the waterways was signed between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, there was not a single translator to whom I could apply or to whom I had the right to apply to make a translation of that document from English into French for circulation as required.
I take strong exception to that statement, Mr. Speaker. If as a result of the dismissal by the government of over a dozen translators the minister is unable to get proper service, then, if it is not his own fault, it is the fault of the government. Secondly, I have only to submit that had the minister entrusted the work to a translator in the Archives 'branch, such as the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) mentioned, for instance, to Dr. Marion, a distinguished author, we would not have witnessed the spectacle of His Excellency being obliged to read a document with threescore or more inaccuracies, false sense, grammatical errors, and so on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. gentleman
suggest to me what right I have as Secretary of State to take a gentleman in the Archives and appropriate his services for general business? He is appointed to the Archives for certain special work which requires his attention from time to time. Why should I trans-74726-85
fer him to another department? What authority have I to do so?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Unless I am mistaken
the Archives comes under the jurisdiction of the minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, it is not a part of the department of the Secretary of State. It is a separate and distinct department created for a special service of its own.
Mr. 'CASGRAIN: Then would the minister state what department the Archives does belong to?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is the Department of
Public Archives, with its own deputy minister.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Who is the Deputy Minister of Public Archives, may I ask?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend can look
into the record for himself.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that the house is not in committee.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Anyhow, there are too many good translators around the house here and elsewhere in this city of Ottawa for it to have been at all difficult for the minister to have secured one.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But there is not a translator around this -building or in Ottawa whose services I have the right to demand as a translator in the public service.


Mr. CARDIN:: You could have appointed one, just as there are translators in other departments.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why appoint them when a
score who have been appointed are away on five or six months' holidays during the summer and the public service is suffering?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Force them to work.
Mr. OAH-A'N: I have no authority to force them to work.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The government has the
power.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is the reason
for the bill.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not at all. It is for a different purpose.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: If what the minister
understands by economy is this petty little saving, and if what :he understands by efficiency is the translation of the speech from the throne and of the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty, which I hold in my hand,

1026	COMMONS
Translations Bureau-Mr. Bouchard
I must entirely disagree with him. The government should have seen to it at any cost that these two documents which I hold in my hand were property translated.
Let me say further that I cannot subscribe to the idea that confidential documents should be entrusted to personal friends rather than to translators who have taken the oath of office.
Mr. 'GAHAN:	There were no translators
available.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Before undertaking
such a responsibility the minister should have demonstrated at least that he was very anxious to have the translation done in his own department. And now he comes down with a bill to take care of the translation services for the whole of this dominion. So far, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that we have seen no great indication of the minister's ability to grasp the significance of so huge a problem. I do not question his motive, but I am entitled to question his competence in the matter. It would have been so easy in a matter of the kind to confer with people or bodies or associations more likely to give him sound advice so that he could come before this house with a bill which was clear and selfexplanatory.
The question now before the house, I submit, Mr. Speaker, is one that transcends in importance the expenditures that are involved in the proposal. Let us come to the crux of the whole matter and ask this question: What is translation? I am sorry the minister did not refer to this phase of the matter to any great extent; he referred more particularly to the printing bureau. Before I deal with this aspect of the matter I should like to make a statement or two as to the nature of the French language in Canada in order to dissipate some of the die-hard misconceptions which exist. It is to our farmers and their educators that we owe the fact that the French language in Canada has been kept in a condition of pristine purity which invites not the pity but the envy of our visitors, not excepting even Frenchmen themselves. In making this assertion I refer more particularly to the country people here and in our country of origin. I would even take issue with such a learned gentleman as Professor De Champs, professor of French at Toronto university. In the Evening Citizen of February 17 appears the following:
Professor De Champs denies that the French of the French Canadian farmer is better than that spoken in the provinces of France.
Should any hon. member entertain any doubts as to the quality of our language I

would refer him to a series of articles which have been appearing in Le Canada Frangais under the title Le franjais des Canadiens est-il un patois? These articles are by Professor Martin of the university of France and the university of Dalhousie at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Instalments have appeared in the issues of September, October, November and December, 1933, and January, 1934, the series being still uncompleted. Professor Martin is a gentleman of great linguistic experience both in Canada and in France. From what has appeared so far in these articles the conclusion would seem to be that our language has nothing of the patois in it but is fundamentally French, and French of the best quality.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 28, 1934