1957-11-25

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates, as it should, to something that happened in this house. On November 14, as reported at page 1126 of Hansard, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lambert), who is also the member for Edmonton West, prophesied that there would be coming east in a few weeks a fierce horde of Eskimos whom he described as bigger, faster and hungrier than ever. I suppose, since the hon. member has had to eat his words, my point of privilege should be regarded as satisfied. Seriously, however, may I join with the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough), the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. McDonald) and others in congratulating the Hamilton Tiger Cats upon what they did on Saturday. May I say also that we from Winnipeg are very proud of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Howard C. Green (for the Prime Minister) moved:: That, on Wednesday, November 27 next, and on every Wednesday thereafter until the end of the session, in addition to the sittings now provided for by standing orders the house shall also sit from eight to ten o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Howard Charles Green: for leave to introduce Bill No. 169, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will
the minister explain the bill?


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to authorize a procedure by which a life insurance company incorporated by parliament on a joint stock basis may be converted into a mutual company, and also to take some further steps to enable the control of Canadian life insurance companies to be retained in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX


Howard Charles Green: for leave to introduce Bill No. 170, to implement an agreement between Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the short title fully indicates the purpose of the bill. An agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the commonwealth of Australia for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to income taxes was concluded at Mont Tremblant on October 1, 1957, and this bill is to give parliamentary ratification to this agreement. The agreement is similar in form to the agreements which Canada already has with the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the United States of America and a number of other countries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to increase

Motions for Papers
the length of seasonal benefit periods; to increase the number of benefit payments for which claimants may qualify during those periods; and to provide for other related matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to amend the Northwest Territories Act to authorize the commissioner of the territories to borrow money for territorial municipal or local purposes on behalf of the territories and to lend money for local purposes; and also to provide for the appointment and remuneration of deputy police magistrates.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minisler of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the Hamilton harbour commissioners, out of the consolidated revenue fund, not exceeding in the aggregate $4,000,000 for the purpose of constructing additional dockage and other facilities in the harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Harrison:
1.	For a return showing the names and regular occupations of all persons employed as P.F.A.A. inspectors in the constituency of Meadow Lake, since August 1, 1957.
2.	The names and occupations of those released from employment as P.F.A.A. inspectors in the constituency of Meadow Lake, since August 1, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Tucker:
For a return showing the names of (a) P.F.A.A. inspectors; (b) other P.F.A.A. officials employed in Saskatchewan since August 1, 1957; (c) P.F.A.A. inspectors employed in Rosthern constituency since August 1, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35-Mr. Howard:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the government of the province of British Columbia, and other persons, companies and organizations, relating to the so-called Stewart-Cassiar road, dated at any time since January 1, 1954.
Howard Charles Green: This is acceptable, subject to the usual proviso that the consent of the government of British Columbia be obtained.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion, subject to the limitation mentioned?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 36-Mr. Lewry:
For a return showing the names and regular occupations of: (a) all persons appointed as P.F.A.A. inspectors since September 1, 1957, in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre federal constituency; (b) all former P.F.A.A. inspectors re-employed since September 1, 1957, in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre federal constituency; (c) all those released from employment as P.F.A.A. inspectors since September 1, 1957, in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre federal constituency; (d) payments made to all P.F.A.A. inspectors in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre federal constituency since August 1, 1957.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Poulin:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the Department of Transport and the co-operative de telephone de St. Philibert de Beauce, or any person representing the organization, during the years 1954, 1955 and 1956, with respect to an application for a grant, made by the said organization.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolietie-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm) moved:: 
Mr. Speaker:: While the hon. member is looking for the figures could I ask the members of the house to moderate their conversations a bit. It seems to be difficult to hear this afternoon.


Maurice Breton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

House of Commons
In the system they use in the United Nations they have personal earphones, and the cost of their system would not be of great help to us if our system were not exactly the same, but a comparison shows that it would cost $30,000 to instal 275 microphones in this house. If the number of microphones were reduced to one per desk, that is to say one for every two members, the cost would be $21,000. If you added to that the cost of installation of microphones for every seat in the galleries-and we have 625 seats in the galleries

the cost per seat would be $15, or a total cost of $9,375.
As I have already said, it is very important that the public which speaks French should be able to hear the speeches in French or in English in the galleries. I believe it is very important, and it is one of the reasons I think the system should be installed.
I should now like to quote what was said in the speech from the throne:
It will be the high purpose of my ministers . . . to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.
I think I referred to that a few moments ago. The purpose would be to have the proceedings of parliament available to each member in his own language.
May I add, also, Mr. Speaker, that the system could be improved upon in many ways. I believe, for instance, that the French edition of Hansard is published in too big a hurry. If we had a system of simultaneous translation I think no one would complain if the French edition of Hansard were published a day of two after the speech had been delivered, because the words of the speaker would have been available in both languages at the time the speech was delivered. The difficulty now is that the reporters and editors are forced to work at high speed, and I believe this is inconsistent with the exigencies of the French language.
After seven years of experimentation in the United Nations I believe the system has reached the necessary degree of perfection. I believe the installation of such a system would be viewed in all parts of Canada as a symbol of national unity by recognizing the fact that both French and English are the official languages. Then the people who come from Quebec could be understood in this house and could take a greater interest in the debates.
It has been said that sometimes the French people appear to be taking little interest in the debates, but I think the reason is the difficulty they experience in following them. The acoustics are not good and the pace of the discussion is too rapid. As I said a few

moments ago I think the best argument is this, that the British people, who are so proud of their fair play, cannot longer delay granting this request which would add so much to national unity.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, this suggestion which comes from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) is an interesting one. It is interesting not only to those members of this house whose official language is French, but it is interesting also to those of us who claim English as our first and basic language.
I should tell the hon. member that some consideration has already been given to this particular suggestion. As he said, shortly after the postal congress had completed its deliberations in this chamber he wrote to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), as a result of which consideration was given to the system which was in effect at that time. I am sure the Postmaster General would be glad to give a more complete report on that particular point.
There are many problems to be solved in considering such an installation, and there are several types of installations which, presumably, could be made in this chamber. The hon. member has given us, Mr. Speaker, the benefit of his own research into the cost of at least one type of installation which could be made. However, I should like to comment briefly to the effect that I personally do not believe any such installation would take the place of the existing public address system in this chamber. It would be ancillary to it. I do not believe, either, that it would ever take the place of the printed translation which, after all, is for the record. Despite the fact that it is true these translators work at top speed to produce the translations for the record, I do not believe the installation of any system would take the place of that service because it is a service that, in itself, is necessary to the business of this house. I should like to repeat that any such service, if installed, would not do away with any of the existing services but would merely supplement them.
There is not only the matter of the mechanics of installation but there is the cost of installation, and there is the staff which would be required to man this installation. I am presuming, Mr. Speaker, that the staff would come from the translation bureau. As hon. members of this house know, for several years now there has been a real effort on the part of the officers in the translation bureau to provide, not only for this house but for all the government requirements, a desirable system of translation which would

be uniform in vocabulary without regard to the type of document that was being translated. I think they have been very successful in that, so far as I can tell. Certainly it would be advisable to have the same system followed if the day comes when we are privileged to have a simultaneous translation service in this chamber.
I am told that while we have a number of expert translators, they are probably not trained in that particular field. In fact there are not too many people in Canada who are trained in the field of simultaneous translation. Existing translators could be trained, without too much difficulty, in a matter of 3 or 4 months to take on this service. Personally I think it would be advisable to train existing translators in the bureau rather than bring in new ones, and they in turn could be replaced by appointments to the existing staff of the translation bureau.
I think it would be well to inform the house and the hon. member who has spent so much time in exploring the possibilities of this service, that you, Your Honour, have taken an interest in it. I am assured by Mr. Speaker that he is quite ready to explore this whole matter on behalf of the house. If I might make a suggestion to my hon. friend, I believe if Mr. Speaker will do this for us the matter wil be expedited, whereas the appointment of a committee of the house to investigate it, with all due respect to members of the house, I fancy would occasion some delay because most of us are laymen in this field.


Maurice Breton: May I ask a question? I understand that this problem of simultaneous translation is a problem which the house should settle. I believe that members from the opposition side should be heard in this connection. I understand that Mr. Speaker, acting alone, perhaps could investigate this project, but the resolution before the house proposes the formation of a committee to investigate it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As the hon. member says, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for this house to decide. There are several departments of government that would be involved in such a translation. Quite apart from deciding that there will be such a service, there is the question as to what type of service will be made available.
Early in his remarks the hon. member spoke of the excellent service which is available at the United Nations, where the proceedings of that assembly are translated simultaneously into five languages. When we were at the meetings in Paris of the NATO parliamentary association, we found
House of Commons
a different type of service. It was something along the line of what is called a walkie-talkie. The sound was transmitted by radio to individual sets which the listeners carried. It was an extremely low power installation; as a matter of fact, if you carried your set out into the hallway you could not hear a thing. It had only sufficient power to be heard within the chamber itself.
These are all matters that would have to be considered, and most of them are of a highly technical nature. I suggest to my hon. friend in all seriousness that probably at least the preliminary investigation would be one for Mr. Speaker who is, after all, the representative of all of us in this house, of all parties. However, as he has said, it is a matter for the house to decide. My own opinion is that a more efficient way of handling the matter would be to leave it for the time being in the hands of Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, originally it had not been my intention to speak on this motion, but after listening to the mover I feel rather impelled to do so. I can understand very well the principle and the intent behind the expressions of the hon. gentleman who has moved the motion which is now before us.
In the House of Commons we are bilingual. In the House of Commons an hon. member may speak in English or in French. I think I am fairly safe in saying that almost all the 265 members, if not all, understand and can speak English. But this being a bilingual House of Commons it is understandable that French should be spoken here by right and by custom, and that those who desire to do so should feel rather badly when, speaking in the French language, they find that we unfortunately-perhaps because of our own lack of responsibility-do not understand or cannot immediately grasp their points and the import of their statements, and are obliged to wait for a period of 24 hours until we receive a translation.
From that point of view I can certainly understand the hon. member's outlook and his desire to have all members get, through simultaneous translation, what is being said at the time it is being said. However, Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that in moving this motion the hon. member may be getting away from what he actually wants, namely a greater impression on English speaking people with regard to the learning and the usage of French. I can speak only as far as I personally am concerned, and I admit that I am one of those persons who know only one language, namely English, and perhaps even that not too well at times. However,

House of Commons
I have found it helpful listening to those hon. members who on occasion speak French, and trying to follow their speeches.
I think I am safe in saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you put in a system of simultaneous translation here you are going to make this house more mechanical and perhaps drive away that urge that some of us have to try to follow speeches made in French and in that way to learn, because then we would just pick up an earphone and get the translation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is something our French speaking colleagues should know, namely that you can lose a great deal of a speech by making it mechanical; an emotional and sentimental expression carries with it a great deal of effect. I honestly believe that even my friend the hon. member who is moving this motion would find that if you had a mechanical set-up whereby you could just pick up an earphone and listen to a translation, it would not be the same as listening to the direct speech. It can never be the same as getting it from the man who is speaking, with his emotion and his sentiment.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reason why the hon. member has moved this motion, but with all due deference to him I should like to say that I am afraid he has not thought this through on the mechanical and the financial basis. I apologize to him for saying that, but this happens to be my trade. We have here an excellent system of loudspeakers. Just on my left over above the clock is a control whereby, as one speaks, certain of the loudspeakers are on full power, some on half power and others cut out. They are controlled by an automatic panel installation up in the corner even further on my left. All loudspeakers are tied in, both in the house and in the galleries. It would be possible to make a tie-in such as the hon. member suggests, but it would be a most expensive and technical service.
I think I can say this, although I have not had experience on this kind of system but have had experience on others having installed a couple of systems in B.C.
For $31,000, sir, you could not even touch the installation cost for the seats of the House of Commons. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge you could not tie in our present loudspeaker system without terrific expense. It would require a brand new installation,-a new three-line service to every desk. One of these would be a line for English, one would be for French and the third would be the common return wire; that is technical language. You could not do it with less than three lines separate and apart from the two lines on the present loudspeaker system. This means, as I say, a

brand new installation on the desks, not only of three lines to each desk, but a break-up of three additional lines on each desk for the earphones of each member sitting at those desks.
As an electrician I can say that is correct. The cost of tearing up these floors and putting in such a system would be high, and in addition to the two operators now in charge of our system we would have to have for the House of Commons alone two interpreters and one operator for the new equipment.
This motion says "in the official language which is not that used by the member speaking, for all debates of the House of Commons and in all parliamentary committees". I repeat, "in all parliamentary committees". If my information is correct there are four official committee rooms in our House of Commons, so this would mean, not only an installation in the chamber itself, but also in the official committee room on the first floor, in the railway committee room on the main floor and to other rooms on other floors. I am not sure of the exact number of rooms, but it would mean a separate and complete installation in every committee room.
Moreover, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and as those members who have been here in past sessions also know, on numerous occasions the House of Commons will sit at the same time as all the committee rooms are being used by members of the official committees.


Maurice Breton: May I interrupt the hon. member. He will realize that the first requirement of the resolution is the formation of a committee to study the system of simultaneous translation, and it is only on the report of such a committee that the house would act. The main thing is the formation of the committee to study the matter.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, I am reading the resolution; I note the remark of the hon. member, but what is the committee going to study? The resolution says the subject will be the installation of a simultaneous translation system in the committee rooms. The hon. member gave a figure which I think is quite out of line and is, in fact, absolutely fantastic; because the installation in all these committee rooms and in the railway committee room, which I imagine has a seating capacity of around 150 to 200 persons, would mean, as I say, not only operators for each committee room but also two interpreters for each committee and also for the House of Commons itself. That makes a total requirement of ten interpreters and five operators at the very least, who must be on the job.

This is a matter which I think perhaps, although I understand what he has in mind, the hon. member has not completely thought through to its conclusion. I think I have perhaps outlined sufficient to explain why I rise to say a word with respect to the wording of the motion moved by the hon. member. The terrific cost would be nothing like $31,000; nor would it be $50,000 nor, in accordance with the principles concerned, would it be $500,000. It will run into a great deal more for installation alone, in addition to the cost of administration.
Outside of all these considerations, about which I felt I should speak to the house, I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. member, which is that basically he will not achieve what he is after in putting forward this motion. Let us not make this house a mechanical one; let us not make this house one where 265 members pick up ear phones. Could we not, even in view of our present difficulties, try to appreciate-even if we do not understand-the sentiments and the emotions of those who speak in a language which I personally do not understand? Backward as we may be, let us aim for a situation where we try to follow what they are saying and really endeavour to pick up their language.
Speaking personally, I regret that we who are English speaking have been so backward in learning French. I had never appreciated that until I came to Ottawa. I assure my hon. friend he will not attain that unification and understanding if he makes this house mechanical as he suggests, rather than maintaining the sentimental, emotional and cultural unity which I am certain is the spirit he would wish to see in this house. I am sure this wish would be shared by his fellow French speaking members.
' (Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):: Mr. Speaker, I was quite gratified to read the motion presented by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), asking for the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation in this house. Though I dissociate myself from any preconceived views with regard to language, which some English-speaking members might attribute to me, I would like to stress how beneficial such a system would be to the proper administration of this country.
There are in this house quite a number of English-speaking members who do not understand French and also some French-speaking members who have a little knowledge of English, but who are unable to express themselves fluently in that language, like myself,
House of Commons
for instance. There is also-because of our rather inefficient, and at times non-existent loudspeaker system-the difficulty of understanding a member from the other end of the house, as was the case just a moment ago when the hon. the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) was straining her ears to hear what an hon. member had to say. This is also the case for us, who are sitting in this corner of the house; we do not clearly understand those who speak from the other end of the chamber. Such innovation would greatly contribute to a better understanding between the two ethnical groups who form our nation, and would constitute a gesture of approval from the government with regard to the observance of bilingualism.
No wonder French Canadians do not seem interested in the important problems of western Canada, nor the English-speaking westerners in those of the east. I am thinking of the prairie wheat and of our mixed farming in the east.
According to press reports, two organizations have already submitted briefs to the government asking for such a system, i.e. the Cooperative Union of Canada, with Ralph Staples as president, and the Conseil Canadien de la Cooperation, whose president is Mr. Leger, who lives in New Brunswick.
At its last congress in Victoria a no less important organization, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which has 750 branches across the country, tabled a resolution for the establishment of such a system. In its preambles and resolutions, the chamber of commerce called upon the federal government to establish a simultaneous translation system in the Canadian parliament, for the benefit of members, newspaper correspondents and visitors.
This right was granted to us by the B.N.A. Act which recognized the official use of both French and English, not only in the House of Commons but in all federal government services.
Simultaneous translation of debates both in the house and in the Senate would enable everyone in Canada to get a more realistic and general grasp of all the country's problems, and at the same time would create a genuinely Canadian outlook of unity and understanding.
Professor Marsh Jeanneret, director of publications at the University of Toronto, expressed the view that nobody could call himself 100 per cent Canadian if he were not able to understand both ethnical groups that make up this nation and to be understood by both those elements. We must not be satisfied with being 70 per cent citizens.

House of Commons
The views expressed toy this teacher and by the organizations I have already mentioned prove that bilingualism is a necessity in Canada.
I am not like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) a professional electrician, and I do not know on what his calculation establishing the cost of this system at $500,000 is based, but all I can say is that, even at this price, it would be beneficial to our country.
(Text):


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker,
I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), in which he pointed out that the cost of such an installation would be prohibitive and also that the cost of operation would be exceedingly heavy. I may say that when I first read the resolution that was my general reaction to the proposal. On the other hand, we are prepared to support the setting up of a committee for the purpose of considering the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation into the official language not being used by the hon. member who is speaking in the House of Commons. But then the resolution goes on, 'and in all parliamentary committees".
We do not think it would be even wise to think- of making this possible in the committee rooms, because that would undoubtedly be very expensive, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East. The hon. member mentioned that the whole thing would become mechanical. I think most of us have been down to the United Nations, and I think we have been amazed by the success of simultaneous translation there. An expert has listened in and been able to repeat the speech in the other language with, in most cases, all the fire and zest of the original speaker. I was amazed at the amount of emphasis that could be put into a speech by someone who had to listen in and speak at the same time.
I believe in some cases the translator improved upon the language or upon the delivery of the original speaker, and I think the same might very easily be the case in this house. An hon. member listening to the speech in the other language and trying to understand it would still be able to listen to the original if he wished to do so; he need only take off his headphones and listen to the speaker in the original language. If, on the other hand, he wanted to get a thorough understanding of what was being said, he could put on the headphones and follow the translation.
I think this would tend to increase the interest taken in the debates by those hon. members who are not familiar with the

particular language being used by an hon. member speaking in the house. It would certainly tend to improve debate and therefore, as I say, we are prepared to support the motion. After all, the motion only calls for a committee to investigate the matter. If after investigation the proposal is found to be completely infeasible it would, of course, be dropped.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Vancouver East I did not intend to speak on this motion, but his remarks have impelled me to say a few words. I wish to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East, inasmuch as I feel that a mechanical installation in this chamber would detract from the speaking of the two languages.
I am one of the number of new members who have come to the house recently, and I should also like to say that I am one of the new members who have begun to take lessons in conversational French. I do feel that an installation such as has been proposed would probably tend to lessen the need for the conversational French we are learning. I should like to assure hon. members who speak French as their own language that there is quite a large group of hon. members on this side of the house, members whose own tongue is not French, who are now taking lessons in conversational French. I think not at this session, but probably at the next, they may hear quite a few efforts in weak but sincere French from hon. members on this side of the house.
I want to assure them that these lessons are now being taken because we are sincere in our wish to learn the French language. I believe the experience of listening to the French spoken in this chamber, attempting to follow it and attempting at some later date to use it ourselves in debates is valuable, and that it would be impaired if we had a mechanical installation in this chamber.
For that reason I think there is much to be said for the view expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Our efforts here are the efforts of one group, one country. We are not a group of countries such as constitute the United Nations in whose discussions countries from all over the world take part. We are one country and one people. We should try, I believe, to speak together in this house and not to be divided by the mechanical means suggested.
(Translation) :


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and satisfaction to rise in support of the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Breton) who asks the government

to set up a special parliamentary committee tor the purpose of considering the establishment of a simultaneous translation system. An innovation such as this would certainly promote better understanding between the members of the house, and therefore between all Canadians.
I hope this proposal will be welcomed on both sides of the house, and I add that our English-speaking colleagues should be the first to endorse a project of nation-wide implications such as the one proposed in the motion now before us.
French-speaking members are probably partly responsible for the fact that so far the need was hardly felt for the installation of a simultaneous translation system. In fact, those of us who have a perfect command of English address the house mostly in English. I realize that they do so for the benefit of the unilingual majority and also for the sake of being better understood.
But the consequence of all this is that French, theoretically one of Canada's two official languages, has practically disappeared from the debates, and active participation in debates is confined solely to members who have a perfect command of English. True, all speakers have the privilege of expressing themselves in their own language, but all do not have the satisfaction of being understood.
-nen, Mr. Speaker, simultaneous interpretation would be a notable improvement from the viewpoint of all visitors. All of them would feel more at home while listening to the debates in their mother tongue.
I do not propose to go into the cost of such an undertaking; it would, in any case, be very cheap, in the light of the vast improvement it would mean both for the members and for the cause of national unity.
I had the opportunity of seeing one system of simultaneous translation in operation in 1954, at United Nations headquarters. If a translation system is satisfactory where five languages are spoken, it would be all the more so in this house, where only two official languages are involved.
The Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, which has over 25,000 members and which, in the past, has more than once given evidence of its desire to further the cause of national unity, has adopted the simultaneous translation of its own debates and, in May 1956, through its chairman, Mr. Ross Smythe, asked the Speaker of the House of Commons to establish that system which has promoted a better understanding and such a beneficial rapprochement between the two major racial groups in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as I do not want to delay any longer the passing of this resolution and also
House of Commons
because no further arguments are needed in support of a measure which everybody approves, I shall conclude by expressing the wish that the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, meet with unanimous assent. This would be one more step towards national unity.
(Text):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to endorse the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), which presents members of this house with a great opportunity to fill a long-standing need for the installation of a simultaneous translation system. At the present time I am not in favour of extending this principle to every committee of the house, but I am much in favour of the idea of referring the matter to a committee for study, to determine how much it would cost to have such an installation made in the House of Commons.
I would have thought more of the Englishspeaking members would be in favour of this proposition because, after all, I think 95 per cent of the English-speaking members understand only English. Perhaps I need not point out to hon. members that I understand English far better than I speak it. Although I am not fluent in the language I understand it rather well. It is pleasant for us to speak in English because we try to be gentlemen in our behaviour toward our English speaking colleagues, and we trust that you will not pass too harsh judgment on those of us who attempt to speak in English. That is why I attempt to speak in English although I am not as fluent in the language as I might wish to be, but I do so in an attempt to be more agreeable and, if possible, more useful to my English speaking colleagues who do not understand French. I do not think, as was suggested by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), that English speaking members really prefer to listen to us speaking French-


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, sir, but all I can say is, "C'est pourquoi je n'apprends pas & parler le franqais."


Joseph-Omer Gour: If we preferred to listen to hon. members speaking in their mother tongues we could disregard the earphones and simply listen and observe the way they spoke. I congratulate the hon. member who spoke a few minutes before me who said he is trying to learn French. Congratulations to that hon. member and to all English speaking persons who attempt to learn to speak French.
I would point out that when I was a boy the nearest school was 15 miles away. I had

House of Commons
to work and sacrifice at 50 cents a day for a 12-hour day to give that money to mother and father in order that they could send me to high school to learn English. I have never stopped making every effort and sacrifice in my attempt to learn to speak English so I could better understand my English speaking colleagues.
Therefore I think that it would be well if the English speaking members in this house were to make about 20 per cent of the sacrifice in learning to speak French that French speaking members are making in an effort to learn English. If this were done all English speaking members would understand French better. I believe that everything possible should be done to maintain the equality of the two official languages of this country. I think the time will come when there will be more teaching done of English in the province of Quebec and of French in the province of Ontario and the other provinces, and I think the adoption by this house of a simultaneous translation system would do much to encourage and foster the development and preservation of the two official languages.
I was present at the postal congress and was happy that we were able to understand so well the various gentlemen who were speaking. Sometimes we could listen in French and sometimes in English, whichever we preferred.
I will not take any more of the time of the house, but will conclude by saying I think it would be a good thing to appoint a committee to make a thorough investigation of this question. I congratulate once again those English speaking people such as the hon. member to whom I referred who are trying to learn French. They will find it a nice language, and will grow to like it even better when they understand it. We can only be enriched through knowing the two official languages, and it is very pleasant and useful to be able to speak in the language of your friends. In this way you can draw closer together in spirit, understanding and friendship. That is all I have to say on the matter.


Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) for bringing in this motion. The way I approach this matter as a person of English speaking origin is to try to look at it from the standpoint of those who are of French speaking origin. When many of them come into this house they speak French, of course, as their mother tongue but perhaps do not speak English very well. Before they can take their full part in the debates of this house they have to begin learning English.

If it were said to the English speaking members that before they could take their full and equal part in the proceedings of this house they had to learn to speak French, as the mover of this motion said we would take another good hard look at the situation.
In a sense what we are saying to our French speaking colleagues, if we oppose this, is that because you are good at learning another language, because you are willing to get down to business and learn English, we are quite prepared to carry on indefinitely because we can get by on that basis. What we are saying to many of our French speaking colleagues is that because we are not ready to take advantage of the modern development of simultaneous translation they cannot take an equal part in the proceedings of this house with English speaking members.
We all know very well, Mr. Speaker, that French speaking members have just as much of a contribution to make to thinking on national problems as the English speaking members; but we also know that unless they can speak English they will not get the ear of the house nearly to the same extent. Therefore they are faced with this dilemma, either not to speak at all and not make the contribution that we should be glad to have them make, or else speak in French. If they do this very often the thoughts they bring forward are not brought home to the whole house.
Members may look at them in translation the next day but sometimes, because they are very busy, they do not look at it; therefore it is not brought home to all the members of the house as it should be. We also know that if they speak in French there is a tendency for those who do not understand French to leave the house. They say, "We will see it in translation the next day".
Therefore there is a feeling on the part of the French speaking member who may be speaking in French that his English speaking colleagues are not interested in the contribution he is trying to make because so many of them go out. They go out because they feel that since they cannot understand they may as well go out and do something and read the translation later on. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way in which we should carry on the business of this house, now that we have this modern technical convenience at our disposal.
Anyone who has been at the United Nations will realize how infinitely greater the problem is there, where what is said has to be translated into four other languages instead of into one other language as here proposed. This comes to my mind also in

regard to what the hon. member for Vancouver East said. I support what the hon. member for Acadia said in that regard. I was greatly impressed when I attended the U.N. in 1947 when I first realized the extent to which the ministers of the western world were listening to the splendid interpretation being made of Mr. Vishinsky's speeches. It seemed to me they were getting pretty well all the feeling that he was putting forward in regard to the western world. It was a very important thing, I think, that people from other parts of the world could understand just how the soviet union did feel at that particular time. It was before NATO was set up; and the very fact that all the people attending that meeting were able to get the real feeling behind people like Mr. Vishinsky, representing the soviet union, was a great contribution to what later happened in the western world and their getting together in NATO to defend what was left of freedom in the world.
Now, then, in a very real way we want to make the union which was brought about by the fathers of confederation a real, working, happy, worth-while union.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did you not say this last year?


Walter Adam Tucker: I am one who believes that the confederation of our country would never have been possible if our French speaking fellow Canadians had not been willing to come into the agreement to bring about confederation. I feel that once they had trusted themselves to come into union in a country where they would be in a minority, then it is very much the obligation of the majority to live up to the very spirit on which confederation was based not only in fact but in spirit as well.
I think this resolution is working along that line. When we say to our French speaking members, "We are going to put it in your power to take a full and equal part in the proceedings of this house", which admittedly they have not been able to do up to now, we are meeting one of the bases upon which confederation was entered into, namely that the two languages should be used in the proceedings and debates in this house. What is the use of saying that in words and then having a situation where, in effect, if you are going to be a really effective member of this house you have to speak in English?
In other words, what you are putting in words you are not carrying out fully in practice, and every hon. member knows that is so. If a member rises in his place and speaks in French at least half the English speaking members cannot understand him.
House of Commons
Many of them go out, because they are busy and conclude that they will read the remarks in the translation, but many of them do not do so. If they do read it in the translation the man who has spoken in French has not really fully, in spirit, taken part in that debate because the person speaking after him, in order to deal with the matter properly, should know what was said by he members speaking before him and not be required to read it the next day in the translation.
I was surprised at what I saw in Israel two years ago. We hear a lot about the bad feeling between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs who are living in Israel. When I visited the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, two years ago I was very surprised to find that there was simultaneous translation of the speeches made in Hebrew for the members of the Knesset who did not understand Hebrew and spoke only Arabic. I thought to myself well, this is really something to marvel at. We hear about the apparent bad feeling that is talked about so much between the Jews and the Arabs; yet there in the parliament of Israel they provide that the speeches made in Hebrew shall be understood at once by the Arabic fellow members of the parliament of Israel.
Why has this not been done before here? Some of us attended the United Nations in its early days when they were just beginning to fully introduce simultaneous translation.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did you not do it when you were sitting on the other side of the house? This is the first time you ever made a speech of this nature.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am sorry that the hon. member is trying to dig up something in regard to my attitude. My personal attitude has always been that we should recognize that what made confederation possible was the agreement of the French speaking people of Canada to come into union with the English speaking people of Canada. I have always been ready to take the view that no attempt should be made to whittle down the basic foundation upon which confederation was made possible. I have been one who has said that the English speaking people in their approach to the rights of our French speaking people should treat them exactly as English speaking people would like to be treated if they were in the minority instead of in the majority. I think that is the approach which all Canadians more and more are beginning to take to this question.
The hon. member for Vancouver East said this might defeat the purpose which the mover of the resolution had in mind, and the member who spoke before me seemed to have a similar thought in his mind. He suggested

House of Commons
that it might discourage members from learning to speak French. I would suggest to hon. members that their fears in that regard are not well founded. Anyone who has listened to the simultaneous translations made at the United Nations, and at other international gatherings, will know that if a speech is being made in French, we will say, and you know a bit of French you can listen to the speech being made in that language, and at the same time you can listen to the translation being made in English.
The man who is doing the interpreting is probably a complete master of both languages, so by listening to the speech made in French and the simultaneous translation into English a person who really wanted to work at it would be able to understand French within a very short time. There are many members in this house who are really anxious to understand both languages and I suggest to them that, far from this system preventing members from learning the other official language of Canada it would enable them to learn it much more quickly. One could actually listen to one language being used and could hear at the same time a very splendid translation into the other official language.


Harold Edward Winch: It would have meant a great deal more if the hon. member had made this speech when he was on the other side of the house.


Walter Adam Tucker: My hon. friend has mentioned that I should have made this speech when I was on the other side of the house. I do not recall this motion being brought forward when I was on the other side of the house.


Harold Edward Winch: Why did the hon. member not move it if he felt so strongly about it?


Walter Adam Tucker: If it had been made when I was on the other side of the house I certainly would have supported it. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend moves me to recall one incident which did occur some time ago. As I recall it, the late Right Hon. Mr. Lapointe was about to speak on a bill to make provision for bilingual money, and I thought it would be a nice thing for me to say a few words in French in support of the bill. He was gracious enough to yield me the floor to do so. This is one of the nice memories I have of actually being able to make a small contribution towards the adoption of bilingual money in this country.


Harold Edward Winch: You would take money whether or not it was bilingual, and so would I.


Walter Adam Tucker: There were people at that time
who seemed to fear that some people would not like the money if there were some French

on it. My thought was that it would bring home to our Canadian people that the very foundation of our country lay in the willingness of the French speaking people and the English speaking people to join their destinies together and make a great nation. If we are going to succeed in that venture we must treat one another as real partners and respect one another's rights and one another's devotion to his own language. It is not respecting that devotion sufficiently to say to a man who is elected to sit in this parliament, and whose mother tongue is French, if you are going to make the contribution that an English speaking member can make you must first learn to speak another language. I believe we should say to the French speaking members, if you are elected to this house we will see to it that, so far as modern technical advances will permit, you will be able to make the same contribution to the debates of the parliament of your country as if you happened to belong to the majority who speak English.
I think, myself, that if we said that to our French speaking members in the house, where laws are made and the government is supported, then the person who did not speak English would have the same right to make his contribution to these debates as the person who speaks English and we would be showing the spirit which made confederation possible.


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: I would think that no one in this house would disapprove any measure which is practically possible that would better the understanding of what we say to one another, no matter in what language it may be framed. As a matter of fact, sitting here and listening to this debate I have thought of an improvement in this system which would be of particular benefit to the government. If we could find something which would interpret the government's good ideas in such a way that they would be understood immediately and approved by the opposition, that would be something additionally useful which might arise out of this debate.


Mr. Marler:: That would need a master mind.


Mr. Pearson:: It would be beyond your capacity.


William McLean Hamilton: Reverting to the present from that Utopian condition, I should like to say a few words about the system which was installed here this summer for use by the postal congress, because it has been referred to on several occasions. There have been recurring suggestions that it might have been left in the

house for the use of members in their debates. This was impossible, Mr. Speaker. The system was a temporary one, installed in the light of the fact that the House of Commons is the master of its own destiny; that this chamber was only lent to the congress, and that nothing must be done in this chamber which would leave the slightest mark when the congress was finished. The wires ran on top of the floor and equipment was put on the desks with brackets. There was no boring of holes and there was no permanency about it. Had the equipment been required for six months or a year of continuous use, I have a strong suspicion that it would have been unsatisfactory because of the impermanent nature of the installation.
Then, too, the system was patterned after those in most bodies-I think this is very important in considering the problem which we face in the installation of a system-where simultaneous translation is in operation.


Maurice Breton: May I ask a question?


William McLean Hamilton: This would make the fourth speech delivered by the hon. member this afternoon, so if he would hold his question until the end of my remarks I should be glad to answer it then. Most bodies which use simultaneous translation system have a restricted number of microphones and they are bodies which, shall we say, normally are in closer control of their chairman or presiding officer than the House of Commons tends to be at certain times.
In the general assembly of the United Nations, for example, the speaker comes to a podium and speaks from the only microphone which is available. In the committees of the United Nations, if my memory serves me correctly, there are microphones between the delegates, and in the junior chamber of commerce system again there is a limited number of speaking positions. One of the problems which this house is going to face is that of providing for a simultaneous translation system which will take into account the rather interesting and sometimes amusing interjections which might come from any part of the house at any time causing the translators, in effect, to speak for two people at one time.
This problem was not present during the postal congress proceedings. Our postal congress people were well organized. There was one microphone per delegation and while normally there were about 300 people attending these meetings, there were only some 95 microphones in use. In addition to that, and this is just a sidelight which may be of some interest to the house, there was a rather good system of control by which the chairman, who sat on a podium at the south
House of Commons
end of the chamber here, could signal the control operator in the gallery and he could cut off any speaker at any time. I suspect there are moments, Mr. Speaker, when you might appreciate such a system for your own use.
Then, Mr. Speaker-and I am not suggesting this as an adjunct to the proposed installation-there were two brilliant lights at your end of the chamber. One was green and it signalled a man who was speaking so quickly that the translators could not keep up with him. When that light flashed the speaker automatically was expected to slow down. There was another light-what we might call an emergency light-which was red. When that light went on it meant that things were completely out of control, that the chairman did not propose to go on with the meeting and that the translation system had been turned off. Perhaps we might have used some of those in some of the pipe line debates. So in that respect, namely control over the microphones, there was quite a difference compared with the type of system we would have here in the house.
Again, Mr. Speaker, if we installed that system or one very much like it we would be obliged to do away with the majority of the people in our press gallery-I think that would be a most regrettable thing-because the equipment and the translation cabins which were required occupied the great bulk of space in the press gallery. Then I might mention in passing the matter of the channels as being another reason for the unsuitability of that system. There were six channels involved. Obviously we would not require such a great number of channels in our present situation.
From some experience that we gained on that system, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fair-clough) that it would be a rather involved process to develop people to handle satisfactorily the translations. It is not an impossibility but we should not expect that this is something which could be done immediately. In the case of the postal congress these people came to Canada from fairly well all over the world in order to do this work. From time to time there were little difficulties which arose in the translations.
One which fortunately did not arise in the case of the postal congress but which arose at another meeting shows how difficult it is at times to carry the feeling from one language into another. In German there is a phrase which translates almost exactly into English "The dog in the lumberyard" but translated into English in those particular words it has little meaning. At this particular international

House of Commons
convention, Mr. Speaker, the translator, unthinkingly perhaps, used the English equivalent of the words which sprang to mind and which was "The negro in the woodpile". That translation proved embarrassing to some of those who were listening to the translation. That is only one example of many which could be quoted, some of which would not be quite fit for use here in this house, of the difficulties which will be involved in developing completely adequate translation. But, as I have said, they are not insurmountable by any manner of means.
Having some experience with the technical problems involved in the introduction of a system such as this for us here in the house, Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest to you that it will not be an easy task to work out a satisfactory system to meet our needs. I do not even take into account the question of the great traditions of this house which must also be considered and which were discussed at some length when the original microphone system was installed. There may be those who feel, as they look back over the years, that there would be something undesirable in the installation of a translation system. I am not one of those. I think it has much that is desirable.
However, I think this debate-and this will be my closing point-brings before this house something which we should all remember and appreciate, and I am happy that it has been shown on both sides today. I refer to the great understanding and appreciation of one another's language, culture and background which has been developed in this house over the years since confederation.
I am one who comes from the centre of French Canadian language and culture in this country, namely the province of Quebec. I have lived throughout my lifetime surrounded by people who spoke French and who had a long tradition in the French culture. I have always found that they were particularly generous in their attempt-a very successful one, I may say-to learn the other great language of Canada and to understand and appreciate the other largest group in this country. I am inclined to think that our French friends have perhaps gone further in this direction than has the English speaking section of our country. However, I think that situation is changing. Over the last few years, in going across Canada from coast to coast, I have found an increasing interest in French as a language and in the culture of our French speaking colleagues.
In this connection I would say that I am not wholly happy about certain things which the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) mentioned in the course of his remarks. I do not say this critically but I think he
[Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).)
would be interested in the matter. I am not at all sure that we should think-as he did throughout his speech-in terms of a minority group and a majority group in so far as the problems of language and of culture are concerned. Those were terms which the hon. member used on a number of occasions. I view Canada more as a nation of minorities, as a nation in which no one group, be it English or French or some other, has a right to consider that it is the dominant faction in this country. We have been built as a nation largely by those who speak French and those who speak English. But we have also brought to this country and assimilated many people of other cultures and we have at this point millions of Canadians whose mother tongue is other than English or French.
Now by tradition, and quite properly so, there are but two tongues used in this house. We respect them, we wish to encourage them and we wish to understand them. I think the study of this problem is a good idea; I know it is currently being studied, but let us never Mr. Speaker-and these can be my closing words-approach a problem of this nature with the attitude that the majority in Canada comprises one group from the point of view of language, religion or culture, and the minority comprises another group with respect to these three categories. Let us first of all think of ourselves as Canadians; let us think of ourselves as first of all being dedicated to this country of ours and, while we will work for a mutual understanding, let us never think of ourselves as being divided on the basis of language, religion or culture.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the observations of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) with regard to this motion but have not been able to come to any conclusion as to whether he is for it or against it. So far as I am concerned I propose to support the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) because I think it is a useful one. The Postmaster General did mention some defects which might arise if the idea of this motion became effective. He indicated that if we had simultaneous translation in this house it might discourage some members of the press gallery from attendance at our debates, but at the moment he made that cautionary observation the press gallery was not exactly crowded, without the benefit of simultaneous translation.


An hon. Member:: It is not now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it is not now either;
I think there is one extra member in the press gallery. The Postmaster General also

mentioned other difficulties in connection with simultaneous translation. I have had some experience of them myself. It might indeed be hard to translate the expression "nigger in the woodpile" into a phrase which would mean the same thing in French, but I do not think these are very important practical difficulties. In any event, this motion, as I understand it, is that the government should take into consideration the advisability of setting up a special committee of parliament to go into this question and I was encouraged to hear the Postmaster General say at the end of his remarks that a study of this matter would be a good thing.
Its purpose is, as has been pointed out, for a study to be initiated by those members of the House of Commons who are most concerned by the motion. It would be a committee, as I understand it, which would examine and report only. Before that committee there could be discussed the technical, financial and other considerations which would have a bearing on the final adoption of the idea or otherwise.
It has been suggested by the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) that such an examination could be made, in a preliminary way, by the Speaker. Well, perhaps these two ideas could be combined and Mr. Speaker, who undoubtedly would have an interest in this matter, could carry on an investigation the results of which could be made known to the parliamentary committee. I do think the introduction of a simultaneous translation system into this house-and this has been previously mentioned during this discussion-would give a greater reality to our debates when members are participating in those debates using the French language, which I think we all agree is unfortunately not fully understood by a great many other members. Therefore there are speeches made in this house which cannot be understood as they are made by those who do not know the French language. This makes it very difficult for English speaking members, not understanding the speeches, to participate immediately thereafter in the manner in which they would like, that is to say, by commenting on statements just made. It also puts the speaker using French at a disadvantage.
I would therefore hope that this proposal of simultaneous translation, if it were found to be practical and desirable by a committee of the house, would remove this disadvantage now suffered by some of our members.
The experience of the United Nations with regard to this matter has been referred to by nearly everyone who has taken part in this discussion and that experience, I am sure, has
House of Commons
been very much in the minds of those who have initiated this motion. The practicability and value of such a translation system in this house was also demonstrated by its use at the international postal conference which took place here last summer. The system at the United Nations, as I think the Postmaster General himself pointed out, does not require a member to go a podium and speak into a loud speaker to facilitate the working of the translation system. In the work at the United Nations, on committees, delegates speak from their desks as we do in this House of Commons and the simultaneous translation system does work in that way.
The earphones, I confess have uses at the United Nations to which I know they would not be put in this house. I recall how at times the deterioration of United Nations debates could be illustrated by the use to which earphones were put. At the beginning we would put on the earphones and turn to the Russian translation to listen with eagerness but, after a while, they would be taken off because you would get a little tired of some of those Russian speeches and this would be a way of ignoring them. Finally, as an indication of complete deterioration, we would turn the earphones inside out and put them on our ears in such a way that we would not have to listen to the Russian speech at all, even in Russian. Now I am certain if we had that kind of system in this house it would not be debased in such a way.
It has been suggested, Mr. Speaker-I think first by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken)-that a system of simultaneous translation would minimize or reduce our desire to listen to speeches in French and thereby interfere with the process which very many of us in Canada are undergoing at this time, namely of becoming more proficient in our other language. But, of course, if we introduced this system into the House of Commons there would be no compulsion on anyone to use it in connection with any particular speech, and I should think that as we became more fluent in French our need for the translation would be less and less, and that we should be only too glad to listen to the French speeches without the aid of the system.
I would also point out-and this has been pointed out by a previous speaker-that it would have a positive advantage, in that it would be possible to listen to some of the speeches made, originally, in English, in a French translation, and, undoubtedly, on some occasions, to hear much better speeches in French than were, probably, being delivered in English. At least, that has been my

House of Commons
experience when my own halting observations at international meetings have been translated into classic French.
Thus, I do feel that there are a good many arguments to be advanced in favour of this motion, which have been put forward by speakers from both sides during this debate. I hope, therefore, that the house will decide that this is a sensible motion, and that it does at least make a move toward recognizing the unity of this house and of this country in respect of language and that it will commend itself for sympathetic and, I hope, positive study to hon. members on all sides of the house, through the committee that could be set up.


Mr. Alan Macnaughion (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Breton), I should simply like to say that I am sure most hon. members of the house at the present time support and endorse the words of the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) seemed to imply that some of us were "Johnnies come lately" in this respect. We are not. At least a year ago several hon. members on this side of the house were much interested in this problem and formed a committee which did call upon the Speaker of the House of Commons to urge a careful study of this matter. For reasons best known to the former speaker, no solution was advanced at that time. I think the time has come when we should consider this. The point, it seems to me, is not the technical difficulties, nor the cost, though the cost is very important. These matters will be considered carefully by the committee to which I hope the proposal will be referred.
The point is that many of our French speaking associates in this house feel at a slight disadvantage in that they would like to hear without delay a French version of the speeches given in English. So the problem is not one of helping the English to understand French better, but, to put it into reverse, to assist the French speaking members in the house to understand the full import of what is being discussed in the English speeches.
Coming as I do from the second largest French speaking city in the world-the largest after Paris-we have daily contact with our French brothers, and we know from experience that the best way to learn French is by associating with our French speaking confreres; one of the best ways of understanding and learning French is to listen to the language and hear it spoken until your ears become acclimatised to it.
Many points have been covered by various hon. members who have spoken, and there
(Mr. Pearson.]
is no purpose in going over the same territory again. But I should like to say at this time that the sooner this matter is brought to a conclusion and referred to a standing committee or to a committee to be set up to study this question, the better it will be for all of us in this house.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Louis Denisel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a few words in this debate. The request now before us is by no means extraordinary. No impossible demands are being made. We are only being asked to set up a committee to consider the matter.
(Text):
I just wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many hon. members actually understood what I have just said? I venture to say that more than one-third of the hon. members in this house did not understand a word of what I said in French. Quelle est la temperature a Van-couver-Est? How is the weather in Vancouver East?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tres bien.


Louis Deniset: Mr. Speaker, suppose we have to take a vote right now? How can we vote properly if we have to wait until tomorrow morning for the translation? We should miss the benefit of the sonorous phrases which have been pronounced by the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton); we should not have the translation in time to vote today.


William McLean Hamilton: Good for you.


Louis Deniset: The objections which have been raised are strictly technical. Is not a committee the best place in which to study technical and administrative difficulties? The hon. Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) has said that the Speaker is looking into the matter. The inference is that she favours a study of the problem. I say, Mr. Speaker: let us have a committee, and let us have the Speaker look into it, and let us see who gets there first.


Mr. Raymond O'Hurley (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speeches made by various hon. members concerning the motion now under discussion. As one who has always lived and who still resides in a French community, having spent my life there, and as the representative of French speaking elements near the city of Quebec, I think this motion as it has been proposed today is one which will have its importance in exemplifying that bilingualism in Canada is not only a word which can

be used during election time but also a word which can be applied in action.
Mr. Speaker, my attitude is a firm one. There are no two ways about it. I think that though there are technical points to be studied and ironed out-I realize that this will be quite complicated and that cost will be an important item-nevertheless, the suggestion is worthy of consideration. In my opinion it is worthy of acceptance and the house should go on record, not only as being in favour of a study of this problem but as being willing to provide means of putting it into practice at the earliest opportunity.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) speak so eloquently on this subject, and what surprised me most was not the wording of his speech but that he should have come out so strongly in favour of this suggestion, considering the short period of time during which the present government has been in office. I think the hon. member should have spoken as wholeheartedly on this question in the past as he did today. But that does not change my attitude. My attitude is the same, and I say with all firmness and frankness that since confederation has been established; for 90 years on the basis of the upholding of both the official languages spoken in Canada, this house should have a simultaneous translation system at the earliest opportunity, and that the Speaker should continue his researches, or action be taken along the lines of whatever suggestion is adopted, to iron out whatever difficulties may arise in order that this house might see the application of this system which has been installed in other important assemblies throughout the country. (Translation):


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I do feel I should take part in the debate on this resolution introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Breton) with a view to the establishment of a simultaneous interpretation system, from English to French and vice versa, in this house.
The British North America Act makes both French and English official languages in this country. Now if it is considered proper that the official record of the debates be published in both languages, I believe that it is well within the spirit of the constitution that these debates, which are officially translated, be also simultaneously interpreted at the very moment they are taking place in this house.
I propose to dwell more particularly on the practical aspects of the project under review.
Everyone knows that to take part in the debates in this house with complete peace of mind and in all circumstances it would be
House of Commons
necessary to be perfectly bilingual. That is the aim of many hon. members but we must recognize that, in practice, things are not so simple. X myself feel that out of 265 members, 15 at the very most can be considered to be perfectly bilingual. Indeed I feel that is a generous proportion since, apart from two or three exceptions who have attained that ideal, other so-called perfectly bilingual members are much more at home in their native language than in their acquired language. After all it is only natural.
It is hardly necessary to be present at more than one sitting of the house to notice how acoustics remain relatively bad in spite of the improvements made a few years ago. As far as I know, nobody here has a built-in amplifying system, although everyone would need one to hear properly the speeches made in this house. Since the margin between hearing and understanding, in the strict sense of those two words, remains wide, I must confess, along with a great many of my Frenchspeaking or English-speaking colleagues, that to follow the debates in this house constitutes a constant effort which it would seem unfair to demand of the representatives of the people during the six months or so that the session lasts every year. Added to these difficulties of hearing and of understanding, there is the fact that the questions under discussion in this house are extremely varied in nature, quite often of interest only to one section of the country, and are beyond the comprehension of members of the areas not directly concerned. This, to my mind, explains the absenteeism which is deplored by certain newspapers who do not always go to the trouble of looking into the cause for this state of affairs.
Up to this point the group on which the greater demands have been made from the point of view of bilingualism is certainly the French-speaking group. Do English-speaking members know that their speech and manner of speaking vary enormously according to the part of the country from which they come? Has anybody ever bothered to notice the difference between the English spoken by a member from Newfoundland and one from Alberta, between the English spoken by a member from Nova Scotia and another from British Columbia, and even between an English-speaking Quebec member and his Ontario colleague? The pronunciation, the tone, the words used are such that a Frenchspeaking member like myself cannot help noticing if all these English-speaking members from various parts of the country speak the same tongue, the unity so displayed remains rather diversified, a fact which certainly adds to the difficulties of the French-

House of Commons speaking members who listen to all those learned speeches in this house.
On the other hand we have among us members of Germanic, Slavic and other origins whose English is at times not unmixed with a few exotic expressions which all add to the difficulties I have just mentioned. It is therefore in order to do away with these difficulties, this miniature tower of Babel, that I ask for simultaneous interpretation, so as to provide every member, whichever one of our official languages is his native tongue, with every possible means of realizing all his potentialities in this house.
Since my coming here in 1953, I have witnessed some noteworthy efforts in favour of bilingualism, on the part of French-speaking as well as English-speaking members, and I feel that the adoption of a system of simultaneous translation would only intensify this tendency which should develop on the basis of absolute freedom. National unity will not be attained by force and nothing can be more favourable to its achievement than by showing each of the two main racial groups, whose languages are officially recognized by the constitution, the consideration to which it is entitled with due regard for their normal modes of expression, language being always the vehicle of thought. As stated recently by a lecturer: "A man has no more reason to ask permission to love his own language than to love his own mother."
In my opinion, a system such as the one being considered would tend to give everyone the advantage of expressing himself and of being clearly understood.
Since my coming to this house, I have on several occasions spoken in favour of the measure moved today by my hon. friend from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. On January 27, 1955, on the occasion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I requested the adoption of a system of simultaneous translation in this house. In 1956, I was the first member to move a resolution similar in purpose as that of the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-Montcalm, and, again at this session, I have had a similar resolution so registered under my name but unfortunately it is the 25th on the list, whereas the hon. member's is at the top. I shall be happy, when all have spoken in favour of this resolution, to be able to say that I myself have done my small share to obtain the adoption in this house of a system of simultaneous translation.
Earlier today I heard the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) give estimates, which I consider extravagant, as to the cost of putting in this equipment, and I would rather rely on the figures suggested by the hon. member for Joliette-l'Assomption-


Montcalm who estimated that the installation would cost approximately $40,000, plus the salaries of four interpreters.
I am really puzzled and surprised at this sudden show of thrift on the part of my hon. friend from Vancouver East, and I hope he will reconsider the matter in all its aspects and realize that we are not asking the impossible, but mere justice. In my opinion, when justice is involved, there should be less talk of money.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to point out to the house that the galleries too should be equipped with the system we are proposing for the house.
It must be realized that all visitors to the galleries are not necessarily bilingual. For my part, representing a constituency 98 p. 100 French-speaking, I have at times been sorry to hear constituents of mine who had attended a sitting of the house say: "It is too bad but we could not understand a single word; the only speeches made while we were there were in English." Well, those people went back home feeling less satisfied with their visit. If a system such as the one we are considering today had been in use in the galleries, I am convinced that these people would have been much more satisfied and would have gone back home much prouder of their Canadian citizenship. They certainly would have felt greater appreciation for their visit in the capital of their country.
The proposed resolution also concerns the system of simultaneous translation in parliamentary committees. My remarks to the house also apply to committees, in view of the fact that the questions raised are greater in number and that the speeches are rather in the form of questions and answers.
For the last congress of the International Postal Union, the government had seen fit to have a system of simultaneous translation installed in the house so that all delegates coming from all over the world could understand what was being said in the course of the debates. If it was then considered important that all delegates understand the debates, I am wondering why members of the house would not be granted the same privilege in following the debates of this house.
I hope that the proposed resolution will be considered favourably by all members on whatever side of the house they sit and whatever their political party. And so, after adopting the resolution, we shall be one step further on the way to national unity.

(Text):


Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in favor of this motion. May I be permitted to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton). In his absence I am sure he will be kind enough to take it as notice. My question is: When the international postal convention took place in this house last summer did the authorities responsible for the organization of the simultaneous translation system hire translators from Canada only, or also from elsewhere, for translation from French to English and from English to French? How much did the temporary system cost the government? Thank you.


Mr. John Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise in support of this resolution. I must admit, sir, that my knowledge of the French language is very limited.
(Translation):
First great war with the 22nd regiment! Germans heavily bombed! Do you speak French? Perhaps you understand fried potatoes, eggs, milk, Cognac, red wine, white wine...
(Text):
And a great many other words that you would not use in this house. Mr. Speaker, we are a bilingual nation or race and it is not my intention in any way to discourage that. I support it and I support the resolution.
(Translation):


Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, no resolution was ever put forward which is more calculated to promote goodwill in this house and national unity in the country at large than the one moved by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Moncalm (Mr. Breton). All the citizens of this country will, I believe, thank him for introducing such a resolution today.
Mr. Speaker, we must however ask ourselves a question. While this parliament has been dealing with public affairs for some 90 years, what is the present position of its members as far as bilingualism is concerned? I believe that very few of us can boast of speaking both French and English fluently. I will therefore ask another question, even though many improvements have been made in this regard since 1867. How many among those who will come after us during the next century, assuming that bilingualism keeps on improving at the same rate, how many among them will be able to boast that they are perfectly bilingual?
Without being pessimistic, I believe that, at that time, even if other improvements have taken place it will still be said then,
House of Commons
as it is today, that bilingualism is still confined to a minority in the house.
How much longer, Mr. Speaker, shall we see hon. members leaving the house to avoid listening for thirty minutes or an hour to a language which they do not understand? How much longer shall members who speak another language be forced to spend hours reading speeches which they could not hear or which they misunderstood? How much longer shall members under the pressure of circumstances, be compelled to refrain from speaking their mother tongue, the language most adapted to their feelings, their intelligence and their knowledge?
Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. member who, today, is asking the government not the immediate establishment of a system of simultaneous translation-because objections have been raised in certain quarters of this house, some saying that it would mechanize our debates, others that it would cost too much-but simply to lend a sympathetic ear to the proposal that a parliamentary committee be set up where experts could be heard, and where it could be determined whether it would be easy or not to instal a system of simultaneous translation.
For my part, I believe that a matter such as this is above party politics. If we really need mechanical devices to solve the language problem in this house, well, I, for one, prefer a true and real bilingualism provided by mechanical devices to a bilingualism which practically does not exist in this house.
If modern technology can actually give us a system, even mechanical, which could solve this national problem, I would favour it, the protestations of the hon. member for Vancouver East notwithstanding.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of the motion, and again I congratulate the mover and all those who seek to promote in this country the idea of simultaneous translation in this house.
(Text):


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinihe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. There is only one regret in my mind. It is that in the past he has not devoted so much energy toward simultaneous translation. Maybe if in the past he had spoken as loudly as he did today we would be farther advanced.
The resolution before us is a very important one. Before we all agree to it, or before we all accept it, I think there needs to be a great

House of Commons
deal of research done. I should like to go on record as recommending to this house that we study all phases of this question, even though I am of the opinion that the adoption of simultaneous translation would do a lot to aid national unity. If we had simultaneous translation, it would make the proceedings of this house much more interesting, not only to the members but to those who listen in the gallery. However, I would say that before we embark upon such an expenditure we should look into all aspects of the question very carefully.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sure hon. members would agree that at this stage of the discussion it would be very difficult to add any very new ideas, but I should like to commence my very brief remarks by expressing my congratulations to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), not only upon the very clear exposition of the arguments which he invoked in support of his motion but also upon the facility he displayed in presenting his facts and arguments in English, which of course we know is not his mother tongue. I am sure there are many hon. members in this house who envy the facility with which he exposed the reasons he advanced, with which many of us agree, as to why this motion ought to be received favourably by this house.
It seems to me, from the arguments that have been presented by the various members who participated in the debate, that there are two fairly obvious advantages that simultaneous translation would have. It would, of course, enable English speaking members to understand the meaning of what is being said by hon. members who were using the French language. Conversely, it would also enable hon. members whose mother tongue is French more perfectly to understand what is being said in the house by hon. members who are speaking English. As the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) said, it would give a reality to our debates which I cannot help but think is missing at times. Very often it seems to me that when speeches are made in this house in the French language, the debate resumes afterwards just as if nothing whatever had been said by the member who had just spoken French.
I know that all of us would like to possess that facility in both languages which a good many members have, but knowing the difficulty of learning either English or French it does seem to me that the objection raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), namely that the system would discourage us in this task, is not really a

serious objection to this motion. I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm because in my own political career I have been in a situation similar to his. He is a member of this house in which the great majority of members are English speaking. It was my privilege to be a member of the legislative assembly of Quebec where the converse is true and the great majority of the members speak French and many of them, I am sure much to their regret, do not understand English too well. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, my own personal experience was that I could make no impression whatever in debate while I was speaking English. On the other hand, even though I had not attained perfection in French, in fact far from it, it did seem to me I made much more impression when I made my remarks in French.
At the same time, I realized to the full, just as I am sure many hon. members whose mother tongue is French realize, that it was exceedingly difficult, first of all to attain great proficiency in a second language, and it is even more difficult to become persuasive in that second language because while it is one thing to possess the vocabulary it is another thing to use it fluently, convincingly and as I say persuasively. I feel quite sure that the debates in this house would be much more effective if all hon. members knew simultaneously what was being said in either French or English.
I would say to hon. members whose mother tongue is English, and particularly to those who represent the western provinces, that the French speaking members in this house would understand the problems of the west much better if simultaneously the remarks of western members were being translated into French. It would enable members, particularly those from Quebec, to follow the debate much more closely instead of having to read the remarks in Hansard the following day. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very real contribution to the debates of this house if we had simultaneous translation.
Some questions have been raised with regard to the technical difficulties that would be involved in installing the kind of system that would be required. Then, too, some other objections, which seemed to me to be rather secondary objections, were raised by the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton). I am sure that these difficulties are very secondary in character and that if a committee were set up pursuant to this motion it could very easily determine whether or not these technical difficulties are insuperable. Personally,

I cannot believe that the difficulties are insuperable. I have not attended many international conferences, but I did attend one about a year and a half ago in which there was a simultaneous translation into English, French and Spanish and I must say it was carried on with great facility even in the committees of that conference. I cannot believe that in the House of Commons the task would be, by any means, beyond Canadian capabilities.
I do not want to reiterate the arguments that have been expressed by others. I think there have been many excellent arguments invoked during the course of the debate, but I did want to take the opportunity of saying I am fully in sympathy with the motion and if it comes to a vote I shall certainly support it.


Mr. Pratt:: May I ask the last speaker if this question was ever raised in the assembly at Quebec during the many years he was there?


George Carlyle Marler: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not raised because the custom developed of speaking one language almost exclusively. There were, I think, only a few members of the house when I formed part of the assembly who spoke English as their mother tongue. If I might answer the question more fully, Mr. Speaker, the one exception was during the discussion of the estimates of the department of mines, the minister of which was English speaking. The critic on the opposition side was also English speaking. The discussion started in English with a few questions directed to the minister which he answered in English. Then, the premier usually spoke partly in English and partly in French. Then, we continued the debate in French for three quarters of an hour, when the critic in the opposition came back to ask in English the questions which had just been settled in French. Consequently, I think this is an excellent argument in favour of simultaneous translation.
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have had a very useful debate and personally I have been very much impressed by the reasonable attitude taken by all those who took part.
The hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) presented his case fairly and I can assure him that he has sympathetic listeners on the government side of the house. I was intrigued to notice that he seems to have made two converts on his own side of the house. I refer particularly to the two members of the last ministry who have taken part in this debate today, namely
House of Commons
the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) and the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler).


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken in using the term "convert".


Howard Charles Green: I beg the hon. member's pardon?


George Carlyle Marler: I think the hon. member should not be using the word "convert" because it suggests our having had a different opinion on the matter. The hon. gentleman well recalls the fact that there was never an opportunity for either me or the hon. member for Algoma East to express an opinion in this house on the subject.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve) pointed out-and I think correctly-that he had had a resolution on the order paper in an earlier session. Certainly if the members of the former government had been in favour of taking this step, there was nothing whatever to prevent them from doing so.


Mr. Chevrier:: The subject never came up for discussion.


Howard Charles Green: However, they are learning very rapidly how to carry on in opposition.


George Carlyle Marler: We have a good example.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount has had a great deal of experience in that position in the Quebec legislature and he did not have quite so much to learn as did the rest of the former ministers.


George Carlyle Marler: The minister is learning very fast.


Howard Charles Green: However, all joking aside, this question has been receiving considerable attention from the government. We watched the proceedings of the postal union congress which were held here in this chamber just a few short weeks ago and there are studies now under way by several of the departments on this very question. For example, the Department of Public Works would be responsible for seeing that any installations were correctly made. The officials of that department have the subject in mind and, as I have said, have been working on it for some time. We are not in a position yet to give estimates with any degree of accuracy at all. I believe that the figures given by the hon. member who sponsored the resolution are low and that it will be found that the expense is considerably higher. I also believe that the cost of providing translators would run to at least $100,000 a year. That figure may or may not be correct. The studies


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves that point I wonder whether he would accept one question?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the motion ask that a committee be set up at this session? Would it not be possible, under the terms of this resolution, for the government to consider the advisability of setting up such a committee at a future session?


Howard Charles Green: When the house comes back after the new year for the 1958 session, consideration would then have to be given to the manner in which this question would be handled. I am not at all sure that the proper way in which to handle it is by means of a

special committee. There are standing committees of the house which I think could do the job just as well as or better than a special committee. Certainly at this time, for the reasons I have given, there would be absolutely no point in having this question considered by a special committee or by a standing committee.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that all of us should give consideration to the various questions that have been brought out this afternoon in this worth-while debate. From what has been said hon. members can tell that on all sides of the house there is a keen interest in this proposal. I believe that the debate has been very helpful and I close my remarks with the statement I made at the opening of my speech which was to the effect that we are very sympathetic to this suggestion and that the facts which have been brought out this afternoon will be given very careful consideration by those departments of the government concerned. I now move the adjournment of this debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Before
the hon. minister moves the adjournment may I say to him that there are still several members on this side of the house who would like to make a contribution to the debate and I wonder whether he could not allow them to make their contributions and make his motion later because they have been sitting here prepared to go on with these short statements and I am sure it would be of great help to them if he allowed them to do so.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry but I waited until the mover was on his feet and after he had spoken that would have closed the debate; I waited purposely for that and I am afraid under the rules there is now no way in which I can do what the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) suggests.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member was on his feet to ask a question and not to proceed to be the last speaker and, if I understand the rules of the house, I do not think he is permitted to be the last speaker. I understand that once the debate has expired because of a lack of speakers there is either a vote taken on the resolution or the adjournment is moved as my hon. friend has now done. Those are the two alternatives as I understand them, but there are still a number of speakers waiting and I am sure the hon. leader does not want to move a motion preventing these members from this side of the house, and more particularly from the province of Quebec, from expressing themselves on the resolution.


Howard Charles Green: I would just like to make one point; I hope the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) does not mean to suggest that I spoke when I did in order to prevent anyone else from speaking. I have sat here all afternoon and have been prepared to sit until nine o'clock this evening without the slightest intention of cutting anybody off, but when the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm rose to speak I took it that he was then closing the debate and that if I did not then speak I would be cut off myself.


Lionel Chevrier: No I did not mean to make that suggestion at all and I hope my hon. friend did not take any of the language I used in that sense because that certainly was not my intention. My only intention in rising was so that he might allow his motion to adjourn the debate stand until certain hon. members had made their contributions. I believe the hon. the former minister of agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was on the verge of rising.


Mr. Gardiner:: I was up and I addressed the speaker.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the hon. member for Melville does want to say something.


James Garfield Gardiner: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure the hon. minister did not notice I was on my feet and I of course did not notice there was any member on his feet behind me. I did address the Speaker but by that time my hon. friend had been acknowledged. I am not raising any objection at the moment but I do desire to say a few words.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I might suggest first of all that there has not yet been a seconder for the motion by the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) that the debate be adjourned. Apart from that, however, if he thinks the situation is such that he spoke sooner than he intended to, all he needs to do is to ask the leave of the house to withdraw his motion to adjourn the debate and allow the debate to proceed. If the government still wants to use this device of ending the debate, when it is over the minister could have somebody else move the adjournment of the debate. There really is no great problem at the moment, surely. All the Minister of Public Works needs to do is to ask the consent of the house to withdraw the motion whereupon the debate can continue. It is just as simple as that.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, I do not think I should be put in the position of having to ask leave 96698-94i
House of Commons
to withdraw my motion. I would be very willing to have the motion stand and in the meantime allow anybody to speak who wishes to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you very much. I think that will meet the purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know where you will find that in the rule book.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could put his blind eye to the telescope on this occasion with regard to the rules of the house it might be helpful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When a motion is not seconded it is dropped right away and we do not have a seconder for the motion of the hon. minister. It is not therefore necessary to withdraw the motion in question.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the house could do as I suggested-that is to say, by unanimous consent the motion could stand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The deputy speaker says that there is no motion.


Howard Charles Green: And then the debate could go on in the meantime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This motion is not debatable and since we do not have any seconder the motion is not a formal one.


Michael Starr: will second it.


Some hon. Members:: It is too late.


An hon. Member:: Closure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Green, seconded by Mr. Starr, moves that the debate be adjourned-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no, that is curtailment of the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand from the house leader that he is going to allow the debate to continue and, that being the case, I would suggest that the motion should not be put until after the speakers have spoken.


Howard Charles Green: That is quite satisfactory.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: That is correct, if no motion is put from the Chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker.


Howard Charles Green: We will want a good speech now.

House of Commons


James Garfield Gardiner: course I have not had an opportunity to discuss this with anybody, but in view of the attitude taken by the hon. minister I do not think any of us should try to talk him out at six o'clock or later. There should be an opportunity for him to put his motion later on and I do not think we should try to talk that motion out. We should give him an opportunity to have the adjournment moved later and with that understanding I shall proceed.
I was not here when the motion was moved and did not hear the earlier discussions-I have just returned this afternoon from the west and was not in the house. There were, however, one or two remarks made by certain speakers which I feel should be enlarged upon and they have to do with the fact that members on this side of the house had not moved such a motion or taken such an attitude during the time when we were in office.
I would also like to deal with the further point that some people find it a little difficult to learn a second language. That probably is not because of their unwillingness to do so or a lack of desire on their part and I just wanted to give one or two of my own experiences in regard to both these matters. When I decided to go into public life I was quite young. I am not so young now.


Howard Charles Green: That is a long time ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, over 50 years ago I decided that I was going to attempt to be elected some time. The first thing I did was to go to university and the first subject I wanted to learn was the French language. I learned sufficient French to pass at least three examinations and I thought I knew something about it. Well, after that I had to make a living and in addition, when I did go into politics, I had to get elected. Between the two things it took a lot of my time. Furthermore, there were no French people living in the area where I lived and I found what I had learned about grammar and even my ability to pick up a newspaper and translate from the French into the English, understanding the content thereof, slipped away from me in a fairly short time. I was not able to make very much use of the knowledge of the language I had gained while at university. When I was nominated in a constituency I had people there who spoke every language spoken in Europe and in addition two of the languages which are spoken in the orient, Chinese and Japanese.
There was the problem of trying to satisfy all the people I was going to ask to vote for me. I was not able to speak to all of them in their own tongues, so I was not over-keen even to attempt to speak any

language other than English in those circumstances. For some considerable time after I had been elected to the legislature there was never more than one person in that legislature who spoke or understood French, so there was no real reason for my speaking French there. That took up quite a number of years and, as I say, there was some difficulty about doing more than was required of me in the positions occupied.
Then I came to this house and, having sat here for 25 or 26 sessions covering over 22 years, I know I have missed a great deal by not being able to follow the speeches which are made in French. Of course, I have been able, when it was particularly important that I should do so, to wait until the translation was available and then to read it, but during all the time I have been here I have been a member of the government, that is until the election, and I know that hon. members who are in the government now will understand that there is a great deal more to do when you are a minister than when you are a private member of the house. So often I did not find it possible to read these speeches in translation, and I say once again that I think I have missed a great deal during those years.
I had the privilege as a member of the government of attending international meetings. Some hon. members have said: "Why have we not discussed this matter before? Well I think I am correct in saying that the development of facilities for rapid translation while a speech is being given is rather recent, and then, in addition to that, we are living on a continent which is quite different from Europe in that one language is spoken generally over the continent.
I was never more surprised than on one occasion when I was in Europe some ten years ago. 1 was called upon to deliver a speech to an audience of four or five hundred French people in the open air, and I knew while I was delivering it that not more than half a dozen of them could speak the English language, and most of those were part of a party in which I, myself, was included. I got up and delivered the speech in English just as if they all understood it. They listened, and as far as I could see they were taking it in, just as much as hon. members in this house do when I speak, though I am not always sure they do that here. But these people certainly appeared to listen. Just as I was about to begin the speech, some one said: "What about an interpreter"? But the official interpreter was not there, and they turned to a gentleman standing there and said "Can you interpret from English into French?" and he said "Yes."

Now I watched him while I was speaking, and to my knowledge he did not take down any notes. Then, when I had finished, he delivered the speech to the same audience in French and I agree with my hon. friend from Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) that it was probably a better speech as he delivered it than as I delivered it. Nevertheless, he made the speech and then, when it was over, I found out that he was neither French nor English, he was Russian. Yet he delivered that speech in French to that group of people, and they certainly understood him much better than they had understood me. Afterwards, the speech was translated back into English, from what he had said, and sent back to me in Ottawa-it reached me after I got home. It was sent to me for correction and all I have to say about it is that it said everything I was trying to say, and said it much better than I had said it, even though it had been translated from the Russian's French into English.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May I ask the right hon. member a question? That is a very interesting statement. Does he say it contained not only the sense of what he said but, practically, a word for word translation?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh yes, it was word for word; if it differed in any place it was, perhaps using a word in English of somewhat finer meaning than the word I had used.


Howard Charles Green: A little more sensible?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it was a word that could not be misunderstood as conveying what I wanted to say. I find sometimes, in this house, that when I speak off the cuff as I do most of the time I do not know the dictionary well enough to use the word which conveys the exact shade of meaning I wish to express. But this gentleman had given the proper shade of meaning to every thought I had tried to put into the minds of those people at that time.
I imagine that when setting up a plan of immediate interpretation in this country there might be a little difficulty in finding interpreters of that type. Perhaps you could find interpreters who could immediately convert spoken English into French, and French into English. But they would not have had the same practice as they have in Europe where there are so many small countries talking different languages. So there may be some difficulty. But it is not impossible. I do not think this has anything to do with bilingualism. That matter was all settled at the time of confederation. There are bilingual rights in this house, and since those rights exist I think the best possible facilities should be taken advantage of at the earliest opportunity.
House of Commons
I am certainly in favour of the resolution, and if I have the privilege of being here when the matter is finally discussed and considered, I will support it. I take it, from what the minister has said, that it will not be possible to deal with the matter this session, and that even if a committee were set up now it would need to have the authority to continue on into another session and discuss the matter further. I quite agree that it is logical to contend it cannot be finished this session, but I think it is all to the good that as many of us who can do so should express our views on this subject, and if these views are as unanimous, as they have been up to the moment, then I think we can find ways of making it possible for all of us to understand at all times what is being said in this house by providing the facilities for simultaneous translation of speeches which can be heard at the same time in English and French.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the leader of the house for having given hon. members on this side an opportunity for discussing this subject notwithstanding that he had already moved the adjournment. There are still a number of speakers who would like to discuss this resolution, and I was among those myself. That is one of the reasons, along with others, why I intervened at the time I did. I want, together with those who have risen on this side of the house, to support at this time the motion made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) and I do this not only because of the fact that I believe a simultaneous translation of the debates in this house would be a good thing, but also because I believe that the resolution does answer at least some of the objections which were raised earlier during the course of the debate.
The resolution, in my opinion, is a very simple one. It states that the house-
. . . should take into consideration the advisability of setting up a special committee of parliament for the purpose of considering the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation, in the official language which is not that used by the member then speaking, for all debates in the House of Commons and in all parliamentary committees.
A question was asked of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) not long ago to which his reply was: "Yes, we are willing to consider anything," and I am sure that this would apply to the resolution which is now before the house.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) after making a contribution to the debate I think said in effect that the idea of studying the question is a good one. That was also said by the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fair-clough) who, while perhaps she did not use

House of Commons
the same language, said that the Speaker has the matter under consideration. I think, too, that the leader of the house in rising earlier to make the contribution he did used words to the effect that the government was anxious to give this sympathetic consideration but that perhaps this was not the method by which to do it.
The point I would like to make at this time is this. With but few exceptions most of those who have risen to take part in this debate seem to me to have favoured the resolution. Well, that being the case it would strike me there should be no objection to accepting the resolution in its present state because of the statements that have been made by those who have taken part in the debate.
I realize that the point made by the house leader at the present time is perhaps one which could be useful on other occasions but I do not know that it is as useful on this occasion because, after all, this is private members' day. This day is devoted to private members' resolutions and whether we speak until ten o'clock on this or whether we do not I think makes no difference to the government. Of course, I am not suggesting by that statement that we are going to do that. I would rather approve of what the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) said, that after the contributions which we intend to make are made the motion made by the leader of the house will be taken up by the house. But it would strike me that because of the arguments that have been made by most of those who have risen to speak in the debate the resolution should be accepted by the government.
There have been some objections raised but in my opinion they were not very serious and all of them could be studied by the committee that this resolution seeks to establish. I think of the objection raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). He could go to this committee personally and give the benefit of his advice as an electrician or in any other capacity he may wish so the committee would have in its possession all the information capable of enabling it to arrive at a decision on the important question that is now before us.
As other hon. members who have spoken today stated, I too have had the advantage and the privilege of sitting at the United Nations. In fact, I had the great honour of leading the Canadian delegation in 1948 when that delegation sat at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris. During those six or seven weeks while I was there I was astounded at the rapidity, the fluency and the accuracy with which the simultaneous translation went on. It seems to me that those who are anxious to

learn and speak the French language would have a greater advantage in so doing if the simultaneous translation system were to be adopted in this chamber.
In my experience in coming back to the house after an absence of three years I was astounded when listening to some hon. members from the province of Quebec particularly at the manner in which they had improved their English. I hesitate to mention any names but I was more than surprised to observe that in this short period of time several hon. members were able to speak almost perfect English and I think I can pay the same compliment to some hon. members on the other side of the house whose ability to speak French has improved. I was astounded and pleased as well to see how some hon. members not from the province of Quebec on the other side of the house could rise and speak good French. I will not say it is excellent French but it is good French. Simultaneous translation will not only assist but will tremendously improve that facility because, as has been said here by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), if a person is speaking in one language, let us say the English language, and one wants to listen to the speech in French he can turn on the translation and follow the speech from one language to the other.
As the Secretary of State said, it may be that it would be difficult to obtain translators but I doubt that very much because I know there are Canadians at the United Nations now who are serving as translators and they have had little or no difficulty in performing that service. I have no doubt that translators could be obtained from the Department of the Secretary of State or from other sources outside of the department altogether.
I say to my hon. friend the leader of the house that if most of those who have risen and spoken on this resolution favour it, what objection could there be to the government accepting it, considering it and studying it? I agree with him there is not much time left from now to the end of the session but I do not think anyone either on this side or on the other side of the house would think for one moment that all the information required on the part of the government to make a decision on this resolution could be obtained within the next four or five weeks.
It is the establishment of the committee which is important. The Speaker I presume would want to be represented on it. Indeed I do not think a committee of this nature could be established and report properly without some representation from the Speaker

and from the office of the Secretary of State. That is why I submit with deference to my hon. friend that perhaps instead of moving the motion he did he might well give consideration to the establishment of the committee. I think he would please most hon. members in so doing and certainly he would please the majority who have taken part in this debate. For these reasons I invite him to give consideration to the establishment of the committee as set out in the motion.
(Translation) ;


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words. I do not wish unduly to protract this discussion since the opportunity to support the request of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm in favour of the establishment of a committee must be given not only to the government but to all the members of this house.
Some members opposite who have taken part in this debate have held that Mr. Speaker should be asked to make a personal study of this matter. I believe that the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm is very clear. It requests the establishment of a special parliamentary committee to study the means of establishment of a system of simultaneous translation. It is obvious that such a parliamentary committee must be made up of members who sit in this house, Mr. Speaker included, if he so wishes.
I can see no possible objection to the establishment of that committee. On the contrary, this proposal is a further argument in favour of the establishment of a simultaneous interpretation system.
I believe that the point made by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) is the soundest yet. He pointed out that with simultaneous translation a speaker who wishes to take part in a debate can immediately take up a subject discussed by the previous speaker and continue the same discussion in his own mother tongue. I believe that is one of the soundest points made and one which we should stress when we ask the government to set up this committee so that the house may enjoy that improvement at as early a date as possible.
In my opinion it is a mistake to claim that simultaneous interpretation would prevent certain English-speaking or French-speaking members to practise speaking in a language other than their own. In fact conversation is the logical adjunct of French lessons, and this would be one way for those members who are studying French to find out immediately how they are coming along. To me, that seems a worthwhile argument.
House of Commons
When I was a boy and when I was learning to use a shotgun or rifle, I was told: "Watch out, the gun kicks". Well that gun has been kicking a great deal this afternoon, as I was listening to the speeches made by the members for Lotbiniere (Mr. O'Hurley) and St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard), who expressed the opinion that in previous sessions the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had not displayed the same zeal in this matter.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm was put on the order paper during the last session. However, it never came up for debate because there were too many motions ahead of it, and those proposed resolutions must be studied one at a time and not all together. That is what is happening today. It so happens that his notice of motion is on top of the list. When there are 55 on the order paper, it would be unreasonable to require that they all be discussed at the same session. In fact, that is what happened to somebody who showed a great deal of zeal as regards family allowances during one particular election. I remember that a motion dreamed up by the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) during an election in the constituency of Temiscouata, with regard to the increase in family allowances, never came up for discussion in the house simply because its turn never came.
I believe that my hon. friends from Lotbiniere and St. Hyacinthe should have remembered this kickback, before expressing doubts about the zeal of the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm with regard to the discussion of his resolution.
Now, I understand that the session will perhaps soon come to an end. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) has stated that there is not much time left, and that we must deal with the other measures on the order paper before the end of this session. Everyone hopes that we might finish our work soon enough to get home for Christmas and New Year's. I perfectly understand the situation of the hon. minister, but it should have been anticipated that there would be discussion on certain notices of motion. The house has been given the privilege to discuss private members' motions for at least a day or two. It was to be anticipated. If there was such a rush, the house should have been asked not to waste a day or two on motions. It is up to the government and not the opposition to anticipate such a situation. However, I am convinced that a one or two day debate on those notices of motion will not delay the end of the session until after Christmas and the New Year.

House of Commons
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we should be given the opportunity to prove, as was done at the United Nations Organization and at the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, that simultaneous translation is not only desirable but absolutely necessary.
If we are looking for a new bond to cement that national unity which we have so much at heart, there is no doubt that the speeches delivered today offer us such a bond in the form of a system of simultaneous translation, through which all members will be able to understand and follow the debates of this house.
(Text):


Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) should receive at the hands of the leader of the house the consideration which they deserve. I think that in a very important matter of this sort there should be as wide as possible an expression of opinion, and our thanks should go to the initiative and the imagination of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton).
(Translation):
I think we should congratulate him on his initiative and his contribution.
(Text):
I was not here when others spoke, but I am sure reference was made to the simultaneous translations at the United Nations. In this instance we are not asking for more than the two official languages; but anyone who is familiar with those simultaneous translations, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent), will agree that they are indeed a very effective and businesslike way of carrying on the debates of the house.
Moreover, this particular suggestion, which calls for a study as to the advisability of setting up simultaneous translations, would be in keeping with the fact that there are two official languages in this house. As the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) said, it would enable many hon. members to follow discussions which, because of the lack of understanding of one of the languages, is denied them.
On all counts, there can be no doubt that the resolution in its present form is one that commends itself to the great majority of the members of this house and on that account I would hope that the government would see fit to accept it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf).l


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. (Translation):
Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, several more arguments could be adduced in favour of the resolution moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Joliette-l'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), a resolution requesting the establishment of a committee to study the possibilities of setting up simultaneous translation in this house and in the parliamentary committees.
I am pleased to give my full support to the resolution moved by my hon. friend.
This afternoon, speakers stressed the usefulness of the system for members themselves, but I should like for a few minutes to insist on the advantages that the system would also have for listeners in the galleries.
When I attended the meetings of the General Assembly of the United Nations last year in New York I knew that a system of simultaneous translation was provided for the delegates but I did not know then that visitors in the galleries and the numerous visitors in the United Nations building in New York, could also follow, in their own language, the debates that were going on either in the General Assembly or in the various committees.
I also know that the Canadian government contributed financially to the installation of the system used in the United Nations building and I wonder why the many visitors that we sometimes have in this house could not also follow the debates in their own language. I remember once taking about fifty students to the galleries where they spent part of the afternoon listening to the debates. When I saw them again later that afternoon, I found that they were a bit disappointed because, as they were all French-speaking, hardly any of them had understood a single word of the speeches made. I conclude that it would be advantageous for the members as well as for the voters of Canada who come to the House of Commons in fairly great numbers if they had the privilege of following the debates in their own language.
It can be said that some organizations in this country have already benefited from this simultaneous translation in their national conventions. We know that, at their national congress, the chambers of commerce had made the discussions easier for their delegates by

means of such a system. I believe that one labour organization also insisted on providing its delegates at a national convention with a system of simultaneous translation. We might be surprised to know the number of national organizations which apply to the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal for the use of its hall, which is already equipped with such a system.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we heard only one member who was opposed to the establishment of such a system, because, according to him, it would be too costly; [ refer to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who is, I believe, the only member of his party who has expressed his opinion in the house today, and who declared himself against the resolution of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm. I hope that the other members of his party will not follow his example but will vote in favour of the motion.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) also expressed his opinion on the motion, and if I may infer that the members of his party are of the same opinion, well, Mr. Speaker, we shall probably get the support of the members of his party.
I do not wish to extend this debate. I am pleased to offer my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and tell him that it is with very great pleasure that I shall vote in favour of his motion.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of delaying, by long remarks, the adoption of the motion which is now before the house. The resolution proposed by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) reads partly as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of setting up a special committee of parliament for the purpose of considering the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation . . .
I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation such as suggested by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm involves technical difficulties which we cannot discuss thoroughly, let alone solve, during this debate.
The only possible solution, the only logical procedure is that suggested by the hon. member, namely the establishment of a committee which would hear experts in the matter and scan from every angle the possibilities and advantages of a simultaneous translation system.
House of Commons
I need not repeat the arguments voiced by the mover and by those who rose before me to speak in favour of the establishment of the committee in question.
I agree that the favourable stand taken by so many members is further practical evidence of the recognition of the two official languages in this country.
(Text):


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) upon introducing a motion which, it seems to me, every member of the house should be able to support. It does seem that in asking to have a committee set up to study this ques-ion, he is asking something that is eminently reasonable. I would hope that the government would see fit to indicate that they would have no objection to having such a committee set up to carry out this study. I would hope that the committee would carry it out in a fashion to bring about some results. If the motion comes to a vote, I shall have great pleasure in voting for it.
(Translation):


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that I was not in the house this afternoon, for I am very much interested in this matter. Unfortunately I was detained elsewhere, for I had the honour of being one of the delegates of the federal government to the dominion-provincial conference which takes places in the railway committee room.
This morning, at this federal-provincial conference, I had the pleasure of hearing the Prime Minister of Canada speak in the two official languages of the parliament of my country. I also had the pleasure of hearing the premier of my province address the delegates in both languages.
This was not the first time that the Prime Minister of Canada spoke in French and, as usual, he did it with much dignity and with an accent which was more than adequate. Therefore, I want to offer him my heartfelt congratulations not only for his effort and this determination of his always to express himself in the two languages of Canada as often as opportunity offers, but I want to congratulate him on the example he thus sets our young Canadians.


Mr. LaCroix:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are now discussing the motion submitted by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton). The hon. member is obviously telling us what

House of Commons
took place this morning at the federal-provincial conference, which has no connection whatsoever with the motion under discussion.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Quebec-Montmoreney (Mr. LaCroix) is protesting because I have now been speaking for about two minutes on a motion regarding which several of his colleagues have taken the time of the house to make known their views, but I sincerely believe that we have the right to speak...


Pierre Gauthier: On the motion.


Léon Balcer: ...on the motion before the house. I think that his point of order is altogether uncalled for.


Georges Villeneuve: It is up to Mr. Speaker to decide it.


Léon Balcer: I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree.
I was saying, that the Prime Minister made a point of speaking French at every opportunity and that he respects the French language, which is a fine example to be given to young Canadians; and his example has been followed by several English-speaking members of my party, and during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and ever since, they have addressed this house in French and have managed to do so most creditably. I hope this is only a beginning, and that more and more of our English-speaking colleagues will address the house in French.
Bilingualism is gaining ground every day in Canada, progressing quietly but surely, which constitutes the best way to achieve our national unity.
If we want to live in a prosperous country, a progressive country, it is essential that we should understand one another. There is no better way to be understood by one's own fellow-citizens than to learn the language of other races in our country. Many errors could be avoided if people were always able to understand one another.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that both languages, English and French, are official in the parliament of Canada. This was the wish of the fathers of confederation, a wish always fully respected by all political parties and all governments which have succeeded each other since confederation. Unfortunately, it is inevitable that most of our Frenchspeaking members are somewhat reluctant to

address this house in their mother tongue for they know full well that a great many of their colleagues cannot understand what is being said and have to wait until the next day to read the translation of the debates. That is also why English-speaking members who cannot speak French regret their inability to understand and follow with interest the statements and contributions of their French-speaking colleagues, and this is very often a source of confusion which can give rise to misunderstanding and very unpleasant consequences.
As a matter of fact, it is not the first time that the question of simultaneous translation has been brought up in this house. Every year, motions, resolutions or contributions are introduced either during the debate on the speech from the throne or the budget debate. But, unfortunately, for the past 20 years, the efforts of the members, under the former government, have always been unavailing. The matter was brought up very often, but the government never saw fit, useful or necessary to take measures to instal such a system.
I am glad tonight to see that the members of the former government, which had not seen fit to bring these improvements to the House of Commons, rise one after the other to stress the necessity of that measure and how glad they would be to see it adopted.
As far as I am concerned, I have already spoken on this matter several times.


Pierre Gauthier: You also spoke on family allowances.


Louis Deniset: Would the hon. minister allow me a question?


Léon Balcer: Certainly.


Louis Deniset: Is the hon. minister himself also in favour of this motion, like the others? Yes or no?


Georges Villeneuve: He has not made up his mind yet.


Léon Balcer: If my hon. friend would have a little patience, I will come to the question before the house.


Pierre Gauthier: We have been waiting for a long time.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I was expressing my admiration just as was done by the ministers of the former government who have now come to the conclusion that such a measure could be useful and could promote national unity.

However, such a system has already been tried for some years by all the great international organizations of which Canada is a member. Thus, at the United Nations, there is a system of simultaneous translation in the five official languages of that organization. I really believe that if it was found possible to establish such a system at the United Nations, for simultaneous interpretation in five different official languages, it would be equally possible to establish the same system for the two official languages in this house. This system which was installed in the United Nations is, as a matter of fact, the same as will be found at NATO and at different international gatherings.
In Canada it is at present used for various meetings of chambers of commerce, industrial groups and others. It is generally agreed that it does away with a great many errors and allows Canadians to know each other better by making it easier for them to express their own ideas in their own native tongue.
As you know, there was a meeting last summer of the International Postal Union, here in Ottawa. A system of simultaneous translation had been installed in the House of Commons for that meeting. Once this conference was over, the government considered the possibility of keeping that system permanently. Unfortunately, that system had been made specially for that conference. Moreover, it had been installed hastily, it was much too cumbersome and it would really have altered the appearance of the House of Commons. It was then that the matter was referred to the internal economy committee of the house, where it is under consideration. We are following on this matter the very procedure that was followed when the microphone system which we now have was installed. I well remember that for years members in various parts of the house had been complaining about the acoustics. Unfortunately, several members were afraid that the installations of a microphone system would mar the appearance of the house and that is why the solution of the problem took so much time.
The house is provided with an amplifier system which, although detracting to some extent from the beauty of this chamber, allows us to hear clearly the speeches being delivered, and although this system is rather costly, generally speaking, the business of the house is being carried on much more 96698-954
House of Commons
efficiently. For this reason, the study of a simultaneous translation system for the house has been entrusted to the internal economy committee, which had already considered the establishment of our amplifier system.
It is purely and simply a technical question. We are all in agreement on that. All political parties in the house recognize the official use of both languages here. All members recognize that each and everyone of them has the right to address the house in either one of our two official languages.
The matter now before the internal economy committee is not one that concerns bilingualism but rather the technical aspect of the problem. It is a matter of determining what system of simultaneous translation would be the best for the house and what the cost would be of such a system. We must also find out whether it would be possible to use the present public address system. The thing is to know if we are going to have a system including devices as heavy as those that were installed at the United Nations five or six years ago or smaller sets which can be fitted over the ears and are nearly invisible. We must also determine what type of installation we are going to have for oral translation, how many interpreters would be required and what salary they should get. All these matters have now been referred to the internal economy committee. So far the committee has gathered a good deal of information and it shall continue to study the matter. I hope it will be in a position to submit a report to the house at the earliest opportunity.
The resolution now before the house asks that this matter be referred to a committee of the house. Well, Mr. Speaker, this session will be of short duration and there would be no point in setting up committees, since within three or four weeks the session will be over. All those who are anxious that such a new step be taken should have confidence in the internal economy committee. Besides, that was the body which gave us the amplifier system we now use and it will be the one, I am convinced, to give the house a system of simultaneous translation.
The motion now before the house calls precisely for what the internal economy committee is now achieving. I do not see how the setting up of a committee of the house of Commons would in any way hasten this project, for we know from past experience

House of Commons
that a committee of the house, where all parties are represented, always takes some time before it gets going and that it follows a rather complicated procedure, during which each member wants to express his own views, which generally leads to a lengthy debate. This is a purely technical, and not a political matter.
Everybody is agreed on the constitutional question of bilingualism in this house. This is simply a matter for experts. The aim is to get technical information such as only engineers can give. I do not know that fifteen or twenty members of parliament seated around a table, who are all in favour of simultaneous translation and listening to information by experts in acoustics or in simultaneous translation, can possibly hasten the introduction of some system of simultaneous translation, which everybody in this country looks upon with such favour and which could render such excellent service. The setting up of such a committee would probably delay the study of this matter.
I sincerely believe that we are going in the right direction and that the internal economy committee will be in a position to submit a technical report to the house, and I am convinced that before long we shall have in the house a simultaneous translation system, so that the principle of integral bilingualism in the Canadian parliament may cease to be a mere theory in the constitution to become a practical reality.
I sincerely believe that this would help Canadian unity, as well as the debates, for it is highly advantageous that everyone should be understood at once without having to wait until Hansard is translated; it often happens as we know, that due to certain circumstances, the French copy of Hansard is published with a few hours' delay. I am convinced that it is possible to find technical means which will allow simultaneous interpretation to be given in this house without changing	in the least its traditional
appearance.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of such a system and I would like to ask all those who have spoken so far to have confidence in the house's internal economy committee. I am convinced that before long there will be simultaneous interpretation in this house when the board's report is brought down.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Solicitor General allow a question? Does he not think that all

the points he has just made with regard to the internal economy committee would be just as valid with regard to the setting up of a special committee of the house, such as the one suggested by the hon. member?


Léon Balcer: I do not think so and I think I have explained that. I cannot see why a strictly technical question based on reports submitted by engineers and specialists in acoustics can be more readily decided upon by a committee of the house made up of laymen who have no knowledge at all of the matter.


Pierre Gauthier: Laymen? Are members laymen?


Léon Balcer: Yes. Does the hon. member for Portneuf by any chance think he is an expert in acoustics and simultaneous translation?


Pierre Gauthier: No, but I could question the experts though, and I could do that as well as the members of the internal economy committee.


Léon Balcer: That is just the point, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Portneuf could very well do that if he were a member of that committee.


Pierre Gauthier: Where are the experts in the internal economy committee?


Léon Balcer: The experts could discuss that matter with the members of the internal economy committee.


Pierre Gauthier: And with us too.


Léon Balcer: But, if you are 25 around the table, it will take three weeks to set up the committee in the first place and this session will not last more than three weeks now.


Pierre Gauthier: It takes five
minutes to set up a committee.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Who are the members of the internal economy committee whom the hon. Solicitor General has mentioned here in the house?


Léon Balcer: They are the Speaker of the house (Mr. Michener), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Nowlan), the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough)...


Mr. Gauthier (Porfneuf):: What experts!


Léon Balcer: And your humble servant.


Pierre Gauthier: Some experts!


Maurice Breton: Mr. Speaker,...


Lionel Chevrier: Would the Solicitor General mind if I intervene?


Léon Balcer: Is it a question or an intervention?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to prevent the Solicitor General from making the allegations he just made, but I should merely like to point out to him that, during his absence, three of his colleagues on the government side took part in the debate and that not one of them suggested that this matter be referred to the internal economy committee of the house. On the contrary, they did not say a word about it.


Léon Balcer: Precisely. I wanted to give an explanation and say that this was as far as the study of this matter has gone. The best way of speeding up the consideration of this matter is precisely to leave it to the internal economy committee of the house. Referring the consideration of this resolution to a committee of the house where the debates are interminable would certainly not hasten the solution of the problem. A report could certainly not be submitted before the end of this session.


Pierre Gauthier: Congratulations for your appreciation of the members of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my
knowledge of French is so limited. I hope one day to be in a position to use this language as fluently as our French-speaking colleagues use my own language.
For the time being, it is better for me to continue my speech in English.
(Text):
I am sure that if any of my French speaking colleagues understood what I have said, they will agree with that last sentence. Indeed that effort of mine may be proof that we need simultaneous translation in this House of Commons. On the other hand, it might also prove that it would sometimes be very difficult for an interpreter to figure out what had been said.
Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) some of us do have certain doubts about the wisdom or desirability of a simultaneous translation system for this House of Commons. The reason for these doubts has already been expressed- some of us fear the innovation might have the effect of making debates in this house too mechanical. We fear, also, that it might discourage some of us whose mother tongue is English from trying to learn the other official language of this country.
House of Commons
We are also somewhat amazed, as are hon. members opposite, at the great interest now being shown in this question by supporters of the Liberal party, in view of the silence they held on this issue in years gone by. However, Mr. Speaker, what is before us, while it is to a large extent a discussion of a simultaneous translation system, is only a motion that the government give consideration to the setting up of a committee to give further consideration to the matter, and it seems to me that whether one is for or against the installation of a simultaneous translation system it is only fair to have the matter looked into by a committee which could make a much better study and examination of the matter than can be achieved through the kind of discussion we are having today.
I was a little surprised at the stand taken by the government as expressed by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) and also by the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) on this matter, namely that it should not be referred to a committee, but rather that we should trust the various departments of government which are looking into the question to go into it satisfactorily. I suppose we will have occasion many times to come back to a phrase which was used a good deal during the election campaign-"the supremacy of parliament".
As far as the arrangements of the House of Commons are concerned, surely that is something for the House of Commons as a whole, rather than for the government to decide. I realize that if the expenditure of money is involved then the government has to come into the picture, but at the initial stage, namely the studying of the question to decide whether or not hon. members as a whole will want to look further into this proposal, I suggest that parliament should be supreme, and that this investigation should be undertaken by a committee of the House of Commons rather than leave it to a department or departments of government.
You will notice that I do not speak in the same terms with respect to the fact that Your Honour is making a study of the question. You, sir, are the servant of the house and I put your study in a different category from the study being made by any department of the government. It seems to me that the very fact that Your Honour is making a study of the matter puts it down as a parliamentary question and infers that there should therefore be a committee of parliament, with Your Honour as a member, to examine into this issue.
I speak as one who is not yet convinced that a simultaneous translation system would be a good idea. I am concerned about the

House of Commons
mechanical results that might be produced. I think, too, that some of us might lose the incentive to acquire greater facility in the other official language.
But in the meantime, because of the interest shown in the question on all sides of the house, I think that no matter what our views may be on the ultimate question we should be able to get together with regard to the desirability of having a committee look into the matter. As I indicated by the question I put to the Minister of Public Works when he was speaking, I do not feel that it is any serious objection to the motion to say that there is no time for a committee to be set up at the present session. The motion does not ask for that. The motion asks for consideration to be given to the setting up of a committee. If the motion were agreed to at this session, its intent could still be carried out at a future session, if the government were so disposed, after giving the matter consideration.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope we will not be carried away from the terms of the motion, but, rather, that we will remind ourselves that all it proposes is that a committee be directed to look further into this matter. Surely that is a reasonable request.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief word to say. I have had some experience with resolutions. In 1937 I had a resolution before the house and there was a full dress debate on health insurance. I had a resolution on last session dealing with increased pensions for retired civil servants. I have one on again this session, and I expect it will be successful.
The object of bringing in resolutions is to place before the government something which is a national wrong and which ought to be corrected. No matter what party is in power we like to think that the government consists of reasonable men and women, and that it wants to correct the country's wrongs. The hon. member who has proposed this resolution has called the attention of the government to this question, which he considers to be of great importance.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, with regard to resolutions the best one can expect is that the government will give consideration to the matter raised. The hon. Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) has risen and had her say. The best we can expect from any government is that they will give consideration to the matter raised. Having considered it, they can say yes, or they can say no; it is their re-sponsibilty. I congratulate the hon. member concerned for bringing in this resolution because I did not think it would keep going

an hour, and it has kept going for three hours. Therefore, it must be of national importance.
(Translation) :


Mr. C. N. Barbes (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words, very briefly, on that question. We hear more and more about co-operation and understanding between those who speak English on the one hand and those of French origin on the other.
I very warmly congratulate the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) for having introduced a motion which will promote bilingualism, an essential factor of progress and unity in Canada.
It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that our requests be heard and understood, as soon as they are made in this house, by each and every member of the cabinet, whether these petitions be made in the French or in the English language.
The motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm seems to me to promote in that way that national unity which we have so much at heart. Moreover, it should not raise any controversy and, even if the question of cost should be held against it, let us not forget that it would be much better to spend money in that way to promote national unity than to spend it, for example, for lighting around the parliament buildings, which only pleases the eyes of everybody.


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I had no intention of taking part in the debate when the motion was introduced this afternoon. It is not that I am not interested in the question, quite the contrary-and I will try to prove it to you in a moment-but I just thought that the motion had been well introduced by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton). I also thought that the discussion was getting on fine, that everything was apparently going very well, until 1 started to wonder whether some were not-and I am not thinking of anyone in particular- repeating here the same tactics used in the past, under which an important number of members of the house speak emphatically in favour of motions and end by talking them out, as we say.
Such being the case, I believe I should say a few words, not, of course, to come to the assistance of those who might have had the same idea, but simply to mention the fact

that we did understand perfectly what has gone on before with regard to certain bills introduced in this house.
I mentioned at the beginning that I did not lack interest in this matter, on the contrary. Now if you look back in the Votes and Proceedings of this house for October the 15th, you will see that under the heading question No. 17 I asked the following:
1.	What was the cost of setting up the present system for the transmission of debates in the House of Commons, by means of microphones and loudspeakers?
2.	Since the system was set up. what has been the annual cost of its maintenance and operation?
On October 18 the house received the following answers given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Hodgson). The first question was as follows:
What was the cost of setting up the present system for the transmission of debates in the House of Commons, by means of microphones and loudspeakers?
Here is the answer:

The second part of that question was the following:
Since the system was set up, what was the annual cost of its maintenance and operation?
Here is the answer:
Maintenance and operation, $20,000 per annum. Rental, $7,500 per annum.
That is $27,500 a year. To put it briefly the present amplification system cost $33,529 and its present maintenance cost is $27,500.
I also asked the following question which will be found in the Votes and Proceedings for October the 15th:
Did the government put into operation a system of simultaneous translation of the debates in the House of Commons, on the occasion of the international postal congress recently held in the parliament buildings? What was the maintenance and operation cost thereof? Were the results obtained satisfactory?
Now then, seven days later, on October 22, I received the following answer. Of course, I spare the house the reading of the whole answer, which is rather long, and I summarize it thus: the cost of installation was $50,000.
To the question:
During how many weeks was the system in operation?
the answer was:
Seven weeks and two days.
To the question:
What was the maintenance and operation cost thereof?
the answer was:
Approximately $11,500.
House of Commons To the question:
Were the results obtained satisfactory?
the answer was very precise, concise and unequivocal, namely:
Yes.
This afternoon, the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) gave us a fairly good explanation-I would even say a very good explanation-and said that the installation made for the postal congress this fall was a temporary one. I notice here that, according to the report, the results were excellent. This means that if the results were excellent with a temporary installation, there can be no doubt that they could not be inferior with a permanent installation. To my mind, that seems clear enough and, though we are not experts and need a committee which could no doubt cast light on all these problems, I believe I can say that those are indisputable conclusions.
And now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) has, if I understood him rightly, given us some indication of rather astronomical figures with regard to the probable cost of setting up or maintaining such a system as the resolution before us calls for. Well, if we refer to both answers to my questions, we might conclude that the installation and maintenance cost for the proposed system would perhaps not differ very widely from the installation and maintenance cost of the present amplification system now operating in this house.
For instance, we find, in comparison, that the cost of our present amplification system amounted to $33,000, whereas the installation of the system for simultaneous translation used last fall during the Postal Congress, cost $50,000. I might be told that between $33,000 and $50,000 there is a considerable margin. I admit there is. For an individual, an amount representing the difference between $33,000 and $50,000 is something considerable, but I submit that for a government, it is a relatively small amount, especially when it is for setting up a system which should promote the mutual understanding which already prevails, but which no doubt we should be interested in furthering still more.
As for the maintenance cost, it was, as I pointed out, $11,500 for a period of about 7 weeks and 2 days, which comes to about $6,000 a month. If we agree that the operation and maintenance cost of the suggested system would represent a very small amount when the house is not sitting, if we agree also that
14S0

House of Commons
our sessions last from 6 to 7 months a year, we must conclude that the maintenance of that system would cost $35,000, $40,000 or perhaps $50,000 a year, an amount which is not yet exceedingly far from the $27,700 spent on the present amplifier system.
I may quite possibly be wrong, Mr. Speaker, the more so since I have never been an expert nor a wizard at figures, but this may be another reason for us, the humble members who are but laymen in that field, as has been said a moment ago, to urge that this house be given a committee in which we, the laymen, of course, could appear and also question experts who would no doubt be very glad to enlighten us.
It is the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Villeneuve), I believe, who so aptly said this afternoon how important it is that the people who wish to attend our debates from time to time in the galleries should understand what is going on in the house. Everyone knows that people come occasionally from each of our constituencies either on business trips or simply on pleasure trips. They are very glad to take advantage of the opportunity to visit the house in order to see what is going on here, but many of them do not understand what is being said.
I know very well that the ideal for all Canadian citizens would be to understand both of Canada's official languages; the ideal would be that all English-speaking Canadians should speak and understand French and that all the French-speaking Canadians should speak and understand English. We must face the fact that there are exceptions on both sides. There are people of English origin who do not understand French and, on the other hand, French-speaking citizens who do not understand English, but they have the same right to come here as anybody else. It seems to me that it would be logical that those people who come here, many of whom, as I have said a moment ago, travel considerable distances to come and see what is going on, should understand the members and get somewhat into the atmosphere of the debates which they attend so that they may go back home with an excellent impression of what goes on in the parliament of our country.
It has been said-I am not the first one to say it-that a certain number of these good Canadian citizens whom we cannot blame for not knowing both official languages, return home with a bad impression of their visit of the capital of their country and particularly of parliament.

If the resolution before the house were adopted, it would no doubt be an excellent means of answering the legitimate expectations of those Canadian citizens; it would be, as has been said and as I repeat, a means to promote understanding.
Mr. Speaker, during the debate which followed the introduction of this notice of motion, I have been happy to find that all English-speaking members of the house have been very kind towards French Canadians; they have shown much goodwill and understanding. This is encouraging for the future of national unity. I am glad to emphasize that fact and I repeat that if we accept this motion for the establishment of a committee, we will have made another step towards understanding.
Now, I am not qualified to decide whether a committee of the house such as is proposed by the resolution would be in a better position to study that question than our own internal economy committee.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that since you are heading that committee yourself the discussions are proceeding rapidly and that highly qualified experts must have come before it. In fact I should think that committee already has a fairly good idea of the situation and would even be in a position to tell us exactly the point it has reached in its examination of the matter.
But would it not be a good thing if some members of this house, in a house committee, were provided with an opportunity to take part in this fine debate, to put forward their suggestions, express their own views as well as those of their constituents? Mind you, I have every confidence in the qualifications of the ministers who sit on that committee but still I think that I would not be exaggerating were I to say that these ministers might not be in a position to express in that committee the exact thoughts of the electors of the various constituencies of this country. I submit then that a much better way of arriving at the results proposed would be to set up a committee of the house to study the matter and to hear the opinions of the taxpayer in that regard.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I see that I have spoken longer than I wanted to. I might repeat at this point that having noted the strange turn taken by the debate, I felt I should take this opportunity of adding my humble voice-I should not say to bring to the house my humble lights since those hon. members who have already spoken in

this debate have been displaying most incandescent lights indeed, but, still, I did want to state my humble opinion on this matter.
(Text):


Joseph Gérard Yves Leduc: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Section 29 of the Standing Orders reads as follows:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place: but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do move, seconded by the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Brisson):
That the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), do now speak.


Howard Charles Green: Mr Speaker, on the point of order, there is already a motion before the house by arrangement this afternoon. In addition to this being a very strange motion, it is not in order.
My hon. friends across the way talk about closure and accuse us of trying to bring about closure. Here we have the position where the mover of this original resolution has already spoken. While there are other members who wish to speak one of his friends on his side of the house rises in his place and moves that he must now be heard for a second time. I submit that that is completely out of order. As a matter of fact, nobody is permitted to speak twice in a debate unless it may be that the mover can speak in closing his debate. Certainly, there is no rule which says a person can introduce a motion and then, after the debate has gone on for a certain length of time one of his friends can get up and move he is to speak again. If those were to be the rules under which this house were to conduct its business, then the whole process would become a farce. I suggest the hon. member's motion now is out of order.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point of order, may I say this. I object to the use of the word "closure" by my hon. friend the house leader because I think I could return the compliment to him. His attempt this afternoon was more an attempt at closure than anything done by the hon. member here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the remarks made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Green) were not strictly to the point of order, but that does not excuse the hon. member who is now departing from the point of order. There is a point of order before the house and I will hear the hon. member on that.
House of Commons


Lionel Chevrier: I will accept your ruling on that, but I rose to point out to the hon. member, in answer to his statement that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) was moving a motion that was tantamount to closure, to say this. I understood this afternoon when we were discussing this matter, that the motion for adjournment would stand in suspense until several of our members on this side of the house had had an opportunity to speak.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Everybody who wanted to speak.


Howard Charles Green: What do you mean "on this side of the house"?


Lionel Chevrier: My understanding was that because of the shortness of the session, the hon. member was hoping there would be an opportunity of disposing of this before ten o'clock. If that was the intention the leader had in his mind, it was certainly what I had in my mind, and what the hon. member for Verdun is doing is simply facilitating that.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not understand that there is any other motion before the house except the motion which is being debated. I was not in the house when the Minister of Public Works spoke, but on the assumption that we are debating the motion on the order paper I feel that I should dispose of the point of order which has been raised.


Lionel Chevrier: May I point out to you,
with deference, that there is something else before the house.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Lionel Chevrier: Does anyone want to speak? If he does, let him rise on a point of order. I am discussing the point of order now, and I ask to be heard.


Mr. Broome:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), when he asked whether this amendment could be deferred did not say simply members on that side of the house but members who had not so far taken part in the debate and who wished to speak. I took the reference to mean all members.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be heard? What I was pointing out when I was interrupted on the point of order was that there is something else before the house. I say this to you with deference. There was a motion moved by the leader of the house to adjourn the debate and at my request, because there were some members who had not been heard, he consented that they be allowed to speak in the debate. However, the motion is still

House of Commons
there. It was moved toy the Minister of Public Works and seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Starr).


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member for Laurier is not now suggesting that no one in this house was supposed to carry on except Liberal members; that is a brand new idea. I am amazed at him bringing that up. I did agree to let my motion to adjourn stand so that the debate could continue, but there was certainly never any intention that no one except Liberals should speak. This is Liberal rule-


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question?


Mr. Murphy (Westmorland):: There are no Liberal rules, and you know it.


Lionel Chevrier: If there were any members on the other side of the house willing and anxious to speak at the time, why did the hon. member move the adjournment of the debate?


Howard Charles Green: As I explained this afternoon, I thought the mover of the motion was about to close the debate. He stood up then, and he had no right to stand up if he was not going to close the debate. If I had not spoken at that time, I could not have spoken at all. Then, when I found that was a mistake and the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) wished to speak, I made it possible for anyone who wished to speak to do so rather than go ahead with my motion to adjourn. Now, I am just a little surprised that that action of my own, which was taken to help hon. members and give an opportunity to those who wished to to speak, should now be thrown back at me and the suggestion made that only Liberals were to speak.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not thrown back at you.


Mr. Speaker:: As I say, I was not in the house when the motion was made by the minister. This motion was not proceeded with, and was not put from the chair, so I take it that we are now debating the original motion which is on the order paper. The point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Verdun under Standing Order 29 seems to me to be out of order because he overlooks Standing Order No. 37 which provides that when the hon. member who moved a motion rises to speak, I must inform the house he is closing the debate. In effect, we have a motion before the house that infringes the rules. It is a motion that the hon. member be allowed to speak twice on his own motion, otherwise he would be closing the debate and depriving members of the opportunity to speak. I must rule, with due respect to the hon. member for

Verdun, that the motion is out of order and that the debate continue until there is a motion properly before the house which supersedes it.


Robert John Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton) and myself were the only English speaking members elected to this side of the house from the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: What about O'Hurley? He is an Irishman.


Robert John Pratt: I am not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing; I am not attempting to interpret it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am neither English nor French; I am an Irishman. Naturally, being Irish I want everybody in this house to know it. As a matter of fact, I had the privilege and pleasure of visiting Ireland this summer. I travelled from Dublin to the west coast, to Galway and from north to south. I made the very interesting discovery that Ireland also is a bilingual country and it also has its troubles. I found that there were many people who did not speak the Irish language, but they nevertheless endeavoured to make signs look Irish by writing the word "bus" with letters that appeared to be from the Russian alphabet.
Seriously speaking, as an English speaking member from the province of Quebec I think what I have to say may carry a little more weight than if I were a French speaking member. I just want to take this opportunity of saying that in Quebec I have always received the utmost courtesy in the use of my language. I have not been in politics very long. I became an alderman in a small town council in 1952, in which the majority of the members spoke French. They never failed to extend to me the courtesy of making sure I understood everything that took place. Since then, I have become mayor of the city of Dorval. Most of the business is conducted in the English language, although practically 100 per cent of the staff is French speaking. I want to take this opportunity to tell the house how much I appreciate this fact.
Therefore I would welcome the opportunity to reciprocate and I heartily support the idea of a simultaneous translation system for this house. I think it would be well suited, particularly for members on the floor addressing the house and also for French speaking visitors in the public galleries who may not have a command of the English language. Later we could perhaps instal such a system in committees if it were found necessary and practical so to do.

Of course such a system would require earphones as we would still want to hear the speaker in his original language and in person, as was pointed out by several speakers earlier today. The expense would be great and this is an economy-minded government. But we must be generous where language and understanding are concerned because without such understanding we have chaos, the democratic processes are slowed down and the business of the house is rendered much more difficult.
I am sure also, Mr. Speaker, that such an idea is actually only an extension of the original intentions of the men who drafted the British North America Act. However, there seems to be wide divergence of opinion as to the costs involved and the methods required for the greatest efficiency in the operation of such a system. I am given to understand that some investigation is already being made into the feasibility of installing such a system. Personally I shall be most interested in hearing more about the technical and financial aspects involved. As far as the principle of installing a simultaneous translation system in the house is concerned, may I take this opportunity to say that I am 100 per cent in favour of it.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that this resolution is one of the hardy perennials which has appeared time after time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh no.


An hon. Member:: You are wrongly
informed.


Ernest James Broome: I said I had been told.


Mr. Hodgson:: This is one the Liberals had on the shelf for a long time.


Ernest James Broome: Regardless of that, it has much to commend it but there are certain doubts in my mind with respect to whether this is the proper answer to the problem. I do not see how people can be united by means of a mechanical device. Unity in this nation will come about through understanding between the two races, and I believe that understanding can best be advanced by the members of the house trying to learn the language of their colleagues of the other race.
I was very much taken when the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said that on his return to the house after three years absence he was amazed at the advancement which had been made by his French speaking colleagues in mastering the English language and conversely by English speaking colleagues in mastering the French language. I saw a newspaper report the other day which stated that the members of the present cabinet were more bilingual than those of any other cabinet
House of Commons
in the history of Canada. I believe there are some eight members of the cabinet who range in their mastery of the French language from being absolutely bilingual to the valiant and precocious attempts of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness).


An hon. Member:: You are in strong there now.


Ernest James Broome: But the point, Mr. Speaker, is that he makes an attempt. That is the bridge that brings about a feeling of oneness. I think that a bond which tends to unite us will be broken by an earplug which will divide us. It is not only a question of our contacts and what we say in the house but what we do outside the house. In many constituencies hon. members have both French and English speaking constituents. This attempt, if not to become facile in both languages at least to be understood in the language which is not one's native tongue, is something that I think we should cherish and try to develop.
When the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Maloney) spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I can well remember the applause he got from the other side of the house. He had worked hard on putting part of his speech into French and those members for whom French is their native tongue appreciated and admired what the hon. member had done. I should like to say that it is amazing and intriguing that after 22 years hon. members on the other side, who had tremendous influence in various governments and over long periods of time, have suddenly become so intent on this measure and so preoccupied with it. For instance, the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker), who is one of the veterans of the house, has been in the house since 1935, I believe, with the exception of a short period when he took over the leadership of the Saskatchewan Liberal party. After all that length of time he has suddenly realized now that simultaneous translation is the sort of thing we should have had a long time ago.
The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner) has indicated that perhaps technological developments in the last few years have made this possible. This device is as old as the telephone; it is nothing new. It has been here all the time. It is simply that the attitude has changed and it has changed with remarkable celerity and unanimity. It has been said that we would learn French by listening. I doubt very much whether anybody learns simply by listening. We learn by wanting to do it and by wanting to do a job in that regard. What is happening on this side of the house and the other side is that hon. members are working at trying to

House of Commons
understand the language and thus understand the people of the other race. That is something that is much more important, much more to be cherished and built upon, than this mechanical gadget which will let me hear exactly what a member has to say at a particular moment. I think we are taking the pewter mug and throwing away the gold. I think this would tend to divide the two races rather than unite them. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is not a good motion, not good for the house and not good for the people of Canada. I sincerely believe that and I will vote against it.
(Translation):


Mr. Neree Arsenault (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to miss this opportunity of raising a matter which has not been mentioned during this debate. The matter of bilingualism is a very important one, and I may say, through my own experience, that although I know some English, I find it rather difficult to follow everything that is said in this house.
It should be kept in mind that about 35 p. 100 of the population of Canada is of French origin, and that in this house, at least 90 p. 100 of the debates are carried on in English. Furthermore, when exchanges take place at a rapid rate, or when a member speaks a little too quickly, several members -I, for instance-sometimes miss the essential point of a speech. That is why we should not compare the necessity of bilingualism to simultaneous translation and the cost of installing such a system. Even if the figures quoted this afternoon, namely $40,000, $50,000 or even over $100,000 appear fabulous to us, they should not constitute an obstacle to the setting up of a system of simultaneous interpretation in the House of Commons.
The rights of bilingualism have been defended ever since Canada was a colony, and the opportunity given us today of enjoying the discoveries that scientists have made should not be denied to us by mere considerations of cost and thus prevent us from having immediately a system of simultaneous interpretation in this house. I was heartened a few minutes ago by the words of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) because they assured me that the government itself was considering the matter and that consequently it was not necessary to establish another committee to complete consideration of this question. The matter is under consideration and it is recognized that simultaneous interpretation is absolutely necessary in this house.
It is also important to point out another matter which could be of great service to our parliamentary correspondents. If we had

simultaneous interpretation, all correspondents would hear the same translation and would report to the public the discussions as they were held in this house.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Nonsense.


Nérée Arsenault: The nonsense comes from the other side of the house. I was much grieved a few minutes ago, while the Solicitor General was speaking of the serious efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to learn French, to hear someone on the other side of the house burst out laughing. This touched me deeply and this is the reason why I say that the meaningless utterances are coming from across the house.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the request for the establishment of a simultaneous translation system. I hope we shall have it soon; it will allow not only the members, but the parliamentary correspondents, the people coming to visit us and our friends who do not speak English, to follow the debates with much more interest.
(Text):


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Edmonton West):: In rising to speak on the resolution before the house this evening I approach it from the point of view as a neutral since, having as I do have a command of both languages I do not suffer as undoubtedly a number of members of this house suffer when listening to speeches in a language which is not their own. I can fully understand that those who come from the province of Quebec and who hear speeches in the varying tones and accents of English-and in making this statement I do not cast any reflection on other hon. members for I admit I am to some extent in this category myself-such Quebec members may find a little difficulty in understanding some of the accents with which English is spoken in this house. As I say, I do not reproach hon. members in this respect, but there it is. I can fully appreciate that those members whose mother tongue is French but who have, shall we say, a working knowledge of the English language, might have considerable difficulty in following the full sense of some speeches.
Now if, on the other hand, we look at the other side of the question when hon. members are listening to speeches made by one of the hon. members from the province of Quebec, particularly when they get wound up-and here one must pay tribute to the heights of eloquence which some hon. members from that province can reach-English

speaking members, in turn, do get completely lost. Therefore the tendency is for those members to slip behind the curtain into the lobbies because it must be admitted that it sometimes gets pretty boring listening to something you do not understand.
I feel we all agree with the principle that simultaneous translation offers many advantages, and I must concur in the statement made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) that perhaps we might have less disagreement with the press as to what actually was said in this house, if all hon. members could actually get the true sense of words spoken at the time they are actually spoken.
I was a little amused this afternoon at the statement made by the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) when he said that when he was speaking in the language not his own he felt the translation was an improvement on his own words. I, too, feel I would be in the same position when speaking in French although I understand that language quite well.
I did point out the other day and I do emphasize again that only approximately 12 per cent of the people of this country are bilingual. Some 67 per cent are reputedly unilingual in that they speak only English and some 20 per cent speak only French.
I certainly deprecate that state of affairs. In this house we recognize in all sincerity, as is recognized in other parts of the country, that there are two official languages in Canada and the great foundation of this nation is laid in the existence of two peoples who have different cultures on which a common culture may be based. We also realize that we will have much greater understanding and will insure the achievement of national unity only if we understand one another.
I would submit that it is only on the basis of knowing of what the other man is speaking and reading what he is writing that we will be able to achieve this end. I sincerely feel that every effort should be made by us to inculcate in our children the love of each other's language. I am not saying we should all learn French only but I feel it would be well if those who are French would also try to learn English so that we may get along with one another. This will serve us not only within our country but beyond its confines. Those members of this house who travel extensively in Europe-whether for reasons of pleasure, private or government business -realize the immense value of the knowledge of at least one other language. We in Canada have the opportunity to speak English
House of Commons
or French or both, and I would commend to the members of this house the understanding and speaking of both languages.
At the moment I would think perhaps that the provision of some mechanical or automatic translation into one's own language of the speeches of members in another language would discourage the learning of that other language. I think there are a number of members of this house who have made some effort to learn French because there is no translation system. We have there the carrot, or the incentive, to learn another language. It may be that hon. members from the province of Quebec would limit themselves to their own language; if we had simultaneous translation, what use would it be to them to learn English? However, I do not think that should bother us here. We have important business to attend to, and I think the initiative of the individual hon. member should be relied upon in these things.
As to the resolution itself, I should say from what we have heard today, that the principle is widely supported in this house, but we would be setting up under this resolution if it were adopted, machinery parallel to that which now exists, and I feel that such an effort would be contrary to the economic use of the services of this house and would respectfully submit that while we agree in principle with the motion, in view of what has been disclosed, either the hon. member who proposed the motion should withdraw it or we should not agree with the motion, and I do so move, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. R. Smith (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, it is pleasant indeed to enter into a debate in which there is so obvious general agreement on the question of principle. The odd remark I intend to make is really in support of the principle. I had hoped to get across the floor to obtain the notes of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but as I have some reason to believe that perhaps that hon. gentleman did not understand his own notes he might not be able to help me a great deal.
I think I may say, Mr. Speaker that the agreement which has been expressed here today will be most refreshing to those who read Hansard or other reports of these debates as revealing that an effort is being made in this fine chamber to provide, at some point, members of the House of Commons, not merely with a convenience but with the hope that some day this body will take upon itself a task which many individuals have done to date, namely to learn both languages.
I think that my experience in coming here and recognizing my limitations in speaking

House of Commons
but one language, and making an attempt, as I have done, to speak the other, is one I will reflect upon and look back upon not only with some seriousness but also with some amusement, amusement caused by the fact that my tutor is practically giving me up and has even reached the point of suggesting that the only way I could accomplish my purpose would be by moving across the river, with the implication, of course, that that would not be possible in the circumstances.
I would say, though, that if we are to understand each other in this Canada of ours, and if the two cultures are to grow together, we must have an understanding of each other's language. I think, too, we will agree that once such an understanding has been perfected we can increase in harmony as we have never done before.
It was my experience some years ago when I landed in the Black Lake area of Quebec where there was at that time very little English spoken in the community to find myself in a position which undoubtedly has confronted many others, that of not being able to communicate intelligently with the people who were so kind to me. And, in my particular area of western Canada, I look back on that occasion with some fear and trembling at the prospect that I might not have been able to survive. The fact of the matter is that the people of the Black Lake area were kindness itself.
So, when we come to determine how best to implement this proposal which has been received tonight with general agreement, I do not think the question of what committee shall do the job is actually the most important element before us for consideration. We have received an assurance from a minister of this government that the matter will be given very serious consideration with a view to implementation and I, for one, believe that that is the word of a minister whose intention is honourable and right. I say that, not as a sheep but as a hon. member of this house and I am prepared to support him.
The limitation which some of us suffer, namely, inability to understand each other's language has been used as an example in support of the argument for a simultaneous translation system.
I must confess, however, that there were times when an hon. gentleman across the floor was speaking in French and looking at me, when I felt such a system might well be desirable. The only words I heard him say that I understood were "rock and roll," and then I got a suggestion that "Calgary South" had been used, and I must say I rushed down to mailbox the following morning to see if

it was suggested that I, from Calgary South, had been rocking and rolling. But I found there was no reference to either point.
That is, perhaps, a somewhat facetious way of expressing the limitation. I know, of course, that the people of Canada expect all of us to give this matter consideration so that we can in the future not, as I say, as a convenience but as a matter of necessity, recognize the importance of this type of legislation. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, and as I repeat in conclusion, the important thing is not how we implement this. It is just a question of giving this idea consideration so that it will be put into effect for the benefit of all of us. Once that is done, I feel we can say we are in general agreement, and the motion will, of course, be expedited by all members of this house.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I come from an English speaking riding and if I am to believe what I have heard in this house today I am sure my people will be glad to have me endorse the idea that we have been talking about here.
I should like to register my support for the proposed system of simultaneous translation. It is my firm conviction that this would make an undeniable contribution toward national unity and that it would create a better understanding between hon. members of this house, especially between those of us who speak only one language.
I am not familiar with the equipment which would be necessary, but I do favour the idea of our daily visitors being able to share the convenience. I am hesitant about one feature, and that is the extra time that would be required to provide this service. The disregard of this house for the element of time is something I am finding very hard to understand. The opposition speaks very favourably with regard to this project, but they have been silent about it for the past 22 years.
(Translation):


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, as I represent one of the most beautiful constituencies of the province of Quebec, with all due deference to my hon. friends across the way, the constituency of Gaspe, which comprises Canadians of French, English and Irish origin, forms a wonderful, united family, living in harmony and preaching unity, not by words alone but through example.
Mr. Speaker, I agreed to represent this constituency not only in order to criticize or raise objections, but actually to defend the interests of the people of my county.
I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that the constituency of Gaspe was preaching unity

through example, and that is why I am proud to tell the house that I am in favour of simultaneous translation. I am of the opinion that, in so doing, we would be giving an example of such unity.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. members during this session.
I listened with much the same degree of attention to the members of my party and the members of the opposition, and also to the members of the C.C.F. and Social Credit groups. I have thus been able to learn about the needs of the various parts of Canada, and the issues they have to face. To my mind the, western representatives and the eastern members are equally interested in hearing and considering the problems of our province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am therefore in favour of simultaneous translation. I shall not recommend any particular system, because I am not an expert in these matters, but I sincerely believe that the matter should be studied only by experts, and that, in due time, a report should be tabled in this house, and then it will be up to us to take an appropriate decision.


Maurice Breton: Have you ever heard about the rights of parliament?


Roland Léo English: What did you say, my friend?


Maurice Breton: Have you ever heard about the rights of parliament?


Roland Léo English: Certainly.


Maurice Breton: Why not study them?


Roland Léo English: I heard about them, and I dare say my hon. friend has heard about them too. As he was kind enough to bring the point up, I shall tell him, for instance, that this unity in favour of which he is pleading just now might have been advocated long ago, particularly during the last election campaign, when disunity was preached instead.
Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to raise this matter and as a new member in this house I would never have believed that an hon. member on the left would have made such interjection.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this government, my government, who so well understands the necessity of simultaneous translation, will in the near future provide the house with an efficient system.
(Text):


Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks in
House of Commons
this debate and support the principle of simultaneous translation of the two mother tongues used in this house. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, Prince, Prince Edward Island, there are many fine citizens who are descendants of our early French settlers. The relationships between the English and French races in my riding have always been cordial and I hope they will continue to be that way. I feel that the two main racial groups in Canada can take an example from our riding and work together in harmony.
Much of the debate this evening has been carried on in French and as one who has difficulty in following the speakers who use the French tongue I missed much of the debate. True, I will be able to read it in Hansard tomorrow but I will have missed a great deal of the spirit, emotion and expression used by the participating speakers. I have no doubt that many French speaking members also have difficulty in understanding those who speak in English. I was impressed with this fact recently when the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) was moving his amendment concerning the adoption of a national flag, one that is still fresh in the minds of hon. members opposite. One hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the house complained that he did not understand the amendment as it was proposed in English.
I feel some hesitation about referring a matter of this importance to a committee. Several years ago a resolution concerning the adoption of a national flag was referred to a committee. Due to the objections of one member of that committee we still do not have a national flag as the committee could not bring in a unanimous recommendation to this house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that a matter of this importance should be left to the wisdom of this government, a government which has already shown an ability to act rapidly on various matters and one in which all races are represented.
I believe we have two excellent examples of simultaneous translation which can serve as a precedent in this matter. We have simultaneous translation in the United Nations and I believe also in the Swiss parliament. I do hope, however, that the introduction of a simultaneous translation system would not tend to reduce the number of hon. members who strive to become bilingual. I feel much can be accomplished in the matter of national unity by our attempts to speak and understand one another's language.
1498	HOUSE OF
House of Commons


Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this motion because I am not favourably impressed with the entire wording of the motion. I am one of those people who are indeed envious of those in this house with the ability to speak both languages. I come from a locality where there is a tongue other than English spoken and I come from a home that knew another tongue not French. I am, nevertheless, envious. I would say, however, regarding the installation of such a unit in the house, that
I	am prepared to accept as being a progressive move the installation of such units here and also in the galleries. I think it would be very advisable. However, I cannot agree that simultaneous translation should be installed for the use of committee meetings.
I am also one of those who feel that the fellowship, the experiences, that I enjoy with the French speaking members of this house, in getting to know them better, have not proven that simultaneous translation is required at this time in committee meetings.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that in my experiences during world war II it was my privilege to be a member of the Royal Canadian Air Force and a member of a team-I repeat, "a team"- a bomber crew, of which two members were French speaking people. I might say now that I could not have been with a group or with a crew during that period in world war
II	that I appreciated more because of the fact that two of the members were French speaking. Then, later on in my wartime experiences-I do not mention this for any purpose other than to bring out my point-I had the misfortune of being in a prisoner of war camp for a time. There we were thrust together, French speaking Canadians and loyal members of the country of France who had come over to England and joined the R.A.F. There were quite a number of them; there were also Russians, Czechoslovakians, Poles, and a great number of nationalities, and I can say without hesitation that there was no difficulty in understanding. We appreciated the different cultures that were manifest and with which we had to live and, of course, we resolved the problem very readily. It is rather evident here; I certainly feel it very deeply. I am indeed very honoured to be able to meet outside of this house more particularly with the French speaking members and thereby increase my own understanding of them.
To get back to the point; as I have said, there is no personal objection on my part to the installation of a simultaneous translation
[Mr. Phillips.!

system in this house. However, as a new member I can say that going through the periods of debate in this house is rather disconcerting at times and I think that possibly the time and effort wasted in this way could be more profitably spent in other ways.
I would also agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that the cost of such a system needs a very thorough investigation. This, you might say, Mr. Speaker, would be considered by such a committee, but from a personal point of view I would have to vote against the motion because I am certainly objecting, and would object strenuously, to the installation of such a unit for committee purposes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by
saying that I wish we did not have this problem at all. What I mean by that is, I wish we were all bilingual. That is the proper way to solve it, of course. But we have not got that.
When I was a student I was at one stage almost bilingual. Then I had the misfortune of living for years in Toronto. I hope that does not get into the Toronto press or I will be in difficulty. What I mean is that I did not have the chance to keep it up and I had not enough will power to keep it up.
We have had a very interesting debate. I was interested particularly in what was said by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Gardiner), who gave us such an interesting account of the situation in the Saskatchewan legislature and a still more interesting account of the speech which he gave which was so miraculously translated. To me it is a miracle that a man can have such a memory. I was also interested in the speech made by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler) because, as we all know, he had the experience before now of being in the opposition, and I was very interested this afternoon in what he said about the situation in which he found himself, being in a minority of English speaking members and where, in order to carry weight, he had to speak in French. That was very interesting to me.
I was very interested also in the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when I heard him launching into French. I could not hear him too well but I thought it was French and I had the feeling-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I had the feeling, as I listened to him, that miracles were going to

happen and before we knew where we were all of us would be bilingual and the problem might disappear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dix heures.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I understand
that the leader gave a detailed statement to the house in so far as the business of the house is concerned for the greater part of the week and I take it that, according to that statement, tomorrow the government will move to go into supply and discuss the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The intention is to move to go into supply and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) will
Business of the House
open the debate on external affairs. The arrangement is that it will last all day, and if an amendment should be moved that amendment would be voted on at ten o'clock and not at 8.15. Then we shall move to have the estimates of the Department of External Affairs referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: When you get into supply is it the intention to move several departments?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it has been agreed that we can move six departments.


Lionel Chevrier: Have you decided on which?


Howard Charles Green: I do not remember at the
moment; I will let the hon. member know after the house rises.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
1500	HOUSE OF
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Hahn: 1.	Were any civil servants of the immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, at the ports of entry in British Columbia, occupying less senior positions required to perform the duties of senior positions during the past year and were thereby eligible for acting pay?
2.	If so, how many, and how many cases of this type existed at each port of entry during that time?
3.	Was this acting pay recommended by the district superintendent?
4.	If so, how many claims were disallowed, and for what reason?
Answer by: Hon. E. D. Fulion (Acting Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes.
2.	6. Douglas-2, Cascade-1, Patterson-1,
Prince Rupert-1,	district headquarters
(Vancouver)-1.
3.	Yes, except at Cascade where the officer had passed examination qualifying him for promotion to a higher grade and at Prince Rupert where the officer was relieving a fellow officer on sick leave.
4.	None of the four cases recommended was disallowed.
Month
November, 1956 December, 1956 January, 1957 . February, 1957 March, 1957 ...
April, 1957 

May, 1957	
June, 1957 ....
July, 1957 ....
August, 1957 ... September, 1957 October, 1957 ..


P.F.A.A. SCHOOL, YORKTON
Mr. Castleden: 1.	How many persons attended the P.F.A.A. school for inspectors held in Yorkton, during September, 1957?
2.	How many of those who attended that school received appointment as inspectors?
3.	Were all those who were so appointed, bona fide farmers?
Answer by: Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):
1.	50 persons.
2.	39 persons.
3.	No.


UNEMPLOYMENT, NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. McWilliam: How many unemployed (a) males; (b) females, were there in the county of Northumberland, New Brunswick, at the end of each month from November, 1956 to October, 1957, inclusive?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Slarr (Minister of Labour):
The area served by the office of the unemployment insurance commission at Newcastle, N.B., comprises the county of Northumberland. Data are available on the numbers of persons registered for employment at the Newcastle, N.B., office as of the Thursday nearest to the end of each month. For the months in question these data are as follows:
Number of persons regis-
Data as of	tered for employment	
	Male	Female
November 29 ....	.. 979	128January 3, 1957 ..	.. 2,038	168January 31 	. . 2,850	212February 28 	.. 3,297	223March 28 	. . 3,464	221May 2 	.. 3,408	217May 30 	. . 1,504	180June 27 	. . 1,081	168August 1 	. . 712	176August 29	. . 789	159October 3 	.. 763	165October 31 	.. 1,103	174


DISEASE CONTROL OF OYSTER BEDS, KENT COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Michaud: 1.	What steps have been taken towards eliminating the disease prevalent among Kent county, New Brunswick, oyster beds?
2.	What steps have been taken to restock disease-free oysters on Kent county oyster beds?
3.	When is it expected that disease-free oyster fishing in Kent county will be returned to normal?
Answer by: Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister
of Fisheries):
1.	Although heavy mortalities were claimed for Cocagne in 1950, Buctouche bay in 1952 and Richibucto in 1950, examinations and field trials did not confirm these until the autumn of 1953 in Buctouche bay. A prohibition was immediately placed on the transfer of oysters or fishing gear from the waters of Kent county to any other.

2.	In 1954 native oysters as well as oysters from Malagash basin, Nova Scotia and Mira-michi bay, New Brunswick, were placed in experimental floating trays. High mortalities appearing in all these oysters in the spring of 1955, was convincing proof of an infectious disease similar to that which decimated the Prince Edward Island stocks in the 1920's.
In 1956, similar tests were made with two to three hundred oysters from Bras d'Or lakes in Nova Scotia. In the spring of 1957 trial plantings were made with about 50 barrels of Prince Edward Island stock considered to be disease resistant. Plans are now almost completed for the transfer of a further one thousand barrels of Prince Edward Island stock to Kent county in 1958.
3.	If the transfer of disease-resistant stock is successful, the oyster fishery in Kent county could return to normal in five to eight years. If the fishery must rebuild from local groups of resistant resident stocks the recovery period could occupy from a minimum of twice the above period to much longer.
Already in Kent county small oysters, apparently from native resistant stocks, are making their appearance. The survivals from trial plantings of Bras d'Or and Prince Edward Island stocks appear very promising especially in Buctouche and Richibucto. If these encouraging results continue and the small oysters are rigidly protected, the recovery period could be much shorter than normal.


WINNIPEG POST OFFICE
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1. Does the post office employ, at Winnipeg, women on a part-time basis?
Questions
2.	If so, what rate per hour is paid to such women?
3.	How many hours per day and how many days per week do they work?
Answer by:	Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):
1.	Yes.
2.	Day duty-$1.11 per hour. Night duty- $1.26 per hour.
3.	4 hours per day-6 days per week.


PROFESSIONAL SPORTS-FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the federal Department of Labour any jurisdiction in the contractual relations between players' organizations and professional sport entrepreneurs where players from more than one province and from another nation are concerned?
2.	Has the Minister of Labour received any representations regarding the negotiations between the National hockey league and the players' association?
3.	If so, has any consideration been given to appointing a conciliator?
4.	Has the Department of Labour made any studies or reports on the legality of the so-called "reserve clause" in the contracts of professional hockey and football players?
Answer by: Hon. Michael Starr (Minister
of Labour):
1.	The operation of sports arenas and the engagement of players in connection with contests or exhibitions staged therein are matters of a local nature that do not fall within federal jurisdiction in so far as labour relations are concerned.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable in view of answer to second question.
4.	No.

Tuesday, November 26, 1957