[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the fifth report of the select standing committee on standing orders, and moved that
the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I wish to lay on the table copy of order in council P.C. 1042 dated May 21, 1934, ordering that the printer's copy of all departmental reports, complete in revised typewritten form, either in English or in the French language shall be delivered to the King's Printer on or before the first day of July in each and every year.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: On behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) I desire to lay upon the table copies of orders in council passed under the relief act, and also to lay upon the table the findings of the tariff board with respect to fruits and vegetables.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	Was Dr. Guest of Regina, Saskatchewan, appointed medical officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Regina?
2.	If so, what was the date of his appointment ?
3.	How long has he served?
4.	Has he been retired; if so, when?
5.	Is he in receipt of pension for said service?
6.	If so, how much?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	27th February, 1931.
3.	Three years.
4.	Yes, on the 27th February, 1934, as he had reached the age limit.
5.	No, but he was granted three months' pay as gratuity.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


LOANS TO ROTJMANIA
Mr. McPHEE:: 1.	How much money -was loaned by the
Dominion of Canada to Roumania:	(a) by
direct loan; (b) by merchandise purchased by the government of Canada and charged to Roumania?
2.	When was said loan made?
3.	Was said loan granted by order in council?
4.	If so, what is the date of same?
5.	Has any of said loan been repaid?
6.	How much is now outstanding on said loan?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) Nil; (b) $20,449,083.94.
2.	1919.
3.	Yes.
4.	P.C. 690 of April 2, 1919.
5.	By agreement effected in 1922, the loan, which under the original terms would have been due in 1924, was funded and Canada received $23,969,720 of 4 per cent Roumanian bonds due in 1968.
6.	$23,969,720, representing principal amount of loan and $3,520,636.06 of interest arrears consolidated as of December 31, 1922. Interest arrears on bonds, $838,932.50.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GOBEIL:: For a copy of the schedules of works approved by the federal government under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and the Relief Act, 1933, for the federal con-

Construction Camps

stituency of Compton, showing the accounts received with respect to each schedule, the dates on which such accounts were reecived. the dates on which payment of same were made to the province, and, in the case of municipal works, the dates shown on the accounts as that on which they were received by the province from the municipality.


Samuel Gobeil: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Department of Labour and the provincial authorities of Quebec concerning the non-payment of those employed on relief works being carried out by the province prior to the receipt by the province of the federal government's share.


ST-CELESTIN, QUE., POSTMASTER, DISMISSAL
Mr. DUBOIS:: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence, letters, petitions and other documents, respecting the dismissal of Mr. Eloi Girard, postmaster of the village of St-Celestin, county of Nicolet.


ONTARIO ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I have a question which I desire to ask the Prime Minister. I have noticed that the Postmaster General is advertised to speak to-morrow night in the town of Hawkesbury in the county of Prescott, province of Ontario, in support of the Conservative candidate in the provincial election. My question is this: Is it the policy of the government that ministers of the crown shall move from one province to another to take part in provincial elections-for instance, a minister from the province of Quebec coming into the province of Ontario?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: The question requires no answer.


Frederick George Sanderson: On a question of
privilege, I asked a question of the Prime Minister and I did not catch what was said. Did Your Honour rule it out of order?


Mr. SPEAKER:: It is not a question that
could be put to the government. Members of the cabinet are free agents to speak as they choose.	.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is Your Honour speaking on behalf of the government?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is frivolous.


CONSTRUCTION CAMPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: With regard to the ques-
'Mr. Gobeil.l
tion asked the other day by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) regarding political meetings in camps, I might say that in October last year, at the time of the provincial election, in British Columbia a regulation was established that there should be no political meetings held in the camps. To the best of my knowledge no complaints were received from any party with regard to that regulation. When the provincial election in Ontario was called the same regulation was in effect and letters were sent out to the superintendents at the camps so stating. Now the situation in Ontario is that the provincial government also have camps, and I find on inquiry that they have not any similar regulation; they permit meetings in the camps. Under these circumstances it has been thought wise to withdraw the regulation that was issued by our department and to permit the same state of affairs to exist as prevails in the provincial camps, so that meetings will be allowed. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) came to the department on Saturday to present the case and he was assured that he would be given every courtesy at any camp that he might desire to visit.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Does the same rule apply to Saskatchewan?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: The same would apply to Saskatchewan.


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: Does that rule apply to all political parties?


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Yes.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napierville):: I would like to know from the ministry if it is the intention of the government to undertake public works and especially to give contributions toward public road building under the Unemployment Relief Act because last year many municipalities asked for federal contributions.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: May I be permitted to put my question? Last year many municipalities asked for aid-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: Am I in a British country or not?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member is asking a question of the government, will he proceed to do so? This is not the time for debate.

Translations Bureau


Vincent Dupuis: I was about to put the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has put the question and I was about to answer it. The question is very simply answered. Any negotiations with respect to aid given to municipalities in regard to public undertakings, roads, etcetera, must come through the provincial governments as heretofore.


Vincent Dupuis: What will be the attitude of the federal government if a provincial government decides to build public roads?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The decision will be made known when the applications are made, and to the government, not to the hon. member.


Vincent Dupuis: Many applications have
been received from the provincial government and no decision has yet been made.


BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 4, respecting the bureau for translations.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Bury in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. BOUCHARD:: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he intends to propose any amendments to this bill? We were led to believe by the fine speeches that were delivered by some of the ministers and supporters of the government that amendments were to be introduced. Is that the intention?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not aware that any
suggestion had been made to the minister that amendments to this bill should be made on his motion. The bill passed the house by a majority of fifty-seven and was referred to a select committee. That select committee has reported the bill as it stands.


Mr. POULIOT:: On this point, may I say
that the vote was taken with the understanding that we could make proper amendments to the bill? I was asked by my leader to sit on that committee which was composed of seven members. The senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and I were the two Liberal members; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) represented the independent parties in the house, and there were four Conservative members. What the senior member for Ottawa and I did in this matter was to try to get the best available information about the translation business.
74726-210J
May I say how much we have regretted the fact that the Secretary of State left the committee when we asked him to stay there in order to answer some questions that we thought proper to ask of him?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I interrupt the hon.
member? That statement is entirely without foundation in fact. I was not a member of the committee. I appeared before it for the purpose of making one statement as to the responsibility the government assumed with regard to the translation of the speech from the throne. Having made that statement I left the committee and was not requested by it to return.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have much respect for
the Secretary of State and he knows this more than anyone else.


Mr. SPOTTON:: That helps.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have great compassion
for those who live under the same roof as the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) because if he snores as loudly as he breathes, no one could sleep where he was.
I was saying that I have much respect for the Secretary of State and I admit that he came to the committee to make a statement; that he made it and that afterwards, as he says, he left. While he was still in the committee room I said: " Please stay here because I have questions to ask you." Nevertheless he left. I said this in an audible voice.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not a member of the
committee. I am a minister of the crown. If the committee wishes to hear me I will attend. I was summoned on a similar occasion before the Senate committee and I attended, but I do not recognize the hon. gentleman as the voice of the committee. There is the ordinary procedure to be followed.


Jean-François Pouliot: This shows us the way we have been treated in that committee. Everything that came from either the senior member for Ottawa or myself was entirely disregarded. What I said to the hon. gentleman was that I wanted to ask him for some information as a member of a committee appointed by this house, and what is forgotten now is that the committee on the civil service, of which we were members, was not a committee of the government, which is itself a committee of the house, but was a committee of the house; and to that committee the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cahan) came as the
Translations Bureau

member for St. Lawrence-St. George. He did not come as a minister of the crown; for in the committee eveiy member of the committee is equal to every other member. For instance, to make a comparison, the price spreads committee is headed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), but he does not sit there as a minister; he sits as a private member-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was not a private member; I was not a member of the committee at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but I wanted you as a witness.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why did you not ask them to summon me as a witness?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was superfluous to summon the hon. gentleman when he was right there. He was on the spot. I asked him as a favour-not as a favour, but I thought it my duty to tell him that I wanted to ask him for some enlightenment about the statement he had made-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You may ask the question now. We are in committee of the house, and you are entitled to ask it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, I am relating what happened, and what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has just said confirms exactly and absolutely what I said before. Therefore he was wasting the time of the house when he rose to contradict me, because he has just corroborated what I said. Now, sir, the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and myself have taken our duties most seriously.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: We have been searching for truth, and we got it drop by drop, while I was abused by the chairman of the committee and by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) who spoke about the duplicity and simplicity of the member for Temiscouata. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman), who was then the acting chairman of the committee, found those words so unparliamentary that without any request from me he had them struck from the record. Then when I was mentioning to the committee that one of the recommendations that had been made by the committee two years ago-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there some barking? My hon. friend from Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Michaud), with whom I fought the last campaign, said we were going to the dogs; well, I hope the bill will have the same fate. When I mentioned in that committee the fact that two years ago one of the recommendations of the committee was to superannuate the three civil service commissioners I wondered how it happened that the chairman of the commission, whose superannuation had been recommended by the committee, is still enjoying his job. I did not understand why the government had not complied with that recommendation of the committee. One reason for that recommendation of the committee two years ago was that the chairman of the civil service commission was too old to sit there. Two years have elapsed and yet he keeps his job, while two others have been superannuated. Also as a French Canadian and a French speaking member of this house I felt it very much that although one of the civil service commissioners is French speaking an order was passed by the commission that the commissioner who should come before the committee to give evidence about translation was not the French speaking civil service commissioner, who was supposed to have had some experience in translation, but another gentleman. For him I have great respect; he has shown great ability while giving evidence in the committee; it is my duty to give praise to whom praise is due. Nevertheless as a French speaking member of this house I resent very much the fact that the civil service commission decided that the man who was to give evidence on translation was not bilingual, while another civil service commissioner was. I regard it as an outrage on the French speaking members of this house. I submit this dilemma to the Secretary of State, who has the responsibility of reporting to the house about the civil service commission; either Mr. Potvin, the French speaking and bilingual civil service commissioner who has been a translat-"or", as the chairman of the committee would say, and was a distinguished civil ser-"vant", as the chairman would say, is competent or he is not. If he is competent, the civil service commission has no excuse whatever for not sending him to the committee to give explanations about the matter of translations; if he is incompetent, the government have no excuse for having appointed him to such a high post. I shall be glad to see how the Secretary of State escapes that dilemma. As one of the French speaking members I told the committee that the chairman should have

Translations Bureau
been superannuated, instead of giving instructions to send to the committee another gentleman who was not bilingual. The chairman of the committee said he would not let me abuse anyone. Is that parliamentary? Is that the way the chairman should treat one of his colleagues who sits with him at the committee table? I resented that so much that after having fulfilled my duty by sitting on the committee until the bill was through I have to-day sent to my leader my resignation as a member of the committee, telling him that I would sit there no more; I said that in the committee this morning.
I have no complaint to make about some other Conservative members, such as the hon. and genial member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) . He is a gentleman and it is very pleasant to sit with him. I will say the same thing for the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) and for the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). It is right to tell the truth; I am here to report what has been done in this committee and all the trouble that my distinguished colleague the senior member for Ottawa and myself had in this committee while we were seeking for truth. In fact, sir, we have found a flat denial of what was said by the Secretary of State in the house and in the Senate committee; a flat denial!


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman
accuses me of a false statement in this house he should refer to the statement, because I am prepared to stand behind every statement that I knowingly made in this house in respect to this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I will tell the truth
to the committee of the whole, even if some hon. members do not like it. They may take that tip and they may be sure that I will not follow the example of the Prime Minister in 1930, but I will fulfil my promises. Well, sir, now we shall see what has been said by the hon. gentleman.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no, don't open
that!


An hon. MEMBER:: Did you bring your
lunch?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have here the evening
Citiaen of April 26, 1934. The same statement appeared in the Journal. This, sir, is not a comment of a newspaper on a debate in the house, but it is my only available report of what the Secretary of State said in the Senate committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My statements in the senate committee were reported verbatim by the reporter of the senate committee, and by that
report I would be prepared to stand, but I am not prepared to stand by whatever appeared in some newspaper report. I do not know to what the hon. gentleman refers, but there is a stenographic report of what I said in the Senate.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Can we get a copy of
this report?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no idea.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has the Secretary of
State a copy of that report?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I have not.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have one. I shall read
it.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bury):: The hon. member may not refer to a report of the Senate committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I not quote the
report in this committee when I am challenged by the Secretary of State?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That does not make it in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will you please refer me
to the rule which says that I may not quote evidence given before the Senate? What about Beauharnois?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The evidence given before the Senate committee was not in relation to this bill. I am responsible to this house for what I said in this house with respect to this bill, and I said that so far as I was aware those statements were accurate. I do not think there is any member on either side of the house but has respect for my integrity in respect of speaking the truth.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but does the hon. gentleman contend that he is responsible only for what he says from his seat in the house and that he takes no responsibility of what was said before the Senate committee?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That had no reference to this bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did not the hon. gentleman, while before the Senate committee and spealdng with regard to the translation business, say that the establishment of a bureau of translations would mean a saving of from $75,000 to $80,000 a year by the elimination of resetting and other work now necessitated through revisions and corrections, and that the work of the printing bureau would be speeded up?
Translations Bureau


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I certainly did not state that or anything to that effect; I pledge my honour to this house that I did not do so.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit the production of a stenographic copy of what was said before the Senate committee?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I simply pledge my honour to this house that I did not say that.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I move, seconded by Mr. Chevrier, that the committee rise and report progress until the Secretary of State has tabled his own evidence given before the Senate committee.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Here we have evidence of the way we have been treated before the committee, and in the same kaiser-like fashion the members of the government who sat on that committee took their instructions from a member of this house in his capacity as minister of the crown-I mean the Secretary of State-although he had no authority because he was not a member of the committee. Am I to take it, then, that the reporters of the Citizen and the Journal, who asserted the same thing in their newspapers, are both liars?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman is
bound to take my statement in denial. I have pledged my honour that I did not make a statement to that effect in this house or before the Senate committee, and so far as this debate goes I insist that the hon. gentleman retract that statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not make any statement; I asked if the Secretary of State meant that the reporters of the Journal and the Citizen were liars, or that they had imagined these things.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member could not have asked that question without implying that the statement-


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Just allow me to finish. The hon. gentleman could not have asked that question without implying that the statement of the Secretary of State was not true.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order, sir, before you give your decision I ask you for a chance to explain my case, just as I would ask in a court of justice. You, Mr. Chair-

man, are an able lawyer, and will understand the situation. I wish to explain it point by point. I asked if the reporters of the Journal and the Citizen-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is the hon. member debating my ruling?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not saying that; I am showing how I might have put it if I had been out of order. If I had suggested that the reporters had been correct in imputing that language to the Secretary of State, following the flat denial of the hon. gentleman it would have meant that the Secretary of State was a liar, but I have not used those words. Had I done so I would have withdrawn them at once, because I would have been out of order. But if in accordance with the rules of the house, which I know by heart, I say this, does not the Secretary of State mean that those two reporters are liars? If he says yes, it means that the hon. gentleman is telling the truth and the reporters have lied. And therefore-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Just a minute-


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the question.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: What does the hon. member for Pictou know about these distinctions which go far above his head?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understand the hon. member's point. It is not a question of the Secretary of State having to answer. The point is this:	Does the hon.
member for Temiscouata charge the Secretary of State with having made a false statement?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, not at all, no. I did not. I said that there was something wrong somewhere, and if the Secretary of State is right the reporters are wrong.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The Secretary of State has nothing to do with the reporters, but he has to do with the charges suggested by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I made no charge.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Well, if the hon. member for Temiscouata is not charging the Secretary of State with making false statements, that is all we need to know.


Jean-François Pouliot: I never did.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All right.

Translations Bureau


Jean-François Pouliot: And I will -tell you right
now, sir, that my idea is not to cause trouble to the Secretary of State, but to give 'him a chance to explain, to rise to a question of privilege and to speak. I regret that he has not done so before this. I regret that he has not said, " I am credited with this and that statement; I deny them absolutely, and they are utterly false."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I will not
permit the hon. member, without retaliation, to repeat his deliberate statement that I have falsified the facts either in this house or in any other place.


Mr. VENIOT:: He did not saji- that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I say now that when I was asked dn the Senate committee to make a statement with regard to the matter they had in hand, namely the cost of Senate translation, I said what I had said in the House of Commons. I 'had my previous statement before me when I made the statement before the Senate committee. The words may -have been different, but what I said in this house and that which I adhere to, appears at page 982 of Hansard as follows:
Now it was ascertained by one of the committee under the control of the treasury that the setting up in type of these corrections made in the text after it had been set up in type and sent for revision-not all French, but a' great deal of it, some of it being in English -over a series of years, in wages in respect of the resetting of that type, after it had been first set up in the printer's text, varied in cost from $75,000 to $80,000 a year during a number of . years preceding 1933; and in the first ten months of 1933 the setting up of such changes as those I have mentioned cost $52,000.
That is the report made to me over t'he signature of -the comptroller of the treasury and some others on the committee. That is t'he statement I made in this House of Commons and the purport of the statement I made when I was questioned by the Senate committee with regard to the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, sir. Now let us read what Mr. Bronskill said at the sitting of the civil service committee 'held on May 9 of this year. Mr. Bronskill is the accountant of the printing bureau, and also a representative -of the treasury. His examination is, in part, as follows:
Q. Would it be possible for you to tell the committee the cost of author's alterations and the cost of typesetting due to errors in translation?
A. Well, I do not know quite why you refer to translation. So far as we are concerned, it is an author's alteration that is a change in the proof made by the author. The cost of that for the year 1933-34 is given at $58,000.
Q. Yes. Well, it is pretty hard to tell how much of that money is due to translations-to French corrections or English corrections?
A. It would be very difficult.
Q. You say it would be very difficult?
A. Yes.
Q. And therefore, it is all put together?
A. Yes.	.
Q. Without knowing exactly what amount is due to the corrections of the French groups and the corrections of the English groups?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Has it not come to your knowledge that very often there are also mistakes of the typesetters which are corrected by the author?
A. They would be errors in typesetting which have been overlooked by the proofreader of the printing bureau?
Q. Yes.
A. Which would be noticed by the reviser- the author?
Q. Yes.
A. That might occur.
Q. But the proof is read first at the printing bureau and revised there?
A. Yes.	_
Q. And that costs something, naturally?
A. Naturally.
Q. And is that charged to author's alterations or composition?
A. No, sir; it is charged to office corrections; it is included in the composition.
Q. And those author's alterations represent the cost of that revision at the printing bureau?
A. Yes.
Q. And that cost is charged to each department ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without any distinction with regard to French or English?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Therefore, no one can say that that cost of author's alterations, $58,000, is due to translation?
The answer was "No," but it is not here in the report of t'he committee; it was struck out. When Mr. Bronskill appeared before the committee the following question was asked: "Therefore, no one can say that that cost -of author's alterations, $58,000, is due to translation?" And he said, "No." It is on record in the Ottawa newspapers and anyone can see it, but it is not in the report of t'he committee. It has disappeared. I wonder if the type fell when the matter was typeset, or if it is a reporter's clerical error. My ears did not deceive me when I heard Mr. Bronskill make the answer, and my eyes did not deceive me when I read the report in the press. But I cannot read the answer in the report of the committee, because it is not there. Mr. Maclnnis said afterwards:
To mistakes in translation?
The Witness: That is quite true. It must be taken together as both English and French.
Mr. Pouliot: Thank you.
That was the evidence which was given.
Translations Bureau


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not inconsistent in any way, shape or form with my statement to this house.


Peter John Veniot: The less you say of that, the quicker this bill may get through.


George Spotton: Is that a threat or a promise?


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member for North Huron should remember that David killed Goliath with a small stone. There is absolutely no reason for this bill, Mr. Chairman, and I shall have an opportunity later on to show that this bill is just as much a waste of time for those who drafted it as it was a waste of time for those who took the time to study it in committee because all the enlightenment that we have received on this bill has been of no use. This bill is just as much out of place in these very times as was the discussion about titles or the discussion about sweepstakes or the amendments to the Indian Act and the Migratory Birds Act. This is futile legislation.
At the first sitting of the committee at which this bill was studied I asked the committee to give me the opportunity of going to the civil service commission and seeing the files of the translators. That opportunity was given to me by a majority of the committee, and I am thankful to the committee for that. I went to the office of the civil service commission during the Easter recess and I spent two or three days at that office perusing those files and also perusing file number thirty-three of the civil service commission. I shall refer to what I saw there.
I was prudent enough to ask Mr. Bland, one of the civil service commissioners, if there was anything confidential in that file and he told me no. If he had said there was anything of a confidential nature in that file I would not have insisted upon seeing it, but I had full liberty to peruse it, and I will tell you, sir, of what I saw on those few sheets of paper, and I am sure that the hon. Secretary of State will not deny a word of what I am going to say. I am not going to spend any time reading what I read there, but it is engraved upon my memory and my memory does not fail me. I do not suffer from amnesia.
The first letter, Mr. Chairman, is a memorandum sent by the Clerk of the House to the Prime Minister in February of last year- not this year-about the translation business. The matter was examined at a sitting of the council and then left aside until the right hon. the Prime Minister left in June for the econ-

omic conference, and then he handed the whole thing over to the Secretary of State asking him to kindly see to it.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I have been listening for half an hour to what the hon. member has been saying and I cannot see that it relates in any way whatever to the bill before the house. For some considerable time there was a matter that might possibly have been brought up on a question of privilege or something of that kind, and another matter that might have been brought up in some other form relating to what was said to the hon. Secretary of State, but now the hon. member is off on an examination of certain files in the office of the civil service commission. That is not directly related to the bill, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you exercise your authority in keeping us somewhere within sight of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, in answer-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think there is any answer required.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, sir, we live under Stalin now apparently; we are in Russia. I do not see how the hon. gentleman can preach freedom of speech and ask for the repeal of section 98 when he will not allow a member of this house to answer him on the point of order that he raised.
Mr. ST-PERE: He is a Tory.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am much disappointed in him because personally I had a different idea of him, but notwithstanding section 98 I believe I am fully entitled to answer the hon. gentleman on the point of order.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the hon. member address himself to the point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. My answer, not to the point of order, but my answer to that is this. Naturally I have something else to say. I am speaking about the conception of the bill. I am speaking about how it originated in order that the house may understand why we have this bill now before us, and I believe everything should be discussed from Alpha to Omega, from A to Z, and now I am at A.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I wish not only to speak to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Cen-

Translations Bureau
tre, but the hon. member for Temiscouata has proceeded to refer to certain confidential inter-departmental correspondence evidently between the Prime Minister and myself, and between deputies of other departments, which he happened to see on a file in the office of the civil service commission where he attended and inspected documents. These certainly have not any reference to the merits of this bill, and cannot be referred to in this debate unless they are brought down and laid upon the table of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: In answer to that, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. WOODS  WORTH@: Mr. Chairman, I tak you to rule on the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman, I have to answer Stalin.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The first
point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the hon. member for Temiscouata is, I suppose, answering it.	.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, but you know-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I would ask the hon. member to make his answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am just as patient as a lamb, Mr. Chairman. Let me put to you the position I am in. It is most difficult and I wish to explain it to you, and after I have done so I am sure you will agree with me. But it is a delicate matter, because I have to discuss the whole thing.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the hon. member cannot reply to the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre I shall have to hold him out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking to the bill now; I am speaking to the point of order exclusively, and my position is the more embarrassing because I am arguing with one of the most eminent lawyers-I mean the Secretary of State.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the question as to whether he is speaking to the bill in what he is saying.


Jean-François Pouliot: Pardon me, sir.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has spoken more than forty minutes anyhow.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, because the Secretary of State interrupted me and spoke.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I rule the hon. member out of order; he has not been able to show that he is speaking to the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: You did not give me an opportunity.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has had ample opportunity in the last ten minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not compare you, sir, to the gentleman who was chairman of the committee.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must ask the hon. member very quickly to make his answer to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: What is the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The point of order is that the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has not been addressing himself to the bill; he has been speaking on matters altogether apart from the bill, matters having nothing to do with the bill.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I suggest that the point of order is a dual one. On the one hand the hon. member who raised the point of order suggested that the hon. member for Temiscouata was discussing a matter that was unrelated to the bill. I do not think that point of order is well taken because, as the hon. member for Temiscouata explains, it deals with the inception of the bill, the first steps that were taken to bring this bill before us. On the other hand the Secretary of State referred to the other point, which is, I understand, the fact that the hon. member for Temiscouata referred to a departmental file to which he is not entitled to refer. Now which is the point of order? We want to know before we are able to discuss it.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The member for Winnipeg North Centre raised the point of order that the member for Temiscouata was out of order because he was not speaking to the bill.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What is the section before the committee?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The short title.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We had this point ruled upon several days ago in connection with the marketing bill. We discussed every single possible development of the marketing bill under the title, and that is a very well established rule of procedure in this house.
!'Translations Bureau


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am not questioning that but I am questioning the relevancy of the argument of the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: You did not hear me. I
am most courteous to all members-


Peter John Veniot: On the point of order.
There are two points of order before the chair. In the first place I am going to discuss the point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, but before doing so I wish to point out that the Secretary of State was himself out of order in raising the point of order he did as against the hon. member because there was a point of order before the chair to be decided. Now let me come to the point of Order raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the matter being discussed by the member for Temiscouata is not relevant to this bill. Let me point out that the committee that examined and investigated this bill has reported and its report contains-what? It contains all the evidence taken in connection with this bill. The hon. gentleman is therefore perfectly in order in dealing with anything in the evidence that pertains to this bill, and in discussing the evidence.


Mr. DUPRE:: The member for Temiscouata was speaking about a file he had read in the offices of the civil service commission.


Peter John Veniot: I am coming to that; that point of order was raised-


Maurice Dupré: It is on this question that
the point of order has been raised.


Peter John Veniot: That point of order was
specifically stated by the Secretary of State. The first point of order was, " We have been listening "-those are the words-" We have been listening for over half an hour to the discussion of matters not relevant to this bill."


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I
intervene. The point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre was that after having listened to the member for Temiscouata for half an hour on matters which he, the member for Winnipeg North Centre, considered out of order, he would ask a ruling on that point. Then the member for Temiscouata opened up another subject, dealing with a file in one of the departmental offices-I think I am correct in saying that-'and the point was that this was out of order.


Peter John Veniot: In that regard-


An hon. MEMBER:: Give your decision,
Mr. Chairman.


Peter John Veniot: We have some privileges here and we are going to exercise them, and you have not enough strength on the other side to put me down; let me tell you that. I will listen to the chairman but not to members opposite directing me as to how I should act. The member for Temiscouata made the statement that he asked of the committee the privilege to go and examine files in the offices of the civil service commission, and on that privilege being granted he went there. He said he discovered certain things, and I submit that he has a right, if those things appertain to the inception of this bill, to deal with them. But I would go a step further. I want to be fair in this matter and I will say that if those files are departmental secrets, privileged reports between officials of the department and the minister, and should not be used on that account, then the member for Temiscouata has no right to use them. I will go that far.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I interrupt the hon. member? A motion was made in this house to bring down that correspondence; the matter was definitely referred to and came before the house. The Prime Minister objected that it was correspondence between departmental officers and the house decided that it should not be brought down.


Peter John Veniot: I am not discussing the Secretary of State's statement in that regard. The first point of order taken referred to the action of the member for Temiscouata in referring to these files, and that point of order was not well taken because he had the privilege and the right, granted him by the committee, of examining those files.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That
assumes that the committee had power to give him the right to examine those files as a private member of the committee.


Peter John Veniot: They had the power to give him that right, but I do not say that they- had the power to give him or did give him the right to discuss the contents of the file in this house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In the report of the committee and in the evidence there is no statement that the hon. gentleman was authorized by this select special committee to exercise such a right. I understood he went of his own option.

Translations Bureau


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I will tell you first of all that I am not a sneak. The hon. member for Dauphin is here; the senior hon. member for Ottawa is here; unfortunately the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is not here nor do I see the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg; but the hon. member for Vancouver is here. We were all members of the committee and any one of them can tell this committee of the whole that when the matter came up before the committee at a sitting of which there is no report, no official report, I told the committee I wanted the civil service commission to send all files with regard to translators, all files that the civil service commission had with regard to translators, without any exception.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the hon. member now speaking on the point of order? He has already spoken two or three times on it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, you know very well that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has no knowledge of law. You are a lawyer and I am addressing you as one.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the hon. member keep to the point?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not my fault. I would like to have the hon. member gagged, but I cannot.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Keep to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am most courteous to every member who gives me a chance to explain my point, but now I am a real martyr.
Some hon. MEMBERS, Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I receive arrows from all sides.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member must speak to the point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: What I say to you, sir, is that I appeal to my colleagues who were sitting with me at the committee table and who are now present in the committee of the whole. If I do not" tell the truth now it is up to them to rise and say that I am wrong. As I have no written evidence of this phase of the matter I have to ask for their *evidence and recollection. I took the trouble to study the matter carefully and I asked the committee if it had any objection to my suggestion. What was the resolution of the House of Commons appointing the committee of which I am a member? It is dated February 16, 1934, and it reads:
That a select special committee of this house be appointed, to consist of seven members, to be hereinafter named, to inquire into and report upon the administration and operation of the Civil Service Act as amended, with instructions to inquire into and report concerning the repeal or amendment of any of the provisions of the said act or the substitution therefor or addition thereto of other provisions, as the committee may deem advisable, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to this house.
I suggested first to the committee that the whole file should be brought before it and some objection was made on account of the fact that the file was quite voluminous. Then I suggested to the other members, in order to save time, that while the bill was still in committee I be permitted to go to the civil service commission myself, and during the Easter recess I went there to peruse those files in accordance with the power which I was given by the members of the committee My colleagues will admit that. I said that it was important to get at the origin of this bill in order to know for what purpose or how it originated.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If the hon. member has dealt with the method by which he came to know the subject matter of the files, I am prepared to give my ruling. It is this: That whatever may be said as to the power or right of the committee to requisition those files, I hold that the mere fact the committee said they had no objection to one of their number seeking to get inspection of the files, does not make those files official records of the committee and does not make the information that he privately got from the files official records of the committee. Therefore I hold that references to the files are out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I tell you this, that the civil service commission-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is the hon. member arguing the ruling?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, but I ask you kindly to reconsider your decision.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, I understand the hon. member's point perfectly. He wished to have the files brought before the committee. The committee did not see its way to requisition the files. The hon. member asked the committee whether it would have any objection to him personally inspecting the files. The committee said that it had no objection; at least, so the hon. member himself said; there is no record of it in the report.
3334,
Translations Bureau

He states that the committee intimated that it had no objection to the hon. member seeking to get inspection for himself of the files. I hold that that does not make his knowledge of the files official knowledge of the committee on which this house can act.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I read an extract from the report of the committee? Would I be in order to read an excerpt from the report of the standing committee?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: That is, of the special committee?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. I will give the date The report, which is printed, is before the house.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What bearing has that on my ruling that the hon. member was out of order in bringing those files into the discussion now? I rule him out of order in that respect and in addition he has spoken for more than forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have been interrupted.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I have ruled on the point of order and that is disposed of.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: With your decision as it stands, based upon the facts as you have placed them before the committee, I cannot quarrel. If those were the facts then your decision would stand, but as those are not exactly the facts in regard to the matter, then of course your ruling cannot stand.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All I will say to the senior member for Ottawa is this: I took the facts and I stated them to the committee precisely as the hon. member for Temiscouata had stated them to the committee and to me and on the facts as stated by him I hold him out of order.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: If I put the facts-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: No, the hon. member cannot do so. The hon. member for Temiscouata has stated his facts and he is out of order on his facts. In addition, he has spoken for more than forty minutes and, I will have to ask him to take his seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a point of order-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The hon. member has had tremendous latitude from this committee.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Not on a point of order but on a point of honour I would like to-
[The Chairman.]


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Do I understand that the hon. member is raising a point of order?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: No; I am speaking not on a point of order but on a point of honour. I would like to ask a question of the Secretary of State who, when the bill was first introduced into the house, gave very fragmentary evidence to prove that the speech from the throne so often referred to first by the hon. member for Temiscouata, later by me and by a few other hon. members, was well translated. He read just two letters. I regret very much that at the time I did not ask the Secretary of State to table the letter that he read from an eminent man, as he said, Canon Emile Chartier, vice-rector of the university of Montreal. He read the letter which was an approval of the translation of the speech from the throne.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: If I may interrupt the hon. member, I hardly think he is in order in discussing a matter arising out of the speech from the throne in connection with this section.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: With due respect to your decision, Mr. Chairman, I think that I am as much in order, in referring to that in answering the Secretary of State as was 'the Secretary of State himself. Then to-day, in answer to my assertion, I am confronted with the authorities-I do not call it evidence- the two authorities that were quoted by the Secretary of State. I am here to defend my own position.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Is the hon. member purporting to answer part of the speech of the Secretary of State on the speech from the throne?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: No, I am not referring to the matter contained in the speech from the throne, but just to the translation of it, as we are discussing to-day a translation bill. The Secretary of State resorted to his "gratuitous" friend to translate the speech from the throne, and I charged him with two things. First, I would point out that in his own department there is a very able translator, a man who stands high in the literary world, and therefore the Secretary of State could have got a proper translation from him. Secondly, I said that it was not proper for the Secretary of State to entrust that confidential work to his "gratuitous" friend who had not been sworn to do this work and to pass over the man who had been sworn as a civil servant. In answer to my contention,

Translations Bureau
instead of bringing the facts before this house, the Secretary of State just quoted two letters. In the case of one not even the name of the writer was disclosed; Pierre Lefort is the pen-name of Paul de Martigny. For the moment, I do not discuss this letter. Then I come to a letter written in approbation of the translation of the speech from the throne by the vice rector of the university of Montreal. I think any hon. member, looking into this matter without putting on a second pair of glasses might have written the same letter. But what I am complaining about is this. I wrote to the writer of the letter and his answer was to the effect-I shall not quote the letter-that "if I had read the whole letter I would not have written mine." Today I would like to know the whole content of that letter. I think this committee is entitled to know that, not on a point of order but on a point of honour. I think in fairness to the gentleman who wrote this letter we should have the whole of that other letter. We should know at the same time whether this letter was invited, was called for, or was just sent on the spur of the moment by the one who signed it. Therefore I ask the hon. gentleman if in support of his evidence and of his authority, he will give us the full text of his letter. If he does not, in order to defend my contention, I shall have to put before this committee and before the whole country the kind of translation that was made of the speech from the throne.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Before that question is
answered, may I ask what clause of this bill we are discussing?


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: We are
discussing clause one.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I raise a point of order. " This act may be cited as the Translation Bureau Act." Any discussion of that clause must be relevant to the clause, and the only thing that could be relevant would be a suggestion that the title is incorrect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I submit that I
am correct.


Peter John Veniot: That has not been the practice in this 'house.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a different thing. I know that this session in the discussion of the marketing bill we wandered over many features of the bill. But I think there should be some limit to this discussion. The rule is very definite. After passing that clause, which is a purely formal clause, if this discussion is to take place it should be on
clause 3 or clause 4. Why not proceed with some regularity? When we come to clauses 3 and 4 I have no objection to the discussion broadening out.
Mr. POULIOT; Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by Mr. Chevrder-


The CHAIRMAN:: (Mr. Bury): I do not know whether the hon. Minister of Justice is finished.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not interrupt him for a kingdom.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
quite in agreement with the Minister of Justice in wishing to expedite the discussion of this bill, but I cannot for a moment agree with his contention. It is one of the best known rules that in discussion of the title-


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is the preamble
that the hon. member is thinking of. Look at rule No. 58.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We had
on the marketing bill-


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I know we wandered all over the lot there. Look at standing order No. 58, subsection (2).


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Does any other hon. member want to speak on the point?


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 2 of standing
order No. 58 reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has nothing to do with the point of order. -


Hugh Guthrie: It has everything. This
first clause merely designates the title of the bill.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But under the title we can discuss every feature of the bill.


Mr. NEILL:: It is only a few weeks ago,
Mr. Chairman, that I raised that specific point of order, and the ruling was against me.


Hugh Guthrie: The discussion on the
marketing bill proceeded on very broad lines.
1	will say that it is quite possible that if the discussion takes place now it may not take place in connection with some other clause, but my experience is rather that if it takes place -now it will take place again. I am trying to limit the thing. If we get to clause
2	or clause 3 the discussion would be relevant. But I am sorry to say that the practice has
Translations Bureau

become very general during this session that on a clause containing nothing but the title we go over the whole bill line by line.


Alan Webster Neill: What I was going to say
did not refer to the marketing bill but another. I have forgotten what it was, but I raised the same point of order.


Hugh Guthrie: I think you were right.


Alan Webster Neill: And the chairman said we
were not allowed to talk all over the lot.


Hugh Guthrie: If no objection is raised
the discussion may proceed, but I am raising the point of order as an objection.


Alan Webster Neill: I did object, and the ruling
was against me.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think
the point of order is well taken. The committee has fallen into the practice of carrying on in connection with the first clause the same broad discussion as the house would in a debate on second reading, dealing with principles and everything else. I hold that the objection taken by the Minister of Justice is correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore, sir, I move,
seconded by Mr. Chevrier, that the title of the bill be changed to "The uncalled for bill."


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I hold that the motion is ridiculous and not serious.


Jean-François Pouliot: The bill itself is a joke.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
On section 3-Bureau for translations.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: This afternoon we have had an example of what took place a number of times in the committee. I think the best way to place the situation before hon. gentlemen is to make use of the words used by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) when he spoke the first time this afternoon, when he said that he saw no reason why any amendments should be made because this bill had been given second reading by the house by a majority of fifty-seven. In other words, if you have a majority it is always right, whether it be right or wrong, provided the majority is in favour of those, for the time being, who are sitting to your right.
In my estimation this bill was conceived in sin and born in iniquity. Apparently the reason for its introduction was that it would improve efficiency and result in a considerable saving of public funds. This bill was referred to the committee, and the evidence taken by that committee has been tabled. There is not

a tittle or particle of evidence in the whole of that volume to the effect that this bill, if it becomes part of the law of the country, will result in improved efficiency or in a considerable saving of public funds. Nothing was brought before the committee to warrant reporting the bill here. No case was made out at all; nothing was said in favour of the bill. I need not labour through the evidence, but I defy any member of this house to read it from cover to cover and find anything that would warrant the adoption of this measure. In opening the discussion the minister is reported at page 084 of Hansard to have said:
-send it to a special committee where these matters may be inquired into and where it may be ascertained whether it is for the convenience of the Commons and in the public interest that a parliamentary translators' branch should be so organised.
There is not a particle of evidence to substantiate that. Then at page 985 the minister continued:
There is no desire to force an innovation upon the House of Commons against its wishes-[DOT]
Oh, no; maybe not. When you have a majority of fifty-seven you can speak in that way.
-but we are asking that the facts be elicited before a special committee and duly considered, and that those who are employed in the translations of the debates of the Senate and the House of Commons-
And so on. Then we had further words of wisdom from the paternal lips of the minister at page 1280, when he told the translators and others that they had better break up their coterie and stop their propaganda, though I was unaware of any coterie and did not know of any propaganda or lobbying. After that do you think it was easy for those people to come forward and place their claims before that committee? From that time on I decided that I would not call any of them because I was afraid by so doing I might jeopardize their positions. Again at page 986 the minister said:
-and sent to a special committee, which will have full liberty to inquire into every interest which may be thought to be prejudicially affected by the terms thereof.
We had an example this afternoon as to how points of order were raised and we were-I was going to use the word "railroaded" but that is not parliamentary. There may be no desire to force this bill on the House of Commons or to force it through, but nevertheless it was put through the house on second reading, and it is quite evident that the same spirit animates the Secretary

Translations Bureau
of State at the moment. The minister also said, at page 985:
I think it is in the interests of good government that those who have any representations to make should appear before that committee where their representations will be received.
Seven witnesses appeared before that committee, and in a moment I will go over their evidence. Everything they said was received, but they might as well have stayed at home. Six of the witnesses were absolutely against the bill; one was not even asked what he thought about it. The minister said such representations would be received; they were received, and they have remained between the covers of that volume. In the first place, as the evidence will disclose, there was no reason why the minister should have brought in this bill to begin with. In the second place it was quite useless; it was simply a smoke screen, purely and simply camouflage to send the bill to that committee. I am not going to say how it was done, whether it was in a special way or some other way; I am not going to make any insinuations, but there is no reason why the bill should have been sent to that committee because none of the observations made or suggestions offered was received. If a bill goes to a committee and is carefully studied, when it comes back it is either proven or not proven; there is a reason for the bill or there is no reason for it. The minister is also reported at page 985 as having said:
-it is the opinion of the government that a reorganization such as that proposed in this bill will place translators from French into English and from English into French on a higher plane in the public service.
The minister had the right to make that statement provided he could substantiate it, but there was no evidence adduced before that committee to the effect that any such thing will result if this bill becomes law. There is nothing in the bill itself that can be linked up with this gratuitous statement by the minister, which has not been supported by the evidence. As I shall show in a few moments, time and again in that committee I asked for someone in authority to say how this bill would work out, but the door was continuously and hermetically closed. There is no evidence as to how this will work out. The minister also said:
It will avoid duplication of translation services and research work in relation thereto.
No wonder some of the hon. gentlemen sitting to your right supported this bill; they took the minister's word for it, but there
is nothing in the evidence to show that it will work out that way. The minister might as well have spoken in Timbuctoo for all that statement is worth. Then he stated further:
It will ensure the effective cooperation of all officers and employees in the existing translation services.
There was not a tittle of evidence to that effect before the committee-nothing at all. These are the words:
It will ensure the effective cooperation of all officers and employees in the existing translation services.
That was not shown before the committee. What were we there for? The minister did not do anything towards sending anyone to explain how the legislation was going to work out. The chairman did not call for any wdtness to say that these things were going to be done. To-day we are in absolute and utter darkness as to how this unwarranted bill will work out, if it ever becomes law.


Maurice Dupré: May I interrupt the hon. member. He had the right to call any witnesses and to get any information he desired.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Of course I had the right.


Maurice Dupré: Why did he not do it?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Of course I had that right.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And you did do so.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The minister gives the right, on one hand, but in the other hand he holds a club over their heads. The minister could say to them: You had better cooperate gently, and cooperate with those who are doing you some good, because otherwise you will hear from us.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He put a sword over the translators.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: On the other hand the Solicitor General is saying that I had the right to call witnesses. I reply to him that I desisted from calling that kind of witnesses. Then, further, this was not my business, and I had nothing to prove in the case. The minister has said that it will work out in a certain way, but certainly there is nothing to show that it would work out that way. His words were:
It will establish coordination and uniformity in the proper use of technical terms.
The evidence is exactly the other way. Then:
It will improve the means of acquiring expert knowledge and competency.
Translations Bureau

Again, the evidence is the other way. In that connection I shall turn to page 54 of the evidence taken in the committee. Following a statement by the chairman the report continues:
Mr. Chevrier: No, he said that he had the benefit of nine expert translators in parliamentary work.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Well, he would still have.
Mr. Chevrier: There are no other parliamentary translators outside of the House of Commons'.
The Witness: There are not.


Maurice Dupré: At what line is that to be found?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am sorry 1 have not the copy of the evidence before me; I am reading excerpts from Mr. Carbonneau's evidence. Then I asked:
Q. So that the only experts that you need in parliamentary translation are the parliamentary translators ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that it would be of no benefit to you if the others are left where they are because you would not have the benefit of experts due to the fact that they are not parliamentary translators?
A. I am opposed to that dual regime.
The answer is that he is opposed to a dual regime. That is the only evidence we have on the point, and it is in flagrant contradiction of the statement made by the minister in the following words:
It will improve the means of acquiring expert knowledge and competency.
Then he goes on to state:
It will promote the advancement of those employed in this very essential branch of the
public service.
Why did he not add on another hundred or one hundred and fifty of these gratuitous
assertions? Then:
It will tend to remove all discriminations in working hours and working conditions.
That has not been shown, and there is no evidence of it. Yet, the bill is reported. Then the minister states:
It will promote . .	. the contemporaneous
publication of public documents in both English and French for the use of parliament and of the public.
The only tittle of evidence in the record shows that that could be done without the aid of this bill. None of the experts whom the minister had at his disposal came to say how it could be done-and yet we report the bill. The evidence on the point as to how it could be done at the present time is to be found at page 48 of the evidence taken be-

fore the committee. Mr. Carbonneau, the head translator in the blue books branch, is reported as follows:
It is further submitted that in view of ensuring a simultaneous issuance of both versions, the following measures should be taken:
1.	Annual reports or other periodical publications should be prepared a little ahead of the ordinary time and the compilation of data and drafting of such reports should be accelerated in some cases.
2.	These reports should be sent for translation in typewritten form when all corrections have been made.
3.	A list of reports and returns to be tabled each session should be prepared, fixing certain dates for the guidance of all departments in sending their annual reports for translation.
That could all be done now, and without this bill. I have asked time and again as to how the bill would work out. At page 78 my statement is reported:
I would like some one in authority to tell me just how this bill is going to work out.
-and I pleaded with the chairman. At page 84 I am reported as follows:
I cannot see how this bill is going to achieve that, but if somebody shows me how, then all right.
I would have supported it. I begged to have some one in authority tell the committee how the bill would work out. At page 90 I asked Mr. Bland the following question:
Supposing that the bill passed as it is, then there would be a superintendent, what would happen to the various staffs here, would they be disturbed and taken away from where they are?
And Mr. Bland replied:
That is a matter that would not be decided until the superintendent had made his report.
The minister said they would never be touched. Well, there is the possibility that they will not until the superintendent makes his report. At page 91 I am reported to have said:
I agree that there are certain things that might be improved, but unless I know just how that is going to be done I am not going to buy a pig in a poke.
I wanted to see how the bill would work out. I pleaded and argued, but the minister did not do anything. Let us turn to the promise made by someone else. At page 1229 of Hansard the Minister of Marine is reported as follows:
The house is the sole guardian of its own privileges, but it is never prevented to waive them from time to time in the interest of a more efficient conduct of public affairs.

Translations Bureau
However, there is nothing in the bill to substantiate this; nothing to prove that the pious wishes of the hon. Minister of Marine may some day be realized, if this measure is enforced. I was going to state: why could not the Minister of Marine, he, a beacon of light, have given us some information in respect to this report?
He adds:
It is an extraordinary thing that not one of them cared to suggest any improvement that might be brought into the present system.
But the hon. minister made no such suggestions to the committee; he did not even make an appearance. We suggested improvements; however, they were rejected.
The minister continues:
Is there one member in the house who will maintain that the present system is perfect?
No, I am not one of those who contend that the present system is perfect. Yet, between a system which is known and another which is not, people prefer the former to the one which the government wishes to establish by this bill-be contented with this one for fear of having a worse one.
Let us see what the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) has to say. He points out the advantages which this bill will provide:
In my opinion, the advantages to be derived from this bill will be to secure the simultaneous publication of the French and English versions of all documents.
Not a word is found in ithe provisions of this bill to show how this can be attained or if it be even possible.
The second advantage we find in this measure, is that it defines and specifies the responsibility in connection with the translation.
Again there is no proof of this, absolutely nothing can be found in the bill to justify this contention.
Third advantage: this measure will improve the translation.
One may say so or may hope so, but can it be proved?


Joseph Georges Bouchard: It is a pious
wish.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Fourth advantage: a better distribution of the work.
Again there is nothing to substantiate that such a contention may be realized if this act is enforced. Those who might have set off this feature did not appear 'before the committee, or if they came they forgot to light their candle.
The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) expressed himself as follows, page 1225 of Hansard:
(Text)
We have voted on bills before which have gone to committee and come back in a state hardly recognizable. Why should it be otherwise with this legislation?
And I said I hoped this bill would come back in a state hardly recognizable.
Does the hon. member for Dorchester recognize his bill? Are his hopes and wishes as regards the maintenance of salaries embodied in the bill-*


Joseph Georges Bouchard: He was
even confident that it would be so.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: -in order to safeguard the hours and holidays of certain translators? The hon. member must be quite disappointed. However, the bill had to pass and it did. We are no more at Verdun. "They shall not pass!" They passed.
The hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Ilackett) said this:
The translators of the debates of this house and the Senate work under great pressure; they work long hours and cannot during the period of their service enlarge their acquaintance with languages and their evolution. This is necessary to the skilful performance of their task. Men of broad culture and a profound knowledge of both languages are absolutely essential to the proper carrying out of the work of translation. I suggest-
Here is another pious hope:
-that it is necessary that these translators should have some leisure in which to cultivate and develop those characteristics so essential to their work. By making the position attractive a higher level of native talent and educational attainment will be secured which will assure to the houses better translators and better translations. It may not be possible to allow these translators six or seven months of inactivity each year but the spirit of the spoken word can be translated into another language only by men who have seized that spirit and' who have a knowledge of literature, art and those things which go to make up culture. For these reasons, on behalf of the translators of this house and of the Senate I bespeak special treatment, not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the translation of those debates which it is their primary duty to translate.
There, Mr. Chairman, is a wish expressed in language well worthy of the subject, but its musical tones and depth of feeling struck deafened ears. Its pleading accents struck a heart of stone. It was as seed falling on a barren rock, and I extend to the hon. member for Stanstead in his great disappointment the expression of my most sympathetic condolences. But this bill had to pass.
Now I come to the evidence. There were six or seven witnesses. The first one was Mr. de Martigny. His biography will be found in the evidence. He had not gone very far in his evidence when at page 22 the chairman

Translations Bureau

ruled he was no expert and no more questions were put to him. So he did not say whether he was in favour of the bill or against it.
The second witness was Mr. Omer Chaput, at page 60 of the evidence. He is described as head translator of the bureau of statistics. He said at page 61 of the evidence:
Take in the morning, for instance, it takes me fifteen minutes to give one stenographer three thousand-
That is three thousand words; he is talking of translation:
-and it takes me another fifteen minutes to give another stenographer three thousand, and after that they go and type it and I take my own typewriter and do some myself.
At page 62 he says:
I am no common man. . . . No translation is difficult for me.
He is in favour of the bill.
The third witness was Mr. Hector Gerin, chief of the debates translation branch of the House of Commons and he was decorated only yesterday, I think, by the Royal Society and given the degree of doctor of laws. At page 30 here is his appreciation of this bill:
On the whole, it seems desirable that present conditions be maintained, if at all possible. . . . Otherwise, the efficiency of this important public service would be made to suffer.
At page 33 he says:
For myself I would be in favour of maintaining the present system as it is.
And again at page 33 he says:
No, I have no suggestions to make.
Then as to the superintendent of the proposed bureau he said at page 34:
I do not see how it would work. We are getting along pretty well,_ much satisfied' with it now, and we are improving all the time.
Then the chairman steps in at page 38 and puts this question to Mr. Gerin:
Q. Then, Mr. Gerin. may I take it this way, you are giving me the objections which you see to the establishment of a bureau, and, may I take it that you see three objections or possible objections, one. the interference with the hours and conditions of work now established for the translators; two, possible interference with salaries; and three, possible interference by the new superintendent in the method or means adopted for accomplishing of translations?
A. Yes.
There was a further question by the chairman:
Q. You cannot see anything else at the moment ?
A. The only thing is, matters were going on pretty well we thought as they are now, and we do not wish to change the status or administration of the office.
(Mr. Chevrier.l
Then he talks about the superintendent:
Well, that general supervision, I would be afraid of it for my part.
The fourth witness was Mr. Hector Car-bonneau, at page 42. He is described as chief of the general translation branch, House of Commons. He submitted a typewritten statement in which he showed conclusively I think that in the last year seventy per cent of the work done in that branch had been work relating to the House of Commons. He closes his evidence with this:
In the discharge of their parliamentary duties, especially during sessions, when they are so often working under high pressure, our translators have to keep in close contact with the Clerk of the House and committee clerks with whom they have to consult almost daily. When committees are sitting, they are often asked to translate into English evidence given in French, which is to be printed simultaneously with the English text. They have also to consult witnesses and counsel. Committee reports are generally tabled at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and are generally handed in for translation about one hour before this. Quite often these reports must be translated and then typewritten with several carbon copies. They cannot be delayed and, therefore, the translators must b- immediately available. They must also be close to their source of information and have free access to all parliamentary papers, both recent and old, and to the library of parliament. As officials of the house they are part of the machinery of parliament and should be able to avail themselves of these privileges. Almost daily they need information of some kind or another and' it must be obtained at once. On account of the very-special and urgent character of their duties, they could not be centralized outside of parliament without their work being seriously hampered. T would therefore respectfully suggest that the branch be maintained as a parliamentary technical service for the translation of committee proceedings and evidence, estimates and budget resolutions and other related documents, in a measure commensurate with the requirements of parliament.
Here is a case as neatly put as any case can be put! Yet notwithstanding that, we have a report brought in in favour of this bill. Mr. Carbonneau also at page 53 answers the following question:
Q. Well now. if you had a central bureau of translation, and instead of having the cooperation of nine other men in addition to yourself you had the cooperation of 90, it would still be beneficial for the purposes of cooperation would it not?
A. Well, it might, but that has always been the trouble to divide up the work in a single bureau: it has always been a great trouble to obtain perfect uniformity especially when the work is being distributed in parts.
He also said:
I am opposed to that dual regime. ... In a parliamentary and departmental translation service, one is an obstacle to the other. They do not work out well together.

Translations Bureau
I come to the next witness, Mr. Oscar Paradis, K.C., at page 110. He is chief law translator of the House of Commons. Here is his evidence:
By Mr. Pouliot:
Q. Just one more question, Mr. Paradis: as you are one of the chief officers of the House of Commons, may I ask you if in your belief the centralization of translations would improve the translation of laws as it is done now?
A. Well, in my humble opinion, it would mean the disorganization of our office completely.
Mr. E. H. Coleman, K.C., the Under Secretary of State, gives his evidence at page 155. He refers to a memorandum that had been submitted under the signature of Mr. Mulvey:
By Mr. Chevrier:
Q. In this memorandum of September 1, 1931, I read:-
"It is understood that all departments of the government are now equipped for the translation of French."
That was when a sort of central bureau was set up for the translation of foreign languages.
At page 155 I said to Mr. Coleman:
In this memorandum of September 1, 1931, I read: "It is understood that all departments of the government are now equipped for the translation of French."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That was not in Mr. Coleman's time. That circular that went out was dated September 1, 1931.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes, that is what I said; it went out in 1931 and it appeared in a file that came down to more recent date. I found that memorandum there, that all departments of government were equipped for the translation of French. Then I put this question to Mr. Coleman:
Q. I presume that that meant the Secretary of State's department was equipped for that. Has there been any change in that?
A. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chevrier.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He had no knowledge of it.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Coleman will like the way in which the minister speaks of him. He had better take it up with him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The hon. gentleman is misrepresenting the intent or purport of what he did say.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The minister always tries to wiggle out, but he leaves a lot of wool hanging around the shrubs. The superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Darling, at page 174, gives this evidence: By Mr. Pouliot:
Q-, Would it be possible for you to have your confidential work done by a central bureau of translation?
A. No, I don't honestly think it would be. I must be honest about that. I don't think it would.
Then Mr. Cooliean, acting deputy postmaster at the time, gave this evidence at page 176:
By Mr. Pouliot:
Q. And is it necessary for you to have these men within the department?
A. We have a centralized translation branch within the department, which we consider should be retained there because of the technical aspect of the post office work with other administrations.
By Air. Chevrier:
Q. You have that centralized staff within the department?
A. Yes, we have it there for the purpose of seeing that important circulars or instructions to the public, or technical regulations are standardized, and are not done by any individual in any division.
Here are eight witnesses who appeared before this committee. One gave no evidence. In regard to one, the committee has been able to appreciate the value of his evidence-I make no comment on his honesty; he is a good man. The six others are against the bill. Yet we report the bill.
Now, as to the cost of translations, some others will deal with that. Personally I have endeavoured by every possible means at my disposal to reconcile the statements of the Secretary of State with those of Mr. Bland and others, but I cannot do so. The Secretary of State has said here and elsewhere, and he will not deny it, that it cost between $75,000 and $80,000-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What cost?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Errors in translation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have not said that.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then I will let the
minister hang where he is. If he says he did not make that statement I have to take his word but I can only leave him with his conscience.


Jean-François Pouliot: You leave him in good
company.


Mr. STANLEY:: Very bad.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: According to Mr. Bland it cost $58,805 and two days later the secretary comes in and says it cost between $75,000 and $80,000. At any rate I have endeavoured to find out how much it did cost.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not say errors in
translation; I said corrections in both French and English.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The record speaks for
itself; I will not waste time over words that are in print. I will not attempt to enlighten
Translations Bureau

the minister because if I did he would not listen. I have tried to find out how the $58,000 odd could be distributed, but the officials from the printing bureau who came could not tell me. When the statement is made that such errors cost $58,000 odd, items should be given to show how that cost is made up. But to this day I have not been able to get those details. The minister himself calls these errors in translation, then-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Where did I call them
errors in translation?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: 
Maurice Dupré: Why should the hon. member attack the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) when he is not present?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not going to be spoken to in that way. If the hon. member has anything to say let him take his hand away from his mouth, stand up and say it and I will sit down and let him speak. If he does not want to say anything, let him keep his peace.
My hon. friends say that this is an extension of the French language. If they are so sincere about it, I would rather see it in print than hear it said. Let them move an amendment. Let them put their hands on this King Tut's grave, this holy of holies. Let them inject into the bill something to show that it is really an extension of the rights of the French language. I know the minister will squirm; he is sitting on hot coals. He knows well what I mean. He dares not do this, neither do they, yet they say that this is an extension of the rights of the French language in Canada. Why talk that way? The other night a question arose of the necessity of amending the British North America Act. Because that act is a pact entered into by certain provinces, the Prime

Translations Bureau,
Minister on that occasion well and ably said: You cannot subtract from it; you cannot add to it; you cannot do anything with it unless it be by the unanimous consent of the contracting parties. In that case as our rights are to be found within the four corners of that act, how can this bill enlarge those rights? I leave my hon. friends to that unmerciful but righteous judge-history.
Before I sit down I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscouata:
That section 3 be amended by striking out after the word "service" in the eighteenth and nineteenth lines the words "and both houses of the parliament of Canada," and further by striking out in the twenty-fourth line the words "debates, bills, acts and proceedings."
I do that because I want to keep this bill as much as I can within the four corners of the British North America Act. I say that under section 133 of that act the records and journals of both houses of parliament must be printed in French and in English; that the acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both languages and that those are within the custody of the house and as such they remain here. I therefore move my amendment that certain words be deleted accordingly.
_ Me. BOWMAN: I had not intended saying anything in connection with the bill before the committee and might not have done so had certain statements not been made in connection with the proceedings which took place when the bill was before the select special committee of the house on civil service. I was not in the chamber when the debate opened, but as I came in I heard the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) complaining of, I think, the rather arbitrary attitude of the chairman. I do not think the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) needs anyone to defend his actions in this house. His courtesy, genial disposition and ability are well known to all hon. members. He performed a real service for parliament in 1932 in acting as chairman of the same' committee, at which time a unanimous and rather important report was brought down to this chamber.
The next chief complaint made by the hon. member for Temiscouata was to the effect that when evidence was called from the civil service commission, Mr. Bland was specially requested by the committee to appear on behalf of the commission and that the French member, Mr. Potvin, was not so called. May I draw attention to the fact that Mr. Bland has been in the civil service for a great
number of years and that his appointment, I think in 1933, to the civil service commission resulted from a unanimous report of the select special committee on civil service of the year 1932. On the other hand, Mr. Potvin is a recent appointee, and I do not think there is any question that his knowledge of matters pertaining to the civil service is not comparable with that of Mr. Bland But might I point out further that Mr. Potvin did appear before the committee and had the hon. member for Temiscouata any questions to ask him as to the matters under discussion or consideration, he had full opportunity so to do.
This bill which I think hon. members will agree is pretty simple and clear in its contents purports simply to set up a bureau for translations with a superintendent in charge. I would just call the attention of the committee to the fact that the special committee sat from March 7 to May 9 once every week and I think during one week twice, to consider this bill. Without making any comment I would say that the committee had possibly ten, twelve or fourteen sittings on this bill alone and at those sittings every opportunity was given for the submission of evidence in the form of either written statements or material or oral evidence given by witnesses produced before the committee. I can hardly understand why the senior member for Ottawa should say that the door was closed. As a matter of fact the door was left wide open and full opportunity was given for anyone to appear before that committee and make such representations or statements as they deemed desirable. Mr. Bland did appear before the committee on several occasions. He submitted statements and was also subject to oral examination, and any evidence which hon. members opposing this bill were desirous of having produced was available to them by simply calling any witness they desired and questioning that witness on any point. The hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) is an able lawyer. I am rather surprised at the attitude he takes in connection with the evidence. After all, the government of the day have taken responsibility for this bill. And any evidence that was adduced before the committee would, I presume, be given with the idea of showing that the bill is not workable or that it would not be of benefit if passed. I do not purpose traversing the evidence, it is there, about 200 pages of it, it has been made available to all members of the house and it speaks for itself. A discussion on the bill took place in the house, lasting for a week or ten days,
Translations Bureau

if I remember correctly, and nothing is to be gained by traversing ground which has already been gone over. As far as I am .personally concerned I have no hesitation in .giving my own opinion, after listening to the [DOT]evidence, after reading the debates that have taken place in the-house, that the putting into effect of this bill, the coordinating of all translation services in one bureau under the [DOT]direct charge of one man, will mean a very substantial saving to the country, will mean improved efficiency, and better service and a more even load in the printing bureau.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Have you any evidence of that?


Mr. BOWMAN:: I think there is lots of evidence in the proceedings which you have before you, taken as I say by the committee in sittings which lasted from March 7 until May 9. And may I say that in that record there do not appear one or two hundred photostatic copies of corrections in translations and galley proofs which were submitted to the members of the committee, some of which were presented to the house when the Secretary of State spoke. One thing that struck me as a member of that committee who attended pretty regularly was the fact that there was not brought forward a really sound objection to the proposal. If you scan the whole evi-ience, even that which the senior member for Ottawa went through so carefully a few moments ago, you will not find any substantial grounds for opposing the measures which this bill proposes to put into effect. As I said, during sittings which lasted over two months anyone having any objection to the bill or any criticism of the way it would work out was given full opportunity to attend before the committee and give his or her reasons against the bringing into force of this measure. But in my opinion no witness appeared before that committee who gave any substantial or reasoned grounds why the bill would not bring about an improvement in conditions as they at present exist. I am personally convinced that the adoption of this bill, the putting into effect of the measures it proposes, will mean a substantial saving and improved efficiency in the service.
Before I take my seat I would like to acknowledge the courtesy and helpfulness extended to me by all members of the committee during the sessions at which it was my honour and privilege to act as chairman.
Mr. VE'NIOT: In rising to address myself to the bill now before the committee I wish first to make one reference to the remarks of
[Mr. Bowman. 1
the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman). In closing he said that no substantial ground was shown in the evidence to oppose this bill. May I reply to that by stating that the evidence as presented by the senior member for Ottawa, read over very carefully by myself, the evidence taken at each session of the committee, does not contain one iota of substantiation of the reasons presented by the Secretary of State for the introduction of the bill.
Having said that may I refer to some things that may appear somewhat personal. I do so for the purpose of laying the groundwork for the criticism that I am about to make in connection with the changed situation that this bill will bring about in the matter of translation.
The Secretary of State in his evidence before the Senate referred to his experience in the printing business. I took it that he based the argument for the introduction of this bill on some experience he had gained while engaged to some extent-he did not say to what extent -in the printing business.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That had no reference at all to this bill; it had to do with a reduction of some $700,000 in the annual cost of the printing bureau.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman dealt with translations all through his statement; I have it here word for word, so it cannot be contradicted. I am not relying on newspapers or on rumours; I have a certified copy of the evidence taken before the Senate committee. All through that evidence the Secretary of State did not forget to show up that terrible cost of translation corrections. In his statement before the Senate committee he did not take the responsibility of using his own words; he placed that responsibility on a committee of investigation that had informed him or somebody else. He gave the direct evidence that the committee had reported that because of this system of translations, because of faulty translations and because of authors' corrections, bringing about the resetting of type and corrections both in the galley and on the page form, $75,000 to $80,000 could be saved annually. It cannot be contradicted that he made that statement, and I will deal with that cost later on.
Having said that much I now come to what I referred to as a personal matter concerning myself. The Secretary of State must not think he is the only member of this house who has had experience in the printing business; I too have had that experience. With all due

Translations Bureau
respect to the hon. gentleman I may say that my experience has been a million times greater than his. [DOT]


Maurice Dupré: Make it two million.


Peter John Veniot: I could make it two million, and I will allow the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) to make the computation himself. From the age of eighteen years and six months until practically the age of sixty I was actively engaged as a printer. How do you like it?


Maurice Dupré: Make it four million.


Peter John Veniot: The Solicitor General says "make it four million," Tory-like, always extravagant. No, I am satisfied to leave it at one million, and I think even the Secretary of State will admit that I am not exaggerating. If I am going to criticize the costs in connection with these corrections I want this committee to know that I am basing my criticism not on hearsay but on knowledge and personal experience over a period of some forty-two or forty-three years. In the parlance of the printing trade the beginner is called the printer's devil. I served in that capacity; I occupied all the other positions in the printing trade, setting the type, running the presses, doing the job work, proof reading corrections on the galley and on the page, editorial work, assisting in translating, correcting translations and having to do with everything pertaining to errors in the printing trade. I want to tell my hon. friend that to-day I could go to the printing bureau and hold up my end with the best of them at the trade. If it is necessary to set the type by hand I can do it. If it is necessary to set it by linotype I have had a certain experience in that work.


Maurice Dupré: Is this an autobiography?


Peter John Veniot: This is not an autobiography at all; I am merely telling my experience so that when I come to deal with the assertions made in regard to the extra cost, and the manner in which the blame is placed, the committee will know the foundation for my criticism. More than that let me say to the Solicitor General-and I am not saying it in any boastful fashion-that if the director of public printing when before the committee investigating this matter failed to designate the difference between the cost of authors' corrections and the cost of faulty translation I can give him a lesson in that. I will go into that bureau and take the speech the Solicitor General may make in reply to me; I will set it in type and send the proof to him. If he makes the speech in French
there will be no translation, but if he makes the speech in English and there are corrections in the translation I will make those corrections in the galley or on the pages when they are made up loosely, and I will give him the exact cost covering every minute spent in the correction of those errors.
I claim that the evidence given by officials of the printing bureau was not fair evidence. They need not attempt to tell me, with the experience I have had in calculating the costs of printing, that they cannot designate the difference between the cost of authors' corrections and the cost of faulty translation. That is nothing but real buncombe. When they make that statement I say-and I challenge contradiction-that they are stating what is not true.


Maurice Dupré: One good thing this bill
has done is bring out the modesty, ability and capacity of the hon. member.


Peter John Veniot: One thing this bill has
done also is to show up the stupidity of the Solicitor General in interrupting the hon. member for Gloucester. I see I am getting under the collars of hon. gentlemen opposite. The Solicitor General is getting ticklish; he is wobbling in his seat. As I drive home the knife, as I intend to drive it home before I get through, he will be even more wobbly.
Now let me get down to this statement. I have referred to the costs mentioned by the Secretary of State. The senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) referred to those costs also, but he left out one point; he forgot to ask how it was possible for the Secretary of State to go before the Senate committee on April 26 and make the statement dealing with the $80,000 extra when only the day previously the director of the printing bureau over which my hon. -friend has control stated before the Commons committee that $58,805.25-they were very particular-was the most they could make that extra cost.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The explanation is very
simple; it was in the three years previously that the cost ran, according to the statement of the comptroller of the treasury, from $75,000 to $80,000. In the particular year referred to it had been cut down as stated.


Peter John Veniot: The director did not say
it was cut down; he said in 1933 it cost $58,805.25:	If that statement was true what
can we say of the statement that he made under oath-and I believe they were under oath; at least it was tantamount to an oath -to the effect that they could not furnish a detailed statement distinguishing between authors' costs on corrections and faulty trans-
Translations Bureau

lation costs? How was it that when Mr. Bland was asked a question, which he referred to the director of printing, as to whether he could tell what was the cost to each different department that had translations to do and corrections to make, the answer was that the printing bureau has nothing at all to do with the costs of translations? That is quite true, but that was not what the question was aimed at. It was aimed at the extra cost of the faulty translations, and that extra cost is calculated by the printing bureau and submitted to each department.
When the director of public printing made that statement before the House of Commons committee Mr. Bland added the remark that unless 20,000 boxes containing the reports were overhauled it would be impossible to give the details. At the same time, the Secretary of State when making his statement before the committee in another place was asked whether these extra costs were charged up to each department. He replied, "Yes, and the extra cost accounts are submitted every month." Yet Mr. Bland and the director of public printing, when asked how the amount of $58,805.25 was arrived at and charged up to each department, said that they could not do it unless time were taken to overhaul 20,000 accounts which had accumulated from different departments. I am pointing out these discrepancies to show that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Where the fault is or where the rot begins, I do not know. But it will take one with a greater knowledge of medical science than I have to discover the source of the ailment. One feels sure that the Secretary of State, in one instance, gives his version of it, and the man from whom he is supposed to obtain details-
Mr.	MYERS:	Would the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr.	YENIOT:	Yes.Mr.	MYERS:	According to	the parliamentary guide the hon. member is now seventy-one years of age. He was nine years Postmaster General.Mr.	VENIOT:	He was not.


Mr. MYERS:: He was in the Mackenzie King government for nine years.


Peter John Veniot: He was not, so you had
better take your seat.


John Howard Myers: It is four years since the Conservative government took office, so that the year before he became Postmaster Gen- [Mr. Veniot.l
eral he would be fifty-eight years old. Would he explain whether or not he was an active printer during the time he was* collector of customs of New Brunswick and premier of that province.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, I was an active printer during the time I was collector of customs in the province of New Brunswick; I was superintendent of a printing office which was under the direction of my brother.


John Howard Myers: And yet the record is not quite so clear as you thought it was.


Jean-François Pouliot: To understand the work of a printer one must be able to read.


Peter John Veniot: I do not mind the record in the Parliamentary Companion being a year or two astray, and it would not make any great difference if my statement as to my experience were a year or two out. I said I had covered from thirty-five to forty years in the printing business, and I stand by that statement. Before I became premier of New Brunswick I was Minister of Public Works in that province, and at that time was still interested in the printing business. There was still a job printing office running in the town of Bathurst under the direction of my brother.


John Howard Myers: Thanks for the explanation.


Peter John Veniot: And let me say this, that I base my experience as a printer partly on the fact that in connection with my work I have printed many departmental reports for the provincial government. I base my comments on this question of cost on the long experience I had in making up printing costs, and the establishment of printing presses not only in New Brunswick but also in Nova Scotia at the time of the starting of the old Pictou News. Hon. members opposite may be interested to know that the first type I ever set was set on the Pictou Standard, and the next was on the Moncton Transcript. I came back from Moncton to Pictou and helped to organize the mechanical end of the old Pictou News.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You did not change your politics according to your employment, did you?


Peter John Veniot: I did not need to. The Moncton Transcript was Liberal and the Pictou Standard was Liberal.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It used to be.


Peter John Veniot: It was at that time. It became Tory only after the Powers got hold of it. J. J. Power, whose brother had charge

Translations Bureau
of the press, afterwards became one of the leading lights, politically speaking, in the city of Halifax.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You must admit that the hon. member for Pictou and I have had some experience in Nova Scotia.


Peter John Veniot: And so have I. I have had experience at least relating to myself.
I know that when I first became connected with the Pictou Standard it was not a Tory organ, but became so later on.


Mr. QUINN:: What does the hon. member
say became Tory?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Guthrie and Mr. Manion.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I will tell you something about Power, if you want to know.


Peter John Veniot: Now, let me go a little further-


Felix Patrick Quinn: Don't talk too much about Power.


Peter John Veniot: Will you say that Power was a Liberal?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, he is to-day.


Peter John Veniot: Then you are contradicting the Secretary of State.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He changed his politics three times.


Peter John Veniot: He had charge of the Pictou Standard when I worked on it. The Secretary of State has said that he is a Conservative, and you say he is a Liberal. You are contradicting one another. Keep it up, boys; it will soon be a case of dog eat dog, if you keep on going.
Now, sir, let us come down to the method adopted in reaching the cost involved in faulty translations and authors' errors or changes. The original in English is first sent to the printer, and the printer puts it into type. After it is put into type the proof is taken off the galley. The galley proof is read by the expert proofreader in the printing bureau. It is then submitted in page form, or perhaps in galley form, to the author. Any errors which the author discovers and which have not been discovered by the printer are marked by him. If he chooses to change the original phraseology, he does so. I am referring not to the debates of the Senate or the House of Commons but to public reports and so on, laws printed in English and translated into French, or bills appearing before both houses of parliament. If the author sees fit
he may make changes in words or even sentences or whole paragraphs. It then goes back to the printer, who in turn makes the necessary changes as outlined in the author's list of changes. Let me point out here, sir, that in all the arguments which have been advanced touching upon the cost of authors' changes, or changes in faulty translation, not one word is to be found touching the cost of the changes made in the original English text. After that takes place the French translator is handed the printed matter from which he translates. Then it goes to the printer just the same as the English version. When it comes back to the translator and is looked over by him he corrects any faults he may discover. He may change the phraseology, a word here or a sentence or a paragraph. But what do I find peculiar in that? At the very moment a change is made it is photostated and held up as evidence to show that this extra cost is attributable in most part to faulty translation.
Let me give an example or two to show how it works. Everybody knows that the Canada Shipping Act was in bulk when it was submitted to the other chamber last session. That bill went before a committee of that chamber and it was changed by its author and by others who were not the authors but who made suggestions. The changes made in that bill were enormous. But before the bill went before the Senate committee in English it had been translated into French. When the bill was before the Senate committee it was found that in many respects it was unconstitutional, that clause after clause of the bill could not apply. The Senate therefore threw out most of that bill and left it over to this session when a new bill was framed and submitted to that chamber. But all these changes that were made in the English version in 1933 naturally brought about changes in the French translation, and those changes were all charged up to , faulty French translation. They were photostated, but no photostat was ever taken of the changes made in the English version of that bill.
This session I find that that bill is again before the Senate. There have been no less than two different editions of that bill this session. The first that was presented to the other chamber this session was so faulty in its construction in English that they had to call in new lawyers from British Columbia which cost two, three or four thousand dollars, and lawyers from Montreal, Ottawa, and elsewhere, in order to redraft the bill. After it was redrafted it was submitted in English and
Translations Bureau
commons
in French to the Senate. Again they had to bring that bill down to something nearer perfection, and all the changes that were made in the English version in that bill necessitated similar changes in French. Yet I find that that is one of the items that is charged up to the extra cost of faulty French translation in the preparation of that bill. That very bill has been photostated and paraded about this country to show how faulty translation has taken place in the French translation of the documents and debates of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shame, shame.


Peter John Veniot: I say, Mr. Chairman, that
that is unfair not only to the members of the translation staff but to the minister himself who is in charge of the printing bureau. It is most unfair that the impression should be created that the translators are either negligent or unfit for their duties. And to prove it they hold up a photostated copy of that bill extending to four or five hundred pages and say that that is a sample of the French translators' work, when as a matter of fact every change that was made in the French translation belongs to the category of authors' corrections in the English version, and not in the French.


Jean-François Pouliot: They cannot answer that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I say to the hon. gentleman in regard to the photos I produced before the committee of the Senate that not a single change in French translation was due to a change in the original English.


Peter John Veniot: But you took mighty good ;are not to produce any photostated English changes. The hon. gentleman cannot say that there were not numerous authors' changes. I can show them another Senate bill, letter B of the Senate, now before that house. I have a copy of it here. That bill has been changed in its English construction three different times since it was submitted to the Senate and every time a change was made in the English construction a change had to be made in the French translation, and every such change in the French translation was charged up to faulty translation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shame, shame.


Peter John Veniot: Let me come a little nearer home. Take the marketing bill before this house. That bill contains twenty-one clauses and there have been from eighteen to twenty amendments. The bill was printed originally in English and then in French, and no fault
[Mr. Veniot.l
was found with the translation. The bill was then submitted to this house and certain amendments were suggested. The Minister of Agriculture withdrew the bill for a time in order to submit certain amendments, and as I say from eighteen to twenty amendments have been submitted in English and translated into French, and not a word of fault has been found with the translation of those amendments.
What do we find now? Some of the amendments have already been reamended, and when the bill comes again before the committee with all the changes that have been made in it we shall never know it for the original bill. All the changes that have thus been necessitated in the French translation of that bill, following it up until to-day with the eighteen or twenty amendments attached to it, will be charged to faulty translation, instead of placing the blame where it rightly belongs, on the Minister of Agriculture for not having the bill prepared in a proper way in the first place.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 25, 1934