time to refer to each clause in detail; he therefore only asked permission to point out a few of these defects, and show what, from his point of view, was out of place. which a MR. MASSON: Go on, and slowly. MR. FRECHETTE: Well, in clause 53, the word appropriation was used for the English word " appropriation," and it ought to be replaced by the word emplor. Another barbarism was contained in the same clause, the word originer, was not French word, and the phrase "Bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue,' was thus translated: Tout bill ayant pour but l'appropriation d'une portion quelconque du revenu public. But this was not French. The locution which, in his opinion, ought to be used was, Tout bill affectant, etc. He had no objection to the word, "bill," because it had really been adopted into their language; and he would say, moreover, that this adoption was a necessity. But he did object to the phrase, bill pour l'appropriation d'une portion quelconque du revenu public, because it was not in conformity with the spirit of the French language. They ought to say, un bill or des bills affectant une partie quelconque du revenu public. In the 60th clause they found that these words, "The salaries of the Lieutenant-Governors had been translated by the words, les salaires des Lieutenants-Gouverneurs, etc. The word salaires was incorrectly employed in reference to high dignitaries, and could be used only in reference to ordinary labourers. MR. MASSON: How would you translate the word "salary?" d'impôt. He had strong objection to the translation of the words, "the provisions relating to Appropriation and Tax Bills," by the words les dispositions relatives aux bills d'appropriation et d'impôt. There was not a single man having the least knowledge of the French language, who would not admit that this phrase was extremely incorrect. They ought to say bill concernant l'emploi des deniers publics et de l'établissement d'impôt. In the 91st clause, paragraph 15, he round the words, "Banking, incorporation of banks and the issue of paper money,' translated by, les banques, l'incorporation des banques, et l'émission du papiermonnaie. This word incorporation was a vicious expression, and it did not belong to the French language. The word "incorporation" ought, in his opinion, to be translated by the words la constitution or l'organisation en corporation. He would now refer to the 93rd clause. The very title of it was given in faulty French; the word "education" having been translated by education. In this acceptation, this word was very improperly employed. The expression, instruction publique, was that which ought to be used in French documents in order to convey the idea in question. But, moreover, in the same clause, the word “education" appeared in another sense, and again the same word, education was employed. The words, laws in relation to education," ought to be translated by the words, des lois relative à l'enseignement. In the 102nd clause they had translated, "power of appropriation" by pouvoir d'approprier. This again was a most vicious exprespriation" should be translated pouvoir sion. The phrase, "power of approde disposer. In the same clause, and at MR. FRÉCHETTE: By the word the end of it, the word "appropriated " traitement. This was the proper word. was translated by the word approprié, Unfortunately, this fault appeared in in place of affecté. The same remark different places in the same transla- applied to the word “ appropriated," tion. In the 90th clause, they had found at the end of clause 106. Further, the words: "The following provisions to use the word qualification, for the of this Act respecting the Parliament translation of the English word "qualof Canada, namely, the provisions re-ification," was a very incorrect expreslating to Appropriation and Tax Bills," sion. It should be translated qualités translated by, Les dispositions suivantes requises. All this, probably, was enough du présent acte, concernant le parlement to justify his present motion; but he du Canada, savoir: les dispositions rela- would go further, and say that all these tives Aux bills d'appropriation et expressions and all these locutions, however defective they were with to the relations of a country with other people in diplomatic language; for instance, it was used when speaking of the comparative impor tance of different peoples, viz: The representatives of the foreign puiss ances; the puissances of the first, second or third order. MR. LAURIER: How then would you translate the word "Dominion"? MR. FRÉCHETTE said the hon. the Minister of the Inland Revenue asked him how he would translate the word "Dominion." This was not the question to be solved at the present | moment, and he would reply in the words of a person, who said, when asked how he would replace something he proposed to destroy as useless and dangerous, "If I met a wild beast in my way, I would destroy it first and then look about to see how it was to be replaced." The question now before them was whether the word Puissance was a good translation of the He maintained word "Dominion.' that this was a bad translation, and that it ought to be made to disappear, and, after this was done, they would seck for a word by which to replace it. He asked for a Committee to arrange for a better translation of the he British North America Act, as thought the present translation was most defective. It would never come into the head of any Frenchman, for instance, in speaking of France, to say: "Les armées de la puissance française, les ministres de la puissance française, les chemins de fer de la puissance française,' in place of saying the armies, the ministers, the railroads of the Republic or Kingdom or Empire of France; and France had far more right than this country to assume the title of puissance. Nevertheless, they observed in the public documents, such extraordinary phrases as the following: "Les canaux de la puissance;" "Les chemins de fer de la puissance;" "Le revenu de la puissance." These expressions did not sound very badly to their ears, because they were accustomed to their use; but, in order to obtain a proper idea of them, they had only to re-translate such phrases into English. The phrase, puissances d'Europe was translated by "powers of Europe," in English, and what would they say of those who spoke of our canals, railroads and revenue, as being the revenue of the Power, the railroads of the Power, the canals of the Power? The absurdity then became quite apparent. The French of this country ought to be as proud of their language as the English were of theirs, and avoid as much as possible falling into such absurdities. These were important matters. Quite recently it was reported that one of the Consuls who represented France in this country-he believed it was the Consul at Quebec-said he dared not send our public documents to France for fear of turning them into ridicule, because, in the very titles of these documents, appeared the word Puis sance, not only a defective translation, but also defective French, and a logical error, which was still worse. He believed that the time had come when they should endeavour to remedy this state of things for the sake of their national honour, and for their own satisfaction. They were proud of the French language, and they were proud of their right to use it in the counsels of the nation; and they would be untrue to the past and the universal spirit of their population if they abandoned the use of the beautiful French language which they all prized so highly. He believed that the need for reform in the direction he proposed was pressing, in view of the approaching Exhibition of 1878. He feared, lest, in the buildings of the Exposition at Paris, there should appear on placards such expressions as the following: Objets exposés par la puissance du Canada, etc., which would appear extremely out of place, and above all, out of harmony with the surroundings in the French capital, to the astonishment of the Parisians. He humbly submitted that this was a question which he was sure those members of the House who spoke French would consider important, and worthy of being discussed before a Committee especially chosen for this object. He would repeat that this was not a political matter at all; nor did he blame the author of the translation of the British North America Act. This was only a question concerning common sense, propriety of language and lexicography. MR. BABY said he did not rise to oppose the motion, but only to offer certain remarks. There was certainly ground for saying that the translation of our laws and of our public documents was faulty, to some extent; nevertheless, it was necessary to add that many of the incorrect expressions in question had slipped into the public documents in some sort of necessity. Each country and language had expressions which were particular to it-adopted by the nation and adopted by the countryand which could not be properly rendered in any other language. It was true, as the hon. member for Lévis (Mr. Fréchette) had observed, that many of these phrases were what might be called anglicisms; but certainly it was but right to add that they all recognized several of them as being the locutions which, although not elegant, expressed the ideas they meant to convey. They were to be found all through our Statutes, and should not be removed without some care being taken as to what would be their substitutes, otherwise great confusion would ensue. The hon. gentleman proposed the appointment. of a Committee to consider these matters, and to adopt the means requisite to ensure the disappearance of these defects; above all, with reference to the Confederation Act. He thought, however, that the hon. gentleman might, perhaps, have taken another course, in order to attain the end proposed. He considered that, if they found in the Confederation Act, and even in the letter of the law, these errors pointed out by him, it was nccessary to remove these defective phrases, to replace them by others which were correct, and, to ensure the disappearance of these vicious locutions, it was requisite to amend the law. They should then propose that law be amended by the substitution of correct words and phrases for incorrect ones. He hardly thought that a Committee could see to this matter; he would rather see the hon. gentleman make a proposition in the direction he indicated; he would certainly give him his cordial support, and ask of the Government permission to replace. certain expressions which were not considered to be couched in pure : A French, or even elegant language, by phrases which were French, and which were recognized as such. It was admitted that their public documents in French had sometimes suffered a little because they were not drawn up in French in its purity; but it was also true that in France, where they were very particular about these mat ters, very considerable faults of language slipped into public documents; and he thought that everywhere such errors of expression would be found. And they ought not to say that these were due to ignorance on the part of those who drew up these papers, but, as the hon. member had done, they ought to acquit the gentleman in question of any such accusation. MR. BÉCHARD said he was glad to see that his hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. Baby) admitted and recognized the fact that the corrections, as suggested by the hon. member for Lévis (Mr. Fréchette) ought to be made. The hon. gentleman, nevertheless, pretended that, if the Confederation Act was so corrected, it would be necessary to amend the law. He begged to remind the hon. gentleman that the lawful text was the English version, of which the French version was only a translation, and the translation could be corrected without imposing the necessity of amending the law. MR. BLAKE said he thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Béchard) was quite right on this point; at least, he did not remember any proceeding of the Federal Parliament which adopted the text that was found at the commencement of the first volume of the Statutes published since Confederation. He rocollected that on one occasion this subject had received some discussion, and that his hon, friend, then the member for Chateauguay, had already discussed the question as to the proper translation of the word Dominion, and called Mr. Chauveau, who was well known as an admirable French scholar, and the late Sir George Cartier to account for having permitted that word to be so translated. It seemed to him, however, that the phrases in our Acts passed every Session, were equivalent to those in the British North America. Act; they would be similarly translated by the officers of the House, and receive the force of law. Therefore, the question his hon. friend had asked was, as far as his fellow countrymen were concerned, and as far as the Statutes of Canada were concerned, perhaps pushed too far. At the same time, he agreed in substance with the hon. gentleman, and deprecated the mixing of English and French phrases. Sometimes, in the English versions of the Statutes, French phrases were to be met with when it was quite unnecessary that they should be used there at all; and, just in the same way, English phrases were occasionally introduced into the French versions. He held that the English Statutes should be framed as far as possible in pure English, and French versions in perfectly pure French. He the objection made by his hon. friend could scarcely, therefore, understand from Chateauguay that we had no law. We had the British America Act, and we had simply to consider whether it was susceptible of improvement. MR. MASSON said he did not sce He why, if this motion was carried, they should not establish a standing Committee for the examination of all the Statutes that had been passed. thought that in future it might be necessary to alter the Union Act, because some of the phrases which that Act contained were not perfectly correct. If it was necessary to alter the Confederation Act because some of its phrases were not couched in perfectly elegant and correct French, it was obvious that it would be quite as useful and quite as necessary to do so with regard to the whole of our Statutes. There was no reason why the Act mentioned should be corrected and not the others. He knew that, not only were the translations of the Statutes inelegant and incorrect in many places, but even that whole phrases were omitted. He had given an example of this. He would ask what was the use of a Committee merely to examine this Act, if it was not bound to examine also all our legislation of the past and of the future. A Committee en permanence was not a proper body A Better Translation of British |MARCH 13, 1878.] North America Act. 1089 nor even this Committee, to translate our Statutes or any part of them. They had a staff of translators who were paid for translating all the Statutes passed by the House, etc.; and why had these gentlemen been appointed translators? It was because they believed, or were at least supposed to believe, that these gentlemen understood their business and were thoroughly able to undertake the work, and he thought they were far more able to do it than any hon. gentleman who would be taken away from his ordinary pleasant avocations to do work for which he was not qualified. He knew that the hon. gentleman who introduced this motion was a French scholar, and that no man was better acquainted with his language than the hon. gentleman; but, perhaps, other hon. gentlemen did not possess these qualifications in the same degree, and, indeed, they were not supposed to have them. The translators were men who had made this work their profession, and, consequently, they were far better able to do it than a Committee. He consequently advised the hon. gentleman to withdraw his motion, and to consult with the Government and the hon. the Premier, to see whether any means could be devised by which the staff now at their disposal could undertake and make an exact and proper translation, both of the Confederation Act, if required, and also of the Statutes which had already been passed, if this was necessary, as well as of those which would be passed in the future. MR. LAURIER said that, for his part, he concurred with what the hon. member for Terrebonne had stated; and thought that there was need of revising, not only the Confederation Act, but also the Statutes which were at present in force. Nevertheless, to do so would be to perform an almost herculean task. Numerous anglicisms were to be found in these Statutes which were at present in force, and the time would probably come when they would be revised and corrected; and he was of opinion that they should then proceed, as was suggested by the hon. member for Lévis, with regard to the revision of our Statutes. Such a revision was necessary before the French version would be presentable. The remark had been made by his hon. friend the member for Lévis that the Consul of France dared not send our Statutes to Europe because he was really ashamed to present them to the French Government and French nation, and every one who was acquainted with this subject was obliged to admit that this objection was well founded. Our Statutes were not what they ought to be. The translators were paid, it was true, to do their work, but, whether it was because their number was insufficient, or because the work given them during the Session was beyond their powers, the translation was not what it ought to be. He was certain that, if the work was done by some of the translators, and they had the time necessary for its proper performance to spare, the work would be very well done; some of them were officers of the House, but while to a certain point they were responsible, and even wholly responsible, for the faults which were to be found in the French version, it was to be borne in mind that this version passed through the hands of the members of the House, and, if they were not correct when the Bills became law, it was because they did not pay sufficient attention to them. He did not blame any person in this relation. It could not exactly be held that the members of the House should act the part of pedagogues in these circumstances; the correctness of the language used in the Bills was in their hands, and suggestions which merited support and upon which they might act, could be made in this relation. He believed that the objection raised by the hon. member for Joliette had been met, and successfully met, bý the hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Blake). They did not have an official version, or a legal version in French of the British North America Act. Act The only official copy of this was the English version, as adopted by the Imperial Government, and it had been merely translated. He was not desirous of going further into the question raised by the hon. member for Lévis as to the manner in which the translation ought to be |