February 27, 1934

CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Because it is the truth. I

have none.

Air. ST-PERE: All right. I am sure the hon. gentleman did not want deliberately to deceive the house, but his statement would have us believe he had no one available. The minister says he must go outside or ask other departments to get his translation done. It is strange that such would be the case after what we now know about the number of translators under his own jurisdiction. At any rate, it proves that translation services are essential for the proper administration of his own department-we have his own words for it-and if they are essential in his department, they are just as essential in all other departments. The hon. minister's recital is simply an implied condemnation of the government's policy in regard to translators in general. The present government has abolished nearly a score of translators in the interior and finance departments and the civil service commission. They even dismissed a translator actually on duty and who had just been appointed to the railway board. If these services are essential, why abolish these positions? Why could not the Secretary of State appoint a few more translators for his own work? Instead of doing the practical thing, he brings down this bill to rectify a personal grievance, according to his own statement. By withdrawing the translation personnel from other departments to merge them in a central bureau, he is putting the other ministers or heads of departments in the same position as that about which he so bitterly complains. If the hon. minister finds fault in having to call upon outsiders to have his translation done, why should the House of Commons, for example, have to call upon the Secretary of State to have its parliamentary papers and official documents translated? The reason given by the hon. gentleman is not very convincing. Passing the difficulty to others is not a solution and I submit that the only and proper remedy is to add to his own staff according to his needs.

I should like to saj' a word as to the number of translators in the public service. The hon. gentleman says that ninety-one are employed by the government. No doubt he took this figure from the return made last.

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere

year in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). This return shows that outside of the House of Commons and the Senate, fifty-eight translators were employed. With those employed in the House of Commons and the Senate we have, all told, ninety-one translators. But at the time of introducing this bill one more position had been abolished, that of chief translator of the Senate debates. So there are now only ninety. The return to which I have referred included many stenographers, clerks and interpreters, so in reality there are not ninety or ninety-one translators in the service. The return included even the name of a remission officer who is not actually a translator. To prove my point, I ask hon. members to refer to the estimates of last' year and those of the current year. In both cases we find only seventy-three or seventy-four translators classified as such. Why should bilingual clerks or stenographers be included among the translators? Why include interpreters and other officers having a completely different classification? The reason is obvious. It is to show that these services are overmanned and although the axe of the guillotine has been operating to the extent of decapitating five thousand civil servants in the short time hon. friends opposite have been in office, it is still sharp enough to cut off a few more heads at the expense of the due and rightful representation which a minority should receive in the public service.

This bill is a direct attack against the privileges of this house. We should have independent control over all officials, officers and employees of the House of Commons. This bill provides further for the abolition of the position of chief of French journals. It does not say so in so many words, but the inference is obvious. Why this attack against the constitution which established the French and English languages as official? Proceedings in this house can be carried on either in the French or in the English language. Let us see what some of the accepted authorities have to say about the House of Commons. Giving his evidence before the select special committee on the civil service and the Civil Service Act on April 13, 1932, as reported on pages 465 and 466 of the evidence, Mr. Beauchesne quoted Mr. Bourinot, who he stated was one of the most distinguished clerks, as follows:

The control and management of the officers of the houses are as completely within the privileges of the houses as are necessary to the conservation of dignity and the efficient conduct of public business.

Mr. Beauchesne also quoted the late Sydney Fisher, whose opinion on this matter will be found in Hansard of June 29, 1928, as follows:

The House of Commons is not a department of government. There are no departments of the service in which the duties are similar to those in the House of Commons.

In placing certain officers and employees of this house under a responsible minister of the crown, the government is acting in direct contradiction to the opinions of the well known authorities quoted by Mr. Beauchesne.

The duty of the chief of English journals is to record the proceedings of this house. The position which this gentleman occupies is one of the utmost importance. He has charge of the drafting of the votes and proceedings and his work forms part of the regular routine of parliament. Therefore, he cannot be removed and placed under a minister of the crown. I submit that the same can be said of the chief of French journals, because the proceedings of the house can be carried on either in French or in English and the French journals hold the same important place in the regular routine of this house as do the English journals. Any attack or any measure tending to remove this official or to abolish the position of chief of French journals is a direct attack against the privileges and authority of this house as well as an attack against the principle of equality between the French and English languages as guaranteed by the constitution.

This change is said to have been inspired for reasons of economy and through a sincere desire to increase efficiency in the services concerned. In this connection I should like to refer to the Beatty report, dated February, 1930. I did not refer before to this report because I wanted to do so at this stage. This report makes no mention of centralization of the translation services as a means of improving this important branch of the public service. I do not doubt that a more competent body has never been called upon to report on matters pertaining to translation and its related subjects. After a careful and complete study of the situation in general and of every aspect of this complex problem, the Beatty commission did not recommend centralization and its report says nothing about it. I contend that had this plan appealed to these investigators as being proper, advantageous and practical, both as to efficiency and to economy, they certainly would have made a recommendation to that effect. One of the most striking recommendations contained in this report is to be found

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere

on page 16. It is that a higher rate of salaries should be provided in order to ensure greater efficiency. Therefore, the closer you get to efficiency the further you are from her twin sister, economy. The hon. minister would have us believe that they are like the Siamese twins, but I am afraid that when the real test comes they will be due for a rude separation.

The minister speaks of economy, of efficiency, of improving the lot of these trans-.ators and so on; in fact, he says anything and everything. There is nothing but contradiction in the different assertions of the minister, both in his explanatory notes to the bill and in his statements made in and outside the house. How in the world is it possible to have greater efficiency with a reduced staff? How can we realize any economy by increasing the work? Taking the hon. gentleman at his word, how can he increase the number of translators and reduce it at the same time? How can he save by spending more? I am asking hon. members whom they will believe. Will they believe the minister when he says that a greater number of translators may be appointed later on, or believe the minister when he says that there is no need for any more translators if the work is properly divided amongst those now in the public service? Will they believe the minister when he says that translators will be placed on a higher plane, or believe the minister who says that the bill will result in a considerable saving which cannot of course be realized otherwise than by a downward revision of salaries or a drastic reduction of personnel?

Economy and efficiency are just empty words, meaning nothing. They are no indication of the real reason behind this bill. "Ce bloc enfarine ne me dit rien qui vaille." I am giving my hon. friends this timely warning lest it be too late to repent. Study this bill; compare the notes, the statements and the contradictory claims of the Secretary of State, and tell me sincerely if one can depend on such flimsy promises, vague assurances and problematical results. No, no; for my part I will not be a dupe to such a bargain.

This afternoon the Secretary of State assured this house that the translators of the various departments would) be left in those departments though coming under the new centralized bureau. I will ask the hon. gentleman one question. He knows that according to the Civil Service Act the translators in all departments can be promoted to higher positions and can even be appointed deputy

'Mr. St-Pere.]

ministers. Will my hon. friend tell me whether the transference of translators to this new bureau will deprive them of such promotion?

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I am not answering questions now. When the bill is in committee of the whole house I will answer questions, but I say .this, that under this bill the translators will be under the Civil Service Act and there will be open to them the highest positions possible in the service.

Mr. ST-PERE: But not in the departments to which they formerly belonged. I would be the last to deprive any English speaking citizen of this country of rights he is entitled to in the civil service, but at the same time, as one representing the minority in Canada, I will be the last one to accept anything that will deprive any French Canadian of promotions and rights he is entitled to in the public service of Canada.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

There is no position in the public service to which he will be deprived of promotion under this regime.

Mr. ST.-PERE: He will belong to a new bureau; he will be taken away from his old position.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

The hon. gentleman is

making a speech without even having instructed himself as to the contents of the bill.

Mr. ST.-PERE: The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis) inquired of the Secretary of State as to the day on which the investigation mentioned by him on January 29 had taken place, and by whom, and the hon. member received the following answer, which is not an answer at all but only an evasion of the question. The Secretary of State said:

The said committee, in March, 1933, reported to the treasury board on the matters submitted to it, including a report upon "Translations."

The Secretary of State, at the request of the Prime Minister, also interviewed Mr. Beau-chesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, and Mr. C. H. Bland, of the Civil Service Commission, and certain statements were prepared by them, which they probably deemed confidential, for the information of the government.

The Secretary of State is very careful to say that these gentlemen made certain statements which they deemed confidential, and he refuses this house a positive answer with regard to those statements made to his department. Are we not entitled to receive real answers to questions we ask on different matters? Once more we realize that this government does not want the House of Commons to be clearly informed about what

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere

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

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

I have certainly not, directly or indirectly, given documents to the hon. member for Labelle.

Mr. ST.-PERE: I cannot therefore subscribe to this bill and I will certainly vote against it, hoping that our friends on the right will realize that the principle at stake is one going far beyond political considerations. It is not a proper time, I submit, Mr. Speaker, to shake the foundations of our constitutional structure and to enact a measure such as the one sponsored by the hon. gentleman, which cannot but aggravate the general situation in this country. This is a time for constructive policies and the hour has come to put an end to this reign of terror which has a demoralizing effect on the whole civil service. There is no more permanence, no more security in office; therefore the government should withdraw this bill and work towards binding all elements in this country in a common feeling of faith and confidence in the future and towards uniting all the energies in order to overcome our present difficulties; but instead of doing this, they add to the unrest and increase the people's misery. Instead of giving work to every man willing to work, as they pledged themselves to do, they throw out of their jobs five thousand civil servants and boast of it as the Secretary of State did in his radio broadcast of last November. At the rate at which these dismissals and retirements have been progressing, the government need not go ahead with the project of building another governmental block; they will not need it. All I suggest that they do is to dean up a large square and build therein a high platform where they can put their guillotine and publicly execute a few more thousands of civil servants whenever they feel like making any retrenchment. So far the only retrenchment accomplished has been at the expense of the civil service.

In conclusion, may I appeal to all those hon. members who uphold the principle of equality as between the French and English languages as the official languages of parliament and stand by the constitution, to vote against this bill. We must have courage; we must be above all party interest. Let us stand

against this bill as contrary to the general interest of the country, as impractical, and above all, as a direct violation of the rights and privileges of this house.

(Translation): Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues of the House of Commons, it was with some apprehension that I listened to the statement made by the hon. Secretary of State, when introducing this bill in the house. As I stated in the

speech I have just delivered in English, I place no reliance in the advantages expected from this bill, considered either from the efficiency or economic viewpoint. I regret that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bou-rassa, this afternoon, by a process of reasoning peculiar to himself endeavoured to justify this bill, leaving this house under the impression that among our translators, as well as in other departments of the service, there were to be found lazy fellows and drunkards, etc, etc. I never took upon myself to champion the cause of civil servants; however, I have among the translators a large number of former colleagues in journalism and I cannot find one member of the debate staff who has not fulfilled his duty or who has not, quite the opposite to what the hon. member for Labelle endeavoured to convey, worked on an average of ten to twelve hours and even fifteen hours per day in translating from French to English or vice versa the numerous speeches delivered in this house.

No intelligent person would establish a basis of comparison between the work performed by a highly educated man and that of an ordinary worker in our mills or a city-labourer. I have for these workers all the sympathy which is due to them. On many occasions, in this house, I have requested on their behalf higher wages; however this is not a reason for me, to-day, to be unfair by endorsing the statement which the hon. member for Labelle made this afternoon, when he said that among the translators there were to be found lazy fellows and drunkards whose work was out of proportion with the salary they received from the government.

The hon. member for Labelle is always full of compassion for his colleagues in the house. This afternoon, he warned us, we the members for the city of Montreal, to be on guard because, at the next election, these workmen who, at present, are out of jobs or those artisans who are not drawing a salary equal to that of translators of the House of Commons, will be the first to make them give an account of their mandate. Personally, I have no fear to appear before my constituents to prove to them-they are intelligent persons, and

Translations Bureau-Mr. St-Pere

hardly need proofs-that the employees of the House of Commons, those intellectual workers who have passed part of their life in our classical colleges and another part in such an important work as the translation of our public documents, are entitled to the fair salary they receive. My constituents, may it please the hon. member for Laibelle, understand what is meant by distributive justice and a man is appreciated according to his real merit.

The hon. member for Labelle gave us to understand that the translators of debates were very fortunate; once the session is over, these gentlemen could take a three or four months' holiday. But the hon. member for Labelle, who claims to be an expert in translations, a connoisseur, a purist of the French language, must not ignore all the work pertaining to translation: such as scientific researches, the exact terms to be used, etc., and that they are entitled to a rest after such strenuous work.

Would the hon. Secretary of State be kind enough to inform the house whether all documents prepared in his department-namely type-written copies of bills, etc., have been always sent early enough so as to be translated by the House of Commons staff? I am informed from a reliable source that many of these typewritten copies, these documents the translation of which is required immediately in order to issue them without delay to the public, as the hon. member for Labelle stated this afternoon, are sometimes handed in at the last minute to the translators of the house, even after they have been issued in English.

Most of the complaints which were made to-day, were not on account of the delay in the publication of official documents in French, but that too small a number of reports and department documents were not translated and printed in one of the official languages. Must we place the blame on the translators?

My hon. friend may pound his desk. I do not mind being interrupted, but I prefer to be interrupted by an intelligent man.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Alphonse Fournier

Liberal

Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the speeches made pro and con this bill this afternoon and during the evening. The Secretary of State, (Mr. Cahan) and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) have given all the reasons available in favour of this measure, and the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for 'North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) and the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. StnPere),

have given their reasons for voting against it. May I summarize the reasons given by the hon. member for Eabelle and then state why I am going to oppose this motion and vote in favour of the amendment moved by the senior member for Ottawa.

The hon. member for Labelle stated that under the present system there were delays in the translation and printing of documents and on this account they became useless so far as public interest was concerned. He mentioned that forty, thirty-five, twenty-five years ago he had found under different ministries bundles of documents which had been translated and printed after a long delay and [DOT]which had not been distributed to the public, but which had cost enormous sums of money find had become absolutely useless. He stated that the same thing occurred fifteen years ago, ten years ago and again last year. This was one of the main reasons for his favouring the bill presented by the Secretary of State.

A further reason given was that among the translators many did not possess the qualifications required to occupy the position; that some were lazy and that others were drunkards and did not fulfil their duties. Another reason given was the limited time during which the translators worked; that after four or five months of work they had a vacation for the remainder of the year, a-nd were paid an annual salary of S3,000 or S4,000. From these facts he deduced that the quality of the translations suffered, and he referred to many cases in which translations were not well made. Furthermore he pretends that having all the translators united under the direction of one superintendent would be preferable to the system of having translators in different departments under the various deputy ministers. This comprised the first part of his speech, and he concluded his remarks by referring to the constitutional aspect of the question, stating that by the passing of this bill there would be a further recognition of the French language in the different departments of the government.

The reasons given by the hon. member were all mentioned in 1909 and 1910 when the committee of the House of Commons, after receiving numerous complaints, appointed a former translator of the House of Commons to investigate the situation in European countries where duality and plurality of languages existed. This former clerk made his report to the committee and to the house in 1910, and in his report he mentioned that during

Translations Bureau-Mr. Fournier

the previous seventy years in this country we had a centralized bureau for translations. During the course of his report he gave the same reasons that were advanced this afternoon by the hon. member for Labelle in recommending a change in the system. This report was adopted by the House of Commons and the change went into effect in 1911. Before 1910 it was complained that delays were occasioned in the translating and printing of proceedings of the Commons and the different departments; that the French versions were prepared too late to be of much use and that large sums of money were spent because of this faulty system. At that time there were also translators who did (not possess the necessary qualifications to fulfil the position. The report also mentioned that the system of having translators in each department would be far more efficient than the system of centralization.

I particularly refer to this interesting report which was made by Mr. Frechette. He visited Switzerland and Belgium, in which countries duality of languages exists as it does in our country, and after explaining that in Canada the service was centralized in an office he went on to say:

-recruited-may I he permitted to say-independently of any idea of specialization in the work. Of course, the great variety of different technical matters which find their place in the sessional papers is too well known to the members of the board for their enumeration being otherwise than superfluous here; however, it is proper for me to say that all the arts, the sciences, the industries, the interests with which the government of the country is concerned, in turn call for the earnest labour of the House of Commons translator. It is evident that so many various translations, for which the most extensive dictionaries and the usual language are altogether inadequate, must require from the translator vast erudition, constantly supplemented through long hours of research and tireless application. Would it not be too optimistic to expect great success from the anomaly of an organization where it is required of each man to be a universal specialist in order to be fit for expert work in all directions?

All the efforts that the chief translator may make towards specializing the abilities of his staff are rendered vain by the manner in which the documents come from the printing office and by the necessity of having the work done quickly.

The main argument advanced by the Secretary of State this afternoon seemed to be that large amounts of money were spent because of the delay in making the translations in the different departments. Let us ask ourselves whether, by centralizing this staff of translators, the translations will be

made more quickly and whether they will be of better quality. In section 3 the bill states:

(1) There shall be a bureau under the Minister, to be called the bureau for translations, the duties and function of which shall be to collaborate with and act for all departments of the public service, and both houses of the parliament of Canada and all bureaus, branches, commissions and agencies created or appointed by act of parliament, or by order of the governor in council, in making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.

(2) It shall be the duty of all departments of the public service and all such branches, commissions and agencies as aforesaid to collaborate with the bureau in carrying into effect the provisions of this act and the regulations made thereunder.

Actually there is a staff of translators in each department, who are under the supervision of the deputy minister. The minister and his deputy decide which documents, reports and correspondence shall be translated. In every department we have efficient deputy ministers; they are men of ability and men who know their work, and they have this work done by translators under their immediate control. If all these translators are sent to a central bureau under the superintendence of one man, every department will have to communicate with this man as to translations. Certainly time will be lost in sending work from the different departments to this head office; it will require more messengers and a greater staff of assistants, and the technical officers of the departments will not be at 'hand to advise the translators during the progress of the work. Under the present system the translators can communicate every day and, if necessary, every hour with the technical officers of the different departments; they can receive advice and work accordingly. At page 5 of the report of 1910 I find the following:

The present system, established some seventy years ago, may have answered the needs of the time when the public documents were very far from being as voluminous, as numerous and as specialized as they are to-day, and when the greater part of them, being already in French, had not to go through the French office. But now that the publications of the public service deal with so many activities unknown to the primitive country that we were then; now that all the human interests, more and more specialized, find their expression in the papers presented to the Canadian parliament, a centralized translation office can no longer do justice to so much work that calls for specialists The experience I have acquired during thirty-six years of service in the Commons has convinced me that in centralization rests the vice of our system

Translations Bureau-Mr. Fournier

I understand that this gentleman had occupied the position of chief translator of the commons for quite a number of years, and he was supposed to be an expert in matters pertaining to translation. At all events he had the confidence of the committee of the house which sent him to Belgium and Switzerland. What did he find in those two countries? Mind you, I do not betlieve we should copy everything that is done in other countries, but we should take from those other countries the best that is in their policies and their methods of administration. This gentleman found that each department in Belgium had its own translation staff.

Thus it is seen that nowhere in those two countries-

Speaking of Belgium and Switzerland.

-is translation centralized. And in both countries satisfaction is expressed with the system in use.

For these reasons he concluded his report to the committee of the House of Commons in this way:

I conclude that it is desirable to extend in Canada to all the departments the practice already intelligently introduced in some of them, as, for instance, the Department of Agriculture, and very recently, if I am not mistaken, that of marine and fisheries;

I believe that at the time Hon. Sydney Fisher was Minister of Agriculture. This afternoon the hon. member for Labelle spoke at length about Hon. Sydney Fisher and related certain conversations he had with the hon. member in connection with his wish to do the best he could for the French element of this country. It was under his administration that the Department of Agriculture appointed translators for that department, and this gentleman stated that the work done by this staff was far better than the work done by the translators under the control of the centralized bureau. From 1911 up to date we have had the system of having these translators in each department. We do not pretend that their work has been perfect, but we say that if under the centralized' system there were delays in the translating and printing of documents there were also delays under the system which succeeded it, and we have no assurance that these defects will disappear under the system introduced by the present bill. We have no guarantee that under any system unqualified persons will not occupy positions to which they are not entitled. There will always be some lazy members of any department; human nature is not perfect and mistakes will be made under whatever system you may introduce.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion it was not necessary to introduce this bill simply because translators of the House of Commons and of the Senate have long vacations. Surely some means could have been easily devised, without changing the whole system, to give further work to those people. Will this superintendence give more efficient service than is given at the present time under the deputy ministers of the various departments? I am sure whoever may be put in charge will not be acquainted with all the documents, reports, correspondence and other papers which will have to be translated. He will have to rely on what the deputy minister sends him for translation. The work will only pass under another hand, and that will not increase efficiency. So the reasons given by the hon. member for Labelle are contradicted by the report made in 1910, and the actual facts do not bear out his contentions.

In the last part of his speech the hon. member dealt with the constitutional aspect of the question; he stated that a further recognition of the French language was made by this bill. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), however, told us that the rights of the French language in Canada were to be found in section 133 of the British North America Act, wherein they are clearly defined and restricted. Section 133 of the British North America Act reads as follows:

Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; . . . The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.

This is the only section which gives any legal right. I am not speaking of moral rights, or of privileges granted or given, or concessions made. I am saying that the only legal right for the use of the French language seems to be in this section of the British North America Act.

What does the bill state further, or add to this section? Part of section 3 of the bill contains the words:

In making and revising all translations from one language into another of all departmental and other reports, documents, debates, bills, acts, proceedings and correspondence.

This bill does not add to any rights in regard to the French language, and I believe it comes down to a matter of administration.

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot

The reasons for opposing the bill may be summarized as follows: that there will be loss of time in the translation in going from every department to the central bureau; that the translation will take more time, and that there will be no economy, owing to the slowness with which the work will be done.

At the end of the bill there is a provision stating that every translator must take an oath of secrecy. This means that the work they are doing is of a confidential nature, and should not be reported to the public. How can there be secrecy in confidential matters if the documents and papers are to be transported from the several departments to the central bureau, passing into the hands of messengers and into those of other people before they reach the translators?

Then, speaking as to specialization may I say that we do not expect any translator to be efficient in every branch of knowledge. Actually, they do specialize, and become specialists. Although they may make mistakes and have difficulties, and although they may not always do their work properly, they have more chance of doing it properly under the present system than they would under the new one. The fact that they will not be in a position to see the technical officers of the departments for which the translations are made will not help in the work of translation; perhaps it will hamper, and the work may lack in quality.

I shall not discuss at length the fact that there are from 91 to 115 translators operating. They work under the Civil Service Commission and, if I am well informed, have been doing so since 1919. Their appointment is made by the Civil Service Commission. If they have not the proper qualifications, who is to blame? Most certainly it would be the Civil Service Commission. If they are appointed by the minister, the man to blame is the deputy or the minister who would make the appointment. Under the new system they would still be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. The hon. member for Labelle has suggested that the minister should make the nominations. Certainly in the appointment of translators mistakes will be made. It is human to err and there will always be some of these people who will not be up to standard and will not possess the qualifications necessary for the position. Such would be the case even if this bill passed the house. If they remain under the supervision of the Civil Service Commission I understand that they will not lose their chance for promotion. If they are to be placed in a single bureau, having a superintendent as their chief, it seems to bar them from opportunities of

getting promotions to other departments of government. In that way they are deprived of a right which they now enjoy.

I have summarized my remarks, and wish to take no further time of the house in explaining my reasons for opposing the motion and supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Ottawa.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):

Mr. Speaker, I could not see this bill receive second reading without taking this opportunity oi making a few remarks. What I have to saj may be of a somewhat rambling nature and will be based on arguments which have been adduced this afternoon and this evening.

One of the grounds urged by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) was that of economy, and in that connection he spoke of the tremendous cost occasioned by corrections having to be made to galley and page proofs of translations. Is the Secretary of State reasonable when he places this extra cost upon the shoulders of the translators? I would also ask him who wrote the proofs. Were those proofs read and the corrections made by the authors of the articles translated, or the authors of the speeches made, or the persons responsible for the reports in English? This afternoon the Secretary of State did show us a sample of a speech made in another chamber. After being translated and the galley proofs made it was subjected to considerable changes. Who made those changes? Were they made by a specialized translator, a superintendent of translators, or-

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

I am asking whether the

corrections were made by the person who made the speech in the Senate. I am not asking for the name of the person.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

It was made in English by

a gentleman who I do not think knows the French language.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

An officer of the Senate.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

A translator of the Senate

who ostensibly prepared the report

Translations Bureau-Mr. Veniot

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

Why did not the translator of the Senate translate the speech in the first instance?

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

That is what he did, possibly.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink
LIB
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Because he found it so imperfect, probably.

Topic:   BUREAU FOR TRANSLATIONS
Permalink

February 27, 1934