Mr. BOUCHER:

I would probably repeat what it is called to-day, hell's half acre.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

However, traffic can still move through, and that would have been impossible if it had been left in its former state.

Mr. BRACKEN:

I was not asking the minister to justify or excuse the plan; I asked him who was responsible for the plan, and he has not answered.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

The government was. At that time Mr. Greber was called in, when there was some question of where the war memorial in memory of those who lost their lives in the last war should be placed. That memorial was designed by Canadian artists.

Mr. BOUCHER:

March brothers.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

I am speaking from memory, and I may be wrong, but I believe the plans for the square were prepared by Mr. Greber. I know he was called in in connection with the location of the new post office. However, the government of the day was responsible for that work. Perhaps mistakes were made, and more property should have been expropriated, perhaps the boulevard should have been extended down Metcalfe street instead of Elgin, but that is a matter of opinion.

Mr. BRACKEN:

The minister says that the government was responsible for the plan, so the federal district commission is absolved.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

I think everybody had a share in the preparing of that plan.

Mr. BOUCHER:

I think the minister will agree that the federal district commission had no responsibility for that plan.

Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):

I did not say they were responsible.

Mr. BRACKEN:

I am glad to have that answer from the minister, because we can have more confidence in the federal district commission when we know that they were not responsible for that monstrosity. The minister referred to the membership of this commis-

Federal District Commission

sion, and indicated that he was agreeable to an amendment which would provide for every province being represented. I had planned to offer such an amendment when the appropriate section was before us. I do not see why the membership would have to be increased from fifteen to nineteen, however, in the development of the national capital there should not be any province left out of representation on the commission, and when I say that I am not advocating that the membership be increased. I think the nine provinces could be represented in the suggested membership of fifteen.

Mr. BURTON:

I wish to thank the minister for the clear statement he made this morning, and my only regret is that he did not see fit to' say something of that kind when the resolution was before the house. There are a few things I should like to inquire about. The leader of the opposition referred to the fact that this was considered as a national war memorial, and I understood the minister to say in answering the hon. gentleman that that was not necessarily part of this scheme. The explanatory note reads in part:

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, so as to enable the commission to discharge more readily the duties that will devolve upon it in connection with the development of the national capital area as a national war memorial.

If it is not the intention of the government to do that, why should1 that explanatory note be placed in the bill? I would1 suggest to the minister that that be deleted. I am quite in accord with the idea that there should be a national war memorial in the national capital, but let us go ahead with it on that basis and proceed with this other work on its own merits. As I mentioned on the second reading, those whose memories we wish to commemorate by a war memorial did not all come from Ottawa. I contend that the various provinces should be given assistance in the building of suitable monuments or memorials.

From time to time the leader or the acting leader of this group speaks on behalf of this party, but I wish to .make it clear that I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the people of Humboldt constituency. When I speak on matters of this kind I endeavour to be governed by what I believe are the considered wishes of the people of my constituency. In our party it is recognized that a mentber has that right. The people in the constituency which I have the honour to represent know that I am a firm believer in democratic government. They know that I

[Mr. Bracken.!

am prepared to obey the will of the majority when it is expressed in an orderly manner.

Last night this house approved the principle of this bill, and apparently that approval was given by a majority of the members. Being a true democrat I accept that decision and I shall be prepared to represent the people I am supposed to represent by continuing my efforts to work within that orbit and endeavour to make this bill a better bill. Therefore I shall be prepared to support any amendments, whether they come from this or any other section of the house, which in my opinion will remove the objectionable features of the bill.

While I am speaking of amendments, I may say for the benefit of the member for Fraser Valley that in discussing the principle of the bill yesterday I took occasion to note what some of the objections were, but I fully realized that it was not the time to move any amendments. I might further inform him that my experience in the past has been that if you really want something worth while done for the improvement of a -bill, you should use your persuasive powers to the best of your ability to have the minister, or one of his colleagues appreciate the necessity for such amendments as you may suggest and move them accordingly. I can see that someone, whether myself or the member for Fraser Valley, had some influence on the minister, because he is prepared to go at least part of the way with us. For that I wish to thank the minister, and I may say that if either he or the member for Fraser Valley does not move some of the amendments I have in mind, I am prepared to bring them forward myself. I have some ready.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

My good friend the member for Humboldt rather flattered me- well, no; he did not flatter me; he described me correctly-when he said that I used my persuasive powers on the minister. But the member for Humboldt yesterday did everything he could think of to oppose the bill in principle and otherwise.

He knocked it down and threw it out.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

He may have tried to throw it out, but he did not succeed. There were too many of us from British Columbia for that. After I spoke last night, and I can be checked by reference to Hansard, the leader of the opposition stepped in, and he can read for himself what is reported in the record. I am proud that I brought that hon. gentleman into my little party in this connection, because I believe he will second

Federal District Commission

the amendment I announced last night that I would move. But going still further, the member for Fraser Valley used those same persuasive powers which the member for Humboldt speaks of to win to his side- that is, to win to the side of the member for Fraser Valley-not only the leader of the official opposition but the Acting Prime Minister, who has stated this morning that he will accept the amendment suggested by the member for Fraser Valley.

I am doing rather good work for the city of Ottawa, and if I stayed here long enough I might be able to fix that death trap at Confederation square that has been spoken of. I do not know who is to blame for it.

Mr. BOUCHER:

We should be glad to have you.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I am sure I could be elected in Carleton if I ran there.

Mr. BOUCHER:

At least I admire the hon. member's courage.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I had an amendment which I intended to move in connection with section 2, because I want the people of Manitoba and of all Canada to know that the leader of the opposition was right at least in this instance, because he is prepared, I understand, to second my motion, which will be to the effect that of the members appointed by the governor in council one shall ordinarily be a resident of each of the nine provinces.

In conclusion, may I suggest to the member for Humboldt that the most constructive speech made in this debate was delivered by the member for New Westminster, who said it would be an excellent thing if each province had the privilege of taking part in the beautification of one particular section of the capital. The only thing the member for New Westminster forgot to mention was that ninety per cent of the shrubs, flowers, and ornaments would come from Fraser valley. British Columbia. *

Mr. BOUCHER:

I am pleased to see the

committee in such a happy mood when discussing the beautification of the federal area. One point I mentioned last night I would impress upon the minister who is piloting the bill. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is necessary for me to urge it upon him because in the course of his remarks this morning he mentioned the same thing several times. What I mean is that the word "area" is far more appropriate than the word "district". While it is true that this body was first incorporated as the Ottawa improvement commission, it had a title that more fittingly represented its activity then than that of dis-63260-290J

trict commission. For a number of years in this house and in the country at large a great deal of confusion, as well as some antagonism to the aims and objects of the government in the improvement of the federal capital area, has arisen because of the use of the terms "federal district" and "federal district commission."

I do not think the people of Canada are in favour of creating a federal district to be run by a commission with the probable loss of local autonomy. I do not think the people of Canada want to have established a federal area similar to that in Washington, run by commission government. I do not think it makes for harmony or the welfare of the community or of the project itself, when we bear in mind that we are taking in portions of two provinces with different municipalities, two provinces with different, types of law, different laws governing real property, different educational desires, different municipal management and all the rest of it. Under these circumstances I do not think there should be any doubt about our intentions. There should be no loss to the community or to the province of local autonomy.

The commission that has been appointed has acted well as an advisory coordinating committee rather than as a legislative and enacting body. I feel therefore that the word "area" should be substituted for that of "district", and the word "committee" for that of "commission". The minister who is piloting the bill might consider adopting this suggestion, which would assist greatly in furthering the objects we have in view. I think we should change the name from "federal district commission" to "federal area committee". If such a change were made the people of Canada generally and in the area locally would look much more favourably upon this undertaking, and from a more realistic point of view. I am pleased to notice that the minister himself, whether intentionally or accidentally, used the words "federal area" three times in his speech this morning. Other speakers yesterday and to-day have done the same. It would be a great improvement and would make for better advertising and understanding if the change were made.

As a means of bringing the suggestion before the house for discussion-I will not insist on the exact wording-I propose at the appropriate time to introduce an amendment to that effect.

Some discussion has arisen to-day in regard to Confederation square. I do not think any of us wish to attribute blame to anyone in particular for the location of Confederation

Federal District Commission

square, but we all realize that, beautiful in itself, it is a very great handicap to the community in that it accentuates traffic congestion and adds to the difficulty in going and coming from Rideau street to Sparks street, from Elgin street and so on. Every day in the city of Ottawa trouble is caused by this bottleneck, and the difficulty is increased by the present location of Confederation square.