Mr. REID:

Is it not a fact that the city

council has given little cooperation in the diversion, or proper handling, of traffic?

Mr. BOUCHER:

My hon. friend asked a fit and proper question, because just yesterday, in behalf of the. residents of my own riding, I sought permission to get a bus coming from the suburban, area west of the city to Confederation square, to serve the shoppers, the workers and the people from the west end. I was told that because of the bottleneck on Confederation square a bus service to serve the west end of the city could not be permitted there; they could not be served. In further answer to my hon. friend I would say that Ottawa never sought to have Confederation square as it is. They have always sought and continue to seek to have that congested area improved, but their hands are tied. The difficulty is there. I believe that they have done their best to try to re-route traffic, to try to manage traffic, to try to arrange traffic to create as little congestion as possible. They have gone so far as to place extra policemen in the area in busy hours to guide the traffic. I do not know what else can be done, except to put in a new thoroughfare to take some of the traffic from that bottleneck. Until that is done the authorities of Ottawa are helpless to mitigate in any way the conglomerated traffic conditions on Confederation square. I do not know what can be done other than a new route which will take traffic elsewhere.

Now that parliament is considering the grant of $3 million, one of the most necessary, must urgent and most useful ways of spending some portion of that money is to relieve conditions in that area. The minister has said that the committee on railways and the committee on planning must each await the returns of the greater federal area general scheme. I agree with that in part, but only in a very small part. The general scheme is one of long development. It has been worked on in one form or another for fifteen or twenty years. The report of no committee has ever been accepted by parliament, not even the report made by the Holt committee. Mr. Greber has now been working on it for approximately a year. Coordinating com-

mittees are working on it. Surely the time has long since past when for the sake not only of the city of Ottawa but of everybody who comes to this city and who must pass that area, something should be done about it. I believe I would be doing my duty, not as a citizen of Ottawa but as a citizen of Canada, to urge upon the government the imminent necessity of relieving the situation which prevails there. I have had experience in Ottawa with respect to the building of houses, factories, warehouses and all that kind of thing. Buildings of that type are being held up in so far as planning is concerned until a master plan is produced. Ottawa does not wish to complain about it. We are very glad to wait, but I say in a kindly way that the quicker we can get a guide to the development of the city and the relief of traffic and the establishment of industrial areas and some insight as to when, where and how the railway situation can be improved, the quicker it will be for the development not only of Ottawa but of the federal area.

The highway situation throughout both sections of Ottawa, east and west, is not a happy one. It is not as bad as Confederation square, but if you go through the westerly section of the city you will come to a junction of two or three railways, and you find traffic areas seriously congested. Development of improvements in directing the railways and the directing of traffic in the congested areas all await the master plan. May I therefore, expressing my own opinion, and probably asking the members of the committee to direct their thoughts to it, move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo:

That the Federal District Commission Act, 1927, and this bill, be amended so as to have the words "district commission" wherever they appear in the said act or bill be substituted for the words "area committee."

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

I should like to ask the minister a question, but before doing that I should like to appear as a dissenter. I think there has been far too much said against Confederation square. I think anybody who goes about his business in an orderly and regular manner can navigate traffic there without any difficulty. Too much talk has been had about the congestion of traffic there. If you go and look at the traffic in other cities you will find that there is no congestion on Confederation square at all. I realize I am merely a dissenter, and on that subject will suffer 'the fate of all dissenters.

May I ask the minister a question.? I do not wish to appear like the proverbial puppy

Federal District Commission

with a rag, but I come back to the war memorial aspect of this bill, for this reason. I find in the explanatory notes that it is still stated that this is for the development of a national war memorial. I want to ask this question, purely as a matter of construction of bills. Before doing that I want to remind the minister that last September in the speech from the throne it was definitely stated that this planning was for a national war memorial. In fact the minister himself reiterated) that last Tuesday, I think it was, and here we have it in the explanatory notes. May I take it from what he said this morning that this bill can be read without carrying this explanatory note. May I take it that what we are now discussing is a matter of government policy, and which is stated to be merely the extension of the activity which the federal district area or commission was set up to engage in and has been actually engaging in these many years.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. There has been far too much importance attached1 to the use of words. Some seem to have forgotten that a rose would smell the same whatever you called it. All that parliament is being asked to adopt are the provisions on the left-hand pages of the document which is before the committee. There are some who may regard this as a tribute to the effort of Canada during the war which has speeded up this development; but all that is being asked for are the provisions which are set out to become part of the statute, and the explanations, can be accepted or rejected without in any way affecting the purport of the legislation parliament is asked to enact.

I know that the Prime Minister personally feels that the development as rapidly as possible of the national capital might be such a fitting memorial that there might not have to be other forms of memorials, but it is quite evident that that is not by any means a unanimous view. What is asked for here is something that would and should be asked for even had there been no war at all, and it will have to be done whether or not there are other forms of memorials provided as tributes to the gallant men who served the state in the armed forces during the war.

With respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member, I would ask him if he would not withdraw it at 'this time. This is a matter in which a great many people are interested. The name "federal district commission" is the name under which the property is now held. To change it would involve rewriting another bill to carry out the idea which prompts this amendment, and I would ask the hon. member if he would not withdraw it at this time. It

has been placed before the house and the country. I can assure the hon. gentleman that it will be given consideration, but I do not know enough about the affairs of this commission to feel at all comfortable about taking the responsibility of accepting or definitely turning down 'this suggestion.

This is a long range matter. The name "federal district commission" has been used since 1927, I think. The fact that in the United States there is under the control of the government of that nation a district known asa federal district may have indisposed some toward the aims of this commission. As a matter of fact there is nothing and there never has been, in the statute or in the attitude of the commission, constituting any threat to the local autonomy of the two bodies governing on the two sides of the river here.

I think the hon. member will agree with that. There is nothing and never has been anything in the statute or in the attitude of the members of the commission that implied the slightest threat to the autonomy of the municipal corporations, and I do not think there has been at any time anything done by the commission or any member of it that would make the municipal authorities feel their prerogatives were being trespassed upon; and I am sure that is the present mentality of the commission. It may be that it would be desirable to avoid any suggestion of a possible menace resulting from the similarity of this name with that of the United States commission, but I would be much obliged to my hon. friend if he would just allow the matter to stand as something to be considered at another time, and not insist that a decision be made concerning it at this moment.

Mr. BOUCHER:

I shall be very pleased to withdraw my motion at the suggestion of the minister, because I believe what he has said is quite correct. But I think this has illustrated the difficulties we have had and those which have been experienced by the federal district commission, and no doubt he has been impressed by the necessity of some change in that regard. I think it would be very improper to press my motion at this time, but I do urge the minister to take into consideration some means to alleviate the fears which do prevail in regard to the creation of a district governed by a commission, instead of an area coordinated by it.

Mr. SHAW:

My colleagues and I have had very little to say during this debate, but just in case our silence may be misunderstood I should like to make it quite clear that we approve the bill at present before the com-

Federal District Commission

mittee. We feel, however, that on this particular occasion it should not require hours of debate to indicate approval, or hours of debate to indicate disapproval. My personal view is that Canada, as a great nation, should have the finest capital possible. Let me repeat what I said at the outset, that we approve this bill.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Mr. Chairman, I am gratified at the tendency of hon. members not to try to isolate this area from other parts of Canada, or to regard it as something separate from the general interest; because after all Ottawa is the capital of our great land. I think it only natural that we should take pride in having a capital which will be a credit to the country generally, and I believe that is the feeling of the committee, regardless of the details which may sometimes divide us in connection with its beautification.

I suppose the idea of associating this beautification scheme with a national war memorial arose from a movement which has made considerable headway in Canada in the period following World War II, as a result of which in various municipalities and counties throughout Canada something perhaps more material in the way of war memorials is being proposed. In many places community centres seem to have gained great favour. I express no opinion concerning the matter, other than to suggest that we should not go too far in either direction. I believe there is a course which will appeal to most Canadians; and if I may express a personal thought in connection with a national war memorial, I should hope that what is set out in the explanatory note of this bill will not prevent further consideration of the whole matter of a national war memorial on some other basis if in the days to come that should be considered the proper thing to do. Our boys have just come back. I do not suppose they have had much opportunity to give consideration to what they believe is the right kind of memorial to their pals and comrades who lost their lives in this war. So I would hope the acceptance of this bill would not preclude the creation in Canada of a national war memorial which would conform to the opinion of those whose views I think are much more important than those of any of us in this chamber, except those sitting here who served in the armed forces; that is, the views of the people who fought the battle that we might have a war memorial in this country.

Before I sit down I want to say this one thing further. There are more than material considerations in the matter of a war memorial. There is the sentimental consideration. Every visitor to these buildings,

{Mr. Shaw.]

whether he be a civilian or an ex-serviceman, goes away more impressed by the dignified reverence of our memorial chamber than with any other single thing in Ottawa. I think that must be kept in mind in considering a national war memorial; and I only suggest [DOT]that we be assured by the government that adoption of this legislation will not preclude a free, open and proper discussion and final decision at some future day in regard to a national war memorial for this last war. Of all the many things I saw a few months ago, when I had the privilege of going overseas, I think especially of the great Scottish national war memorial at Edinburgh.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

The finest in the world.

Mr. GRAYDON:

I agree entirely with my hon. friend, who has perhaps had a much greater opportunity of assessing it than I had; but it was the finest I had ever seen.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

And ours is the second finest in the world.

Mr. GRAYDON:

That may be so, though in connection with war memorials it is hardly a question of competition. Actually our own war memorial, for its size and type, does not have to take second place. But I will say this-

Mr. MACKENZIE:

I was speaking about the war memorial chamber, not about the monument. I am not in favour of the monument.

Mr. GRAYDON:

We understand each other on that. But I think for reverence and for dignity, that great shrine at the top of Castle Rock in Edinburgh, overlooking from its prominence that great city of culture, that great centre of so many good things the world has to offer, stands supreme.

While overseas I wrote the weekly newspaper in my area certain paragraphs, one of which I should like to place on record, because it states clearly what my thoughts were as I left that great war memorial. This is what I wrote:

The people of cultured, quiet Edinburgh point with deep pride and reverence to the Scottish national war memorial, built after the last war on the prominent Castle Rock which overlooks from its dizzy prominence the whole city. There in an indescribably beautiful and appropriate setting are to be found the names of the men and women of Scotland who laid down their lives in world war No. 1. Above a bronze plaque on one of its many walls of stone are these words: In honour of all Scotsw-omen

who amid the stress of war sought by^ their labour, sympathy and prayers to obtain for their country the blessings of peace.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I should like to move an amendment to this section. I am not sure who will second it.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

The leader of the opposition.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

I am going to leave that up to the house. I hope there will be very little difficulty in getting a seconder. I move, in amendment:

That section 3 (1) be amended to read as follows: "Of the members appointed by the

governor in council, one shall be ordinarily a resident in each of the nine provinces."

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I have no objection to the object behind the amendment, but I am not sure that it will accomplish what we wish to have done.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Well, put it into good phraseology.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member would allow his amendment to be substituted by the following, perhaps its would be satisfactory. The suggested amendment is as follows:

That section 3 in clause 2 of bill 357 be amended-

(1) By the deletion of the word "fifteen" in paragraph (d) and the substitution of the word "nineteen" therefor;

(2) By the deletion of the word "thirteen" in paragraph (2) and the substitution of the word "seventeen" therefor;

(3) By the deletion of all the words in paragraph (5) after the word "in" in line two and the substitution of the words "each of the nine provinces of Canada" therefor.

This would do what the hon. member wishes to have done, and would bring the other subsections into line with the specific amendment.

Mr. CRUICKSHANK:

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, and through the kindness of the Acting Prime Minister, I should like to move that one instead. My people in the Fraser Valley will be delighted at my legal knowledge.

Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):

I should like to ask one or two questions. First of all, is the hon. member for Fraser Valley sure that the amendment suggested by the Minister of Justice is to the same effect as the one he moved? I would ask the minister also whether there is anything in the section which would preclude the appointment of members of parliament to the commission. It seems to me the hon. member for Fraser Valley would agree that it would be more suitable to have members of parliament, who, after all, are presumably as intelligent and patriotic as any other persons, and who are here in Ottawa part of the year and could serve.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: That very question occurred to me this morning. I asked the Deputy Minister of Justice if there would be anything in the Independence of Parliament Act which would prevent it. Thus far he did not seem to think there would be any obstacle, and it may be convenient to have that done. It has not been done in the past, and I do not think it would be the desire of parliament that the commission be made up entirely of parliamentarians. The question whether or not there would be any obstacle in the Independence of Parliament Act is one I have asked the deputy minister to consider. If there did happen to be something there, it might be proper at another session to bring in an amendment to that act to say that nothing in it would prevent a member of parliament from serving without remuneration on this district commission.

Mr. HAZEN:

Does the minister think the words "of the nine" are necessary? Are they not superfluous? Would it not be sufficient to say "in each province of Canada"? We may have ten provinces before long.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: We shall have to do some amending to get another province and at that time we could also make an amendment along that line.