At the time this article was written Mary Peck was an historian and writer who lived in Ottawa and in Deer Island, New Brunswick

All the legislative, executive, administrative and even judicial functions of government in New Brunswick have, at one time or another, been performed within the walls of the New Brunswick Legislative Building. It is not surprising, therefore, that citizens consider it more than an interesting piece of architecture. It is a tangible symbol linking the people to their political system. This article outlines some important events in the life of the building which celebrated its one hundreth birthday on February 16, 1982.

The city of Fredericton lies beside the Saint John River, sixty miles upstream from the city of Saint John where, in 1794, the first United Empire Loyalists landed at Market Slip. At that time the government of New Brunswick consisted of a Governor, a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. They met at "Mallard House" in Saint John but in 1788 Fredericton was selected as the future site of both the British military headquarters and the government. Today the old buildings of the Military Compound occupy two blocks of the central business area beside the river. One block away, surrounded by wide lawns and sheltered by towering elms, is the Legislative Building.

In the early days, members met in temporary quarters but in 1803 a frame building, "Province Hall", was erected on the present site. By 1880 many people were dissatisfied with Province Hall as the seat of government. One man described it as a "disgraceful looking and shabby, ill-ventilated shanty". Plans for a new building had been delayed due to an acrimonious debate between the citizens of Saint John and Fredericton as to which city should be the seat of the legislature. However, by February 4, 1880 the winner of the competition for an architect to design the new building was announced. His name was J.C. Dumaresq. It is interesting to note that a complete set of the original drawings on linen is carefully preserved in the Legislative Assembly Building and that J.C. Durnaresq's great grandson is now in practice with Dumaresq and Byrne in Halifax as the fourth generation of architects in the family firm.

Once the plans were accepted the government advertised for tenders. On February 25, 1880 the New Brunswick Reporter stated that there would be from twenty to twenty-five contractors tendering for the new Provincial Buildings and it was probable that the lowest tender would be considerably less than was expected. On this day those working in the old building preparing for the opening of the House could smell a fire smouldering but could not locate it. The fire bells were rung at 10 p.m. but the roof and upper floor of the building were completely destroyed. Investigators decided that the cause of the blaze was "a register grate too close to the carrying timbers". The fire also fanned the flames of agitation for locating the seat of government in Saint John, however, the opponents of the Fredericton site were finally defeated in the Legislature and the list of tenders for the new building was tabled on March 16.

Thirty-two contractors submitted bids ranging from $61,900 to $94,200. William Lawlor submitted two bids, $61,900 for a brick building and $68,880 for one in stone. The second bid was accepted. There was a tremendous amount of public interest in the construction of the building and all the details involved. One editorial suggested that the Legislature should be a "credit in point of design, elegance and architecture to the province". By May 17, proceedings were finally underway. Mr. Lawlor, the contractor, had arrived in town and commenced the tearing down of "the old landmark".

Work soon began on construction of the new building, as reported in the newspaper:

The constant din of the Stone Cutter's chisel has already accomplished the rearing of large piles of freestone ready for the mason's trowel and large blocks of granite are being laid in place as fast as prepared. The foundation of the new structure will be much larger than before, and at the rear it extends in close proximity to the old Telegraph building. The site of the new building is visited every evening by hundreds of our citizens.

On September 7, 1880, "Old Fogy" wrote to the Reporter that "the new Parliament Buildings give evidence of their being beautiful. But it is the first public building ever heard of in the Empire which had been carried to its second storey without a foundation stone being laid with proper ceremony."

Progress was very fast as can be seen by these newspaper accounts. They are from the Fredericton Capital whose first issue of September 12, 1880 carried a long article and an engraving of the new Legislature.

October 19,1880: the stone work of the northern tower on the Parliament Building is completed.

November 11, 1880: A 50 ton load of freestone for the New Parliament Building which started from Dorchester, by Schooner a week ago last Wednesday, is daily expected. The vessel carrying it will have aboard the four freestone pillars for the portico now being erected. Workmen at the building have been idle a week by the Schooner's delay. Only 20 tons of stone are required to complete the building, and the remainder will be offered by the Contractor at a bargain.

November 13, 1880: The contract for heating apparatus for the New Parliament Building has been given to Messrs. Wisdom and Fish of Saint John.

November 16, 1880: The galvanized iron of the New Parliament Building is something enormous, all the facings of the roof will be constructed of this material, as will likewise the cornices. The Schooner laden with 50 tons of freestone and 4 sixteen feet pillars for the Parliament Buildings reached here on Sunday afternoon. The stone cutters are already at work on the pillars.

November 18, 1880: Excellent working weather at the Parliament Buildings. The last cargo of stone has arrived and a consignment of 300 barrels of lime for plastering the interior is expected by schooner daily. 'This done, we shall have Wisdom and Fish both at work'.

On November 30 a long account was given of the laying of the "Contractors Stone", the decision having been made to put a Memorial Stone in the Legislative Library rather than to lay a corner stone. Mr. Lawlor was determined to lay a stone in the only place now available, the base of one of the columns of the portico. Here was placed a copper box about a foot square filled with the following articles:

A large piece of parchment with the names of the Executive Council, House of Assembly, Officers of all the Government Departments, the Architect of the Building, Contractor, Inspector and Sub-Contractor, together with the working Foreman all tastefully inscribed.

A photograph of the new Building, from Mr. Dumaresq's design, executed by Messrs. McMurray & Burkhardt;

A photograph of the old Corner Stone as found under the old building;

A photograph of the Contractor, Mr. Lawlor;

A copy of the Canadian Illustrated News, with an engraving representing the Burning of the old Buildings, by Mr. E.A. Smith;

A copy of every newspaper in the Province, and an extra one of the Capital, with a cut and description of the new Parliament Buildings;

Some Acts of the House of Assembly; A McMillans's Almanac for 1880;

Dominion Postage Stamps; and several coins, silver and copper, of the year 1880, and a collection, kindly presented, of many rare old coins.

Beside these rarities for future times, a postal card was inserted, with an address, 'To the finder of this box'. It read thus: 'When you read this, the subscribers' bones will probably be mouldered into dust. (Signed), T.B. Winslow, Dept. Board of Works; A.G. Beckwith: W.M. Lawlor; Contractor; H.J. McGrath, Inspector; G. Fred Coy'.

As often happens, finishing the interior of the building took longer than erecting it and the Legislature continued to meet in the Normal School throughout 1881. By March of that year, there was talk of holding a grand ball to celebrate the opening of the building, which was much admired by the citizens of Fredericton. A few critics felt that the distinctive dome 140 feet above ground level was not necessary and christened it 1he pepper pot". All approved of the massive front door, seven feet by twelve feet and made of solid walnut. Above it was the six foot high figure of Britannia and the tin roof was surrounded by ornamental iron work, some of which supported the coat of arms.

The new building boasted the latest in steam heating, plate glass windows and fire doors to protect the books in the Library. Some furniture had been rescued from the fire in Province Hall and went into the new structure.

In January, 1882 the citizens' ball committee was created and the Chief Justice presided over its meetings. Excitement and nervousness ran high. Would the gas fixtures arrive in time? Who would receive complimentary invitations? All the tailors and dressmakers in town were working day and night and the Fredericton Brass Band was engaged to play at the Promenade Concert.

The arrangements were described in detail in the Capital on February 14, 1882.

THE BALL A meeting of the General Committee will be held at the City Hall this evening (Tuesday) at 8 o'clock. MESSRS. McMURRAY & BURKHARDT photographed the Parliament House on Saturday afternoon fast. They intend taking some interior views when the furnishing is completed.

TICKETS FOR THE BALL Gentlemen's tickets for admission to the Ball and Promenade Concert will be for sale by the Secretary, Mr. C.W. Beckwith, John Richards & Son, Geo. H, Davis, Barker House, Queen Hotel and the door.

The Parliament House was lighted up last evening for the first time. The effect in the Assembly Hall was very fine, though the chandeliers are rather high up, which gives the galleries brilliant light but scarcely enough on the main floor. This can be easily remedied by lowering the chandeliers a few feet. When the match was applied to the jets of the chandeliers in the Council Hall little or no gas was found. Inquiry into the cause led to the discovery that a leak existed somewhere in the pipe leading to the drops in this room. This will be remedied today, and the lighting tested again tonight. Everything about the building is rapidly nearing completion, and all will be in readiness in ample time for the grand Opening, Ball and Concert.

Fortunately for all, February 16 opened with sunshine and "a mildness that would be no discredit to an April day". The Capital stated in an editorial that a wise decision had been made concerning the site for the Legislature and that the splendid new building was in every way worthy of the Province. Many people assembled early for the opening of the Legislature, overshadowed though it was by the Public Ball. There were probably 2,000 people in the building and a very large crowd outside the building at 3:00 p.m. when the Lieutenant-Governor and members arrived in sleighs.

The ceremony took place in the Assembly Hall, as the Council Hall was being prepared for the Ball.

The Assembly Chamber was described as follows by The Daily Sun of February 16, 1882:

"The visitor is at once impressed with the noble proportions of this chamber, which, including the galleries, is 55' long by 43' wide, while its beautifully panelled ceiling is 431rom the floor. Rising from the front of the gallery are eight Corinthian columns, of wood, supporting panelled arches with carved capitals. Running around two sides of the chamber, 22' from the floor, is a dentil cornice. The ceiling is divided into four panels by the beams of the roof trusses. Two of these panels are concave centres from which are hung sunlight gas reflectors, at the same time affording ventilation for the room. The windows are fitted with elegant cherry shutters, the doors are of cherry, and the dado and surpase are of cherry and ash."

Many columns of the February 18 issue of the Capital were devoted to descriptions of the Ball and of the Concert. Drawings found in the New Brunswick Museum provided illustrations of both events.

The complex arrangements seemed to work well though the Legislative Library was not large enough for a supper room where approximately 670 people were served an elaborate repast. The concert was not well attended and "should not again be combined with a ball". Interest lay in the ballroom, the Legislative Council Chamber.

The elaborate dresses and ornaments of the more prominent guests were described and the identity of the "belle of the ball" was hinted at, but not disclosed. Cut f lowers had been brought from Boston for the occasion and the parlour fountain in the centre of the vestibule on the ground floor must have been a real attraction. From the structure, four feet in height and constructed of iron, black walnut and glass, a fountain rose two feet in height from a basin in which goldfish swam. "The dance programme was completed at 3:45 a.m. and then everyone hurried to depart. At 4:30 a.m. the guests had all gone and the light disappeared, and the Grand Ball was over, having proved a most unqualified success".

The Fredericton newspapers contained only praise for the new building. Certainly Lawlor appears to have been a good contractor, working quickly and with few problems compared to the construction of the Post Office, which was built at the same time. However, we do not know how much of this satisfaction was due to the fact that Fredericton was chosen as the site rather than Saint John.

In 1892 the Legislative Council was abolished and the Supreme Court moved into the Council Chamber. The desks, paintings and panelling shown in the photograph of the first Supreme Court chamber on the ground floor were moved to the court's later location on the second floor. These desks and paintings are now in the Justice Building, the present location of the Supreme Court. This building is in the Military Compound and was originally the New Brunswick Normal School.

Over the years repairs and maintenance were done and new heating, lighting and plumbing were installed. In 1952 the roof tiles were replaced with copper and in 1964 the Assembly Chamber was completely renovated. By then more space was needed for judges' offices and the press gallery. In 1967 the membership of the House increased by six to fifty-eight so new desks and chairs were added in the Assembly Chamber, A translation desk was also added at this time.

Interior changes and renovations have been made since the Supreme Court and the office of the Lieutenant Governor were moved to other buildings. The Legislative Council Chamber has recently been restored to its original condition. The chandelier was replaced, the wainscotting and railings were reproduced and ten additional desks were built. Carpet similar in pattern to the original was ordered from Scotland for use in what will now be a committee room, The present Legislative Building, designed in Second Empire style, is much more dignified and handsome than its predecessor.

There is a strong resemblance in style between the legislative buildings of New Brunswick and Quebec. The New Brunswick building is smaller and less ornate. It has the added feature of a domed lantern and occupies a beautiful, if less commanding, site.

Today, a tour of the Legislative Building is one of the highlights for visitors to Fredericton. Many stand gazing into the lofty Legislative Chamber, dignified by its original furniture and paintings, dazzling chandelier and steep visitors galleries. Beyond a sweeping circular stair is the Legislative Library, a miniature basilica with clerestory windows. Clearly, the building is as impressive to contemporary visitors as it appeared to those attending its ceremonial opening a century ago.

Language and Parliament: We are not Alone

Brooke Jeffrey

At the time this article was written Brooke Jeffrey was with the Political and Social Affairs Division of the Research Branch, Library of Parliament.

An expert recently estimated the number of living languages and dialects in the world to be roughly two thousand; since there are only some one hundred and thirty odd countries in which to accommodate these languages somebody clearly is bound to have a problem. Therefore it is not surprising to learn that in most countries of two or more linguistic groups, language has proven to be a highly political issue. The question of whether there should bean "official" language, or two or more, has invariably arisen during the promulgation of a nation's constitution. An analysis of provisions regarding the language spoken by parliamentarians, and the language of official parliamentary documents, provides valuable insight into the actual status of official languages in other states. At the same time it can serve as a useful measuring stick for Canadian parliamentary practices with respect to official languages. This article looks at official language legislation and parliamentary practice in both Commonwealth and non Commonwealth countries.

The question of language has always been a key political issue in this country, but, there are many countries whose linguistic problems are more complex than Canada's. A large number of former colonies in Africa and Asia possess a multitude of regional languages or dialects but no common unifying language except that of their colonizers. Many finally solved the dilemma of competing regional interests by choosing the colonial language as the "official" language, while some such as Kenya opted, in addition, for a non-regional but non-indigenous lingua franca such as Swahili. (Originally the method of communication among African traders, Swahili is not really a language but a combination of several, similar in many respects to Esperanto.) Others decided, for political reasons, to adopt more than one "official" language or a combination of official and "national" languages. This has also been done in various European states which have a traditional multilingual population.

The sanctioning of an official language may or may not have any practical consequences. But in addition to constitutional guarantees, (or sometimes as an alternative to them) a number of countries have introduced comprehensive legislation protecting linguistic minorities with respect to education or government services. When only these countries with substantial official language provisions are considered, the proportion of multilingual countries in the sample decreases but nevertheless remains significant (at almost 50%). Interestingly one also finds that approximately 65% of these countries are former British colonies, most of which are still part of the Commonwealth and possess parliamentary systems similar to ours. Of the twenty states examined below, only ten (including Canada) are bilingual; the rest must deal with situations in which three or more languages prevail.

A great deal has been written concerning the public service and educational provisions of legislation in some of these countries generally those which have appeared to be the most successful and/or potentially applicable to the Canadian context. However, while most of these states have also made provision for a visible and symbolically important affirmation of the status of their respective official languages in the functioning of their parliamentary forum, surprisingly little has been written on this very important aspect of official language policy.

 

Table 1
Bilingual	Multilingual
Bangladesh* (English, Bengali)	Czechoslovakia (Czech, Slovak, several minority lang.
Belgium (French, Flemish)	Fiji* (Fijian, English, Hindustani)
Canada* (English, French)	India* (Hindi, English, 15 regional dialects0
Finland (Finnish, Swedish)	Nigeria* (English, Hausa, Ibo, Yoruba)
Ireland** (English, Irish)	Romania (several regional languages)
Kenya* (English, Swahili)	Singapore* (Malay, Chinese, Tamil, English)
Israel (Hebrew, Arabic)	Switzerland (French, German, Italian)
Malta* (English, Maltese)	USSR (many regional languages)
Malaysia* (Malay, Maltese)	Yugoslavia (Serbo-Croation, Croato-Serbian, Slovenian, Macedonian)
South Africa** (English, Africaans)
*Member of the Commonwealth ** Former British colony

The areas of legislative procedure which can be evaluated in terms of language policy fall under two general headings parliamentary debate and publications. Debates include the languages Members use in speaking; the provision of simultaneous translation and the provision of transcripts of debates. Publications include committee proceedings and reports, other documents, including internal administration and legislation.

No two countries examined follow exactly the same procedure in the application of their official languages policy to the parliamentary forum. In fact, there are almost as many solutions as there are languages! While in some of these countries minority languages are used extensively, in others their use is restricted to specific areas. Some countries have in fact been chosen deliberately to demonstrate the extremes. While this makes generalizations somewhat difficult there do appear to be certain trends, or perhaps more accurately two or three different approaches to the issue of linguistic expression in the legislative branch of government, which become evident after careful study.

For example, regardless of the formal status of the languages in the countries considered constitutionally entrenched official languages, legislated official languages and/or national languages or merely commonly recognized national and regional languages virtually all of them provide for members to speak in Parliament in whichever of these languages they choose. In ten countries members may speak in either of two official or national languages, (Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Finland, South Africa, Malta, Malaysia, Israel, Kenya, New Zealand and Ireland), in Switzerland, Fiji and Sri Lanka in any of three languages, and in the seven remaining countries members may choose to speak in some four to fifteen different languages or dialects. The consensus seems to be that this is the most important aspect of a state's language policy with respect to parliamentary procedure, no doubt because of the attendant high visibility. However, even here, there is a wide variation in practice. There is often a considerable divergence between what is permitted and the actual usage of approved languages. In reality, examples range all the way from New Zealand, where the right to express oneself in Maori is virtually never exercised, to the cases of Switzerland, Yugoslavia and India, where several languages are regularly used in parliamentary debate.

The situation with regard to simultaneous translation is more complex. Since roughly half of the countries provide this, while the other half do not, there is obviously no consensus on the necessity or desirability of this service. Moreover among those states which do have simultaneous translation for their parliamentary debates, several only do so for certain languages, (e.g., Switzerland German and French but not Italian) or in one direction but not the other (e.g., Israel Arabic to Hebrew only). Among those countries which do not provide this service the most common explanation is that it is not necessary. In Kenya and South Africa, for example, it is argued that all Members understand both official languages. On the other hand in Nigeria, where English is the national language, members may express themselves or table motions in Hausa, lbo or Yoruba (the regional languages) if they are unable to do so in English, but technical and economic considerations have so far prohibited the establishment of interpretation and translation services.

The question of verbatim transcripts of debates (Hansard) is closely related to that of simultaneous translation, although there are exceptions. Generally speaking, those countries which do not provide a simultaneous translation service only publish their Hansard or its equivalent in one language. (For example in Nigeria, Kenya and New Zealand the debates are in English only, while in Malta they are in Maltese only.) However both South Africa and Czechoslovakia, which also have no translation services, publish their debates in both languages while Israel, which does provide simultaneous translation, publishes its debates in Hebrew only.

Furthermore, among those states which provide for Hansard in more than one language there is a clear distinction between two very different approaches. Canada, along with South Africa, Yugoslavia, Malaysia and Singapore, prints reports separately in each of the official languages, translations being given from speeches in the other languages. By contrast in Finland, Sri Lanka, Ireland, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia and Belgium speeches are published in a single report in the language in which they are delivered. (But additionally in Finland and Belgium a short resume is published in both languages.)

Turning next to the official publication categories, one finds that in almost every case both committee proceedings/reports and internal administrative documents follow the lead of the procedure for printing the debates in that country. However in some countries the third category of publications, formal legislation, appears to be entirely another matter. For example in Malta and Kenya, where transcripts, documents, etc. are published in English only, final legislation is nevertheless available in Maltese in the first instance and, as much as is practicable, in Swahili in the second, while in Switzerland legislation is available not only in French and German but also in Italian (the third official language) and Romansch (a recognized national language). Conversely in Finland legislation is almost exclusively in Finnish only; it is available in Swedish only in certain instances where the subject matter warrants.

In Table 2 below, these three categories as well as those related to the debates are outlined in more detail for each of the countries examined.

Of course the well-known practical implications and problems of official languages policy in public sector administration apply equally to parliamentary forums. Simultaneous translation and the translation of official documents are costly affairs which require a substantial permanent staff of highly trained personnel. These are additional steps in a process already perceived by many to be slow and laborious. In developing countries, as was demonstrated earlier in the context of Nigeria's lack of simultaneous translation, the economic costs and lack of trained personnel often make such services prohibitive.

But even in Canada, where the right of Members to use either French or English in the debates of Parliament was constitutionally guaranteed at the time of Confederation, it was not until 1958 that a resolution was adopted providing for simultaneous translation in the House. The first session of the House of Commons to be translated took place January 16, 1959. The first debate in the Senate to be interpreted did not occur until September 14, 1961. The original staff consisted of a total of seven translator-interpreters.

 

Country	Members Speaking in Debates	Simultaneous Translation	Transcript of Debates (Hansard)	Committee Reports	Internal Administrative Documents	Legislation
Belgium	Flemish, French	Yes	Lang of speaker	Flemish, French	Flemish, French	Flemish, French
Canada	English, French	Yes	English, French	English, French	English, French	English, French
Czechoslovakia	Czech, Slovak or National minority lang.	No	Lang of speaker	Czech., Slovak	Czech., Slovak	Czech., Slovak
Fiji	English, Fijian, Hinustani	No (but projected)	English only	English	English	English
Finland	Finnish, Swedish	No	Lang of speaker	Finnish, summary in Swedish	Finnish	Finnish, some Swedish
India	Hindi, English, 15 regional languages	Yes	Hindi, English	Hindi, English	Hindi, English	Hindi, English
Ireland	English, Irish	Irish to English only	English, lang of speaker	English, Irish	English, Irish	English, Irish
Israel	Hebrew, Arabic	Arabic to Hebrew only	Hebrew only	Hebrew	Hebrew	Hebrew
Kenya	English, Swahili	No	English only	English	English	English, some
Malaysia	Malay, English	Yes	Malay, English	Malay, English	Malay, English	Malay, English
Malta	Maltese, English	No	Maltese only	Maltese	Maltese	Maltese
New Zealand	English, Maori	No	English only	English	English	English
Nigeria	English, Hausa, Ibo, Yoruba	No	English only	English	English	English
Singapore	Tamil, English	Yes	All 4 lang.	All 4 lang.	All 4 lang	-
South Africa	English, Afrikaans	No	English, Afrikaan	English, Afrikaan	All 4 lang	-
Sri Lanka	Sinhala, Tamil, English	Yes	Lang of speaker	Sinhala, Tamil, English	English	English
Switzerland	German, French, Italian	German, French	Lang of speaker	German, French, Italian	English	English
Yugoslavia	Any of 4 official langs. or national minority langs.	Yes	Several - 1 for language	All lang.	All lang	All lang

Since then linguistic services provided for Canadian parliamentarians have expanded considerably. Currently thirteen interpreters provide simultaneous translation for debates in the House of Commons and Senate, while forty translator-interpreters also work for the committees of both Houses. In addition the Secretary of State's Transition Bureau has established a special parliamentary translation branch with a staff of 75 translators to handle the transition of all other committee, research and administrative documentation for Parliament. For the fiscal year 1980-81 the interpretation budget was approximately $1.5 million while the translation budget approached $3 million (including freelance contract work).

By contrast in Belgium, which is often considered to be one of the most advances multilingual countries in terms of services, four interpreters were employed in 1980 (as non-permanent staff) to provide simultaneous translation of all sessions and committee meetings. At that time a total of twenty translators were also employed, (as permanent staff) of which 11 worked exclusively with bills, amendments and committee reports while nine handled all summary reports and written questions.

Unfortunately precise budgetary figures for Belgian linguistic services are not available at this time, and similar administrative data for the other countries examined is practically non-existent. This is a fruitful area for further investigation, particularly with respect to those countries (such as Switzerland, India, Singapore, Sri Lanka and South Africa) which appear from this analysis to provide a similar range of linguistic services to parliamentarians. However, it is possible to conclude from the material already assembled that Canada is certainly within the mainstream of parliamentary procedure for countries with official language policies, and may well be in the forefront with regard to the financing and administration of such policies in the parliamentary forum.