Mr. Maurice Breton (Jolietie-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm) moved:

Mr. Speaker:

While the hon. member is looking for the figures could I ask the members of the house to moderate their conversations a bit. It seems to be difficult to hear this afternoon.

Mr. Breton:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

House of Commons

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

the cost per seat would be $15, or a total cost of $9,375.

As I have already said, it is very important that the public which speaks French should be able to hear the speeches in French or in English in the galleries. I believe it is very important, and it is one of the reasons I think the system should be installed.

I should now like to quote what was said in the speech from the throne:

It will be the high purpose of my ministers . . . to take steps to make both houses of this parliament more effective in the discharge of their responsibilities to the people of Canada.

I think I referred to that a few moments ago. The purpose would be to have the proceedings of parliament available to each member in his own language.

May I add, also, Mr. Speaker, that the system could be improved upon in many ways. I believe, for instance, that the French edition of Hansard is published in too big a hurry. If we had a system of simultaneous translation I think no one would complain if the French edition of Hansard were published a day of two after the speech had been delivered, because the words of the speaker would have been available in both languages at the time the speech was delivered. The difficulty now is that the reporters and editors are forced to work at high speed, and I believe this is inconsistent with the exigencies of the French language.

After seven years of experimentation in the United Nations I believe the system has reached the necessary degree of perfection. I believe the installation of such a system would be viewed in all parts of Canada as a symbol of national unity by recognizing the fact that both French and English are the official languages. Then the people who come from Quebec could be understood in this house and could take a greater interest in the debates.

It has been said that sometimes the French people appear to be taking little interest in the debates, but I think the reason is the difficulty they experience in following them. The acoustics are not good and the pace of the discussion is too rapid. As I said a few

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

Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):

Mr. Speaker, this suggestion which comes from the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton) is an interesting one. It is interesting not only to those members of this house whose official language is French, but it is interesting also to those of us who claim English as our first and basic language.

I should tell the hon. member that some consideration has already been given to this particular suggestion. As he said, shortly after the postal congress had completed its deliberations in this chamber he wrote to the Postmaster General (Mr. Hamilton), as a result of which consideration was given to the system which was in effect at that time. I am sure the Postmaster General would be glad to give a more complete report on that particular point.

There are many problems to be solved in considering such an installation, and there are several types of installations which, presumably, could be made in this chamber. The hon. member has given us, Mr. Speaker, the benefit of his own research into the cost of at least one type of installation which could be made. However, I should like to comment briefly to the effect that I personally do not believe any such installation would take the place of the existing public address system in this chamber. It would be ancillary to it. I do not believe, either, that it would ever take the place of the printed translation which, after all, is for the record. Despite the fact that it is true these translators work at top speed to produce the translations for the record, I do not believe the installation of any system would take the place of that service because it is a service that, in itself, is necessary to the business of this house. I should like to repeat that any such service, if installed, would not do away with any of the existing services but would merely supplement them.

There is not only the matter of the mechanics of installation but there is the cost of installation, and there is the staff which would be required to man this installation. I am presuming, Mr. Speaker, that the staff would come from the translation bureau. As hon. members of this house know, for several years now there has been a real effort on the part of the officers in the translation bureau to provide, not only for this house but for all the government requirements, a desirable system of translation which would

be uniform in vocabulary without regard to the type of document that was being translated. I think they have been very successful in that, so far as I can tell. Certainly it would be advisable to have the same system followed if the day comes when we are privileged to have a simultaneous translation service in this chamber.

I am told that while we have a number of expert translators, they are probably not trained in that particular field. In fact there are not too many people in Canada who are trained in the field of simultaneous translation. Existing translators could be trained, without too much difficulty, in a matter of 3 or 4 months to take on this service. Personally I think it would be advisable to train existing translators in the bureau rather than bring in new ones, and they in turn could be replaced by appointments to the existing staff of the translation bureau.

I think it would be well to inform the house and the hon. member who has spent so much time in exploring the possibilities of this service, that you, Your Honour, have taken an interest in it. I am assured by Mr. Speaker that he is quite ready to explore this whole matter on behalf of the house. If I might make a suggestion to my hon. friend, I believe if Mr. Speaker will do this for us the matter wil be expedited, whereas the appointment of a committee of the house to investigate it, with all due respect to members of the house, I fancy would occasion some delay because most of us are laymen in this field.

Mr. Breton:

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

Mrs. Fairclough:

As the hon. member says, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter for this house to decide. There are several departments of government that would be involved in such a translation. Quite apart from deciding that there will be such a service, there is the question as to what type of service will be made available.

Early in his remarks the hon. member spoke of the excellent service which is available at the United Nations, where the proceedings of that assembly are translated simultaneously into five languages. When we were at the meetings in Paris of the NATO parliamentary association, we found

House of Commons

a different type of service. It was something along the line of what is called a walkie-talkie. The sound was transmitted by radio to individual sets which the listeners carried. It was an extremely low power installation; as a matter of fact, if you carried your set out into the hallway you could not hear a thing. It had only sufficient power to be heard within the chamber itself.

These are all matters that would have to be considered, and most of them are of a highly technical nature. I suggest to my hon. friend in all seriousness that probably at least the preliminary investigation would be one for Mr. Speaker who is, after all, the representative of all of us in this house, of all parties. However, as he has said, it is a matter for the house to decide. My own opinion is that a more efficient way of handling the matter would be to leave it for the time being in the hands of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, originally it had not been my intention to speak on this motion, but after listening to the mover I feel rather impelled to do so. I can understand very well the principle and the intent behind the expressions of the hon. gentleman who has moved the motion which is now before us.

In the House of Commons we are bilingual. In the House of Commons an hon. member may speak in English or in French. I think I am fairly safe in saying that almost all the 265 members, if not all, understand and can speak English. But this being a bilingual House of Commons it is understandable that French should be spoken here by right and by custom, and that those who desire to do so should feel rather badly when, speaking in the French language, they find that we unfortunately-perhaps because of our own lack of responsibility-do not understand or cannot immediately grasp their points and the import of their statements, and are obliged to wait for a period of 24 hours until we receive a translation.

From that point of view I can certainly understand the hon. member's outlook and his desire to have all members get, through simultaneous translation, what is being said at the time it is being said. However, Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that in moving this motion the hon. member may be getting away from what he actually wants, namely a greater impression on English speaking people with regard to the learning and the usage of French. I can speak only as far as I personally am concerned, and I admit that I am one of those persons who know only one language, namely English, and perhaps even that not too well at times. However,

House of Commons

I have found it helpful listening to those hon. members who on occasion speak French, and trying to follow their speeches.

I think I am safe in saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you put in a system of simultaneous translation here you are going to make this house more mechanical and perhaps drive away that urge that some of us have to try to follow speeches made in French and in that way to learn, because then we would just pick up an earphone and get the translation.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe there is something our French speaking colleagues should know, namely that you can lose a great deal of a speech by making it mechanical; an emotional and sentimental expression carries with it a great deal of effect. I honestly believe that even my friend the hon. member who is moving this motion would find that if you had a mechanical set-up whereby you could just pick up an earphone and listen to a translation, it would not be the same as listening to the direct speech. It can never be the same as getting it from the man who is speaking, with his emotion and his sentiment.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reason why the hon. member has moved this motion, but with all due deference to him I should like to say that I am afraid he has not thought this through on the mechanical and the financial basis. I apologize to him for saying that, but this happens to be my trade. We have here an excellent system of loudspeakers. Just on my left over above the clock is a control whereby, as one speaks, certain of the loudspeakers are on full power, some on half power and others cut out. They are controlled by an automatic panel installation up in the corner even further on my left. All loudspeakers are tied in, both in the house and in the galleries. It would be possible to make a tie-in such as the hon. member suggests, but it would be a most expensive and technical service.

I think I can say this, although I have not had experience on this kind of system but have had experience on others having installed a couple of systems in B.C.

For $31,000, sir, you could not even touch the installation cost for the seats of the House of Commons. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge you could not tie in our present loudspeaker system without terrific expense. It would require a brand new installation,-a new three-line service to every desk. One of these would be a line for English, one would be for French and the third would be the common return wire; that is technical language. You could not do it with less than three lines separate and apart from the two lines on the present loudspeaker system. This means, as I say, a

brand new installation on the desks, not only of three lines to each desk, but a break-up of three additional lines on each desk for the earphones of each member sitting at those desks.

As an electrician I can say that is correct. The cost of tearing up these floors and putting in such a system would be high, and in addition to the two operators now in charge of our system we would have to have for the House of Commons alone two interpreters and one operator for the new equipment.

This motion says "in the official language which is not that used by the member speaking, for all debates of the House of Commons and in all parliamentary committees". I repeat, "in all parliamentary committees". If my information is correct there are four official committee rooms in our House of Commons, so this would mean, not only an installation in the chamber itself, but also in the official committee room on the first floor, in the railway committee room on the main floor and to other rooms on other floors. I am not sure of the exact number of rooms, but it would mean a separate and complete installation in every committee room.

Moreover, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and as those members who have been here in past sessions also know, on numerous occasions the House of Commons will sit at the same time as all the committee rooms are being used by members of the official committees.

Mr. Breton:

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

Mr. Winch:

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

This is a matter which I think perhaps, although I understand what he has in mind, the hon. member has not completely thought through to its conclusion. I think I have perhaps outlined sufficient to explain why I rise to say a word with respect to the wording of the motion moved by the hon. member. The terrific cost would be nothing like $31,000; nor would it be $50,000 nor, in accordance with the principles concerned, would it be $500,000. It will run into a great deal more for installation alone, in addition to the cost of administration.

Outside of all these considerations, about which I felt I should speak to the house, I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. member, which is that basically he will not achieve what he is after in putting forward this motion. Let us not make this house a mechanical one; let us not make this house one where 265 members pick up ear phones. Could we not, even in view of our present difficulties, try to appreciate-even if we do not understand-the sentiments and the emotions of those who speak in a language which I personally do not understand? Backward as we may be, let us aim for a situation where we try to follow what they are saying and really endeavour to pick up their language.

Speaking personally, I regret that we who are English speaking have been so backward in learning French. I had never appreciated that until I came to Ottawa. I assure my hon. friend he will not attain that unification and understanding if he makes this house mechanical as he suggests, rather than maintaining the sentimental, emotional and cultural unity which I am certain is the spirit he would wish to see in this house. I am sure this wish would be shared by his fellow French speaking members.

' (Translation):

Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Ariha-baska):

Mr. Speaker, I was quite gratified to read the motion presented by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), asking for the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation in this house. Though I dissociate myself from any preconceived views with regard to language, which some English-speaking members might attribute to me, I would like to stress how beneficial such a system would be to the proper administration of this country.

There are in this house quite a number of English-speaking members who do not understand French and also some French-speaking members who have a little knowledge of English, but who are unable to express themselves fluently in that language, like myself,

House of Commons

for instance. There is also-because of our rather inefficient, and at times non-existent loudspeaker system-the difficulty of understanding a member from the other end of the house, as was the case just a moment ago when the hon. the Secretary of State (Mrs. Fairclough) was straining her ears to hear what an hon. member had to say. This is also the case for us, who are sitting in this corner of the house; we do not clearly understand those who speak from the other end of the chamber. Such innovation would greatly contribute to a better understanding between the two ethnical groups who form our nation, and would constitute a gesture of approval from the government with regard to the observance of bilingualism.

No wonder French Canadians do not seem interested in the important problems of western Canada, nor the English-speaking westerners in those of the east. I am thinking of the prairie wheat and of our mixed farming in the east.

According to press reports, two organizations have already submitted briefs to the government asking for such a system, i.e. the Cooperative Union of Canada, with Ralph Staples as president, and the Conseil Canadien de la Cooperation, whose president is Mr. Leger, who lives in New Brunswick.

At its last congress in Victoria a no less important organization, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which has 750 branches across the country, tabled a resolution for the establishment of such a system. In its preambles and resolutions, the chamber of commerce called upon the federal government to establish a simultaneous translation system in the Canadian parliament, for the benefit of members, newspaper correspondents and visitors.

This right was granted to us by the B.N.A. Act which recognized the official use of both French and English, not only in the House of Commons but in all federal government services.

Simultaneous translation of debates both in the house and in the Senate would enable everyone in Canada to get a more realistic and general grasp of all the country's problems, and at the same time would create a genuinely Canadian outlook of unity and understanding.

Professor Marsh Jeanneret, director of publications at the University of Toronto, expressed the view that nobody could call himself 100 per cent Canadian if he were not able to understand both ethnical groups that make up this nation and to be understood by both those elements. We must not be satisfied with being 70 per cent citizens.

House of Commons

The views expressed toy this teacher and by the organizations I have already mentioned prove that bilingualism is a necessity in Canada.

I am not like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) a professional electrician, and I do not know on what his calculation establishing the cost of this system at $500,000 is based, but all I can say is that, even at this price, it would be beneficial to our country.

(Text):

Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):

Mr. Speaker,

I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), in which he pointed out that the cost of such an installation would be prohibitive and also that the cost of operation would be exceedingly heavy. I may say that when I first read the resolution that was my general reaction to the proposal. On the other hand, we are prepared to support the setting up of a committee for the purpose of considering the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation into the official language not being used by the hon. member who is speaking in the House of Commons. But then the resolution goes on, 'and in all parliamentary committees".

We do not think it would be even wise to think- of making this possible in the committee rooms, because that would undoubtedly be very expensive, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East. The hon. member mentioned that the whole thing would become mechanical. I think most of us have been down to the United Nations, and I think we have been amazed by the success of simultaneous translation there. An expert has listened in and been able to repeat the speech in the other language with, in most cases, all the fire and zest of the original speaker. I was amazed at the amount of emphasis that could be put into a speech by someone who had to listen in and speak at the same time.

I believe in some cases the translator improved upon the language or upon the delivery of the original speaker, and I think the same might very easily be the case in this house. An hon. member listening to the speech in the other language and trying to understand it would still be able to listen to the original if he wished to do so; he need only take off his headphones and listen to the speaker in the original language. If, on the other hand, he wanted to get a thorough understanding of what was being said, he could put on the headphones and follow the translation.

I think this would tend to increase the interest taken in the debates by those hon. members who are not familiar with the

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

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Vancouver East I did not intend to speak on this motion, but his remarks have impelled me to say a few words. I wish to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver East, inasmuch as I feel that a mechanical installation in this chamber would detract from the speaking of the two languages.

I am one of the number of new members who have come to the house recently, and I should also like to say that I am one of the new members who have begun to take lessons in conversational French. I do feel that an installation such as has been proposed would probably tend to lessen the need for the conversational French we are learning. I should like to assure hon. members who speak French as their own language that there is quite a large group of hon. members on this side of the house, members whose own tongue is not French, who are now taking lessons in conversational French. I think not at this session, but probably at the next, they may hear quite a few efforts in weak but sincere French from hon. members on this side of the house.

I want to assure them that these lessons are now being taken because we are sincere in our wish to learn the French language. I believe the experience of listening to the French spoken in this chamber, attempting to follow it and attempting at some later date to use it ourselves in debates is valuable, and that it would be impaired if we had a mechanical installation in this chamber.

For that reason I think there is much to be said for the view expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Our efforts here are the efforts of one group, one country. We are not a group of countries such as constitute the United Nations in whose discussions countries from all over the world take part. We are one country and one people. We should try, I believe, to speak together in this house and not to be divided by the mechanical means suggested.

(Translation) :

Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):

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

to set up a special parliamentary committee tor the purpose of considering the establishment of a simultaneous translation system. An innovation such as this would certainly promote better understanding between the members of the house, and therefore between all Canadians.

I hope this proposal will be welcomed on both sides of the house, and I add that our English-speaking colleagues should be the first to endorse a project of nation-wide implications such as the one proposed in the motion now before us.

French-speaking members are probably partly responsible for the fact that so far the need was hardly felt for the installation of a simultaneous translation system. In fact, those of us who have a perfect command of English address the house mostly in English. I realize that they do so for the benefit of the unilingual majority and also for the sake of being better understood.

But the consequence of all this is that French, theoretically one of Canada's two official languages, has practically disappeared from the debates, and active participation in debates is confined solely to members who have a perfect command of English. True, all speakers have the privilege of expressing themselves in their own language, but all do not have the satisfaction of being understood.

-nen, Mr. Speaker, simultaneous interpretation would be a notable improvement from the viewpoint of all visitors. All of them would feel more at home while listening to the debates in their mother tongue.

I do not propose to go into the cost of such an undertaking; it would, in any case, be very cheap, in the light of the vast improvement it would mean both for the members and for the cause of national unity.

I had the opportunity of seeing one system of simultaneous translation in operation in 1954, at United Nations headquarters. If a translation system is satisfactory where five languages are spoken, it would be all the more so in this house, where only two official languages are involved.

The Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, which has over 25,000 members and which, in the past, has more than once given evidence of its desire to further the cause of national unity, has adopted the simultaneous translation of its own debates and, in May 1956, through its chairman, Mr. Ross Smythe, asked the Speaker of the House of Commons to establish that system which has promoted a better understanding and such a beneficial rapprochement between the two major racial groups in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I do not want to delay any longer the passing of this resolution and also

House of Commons

because no further arguments are needed in support of a measure which everybody approves, I shall conclude by expressing the wish that the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, meet with unanimous assent. This would be one more step towards national unity.

(Text):

Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to endorse the motion of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Breton), which presents members of this house with a great opportunity to fill a long-standing need for the installation of a simultaneous translation system. At the present time I am not in favour of extending this principle to every committee of the house, but I am much in favour of the idea of referring the matter to a committee for study, to determine how much it would cost to have such an installation made in the House of Commons.

I would have thought more of the Englishspeaking members would be in favour of this proposition because, after all, I think 95 per cent of the English-speaking members understand only English. Perhaps I need not point out to hon. members that I understand English far better than I speak it. Although I am not fluent in the language I understand it rather well. It is pleasant for us to speak in English because we try to be gentlemen in our behaviour toward our English speaking colleagues, and we trust that you will not pass too harsh judgment on those of us who attempt to speak in English. That is why I attempt to speak in English although I am not as fluent in the language as I might wish to be, but I do so in an attempt to be more agreeable and, if possible, more useful to my English speaking colleagues who do not understand French. I do not think, as was suggested by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), that English speaking members really prefer to listen to us speaking French-

Mr. Winch:

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