1958-08-11

Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South) moved:: That Bill No. SD-199, entitled an act for the relief of William Harrison Terry, the preamble of which has been reported as not proven, be placed on the order paper for consideration at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Winch:: Explain.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Mr. Speaker, since this bill was considered by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills further consideration has been given to it by certain members of the committee who feel now that they would like to hear further evidence, particularly of the co-respondent, in order to satisfy themselves that there will not be a gross miscarriage of justice.
In addition, some of them wish to discuss the bill, and they have indicated to the chairman and others on the committee that they wish to discuss it and the evidence thereon on its merits and, for this reason, pursuant to a precedent in the Journals of 1931, at page 552, I have made the motion to have it put back on the order paper.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, we ask that you give a decision as to whether we can consider something the preamble of which is not proven.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. Since I was advised that this motion was to be made I have considered it, and there is precedent for a motion to restore a bill to the order paper which, if accepted, would restore the bill and bring it up for consideration with other private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Marlin (Essex East):: With respect to the answer the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just given regarding oil, I would ask him if he would speak to the Secretary of State about a question
57071-3-210
involving somewhat the same form of interrogation which has stood in my name on the order paper since May 16 and has not been answered.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that I have left unanswered any question addressed to me on May 16. I shall look into the matter.



FINANCE


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve certain expenditures authorized in respect of the fiscal year ended on March 31, 1958, including those provided for by the special warrants issued by the Governor General pursuant to orders of the governor in council of August 16, 1957 (P.C. 1957-1111), August 19, 1957 (P.C. 1957-1134) and February 7, 1958 (P.C. 1958-222), but not including the expenditures authorized by appropriation acts for that fiscal year; and to authorize the application of certain amounts in the accounts of the said fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Benidickson):
For a copy of all correspondence since September 1, 1957, between the federal government and the province of Ontario respecting cost sharing of a roads to resources program.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, will you have this motion stand? The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has asked that it stand each time he has been here, but he is not here today.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I am quite willing to have it stand until the hon. member is here.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY ONTARIO  INQUIRY AS TO DESIGNATION OF NO. 11 HIGHWAY FROM NORTH BAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the Department
3330	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry of Public Works completed an agreement with the province of Ontario to share the cost on more than one route designated as the trans-Canada highway? If so, is No. 11 highway from North Bay to Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst and Geraldton included in the agreement?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: No, there is only one road covered by the agreement, and in that part of Ontario it goes roughly along the north shore of lake Superior.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister not aware that a year or so ago the provincial minister of highways promised the people in that area that two trans-Canada highway routes would be designated in that district, one along lake Superior and the other through Chapleau and on to the lake?


Howard Charles Green: No, I was not aware of that fact. This may have been some of the complicated work done by the former federal government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not. It was done by the provincial government and announced by the provincial minister.



REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING REMOVAL OF U.S. RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I would urge the hon. member not to be too worried about disturbing my equanimity on a Monday morning. With respect to this conference, I can say that we have no knowledge of the holding of the conference, and therefore we have not received in the department any invitation for any representative of the department to attend. Now, there is nothing in this reply, Mr. Speaker, that could be taken to suggest or imply that there are no "thinkers" in the Department of External Affairs.']
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report of a letter written by Congressman Coffin to President Eisenhower urging him to remove United States restrictions against the importation of Canadian oil? Has Canada made further representations subsequent to the publishing of this letter, and can the minister say whether progress is now being made toward the lifting of these restrictions?


Sidney Earle Smith: I desire to express my thanks to the hon. member for sending me a copy of this question. In reply I can say that my attention has been drawn to the text of that letter, and I have read it with great gratification. I am glad to be able to say also that it is very closely in accord with the views of the Canadian government. With respect to representations, the latest occasion on which the government put its views in this matter before the government of the United States was in a note dated June 23, 1958. The matter was also raised during President Eisenhower's visit to Ottawa in
[Mr. Habel.l

early July. It is our hope that the representations we have made on a number of occasions and the support which our views have now been given by Congressman Coffin will lead to the removal as soon as possible of United States import restrictions against Canadian oil.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, has the Secretary of State for External Affairs anything to say about the announcement by the United States government that it has requested citizens of United States nationality to leave Jordan? What preparations or arrangements are being made by the government of Canada for Canadian nationals in Jordan?


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, Canada has no official representation in Jordan. Precautions taken concerning the protection of Canadian citizens in Jordan and their possible evacuation in times of emergency are:
1.	They were requested some time ago to register with the British mission in Amman.
2.	Warnings to leave given by the British mission would include the nine registered Canadians and other British subjects in Jordan.
3.	Advantage could be taken by Canadians of both British and United States facilities for evacuation.
The decision for evacuating Canadians and other British subjects from Jordan rests, as far as we are concerned, with the United Kingdom ambassador in Amman, and does not depend upon warnings issued by the United States authorities to its nationals to leave the country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not realize that the hon. member for Essex East will soon be in that area, and that every effort should be made to protect him?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Rather, every effort should be made to protect that area.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: regret having once again to disturb the equanimity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a Monday morning by

asking him a question. According to a Canadian Press dispatch dated August 10, Premier Robert Stanfield of Nova Scotia welcomed 14 British and United States "thinkers" at the opening of a conference, called by Cyrus Eaton, at Pugwash, Nova Scotia.
Can the minister inform the house if any "thinkers" from his department received an invitation to attend, or are any of his departmental "thinkers" attending as observers at this conference?


Sidney Earle Smith: I would urge the hon. member not to be too worried about disturbing my equanimity on a Monday morning. With respect to this conference, I can say that we have no knowledge of the holding of the conference, and therefore we have not received in the department any invitation for any representative of the department to attend. Now, there is nothing in this reply, Mr. Speaker, that could be taken to suggest or imply that there are no "thinkers" in the Department of External Affairs.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last the hon. member for Mackenzie River asked if the R.C.A.F. had made any report with regard to the starvation of Eskimos at Garry lake.
I am now informed that following a request received from the R.C.M.P. on May 30, an R.C.A.F. Dakota based at Winnipeg airlifted a doctor from Fort Churchill to Baker Lake southeast of Garry lake. Subsequently this aircraft transported some 50 surviving natives from Garry lake to Baker Lake. The operation was completed on June 2. The R.C.A.F. also brought out some of the bodies from Garry lake to Baker Lake so the doctor could perform autopsies in an effort to ascertain the cause of death of the 16 Eskimos.


Mr. M. A. Hardie (Mackenzie River):: As
a supplementary question, may I ask if the minister has a report, not of the events taking place from May 30 up to sometime in June, but with regard to a trip the R.C.A.F. made on March 22 to Garry lake?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, I have no report on that.
57071-3-210}
House of Commons INQUIRY FOR RETURN



BEAM STATION ROAD, TERRACE AIRPORT, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minisier of Transporl):: On Saturday the hon. member for Skeena asked me if I could give some information regarding a motion for the production of papers which was passed on July 7 concerning the beam station road. Since correspondence with the provincial government of British Columbia was involved, among other things, we wrote to that government after the motion was passed asking their concurrence in the tabling of this portion of the correspondence. No reply having been received, we have now sent a further follow-up letter asking for a reply. This, however, is the reason for the delay in the production of papers.



MOTION TO APPROVE INSTALLATION OF SIMULTANEOUS TRANSLATION SYSTEM

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister) moved:: That this house do approve the installation ot a simultaneous translation system in this chamber and that Mr. Speaker be authorized to make arrangements necessary to instal and operate it.
He said: For quite a number of years, Mr. Speaker, from time to time there have been representations made on behalf of the establishment in this chamber of a simultaneous translation system. This goes back some years, and I recall that in 1952 or 1953 there were rumours, which apparently had a sound basis, that consideration was being given to action in this regard. However, nothing was done during the intervening years, though on more than one occasion various members advocated the necessity of the establishment of such a system, to the end that members in the house would be able to follow and understand everything that was being said by the member who, at the moment was speaking. As you will recall, on November 25, 1957, the then hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of setting up a special committee of parliament for the purpose of considering the establishment of a system of simultaneous translation-
Various hon. members spoke on that occasion. The essence of the motion was that a committee of parliament give consideration to the establishment of the system in question.
As all hon. members know, simultaneous translation has been in effect in the United

House of Commons
Nations since that body was established, according to the information I have, as well as in this chamber in the autumn of 1957 when the international postal congress met here. With regard to the latter experience I am going to say nothing. That matter was dealt with at length during the course of the debate to which I have referred and which took place in this house respecting the setting up of the committee. It was dealt with at length by the then postmaster general, who pointed out the benefits of the plan and also some of the inherent difficulties that were experienced by that conference.
As far back as May 22, 1956, the junior chamber of commerce in a brief delivered to the then speaker of the House of Commons, advocated such a system as well. I have before me an extract from the department of public information of the United Nations in which there is a general summary of the technique applied in that chamber. It says:
The official languages of the general assembly- and of the United Nations-are Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish; the working languages are English, French and Spanish.
A system of simultaneous interpretation is used in the general assembly auditorium, council chambers and most of the committee rooms. Listeners are provided with earphones which they may tune in to any one of the five official languages.
However, it says this also:
An interpreter does not translate literally; he renders into another language the ideas and arguments of the speaker, in the speaker's order.
At meetings where the traditional consecutive method of interpretation is used, the speaker's remarks are translated after he has completed his speech.
Even there, as was pointed out during the debate last fall, it has been found difficult to secure the necessary technological skill in translating ability which will permit of simultaneous translation taking place. Because of that fact and in order to assure that if this motion is passed those who will be appointed to discharge the duties and responsibilities in connection with translation may be qualified and trained accordingly, action to this end has been taken. Such action, however, is on a provisional basis pending the outcome of the motion before the house.
Mr. Speaker, as one who through the years has tried to develop some facility in speaking the French language, though without what might be called mediocre success, I have come to a point where I can, speaking generally, follow debates in French provided there are not too many interruptions and dependent also upon the velocity with which the speaker delivers his speech. I can fully understand the position of French speaking members who, I think I can say with entire truthfulness, have on many occasions expressed their

feelings on this subject in the course of speeches in this house. They have explained their difficulties in fully expressing themselves in the English language, which course has been made necessary by the large percentage of English speaking members.
There is general agreement that this assembly, now considering this motion, is under our constitution entirely bilingual in character.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: There is, therefore, no
reason why the presenting of this motion should have been so long delayed; and the adoption of this motion will be belated recognition of the equality of the two basic languages of this country as related to discussions in this chamber. The motion cannot but benefit all members, in that its adoption will assure that no matter what their language might be, all members may from now on speak with assurance in either English or French, knowing that regardless of the knowledge of the language in question on the part of other members, their views can be completely presented and understood in this house.
I also believe this motion will provide belated recognition of the fact that under our constitution this basic right has been secured and will be maintained as part of our constitutional freedom, and will be regarded as unchangeable and unchanging. This view, I believe, is of the essence in the maintenance of unity within our country. After all, our very confederation came about as a consequence of the partnership between those of French and English origin. Because of that fact everything we can do to ensure the preservation of those basic constitutional rights and the equality of those rights of language should be attained and implemented.
Having said that, I am not going into a general discussion of the benefits that will accrue. I have referred to them in a general way. I believe there has been a very widespread wish and desire on the part of hon. members in this chamber and on the part of members of preceding parliaments for the establishment of this system. For that reason it was considered by the government, following representations that were made from the very first days when we took over the administration of this country, that at this, the very earliest opportunity, action should be taken in this regard.
Therefore on behalf of the government, and I hope with the support of hon. members in all parts of the house, I am placing this measure before the house to the end that by its achievement we will be actually symbolizing

the constitutional provisions of the British North America Act and giving to them within this chamber the authority of this house so that hon. members in general will be able to make an even more complete contribution to the debates of the house than has been previously possible. Instead of reiterating those things and once more covering the ground and arguments that were advanced for the setting up of the committee, I simply rest the case with what I have stated.
(Translation):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I take great
pleasure in supporting this motion.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of simultaneous translation perhaps I had better say that I have just announced my support of this resolution. May I add that this resolution, if it is adopted, will represent a change in the procedures under which we conduct our debates in this house and an alteration of the facilities of the house for such purpose, and I suggest this is the proper way to proceed in a change of this kind.
The Prime Minister has pointed out that hon. members over the years have spoken of their wish for the adoption of a simultaneous translation system, although no formal consideration was given to the matter in this house. As far as I am able to determine, the first time it was placed on the order paper was in the session of 1956, when a resolution dealing with simultaneous translation was put forward by the then hon. member for Roberval, Mr. Georges Villeneuve; but at that time it was not debated. However, as the Prime Minister has indicated, a similar resolution was put on the order paper by the then Liberal member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, Mr. Maurice Breton in 1957. That resolution which was debated and carried by the house, called for a special committee to study simultaneous translation in this chamber and also in all parliamentary committees of the house. That study has been made, and this resolution represents the proposed action of the government in respect of it in so far as simultaneous translation in the House of Commons is concerned.
I do not intend to delay action on this matter for any great length of time, because in the discussion which took place on this question on November 25, 1957, in this house beginning at page 1456 of Hansard for that date, I expressed my views on this matter the report of which commences at page 1475. I do not think there is any need for me to repeat those views at this time, because I made my own position perfectly clear then.
House of Commons
I hope this resolution will commend itself to all hon. members of the house. It is not only of a practical importance but also of importance in the sense that it recognizes the absolute equality in this house of the two official languages of parliament. That we can all welcome. But it is also a recognition of the disability under which some hon. members of the house labour-and I confess I am one of them, Mr. Speaker-the disability of not being completely fluent in both languages. Perhaps like the Prime Minister, and given a few minutes' notice, I can express myself in if not classic perhaps understandable French and, like him, I have reached the position where I can understand in a general way most of the speeches in the French language in this house. Nevertheless the fact that we have a resolution of this kind on the order paper is unfortunately a recognition that we are not all equally fluent in both languages.
I hope the time will come and that it will not be too long in coming-because I think we are making progress in that direction-when simultaneous translation will not be needed and the facilities for that purpose can be taken out of the house as not needed and moved over to the museum or the public archives. At the present time, however, it will be helpful to have them in the house in that it will enable all hon. members who suffer the disability I have mentioned to follow the debates of this house in the language other than that in which they are fluent. Perhaps it will even add to the progress in bilingualism which is being made in this house.
I have not been here as long as some hon. members, but anyone who has been here for a number of years must have been struck by the fact that very great progress has been made in that regard. The installation of these facilities may also help in that connection, because when a speech is being made in English it will help us to get the French translation if we do not agree with what is being said in English. I am sure we can benefit ourselves through listening to what is being said through the translation.
As the Prime Minister said, a simultaneous translation system has been in operation at the United Nations almost since its inception. It is essential to that organization, and the translation is made in five languages. One thing we have learned at the United Nations, and this was mentioned in the debate last November, is that simultaneous translation is no easy thing to do. Simultaneous translators have to be men of great skill. They have to be trained and indeed to have great knowledge of the two languages. The value of this change if it is made, as we all hope

House of Commons
it will be, would in part at least be nullified if steps are not taken-and I assume they are being taken-to get the right kind of simultaneous translators with the right kind of training.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the United Nations-and this practice began in the United Nations itself-some of the simultaneous translators have been so well trained and are so successful in this art that they can make a person sound infinitely better in another language than his remarks sounded in the language in which it was made. Perhaps that will be our happy experience in this house. If that is the case, perhaps those of us who make speeches would wish to circulate the French translation.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to express my own support and the support of our party for this measure of practical value, of political symbolic importance, a measure which was introduced, I am proud to say, last November 25 by a Liberal member of this house and which is now being embodied in the motion put forward by the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in the C.C.F. are very pleased to support the motion that is now before the house. Over the years we have recognized bilingual rights in this country as set forth in our constitution. We feel that in a further aspect this is merely fulfilling those parts of our constitution. Simultaneous translation, as has been said, has been operating for a number of years at the United Nations. It has been operating effectively and well. While it is a five-language translation in the United Nations, it will be a two-language translation in the Canadian House of Commons.
I believe it is recognized by every member in this house that Canada's stature in the world has been growing year by year. I think one of the reasons, among many others, is the fact that English speaking Canadians and French speaking Canadians have been and are building a strong nation from the unity that has been created by those two great races. The motion that will be passed today, I am sure with unanimous support in this house, will be a further indication to all peoples in the world that Canada is a tolerant nation. While there may be differences, there is respect and good will.
In this motion members of parliament have recognized important aspects of our constitution, as I have said, and political parties as such are taking further steps to recognize the bilingual nature of our nation.
The C.C.F. party recently had a national convention in the city of Montreal. At that convention we had the use of simultaneous translation, and I believe we were the first

political party in Canada to use simultaneous translation as it will be installed in this house, namely earphones and a translator in a booth, the same type of simultaneous translation that is used in the United Nations. This is a further indication that the C.C.F. party recognizes the bilingual nature of our nation.
I might say that the city of Montreal gave our convention a very warm welcome. Some of us were honoured to be entertained by the mayor of Montreal, Senator Sarto Fournier. Members of the convention were invited to a reception arranged and sponsored by Mr. Gerard Picard, president of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and Mr. Roger Prevost, president of the Quebec federation of labour. All our experience in the city of Montreal indicated to us the essentially bilingual nature of our nation and the importance of making a further step as we are doing today.
I do not expect, Mr. Speaker, that this will be the last step in this direction that will be taken by the Canadian House of Commons. As a matter of fact I for one thought we would be making another step, probably during this session. I thought that would be done because of the debate that took place during the last session and the vote that was taken subsequent to the debate on the proposition that cheques issued by the federal government should be bilingual. Hon. members will recall that that vote was almost unanimous, being 167 in favour and only 9 opposed. I suggest to the Prime Minister with great respect that early consideration should be given to progress in this further direction.
Over the years the C.C.F. has recognized the need for further symbols and emblems of the nature of our Canadian society.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What was the date of that vote?


Hazen Robert Argue: The date was January 31 of this year. It was a vote on a bill which was presented by Dr. Poulin, an independent member of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Who opposed it?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will not get into the political aspects of who was opposed to the motion, but I think the vote indicates that generally the propositon had full support in this house, because I would suggest that since only nine members opposed it, and it was not opposed by any political party, such a proposition should receive full support at this time.
I was saying that the C.C.F. believe that as the years go by there will be further steps taken to demonstrate growing Canadian unity and I would hope, along the lines of a motion I presented in this house during

last session, that steps will be taken soon to see whether we cannot reach general agreement on a design for a distinctive Canadian flag, which a growing number of Canadians are coming to believe should be adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to support and agree with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition where he said that more and more members of this house are learning the French language, and some of us who have made some start in that direction should continue our efforts. All members who do not now speak French should give consideration to learning the French language.
We have had the good fortune of having Professor Edouard Peloquin come to the House of Commons from the city of Montreal. He is able to stay in Ottawa two days during every week for the purpose of providing lessons for members of parliament. I express the hope that the government and Your Honour may consider whether it might be possible to have a bilingual teacher on the staff of the House of Commons available to members so that instruction might be taken by members any day during the week. It is not possible for all of us to attend when these lessons are given because of the great calls made on our time by other things we have to do. I think the government should consider having available a fully qualified bilingual person to give instruction in the French language and also the English language, if there should be need for that to be done, because I believe such a service would be most valuable and would receive full support from members of the house.
We are proud to unite at this time with the Conservative and Liberal parties in supporting a motion which we believe in its very essence is Canadian, and which will receive the overwhelming support of Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, as the simultaneous translation system is not yet installed perhaps I might try to say a few words about it in my poor English. The matter has been studied for quite a few years, and I want to thank the government for making the system a reality. It will be of great advantage to many French speaking members of the house who will be able to play their full part in discussion of the business before the house.
There is one thing that may be bad, because up to now the French speaking members in particular have had to make an effort to try to learn a little English to be able to deal with matters brought before the house. Even if what the hon. member who has just spoken
House of Commons
has suggested is done it will require effort on the part of those who want to learn a second language to be able to do the work needed for that task, but I hope more people will try to learn a second language.
I know that such systems have been installed at the United Nations and at NATO. Such a system is in effect in Belgium where more than one language is spoken and in Israel, where four or five languages are spoken. All these countries have statesmen and representatives who speak more than one language. When I attended a NATO meeting a couple of years ago I noticed that the representatives of England, France, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, Italy, all the countries represented there, were at least bilingual. They could speak their own language and French, or they could speak their own language and English. I remember that the English representatives could listen to French and answer in English, and did not have to make use of the earphones.
I hope this will become the case in Canada. I hope we will take advantage of the opportunity to learn a second language or speak it better than we do now, so that in future years, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the translation system may perhaps not be used very much. I know one thing; with such a system you have to have translators who are very good. I remember that I was speaking French one day in the house and the hon. member for Vancouver East asked me to go a little slower so he could try to follow me. I know when I speak in French I forget myself and speak very rapidly. I hope the translators will be able to follow those who speak French rapidly, so that English speaking members will have a good idea what we are saying when we are speaking on a particular subject. Therefore I am very happy to support the motion, and I hope the system will be in operation in the very near future.
There is another point I should like to mention, and that is the possibility of extending the system to the galleries of the house. I know that many French speaking Canadians come here and complain of the fact that the proceedings are almost wholly in English, and they do not understand English enough to be able to follow what is going on. At the United Nations an earphone is attached to every seat in the gallery. The only thing you have to do is turn a button in order to hear the language you want to hear, and thus you are able to follow the debate.
If this is possible at the United Nations, where four or five languages are spoken, it would be much easier to instal similar facilities in the galleries of the house so that

House of Commons
those French speaking persons who do not understand English and are visiting parliament will be able to follow the debates. That applies also to those who speak English; when speeches are made in French they will also be able to follow the debate. They are the people who will be paying for it. The money does not come from our pockets. It will be paid for by the Canadian public, and I hope when the public visit Ottawa they will have the same opportunity as hon. members to follow our debates in French or English.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Joliette-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, when he put on the order paper a resolution in favour of simultaneous translation, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) carried out one of the promises contained in the speech from the throne.
I want to commend him publicly in this house for introducing a bill that will help lead representatives of the two great races in our country, that is all hon. members, to better mutual understanding and appreciation. Thus English-speaking members will be able to follow speeches delivered in French by their French speaking fellow-citizens, and vice versa.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this system of simultaneous translation might well prove the greatest step towards national unity since confederation.
I know that, with simultaneous translation, all hon. members in this house will be able to understand one another better. I feel it will impart a new and greater sense of unity. And if Sir John A. Macdonald were living today, I am sure he would support this proposition. I would even say that, if simultaneous translation, if that system, had existed at the time of confederation, I am certain that Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, and all the fathers of confederation, would have favoured its use in parliament.
May I recall at this time part of a highly inspiring address made in this house in 1890 by the most illustrious of all the fathers of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, when he defined in these words the spirit of the pact of 1867:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other: I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is conquered country is d propos de rien. Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a Constitution now under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having equal rights of every kind-of language,

of religion, of property and of person. There is no paramount race in this country; there is no conquered race in this country;
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, in moving this resolution, promotes, and somehow gives a more concrete form to national unity. I would say that in doing so the right hon. Prime Minister follows the doctrine of Sir John Macdonald. In a word, he favours national unity.
In the past, briefs had been submitted to the former government in favour of simultaneous translation. Need I mention here the brief submitted by the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Canada, with a membership of 25,000. According to a report in the Montreal Gazette, on May 23, 1956, the Junior Chamber of Commerce submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons, then Mr. Louis-Rene Beaudoin, a request for the installation of a simultaneous translation system in this house.
The principle of national unity will thus be reinforced, and all hon. members of this country will be able to appreciate and understand each other better.
When listening a few moments ago to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron), who had risen in support of this project, I was thinking of his speech in this very house when he said, as can be seen on page 510 of the official record of this house of December 1st, 1953:
That Is why I do not agree with the suggestion that there should be established in this chamber a system of translation similar to that which they have at the United Nations. Such a system would tend to stop efforts to speak the second language. I hope such a system will not be installed in this house.
Well, the House of Commons is not a school for the teaching of French or English. It is a forum for the discussion of all the problems of the Canadian nation. If a member wants to hear a speech in French, or in English, all he will have to do will be to put on his earphones and he will be able to follow what is being said in the other language.
I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada who is the symbol of national unity. I congratulate and thank him on behalf of the people of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.


Mr. Yvon Dupuis (SI. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length about this motion. The leaders of the different parties represented in this House of Commons have just expressed their views and it is now a matter of record that the three parties in this house support the motion for the establishment in this House of Commons of a system of simultaneous translation.

Mr. Speaker, this measure will extend considerably the official recognition of bilingualism in Canada. I have just heard the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) make one of his typical statements to the effect that this is the most important legislation since confederation, a 100 per cent Duplessis phrase. I have no intention of following him in that vein.
Since all parties are agreed on the basic principle of simultaneous translation here, in this house, I would like to recall also, as was done by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), that Mr. Maurice Breton, distinguished predecessor of the hon. member who just resumed his seat, was the first to advocate the installation of a system such as this, in this house.
(Text):
I should like to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition, who started his speech in French this morning. May I express the opinion that the installation of this new facility will not prevent hon. members who speak English or hon. members who speak French from studying the use of the other official language which is not well known to them. We should use this system to improve our knowledge of both languages and not make it an excuse for our failure to learn the other official language of this country.
(Translation):
Following the hon. members who have spoken, I wish to thank the government for this beneficial piece of legislation.
I know, Mr. Speaker, the problems that face members who live in parts of Canada where only one language is spoken. For those who were born far from the province of Quebec and who, for many years, have heard only the English language, it is surely difficult to learn French. It is quite gratifying to see that many members of the House of Commons, are now taking courses in the French language. They are making considerable efforts to master that language. On the other hand, the same applies to Canadians born in the province of Quebec and living in communities where French Canadians are the majority, since they must make great efforts if they want to learn the English language.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this motion. We will all support it in the hope that it will foster national unity in Canada.


Mr. Robert Lafreniere ( Quebec-Monl-morency):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the constituency of Quebec-Montmorency in the House of Commons, I have particular
57071-3-211
House of Commons
reasons for congratulating the government for the concrete step it is taking with regard to the French and English languages, by setting up here a simultaneous translation system. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) was right in reminding us a moment ago that the British North America Act recognizes both French and English as the two official languages of this country.
The Prime Minister also recalled that, in past years, several members of the house had requested the setting up of a simultaneous translation system. I am happy to note, Mr. Speaker, that this project is now taking shape under the guidance of the present government and that the motion for the setting up of this system of a simultaneous translation has been introduced by the right hon. Prime Minister, who is from Saskatchewan.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that so excellent a proposal is being put through.
I wish my hon. friend, the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), were in the house this morning, for I mean to reply to a question he put to me during one of his speeches, expressing surprise at the fact that, in moving the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I had described the Prime Minister as the saviour of confederation. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to point out to hon. members that the present right hon. Prime Minister is not merely a man of words, but of deeds when it comes to giving practical effect to the spirit of confederation.


Mr. D. J. Walker (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has decided to propose the setting up of a simultaneous translation system in this house. What a fine, splendid, achievement! We are most gratified at the proposal, Mr. Speaker. However, it is regrettable that in this way we might lose the desire and incentive to learn the beautiful French language. It is unfortunate because in being free to listen to either of two languages at the same time, there is no longer any incentive to learn the language other than our own.
However, Mr. Speaker, both great races in Canada have much in common especially a shared feeling of being part of the same team in the service of the same Queen, humbly working for the same ends.
Mr. Prime Minister, I thank you and congratulate you.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in saying a few words this morning on the motion put forward by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
House of Commons
Diefenbaker), about the adoption of a simultaneous translation system in this house.
We know that several hon. members have trouble making out what is being said in English, while a great many others are practically or altogether unable to follow what is being said in French. With simultaneous translation, hon. members from anywhere in Canada will be able to follow the debates with greater interest, to understand them better and to take part in them with constructive suggestions.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to suggest that seats in the public galleries be likewise equipped with a listening device for this system. A study of the debates on this matter, which took place on January 22, 1957, shows how deeply the former member of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had studied the question. Incidentally, he said that the cost of earphones for gallery seats was in the neighbourhood of $15 each and, as the galleries seat 626 people, this item cost $9,300.
What is $9,300 for the government of Canada, if it will help visitors get a better understanding of what is going on? Admittedly, many of the visitors understand English only, and many others understand only French. With two-way interpretation, visitors will be able to follow the debates in their own language, understand what is being said and therefore take more interest in the debates.
Recently, I had visitors who do not know English or know very little; I took them to the galleries while an English speaker was expressing his views on a certain problem. Back in my office, those people asked me what the hon. member had said, and what he was talking about. If we had had simultaneous translation in the galleries, those people would have known what the hon. member was saying and requesting for his riding.
It will also be remembered that, some time ago, when that suggestion was first made of introducing simultaneous translation in the house, a brief to that effect was submitted to the previous speaker by the Chamber of Commerce of Canada. I am happy to see that this suggestion, which was initiated not so long ago, is already being implemented, since we are called upon today to pass this motion. As a matter of fact this morning the leaders of the three parties supported the measure and I am

convinced that every member of this house is going to support it.
(Text):
Even though I am a French speaking member, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my opinion in the English language. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosedale who expressed himself in the French language. I should like to congratulate all the members of this chamber who are trying to study the French language. They can be sure that all the French members are doing their best to speak the English language, so that all the members can get along and meet together. If they want to learn their French, they will speak in French; and if we want to learn English, we will speak in English. It will then be a great day for all the members.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to dwell unduly on the matter. Everyone seems to favour the resolution, and I am convinced that it is a step forward in the promotion of better understanding between the hon. members of this house and that it will help them make an effective contribution to the business of the house.


Mr. Roland English (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, having had an opportunity to speak last year in this house on a similar resolution, I would be remiss if, on my own behalf and on behalf of the electors of my riding, I did not rise to express my most sincere thanks to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker). Mr. Speaker, we are starting out today on daily morning sittings and I contend this is a memorable occasion, because the hour we are spending here this morning will long be remembered in the history of Canadian government.
It is good to see the three parties of Canada, and our two great races, join in thanking the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, and that we all recognize the use of both official languages in this house.
There is no point in blaming any government. There is no point in reviewing the past; rather should we unite in looking at the present and in facing the future. It is indeed gratifying to realize that all agree at last in recognizing that there are two great languages in this country, and it is fitting that the parliament of Canada be provided with a system of simultaneous translation.
Several English-speaking members can speak French; most French-speaking members can speak English. However, when an



II, 1958

[Stage Direction]
English-speaking member rises to speak in this house, it is quite natural that he should feel more at home in his mother tongue, as would a French-speaking member in his own.
Again, I thank the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. May I also thank and congratulate the representatives of every political party in the house for joining hands in providing this house with a simultaneous translation system.
Mr. He ward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for his initiative. During the election campaign, and ever since, I have always said that my riding of Brome-Missisquoi is like Canada, on a smaller scale, made up as it is of people of both great races, of both great cultures. That is why I have always contended that my constituency is a little Canada.
On behalf of my electors, as well as on my own behalf, I thank the right hon. Prime Minister. I draw the attention of the house to the fact that I am one of the first English-speaking members ever to be elected in a riding where a majority of the population is French-speaking. That is why I want to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Prime Minister on behalf of the electors of Brome-Missisquoi.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should like to say this. Largely because I am one of the first English speaking members of this house elected by a district of whose people approximately 75 per cent speak the French language, I should like to profit by this occasion to thank the Prime Minister for inaugurating this legislation. I have always said, and I repeat now, that my district is really a little Canada. Its population is mainly made up of people speaking the two languages and having two cultures. In addition we have representatives of all those new Canadians who, of course help to form the real glory and force of Canada. In the name of my electors I would like to say thank you once again to the Prime Minister, and to tell the house how very much this legislation will be welcomed in my district.
Mr. Laurier Regnier (Si. Boniface):: I
should also like to thank the Prime Minister for introducing this legislation. St. Boniface is also a little Canada, but in my area the division between French speaking and English speaking citizens is about fifty-fifty. We also have representatives of the other nationalities who have settled in Canada.
I believe this is a great step toward Canadian unity, and that it will help all 57071-3-2114
House of Commons
Canadians realize that our leader is a true friend of national unity. I would also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia for the support they have given to this measure.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia has stated, this is but one step in the right direction. I know that other measures will be passed in due course to accomplish a real unity within our country. No one could ever say that this government favours one section of the Canadian people as against another. We are all completely equal, we respect one another and we get along as a single nation though we do speak two basic languages.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to thank the Prime Minister for having introduced this measure, and to express my pleasure at the support given by this house.
I would like to mention one other matter, however, which I feel might be taken into consideration in relation to the change we are now making. I notice in this connection that the Prime Minister himself sometimes wears one of the small earphones which I have also used on a number of occasions and which I have noticed other members using from time to time. I was wondering whether an extra box could not be added to the simultaneous translation box so that we could still plug into the amplifying set. I have found this set to be useful on many occasions, and I think if just another section could be added it would be advantageous to other hon. members.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the Prime Minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John George Diefenbaker: Following the example of the Leader of the Opposition, I do not think I could possibly do better than bring this discussion to an end by saying the following.
(Translation):
In conclusion, I wish to thank all hon. members for their contribution to this debate.
(Text):
Having said that, I would like to mention that over the years-and this goes back for more than 40 years-I have consistently read the French classics, including the works of Moliere, Bossuet and Racine. While I have been able to read and understand them, I have never been able to convey my thoughts spontaneously and without notes in the French language.
I think the house may be interested in an event which took place recently. Henri Laurier, the grand-nephew of Sir Wilfrid Laurier,

House of Commons
knowing my interest in Moliere, made a presentation to me of the complete works of that author. This edition was in both the French and English languages, the French work appearing on the one page while on the opposite page appeared the English translation. The interesting thing was not the fact of this presentation but the fact that on the forepage it bore the notation that the volume came from the library of Sir John A. Macdonald. On another page was revealed the fact that it came to the donor from the estate of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, his grand-uncle, who apparently had received this work after the passing of Sir John A. Macdonald.
That is quite an interesting bit of history. First, Sir John A. Macdonald followed the course of having both English and French works in his library; and second, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who through the years bore with great distinction the title of Prime Minister of Canada, was never above referring to the great contribution made by Sir John A. Macdonald to confederation and to the people of Canada.
I would like to thank hon. members in all parts of the house for their kind personal references in connection with this motion. While this question has been discussed over the years, for some reason or other there have been continuing delays, and the fact that we have changed our opinions has been illustrated today by the excellent contribution, if I may say so, of the hon. member for Hull. He indicated that he possibly had held some fears that the installation of this system might result in a diminution of the desire on the part of hon. members-or at least might lessen the possibility of achievement-to obtain facility in both languages.
I very well recall a speech the hon. member made in this House of Commons in the year 1953 with reference to this subject. I looked up this speech and it is recorded at page 510 of Hansard for December 1, 1953, that he said the following:
-I do not agree with the suggestion that there should be established in this chamber a system of translation similar to that which they have at the United Nations. Such a system would tend to stop efforts to speak the second language.
That was the considered opinion of the hon. member at that time, and today he very clearly pointed out that he fears the system may have the effect to which he referred in 1953.
With respect to the question as to who first brought this matter before the House of Commons, it would be a valueless pursuit to attempt to ascertain the identity of that person; but in recent years one hon. member who has most strongly brought forward this matter has been the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Van Horne). In a

speech recorded at page 953 of Hansard for February 7, 1956, for instance, he outlined various grievances, as he called them, and said the following:
I come from a French speaking riding and when I come here I should like to speak in French. I feel there should be translation facilities in the house which would permit every member to hear me in English simultaneously when I speak in French, just as they have at the United Nations.
That the system will be successful I have no doubt. As the hon. member for Hull mentioned, such a system is used in the Israeli parliament, and I had an opportunity to witness its operation in that body. I found this to be a most revealing experience, for in that parliament there are only four or five Arab members, as I recall it, yet the speeches were simultaneously translated into the Hebrew and Arabic languages to the end that all hon. members could readily understand the proceedings.
I am not going to deal with other steps that may be taken in future to assure the complete recognition of bilingualism under the constitution of our country, but I can say that in taking this step we in this government believe that while it is easy to talk about the subject of Canadian unity, in bringing in this motion a major step toward its achievement is assured.
I thank all hon. members again for their references to my stand in this connection, which is not a new one, and I thank all of them for the degree of support which is apparent for this motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region and in relation thereto:
1.	To provide for the constitution of a national capital commission and to repeal the Federal District Commission Act;
2.	To provide for the objects, purposes and powers of the commission; and
3.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, possibly it might be well for me to outline generally what has taken place with respect to the question of setting up a national capital commission, repealing the Federal District Commission Act, and to outline generally the plans of the government as contemplated by

the legislation to be introduced for the development and improvement of the national capital region.
You will recall, sir, that on April 8, 1957, the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, as reported at page 3274 of Hansard of that date, introduced a resolution in terms similar to those of the resolution now before us. The resolution was passed and the bill in furtherance of the resolution received first reading. Mr. St. Laurent on that occasion said, as reported at page 3276:
It would be this government's intention, If it is returned to office, to introduce a bill at the first session of the new parliament.
On the same page, making reference to the non-partisan spirit of support for the measure for the improvement of the national capital, he added these words:
-whoever happens to be constituting the government when parliament reassembles will, I am sure, be appreciative of any suggestions which in the meantime are sent to the privy council office, with the object of improving this bill in order that when it is brought forward again it may be the best legislation which those responsible for considering it here and in the other place can possibly devise.
The reason for giving the bill first reading was simply to assure that interested parties should have the opportunity of making their suggestions with a view to ensuring that when introduced the legislation would contain all the beneficial changes believed to be necessary.
As the house knows, in 1956 a joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place made recommendations which are set forth in the minutes of proceedings dated August 1, 1956. In summary and in effect the plan was to enlarge the national capital region from the present area of 900 square miles to an area of 1,850 square miles. I am not going to read to the committee the various recommendations set forth in this report, but I do recommend their consideration by hon. members. The committee sat for a considerable period of time, with 32 sessions for the hearing of evidence, and made its recommendations which were generally and unanimously accepted. However, I should refer to the general purport and purpose of the setting up of the committee, as appears from the report in question at page 1049:
Since the time of the last report the most significant event in the history of the federal district commission was the completion of the national capital plan under the supervision of M. Jacques Greber. We have received no evidence to suggest that plan should be abandoned. Since ours is the first committee to have it, we desire to say we believe that, from it, a national capital worthy of this country and of its people can be fashioned. We believe that when it is implemented it will be
National Capital Commission a monument around which and within which the historical and cultural interests and activities of our people can be developed.
The various matters connected with the setting up of the plan were discussed, and part V of the report at page 1052 sets forth in general the recommendations of the committee. In first position is set out the recommendation that a project of basic importance to be undertaken and completed in the national capital area should be the elimination of the causes of pollution of the Ottawa river. Another project of importance set out is the completion of the ten-mile section of the essential elements of the Queensway within the city of Ottawa. It suggests that the federal district commission is to be commended for the action it took to establish rail-freight facilities in the Walkley road area, thus completing the first stage of the railway relocation program. It refers to the bridge facilities across the Ottawa river as being inadequate in the downtown sections of Ottawa and Hull. It recommends the setting up of a green belt, which it suggests could be better described as the intermediate zone between the urban and rural areas, comprising a strip of land approximately one and one-half miles wide extending from the outer limits of Ottawa and Hull.
It states that the green belt area was originally contained in the national capital plan in 1950. It deals with the Gatineau park in the province of Quebec, and observes that provision for that park forms an important part of the national capital scheme.
Finally, after those recommendations with respect to policy, it recommends that the name of the act, which is the Federal District Commission Act, be changed to the national capital act. Then there are further recommendations of a technical or routine nature.
Some weeks ago I announced the establishment of the green belt as Ottawa's planned future urban limits. The green belt was advocated for some 10 years, and in the form in which it is set up about three fifths will be in the township of Gloucester and the remainder, except for about 1,000 acres within Ottawa, will be in the township of Nepean.
The act which the bill to be submitted will repeal, and for which the present bill will be substituted if parliament passes it, is the Federal District Commission Act of 1926. The bill upon which this bill is founded, as I said a moment ago, was introduced by Mr. St. Laurent on April 8, 1957, as Bill No. 417. The present bill is in large measure a repetition of the terms of the earlier bill, changed only to the extent of suggestions made to the privy council for consideration and decision by the government.

National Capital Commission
If this bill becomes the law of the land I hope we shall be able more effectively to continue the concept of successive prime ministers and parliaments since 1926, whose general desire was to assure that the capital city of our country shall be one that will be a pride to all Canadians and will become an ever-increasing mecca to Canadians. They will be able to see here a symbol of the nation's greatness, a capital so constituted and so planned as to quicken the pulses of Canadians in the pride of Canadian achievement, a capital that will give to Canadians the inspiration that comes from the arts, a capital that will epitomize the principles upon which this nation is founded. In short, we hope we shall achieve in the city of Ottawa, as well as in the contribution being made to the national district plan by the city of Hull, the surrounding areas of Hull and Ottawa, a city which will be a monument to the national unity of our country, to the greatness of our past and to the vast potentialities of our future.
In this city I would like to see a retention of the monuments of our past. It is too late now to raise this matter, but I do so merely by way of illustration of the kind of thing that I hope will be discountenanced by Canadians in this and in future generations. I refer to the destruction of the old supreme court building. I feel that that building, with all its tradition, should have been preserved, not in the location in which it was, if change made removal necessary, but in some part of this city. I doubt whether anywhere in the world there could have been found such a monument to jurisprudence and to the orderly interpretation of our constitution as that building represented; for in that building successive prime ministers of Canada had argued their cases. At least seven of the 13 prime ministers of Canada at one time or another appeared in that court in that building.
I cannot think of any other building in this nation which was more representative of the history of this country and which contributed more to the building of our national traditions in jurisprudence than that building. It went its way in April and May of 1957. Criticism today of its removal has no place. My hope is that in the days ahead Canadians, not only in the city of Ottawa but everywhere in Canada, will display an interest in their historical past and will take measures in addition to those which have been taken in the past, great as they have been, in connection with the work of the historical monuments society, to the end that those devices which have in their custody the traditions and history of our past shall not lightly be removed and be forgotten.


The planning that was done in the past by Mr. King, Mr. Bennett and Mr. St. Laurent had a greater, more profound and majestic concept of a national capital. One of those contributions to which all of us can pay our tribute and at the same time on this occasion do our part to bring about is to see that their traditions and their ideas of this great capital city will become in greater measure than has been so in the past the dedication of Canadians as a whole. It is in that spirit that I open the discussion on this question, which somewhat more than most legislation introduced in the house is of the spirit that one must never forget that the greatest impetus and inspiration for a great future of a country are the profound and great past.
There is nothing more inspiring to succeeding generations than to be able to look back on the monuments of their nation, on the achievements of their national capital. No nation can look forward to a great future without having behind it an illustrious past, whether within that nation or in consequence of tradition and heritage. I hope that hon. members generally will be able to support the resolution. When the bill is introduced fuller and more complete details will, of course, be available as to the changes that have been made, which cannot be discussed now in committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak to the resolution I do not propose at this time to follow the Prime Minister on the subject of the desirability or otherwise of having torn down the old supreme court building because for one thing I do not think that matter is affected by the terms of this resolution. But I do agree with him that a country which has before it such a great future should be very careful to preserve the monuments of its past, not only in Ottawa but wherever those monuments may be in our country.
This, Mr. Chairman, is the second measure we have considered this morning which should be and I think is of a non-partisan and non-controversial character, concerning as it does a resolution which is important to all of us and to all Canadians in its bearings on the "development and improvement", to quote the words of the resolution, of the national capital plan. We know that the plan and the ideas and the vision behind it go back a good many years to the time when Jacques Greber was appointed. He and his associates under previous governments initiated and assisted in the development of the plan over the years. It was a plan that was very close to the heart, mind and interest of Mr. Mackenzie King when he was prime minister. In fact he took almost a fatherly

interest in the development of Ottawa into a beautiful and worthy national capital.
That interest and support were continued by Mr. St. Laurent. The work begun in those earlier years was continued and expanded after world war II, but over the years I think experience did show that perhaps the administrative set-up for the carrying on and completion, if it ever will be completed, of the work under the national capital plan was not completely adequate to cope with the new problems that arose out of the proper development of a national capital. Some hon. members will recall that a joint parliamentary committee was set up in 1954, and made a report. Another joint parliamentary committee was set up in 1956 to study, as indeed it did study and in great detail, this whole problem. It reviewed the over-all situation and made recommendations. The committee had a great number of meetings and heard a great deal of evidence from many interested individuals and associations. Perhaps I might mention that the hon. member for Villeneuve was joint chairman of that committee.
Out of its recommendations made in 1956 came the bill to which the Prime Minister has already referred, entitled an act respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region. The Prime Minister has indicated that the bill was prepared by the former government. It was presented to parliament on April 8, 1957, but was not proceeded with at that time. A general election was held, and now the present government is taking the action recommended by the joint parliamentary committee and embodied in that earlier resolution, the terms of which were exactly the same as the resolution now before us on the order paper.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, and I think I can speak on behalf of the members of my own party, may I express our gratitude for the devoted, intelligent and unselfish work done over the years by those Canadians who accepted the responsibility of serving on the federal district commission. Their work has been a fine example of national service in the best meaning of the term.
I think all Canadians will agree that the federal government has a special responsibility for and should take a special interest in the development of the capital so it can become a worthy symbol of our nation and one of which we can be proud; to use the words of the report of the joint committee, which have already been used by the Prime Minister, so that it can become "a capital worthy of our country and worthy of its people".
While the 1956 report, which is the basis of the resolution before us, makes a strong
National Capital Commission plea for the achievement of that objective, one which we all support, it also points out, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, some of the specific problems and difficulties. There is not only the question of the green belt which has been mentioned and which is of great significance in the development of the national capital plan, but we must also not forget that inside the green belt in Ottawa itself there is still a great deal to be done to carry out the ideas and the vision of this report.
I think particularly-I believe the Prime Minister mentioned this-of the very difficult problem of water pollution and the problem of adequate bridging of the river between Ottawa and Hull. If these problems are to be solved, then irrespective of the kind of federal machinery we set up to solve them this will require the closest co-operation among all three levels of government, the federal government, wherein lies our responsibility, the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec and the municipal governments of Ottawa and Hull. With the new machinery which will be set up if the resolution and the bill carry, I am sure that co-operation can be achieved and we will have a national capital in the years ahead of which all Canadians will be proud.
I think we have a very good illustration of what can be done in this matter through national effort in the development of Washington, where I lived for some years. Certainly the city of Washington has none of the natural advantages that Ottawa has in its location, because of which Ottawa should and will become one of the most beautiful capitals in the world. Washington was a swamp when it was chosen as the capital of the United States. It was put far enough up the Potomac river, at a point where the river was shallow and the banks were swampy, so the British navy could not get at it too easily, though they did achieve that objective once in American history in revenge for American action against Toronto. Nevertheless, largely because of the planning of that capital by a distinguished town planner of his time from France, Major L'Enfant, and in spite of the swamp, "foggy bottom" as they still call it in Washington-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order; it is a few
minutes past one.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry; I will finish in a few minutes. I will get right off Washington. In spite of the natural disadvantages of Washington they have made of that capital one of the most beautiful in the world. With the advantages we have over Washington we ought to be able to do as well, indeed we ought to be able to do better.
3344	HOUSE OF
National Capital Commission We on this side of the house will vote in favour of this resolution, especially since it is in exactly the same terms as the resolution which was put before the house by Mr. St. Laurent a year or so ago.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, the C.C.F. members of this house welcome most heartily this resolution that has been introduced today by the Prime Minister. This resolution, as we understand it, forecasts a strengthening of the authority of the government of Canada in the many efforts that are being put forth in the establishment of a national capital in which we hope all Canadians will be able to take a great deal of pride. In addition to forecasting a strengthening of the authority of the federal government to attain our objective it also, to our mind, forecasts an additional willingness on the part of the national government to share the responsibility for that task with the other levels of government, provincial and municipal.
I am extremely pleased to note, in listening to the hon. members who spoke previously, that the development of our national capital is and has always been regarded as a nonpartisan effort. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that the national capital belongs to all the Canadian people regardless of whether they are represented by the government side or whether they adhere to one of the opposition parties in this house.
At this time I should like to refer to the introduction by the Prime Minister of this matter on June 18 when, as found at page 1381 of Hansard, he said:
The government has now decided to recommend to parliament the necessary measures to make it possible for the crown to acquire ownership of what is known as the green belt around the nation's capital, so as to do what is possible to ensure that the development of the capital area over the long-term future will be in accordance with the national importance and significance of this city.
We appreciate that statement of the purpose of the resolution which the Prime Minister gave to the house at that time. We are a little concerned lest that sentence of his indicates that limitations are going to involve the new commission that is to be established. We sincerely hope that the functions of the commission are not going to be limited to the matter of acquiring and holding some jurisdiction over the green belt. The main tenor of my remarks is to emphasize that


there is a need in other fields as well as in the acquiring of the area immediately around the cities of Ottawa and Hull.
I should like to point out that when the Prime Minister was speaking this morning he referred to the findings of the joint parliamentary committee on this whole problem of the national capital several years ago, and he listed two major matters that were mentioned in those findings. One was the acquisition of territory to be found in the proposed new green belt. The other major problem indicated in the report by the committee was the problem caused by the pollution of the Ottawa river.
So far, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister has not indicated, either on June 18 or this morning, that any action is being contemplated toward a solution of the problem of the pollution of the Ottawa river. Knowing the interest which the Prime Minister has shown in this house over many long years in the subject of the pollution of rivers, I hope the omission of this specific aim was inadvertent and that the Prime Minister is going to see to it that the legislation is of such a nature that the problem of river pollution is going to receive some attention.
I noted especially the comment of the Prime Minister when he remarked that the problem of establishing a national capital has been the subject of parliamentary debate for the past 32 years. I believe he indicated the year 1926 as the initial year in which action was taken. When I consider what progress has been made, Mr. Chairman, toward the attainment of our aims in the past 32 years, I cannot help but be reminded of the words used by the Leader of the Opposition this morning-and here may be the major responsibility, as I see it, that is now facing us-when he said, if I have his words down correctly, that inside the city itself a great deal has yet to be done.
I agree at once that this naturally involves the closest co-operation on the part of all three levels of government. I can think of no finer time for that degree of co-operation to prevail than the present time. With a Conservative regime in Ottawa, a Conservative regime in Toronto and another Conservative regime in Quebec, and with the city fathers of Ottawa as they are, I fail to see why there should be any lack of co-operation in the immediate years ahead.
I would immediately like to sound a note of warning. We are asked to vote millions of dollars for the acquisition of land for the green belt. I hope people will be paid a fair price for any real estate expropriated, and that no one will be done out of the hard-earned life savings which they may have

invested in real estate in this area. At the same time I hope that prices will not be paid to anyone based on anticipation of what they might be able to realize on present holdings or upon holdings which they might acquire before the federal government gets around to expropriation, and that no money will be paid on an assumption of what values might be in the years ahead. I have particular reference to holdings of real estate by brokers and others interested in real estate around the city of Ottawa. I trust that a very special watch will be kept upon such holdings, particularly of that real estate which may be in the hands of people associated with political movements.
The problems with respect to the development of our capital are not easy to solve, because the rights of local citizens are involved. The newspapers have indicated that on one occasion I endorsed the establishment of a federal district commission with the extensive powers which obtain in Washington, D.C. I must say at this time that such has never been the case. I believe the only member of this group who has ever advocated the establishment of such an authority is a gentleman who was at one time a member of the C.C.F. but who, during the latter years, has been a member of the Liberal party. I refer to a former member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It has never been C.C.F. policy, however, that the residents of Ottawa should lose their civic rights as a result of the development of our national capital. I believe a halfway point could be established, as the result of which greater responsibility and authority might be taken over by the federal government, yet at the same time the local residents would be allowed to have their say in matters which would ordinarily be their prerogative. We in this group do not think there should be any reduction in local privileges or relaxation of local responsibility. We have, however, a responsibility as the parliament of Canada, and we have a right as the representatives of the taxpayers to express opinions upon the nation's capital.
The newspapers indicated some time ago that there might be some people in Ottawa who would take the position that we, as members of parliament, ought to mind our own affairs and allow the Ottawa civic officials to determine what happens to the capital city. That is a view in which I cannot concur. When we speak in this house of slums and fire traps in the city, I believe we are only exercising our responsibilities and our rights in voicing our opinions. We are not alone, and to illustrate this point I would like to read from a newspaper clipping of some
National Capital Commission years ago, which is headed, "Deplores Ottawa's Lack of Alleys". It reads as follows:
What Ottawa needs is more back alleys, Senator W. M. Aseltine, (P.C.-Saskatchewan) -
Who, as we all know, is now the government leader in the other place.
-said Tuesday night as he took a verbal jab at the capital's "eyesore" garbage cans.
Until he came to Ottawa he'd never seen "a city without alleys", he told the Senate. Because there was no out of the way place for them to be stowed, the cans lined the streets each morning.
That's what he saw when he took his morning walks-"really an eyesore".
I could not concur more heartily with the comments of the government leader in the other place when he refers to this line-up of garbage cans upon our sidewalks in the mornings as an eyesore. It is an eyesore in the most unsanitary way imaginable.
On June 18 last my house leader referred to the slums, and I believe fire traps, in this city and shortly thereafter the mayor of Ottawa replied through the newspapers. The mayor said, "We have no slums" but several days later he amended that statement, saying that city council was engaged in several slum clearance projects. I think he supplied his own answer there; the city council admits the existence of slums in that they are undertaking measures referred to by the mayor as slum clearance projects. In regard to fire traps and slum conditions he mentioned that I ought to remember the quotation from the Bible, "The poor ye have always with you." He made the observation that Ottawa looks after its poor, but I have seen a little more than I would have wished of how Ottawa looks after its poor.
One has only to recall the houses which ought to be condemned by the electrical and health inspectors of the city, but which the city council prefers to keep in operation for its welfare cases. If allowing a home to burn, if allowing "mere pensioners" to burn to death is the way in which Ottawa looks after its poor, and if the city council pats itself on the back by saying, "The poor ye have always with you", then that is not my idea of the attitude which should be taken in respect of the development of the national capital, about which we love to brag to our people and in which we love to ask the people to take pride.
We believe that slums are no longer necessary in our cities, least of all in our national capital, which has a history of employment of its citizens in the civil service. Ottawa does not have an industrial history, nor does it have a history as a waterfront city. It has no background which could excuse some of the conditions which exist. I would like to-refer some of Ottawa's leading citizens to the city of Saskatoon, the municipality of

National Capital Commission Burnaby and the city of New Westminster. These are cities which by their very nature must work for a living at all times by means of industrial activity, yet in those cities you find much less in the way of slum conditions than is to be found in Ottawa. Over the years there has been much money expended by the taxpayers of Ottawa to develop the national capital, and other taxpayers when they visit this city have a right to expect it will be a little above the average as Canadian cities go.
One hon. gentleman in the other place referred to the lack of alleys. The other day I visited a new housing subdivision in Ottawa and observed that it had been allowed to proceed without provision for alleys where garbage and ash cans could be picked up and homes could be serviced by oil trucks and other services. I wonder just how much headway has been made in the development of the national capital.
I have a clipping from the Ottawa Journal of June 7, 1952, reporting on conditions in Ottawa as revealed in the last national census in 1951. I appreciate that the conditions reported upon will have changed somewhat in the intervening seven years, but I wonder to what degree progress has been made. The article reads as follows:
1.	There are 4,815 bathless dwellings.
2.	There is no piped water supply in 2,120 homes.
3.	There are 1,955 dwellings that have only the "Chic Sale" type of toilet facility.
We in the west do not even know what that means. I continue:
4.	In 6,570 houses or apartments, there is cold water only.
5.	There are shared bathrooms in 2,560 dwellings.
6.	A total of 4,205 homes or about 9 per cent of Ottawa's total are in need of major repairs.
7.	In 910 Ottawa homes, residents have none of the following conveniences: telephone, radio, automobile, vacuum cleaner or washing machine. In addition there is neither refrigeration nor the old-fashioned ice-box in 1,710 dwellings.
Certainly this report does not indicate that we nave in Ottawa a capital city in which Canadian citizens as a whole can take any measure of pride.
Let us turn to the subject of roads in Ottawa. There is only one modern thoroughfare in the city. It seems to begin somewhere around the airport and appears to end somewhere in the vicinity of Rockliffe. It seems specifically designed to provide famous visitors to Ottawa with a beautiful view and the lovely scent of flowers along the roadway. We have, of course, the driveway and Sussex street, the latter leading to the area known as Rockcliffe where the millionaires and dignitaries live.
Someone mentioned Vancouver. I might say, that in Vancouver we have Broadway,
[Mr. Eegler.j

Main, Fraser, Victoria and a number of other modern thoroughfares. They are models for the world of modern streets. We even found sufficient money to provide for the relocation of buildings as large as six storeys high. However, in the national capital, outside of this one roadway apparently designed for famous visitors, there is not one adequate road on which an ordinary visitor to Ottawa can travel. Ottawa does not even have such a simple, modern convenience as synchronized lights on its major thoroughfares. At present you see four or five lights in succession going on and off at the same moment.
Recently Ottawa embarked on something which most cities which have employed it wish they had never begun. I refer to the installation of parking meters. They serve no useful purpose except to enhance the coffers of the city. An interview with the city fathers in places where these meters have been installed will reveal the general feeling they share that they wish they had never become involved in that racket.
Where can a modern parking lot be found in Ottawa? The only parking facilities here are a few vacant lots which are temporarily used for off-street parking in order to permit the tenants to earn a small livelihood. Where are the green and open spots that it is the responsibility of those at the city hall to provide? Outside of the parks provided in the heart of the city by federal district commission there is no place where the residents of Ottawa can sit down to relax and enjoy a breath of fresh air. What about the inspection of buildings that is looked upon as being so essential in modern cities today? What about health inspectors and fire inspectors? Does the welfare department tell these boys to lay off, lest there not be sufficient room for the welfare cases in Ottawa?
Since first speaking on this matter in the house I have received many letters from Ottawa citizens, all in commendation of what I had to say. I wish that some time the civil servants of Ottawa would come to feel they have every right of citizenship, and need not hesitate about signing their names to their written opinions. What I did not like was the large number of anonymous letters I received. I like to think every Canadian feels at liberty to sign his name to an opinion he wishes to express in writing.
Another feature about the capital city that is simply unheard of in Saskatchewan and B.C. is a lack of hospital facilities. The waiting list here is very long indeed. Unless you are a member of parliament and are immediately whisked to hospital at the first sneeze for a quick look-see, you, as an

ordinary citizen of Ottawa, will have to wait a long time, in most cases, before you gain admission to hospital.
Some of the eating places in the city are splendid, and magnificent efforts have been made to establish fine restaurants; but in other instances it is obvious that the health inspector has not paid a visit for years and years.
I am pleased that Hull is a part of our national capital development plan. It ought to give the people of the province of Quebec a feeling that they and their province are a part of Canada. However, with respect to some of the conditions I have mentioned as obtaining in Ottawa, almost the same could be said for the Hull section of the national capital.
We welcome this move most heartily, but we hope the measure will mean more than the buying of several thousand acres on the outskirts of Ottawa. We hope an investigation will be undertaken by those who will be responsible for the plan concerning improvements for the city. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his remarks, I also hope the authorities will ascertain what is required in the heart of the city, which is the core of the national capital. I wish to propose to the Prime Minister a serious implication arising from the recent announcement from the city hall in Ottawa to the effect that everything possible is being done to obtain industrialization of our national capital.
I see a serious conflict of approach. Here are the city fathers who want to obtain more revenue and who are therefore anxious to invite almost any kind of industry into the city which will add to their tax rolls. Yet at the same time we want to make it into a beautiful city, a city that we will be proud to call our national capital. I feel that either one or the other of the two approaches is going to win out, and I hope the city hall is going to cease and desist from its announced program of filling the city with the smoke-belching chimneys which are usually associated with the industrialization of a city.
The year 1967 will see the 100th anniversary of our nation. That is only nine years hence. At that time I have no doubt we shall have hundreds of thousands of visitors to our fair national city. I hope that within those nine years we shall take such measures as will enable us to invite people to a real national capital to join in the celebration of our 100th anniversary.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: Mr. Chairman, this resolution, introduced this morning by the Prime Minister, represents an historic advance in national capital planning. From the outline the Prime Minister gave this morning
National Capital Commission it is evident that this legislation will give a new impetus and a new momentum to the realization of the goal of a truly symbolic capital.
At the outset of my remarks, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for the vital and decisive interest which he has displayed in his first year of office in the development of this city and area and for the constructive achievements already undertaken under his direction as the responsible minister, notably the decision to acquire the green belt, the action taken to permit the assembly of industrial land, and the assistance to the Bronson avenue bridge.
The Prime Minister and the committee, will recognize that he who represents Carleton has a very special interest in such matters; for, as the committee knows, Ottawa has a dual distinction. Not only is it the capital of Canada but it is the shire town, the county town, of the historic county of Carleton. Approximately 75 per cent of the population of the electoral district of Carleton reside within the territorial limits of the city of Ottawa, and under this bill practically the whole of the county of Carleton will be within the national capital region.
Both the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam have mentioned that in the determination to make of Ottawa a great national capital there are no partisan differences I hope, sir, that will always be so. All parties and all members from all sections of Canada I believe are of one mind in this matter. We may have differences about details, differences about techniques, but there are none about objectives.
In order to keep to the main track of my remarks I am going to resist entering into a discussion of the digressions into which the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was carried.
I used the term "symbolic capital" and the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking this morning, spoke movingly of Ottawa as the symbol of the nation. I submit that the first objective of all national capital planning must be to make of Ottawa a true and living symbol of a distinctive, vibrant, Canadian nationality, a genuine symbol of our national unity and our national cultures.
Most of the great capitals of the world have in fact attained the role of symbols of their nations. Old London is of the very essence of Britain. To all Frenchmen Paris is a national shrine; and so Rome, Athens, Vienna, all the great capitals of the old-world countries, exist as symbols of those countries. That Ottawa can and will attain

National Capital Commission such a place and role in the hearts of Canadians as have these ancient cities in the hearts of their nationals I firmly believe, and that must be our objective.
I am one of those who believe that God favoured this valley of the Ottawa on both sides of the river with a natural beauty and a distinctive aesthetic charm equal to that of any part of the globe. To take full advantage of that beauty and natural charm is the whole purpose of the national capital plan.
In its conception and in its latest delineation before the joint parliamentary committee in 1956, so ably presided over by the hon. member for Villeneuve, that plan is a bold and imaginative design for the future. What is now needed, and what I hope this legislation will represent, is a firm, clear-cut declaration of faith in that national capital plan and a call to action in its rapid and progressive implementation.
The problem of planning the national capital, sir, is stated simply, succinctly and effectively in a brief presented to the Prime Minister by the national capital region branch of the community planning association of Canada in May, 1958, from which I would like to quote very briefly:
Any procedure which is developed must take into account:
1.	The urge to have a capital city as a symbol.
2.	The authority to enable this to be effected.
3.	The ability to create the symbol.
It is from federal sources that the stimulus for a national capital can be expected. The authority to enable planning lies with the provinces. Co-operation between the federal and provincial governments can provide the inspiration and authority. The detailed task of planning lies with the municipalities. There is a role to be played by each level of government. Through good will and co-operation the best result can be achieved.
This quotation, sir, points up precisely what is the major problem of national capital planning. In the past there has been a serious lack of co-ordination of planning activity. There has been project planning, fine project planning, some of the finest project planning that has gone on in any part of the world, but no comprehensive, integrated, co-ordinated planning of the whole national capital area; a plan, yes, but planning, no.
In those six words, Mr. Chairman, I think is a simple statement of the very complex and difficult problem which does exist. To too great an extent the existing planning authorities, federal, provincial and municipal, have worked in compartments, have failed to achieve real co-operation and real understanding. Perhaps the best illustration of compartmentalized planning is the total absence of an official plan for Ottawa or for

any of the neighbouring municipalities pursuant to the planning act of Ontario, despite the fact that the final Greber report was presented more than eight years ago. All that exists today is an official highway plan.
The federal district commission is now contributing to the preparation of an official plan or plans, and I hope we shall have such before the tenth anniversary of the Greber report. I mention this, sir, to illustrate my view that, faced with our problems of constitutional jurisdiction, the first requisite to success in national capital planning is a co-ordination of the activities of the federal district commission, now to be replaced by the national capital commission, and the planning authorities of Ontario, of the city of Ottawa and of the area municipalities, particularly on the Ontario shore the townships of Nepean and Gloucester and on the Quebec shore the city of Hull and the town of Aylmer. The opportunity for full understanding, the opportunity for complete co-ordination and full and continuing liaison, exists today as it has not existed at any time previously. This, I submit, is the psychological time to achieve a unity of purpose in all our planning activities.
The solution of the vexed green belt issue makes the immediate co-operation of Nepean and Gloucester possible. As long as that green belt issue existed, as long as it continued unsettled, the whole national capital plan could not get beyond a stalemate. As I have already said, the government and the Prime Minister in particular are to be congratulated upon the decision to acquire the green belt. This, in my view, is the most significant decision taken in many years, and upon it hinges the solution of many other vital problems of planning.
But with this I should like to couple a word of warning. The basic purposes of the green belt will not be served if an uneconomical, undesirable sprawl development takes place just outside it. Development could simply leapfrog over the green belt and fringe settlements of an unplanned type take place. What is needed? I suggest to the new national capital commission that what is needed is assistance to Nepean and Gloucester in planning, the encouragement of hamlet development particularly at Blackburn Corners and Bells Corners, the encouragement of planned development of existing satellite communities such as Manotick, Richmond, Stittsville and Carp. I suggest that these are essential concomitants of the green belt plan. To the satisfactory adjustment of these fringe problems Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation can contribute as much -if not more than the new national capital commission.

Within the city of Ottawa itself virtually all significant advances are dependent upon the establishment of a union railway terminal company. Even the Queensway cannot be planned and carried out to its western terminus until provision has been made for the joint operation of the railways within the city limits. Negotiations with the railways have gone on for months, indeed for years. I venture respectfully to suggest to the Prime Minister that the time has come for the government to ask the railways in unmistakable terms to conclude an agreement, and to do it within a deadline period not too far distant.
The project of a union railway terminal company governing the operation of all railways within this community is inevitable. The faster it is achieved the better it will be for all concerned and the cheaper it will be for the government of Canada and for the railways themselves. From the date of the completion of such an agreement for the union operation of railways within the city to the completion of the immediate plans which are dependent upon such an agreement is a minimum period of five years. These include, for example, the abandonment of the C.P.R. Sussex branch in the constituency of the hon. member for Ottawa East, and the abandonment of the C.P.R. main line from Bells Corners to Ottawa West in the constituency of Carleton.
As I have said, completion of Queensway planning-and I want to emphasize the word "planning"-is dependent upon this railway agreement. We may get some comfort from seeing bulldozers at work on stage one of the eastern sections of the Queensway, but I think all those who have made some study of the situation in this city will realize that the Queensway is needed today, not four or five years hence. The fact is that the national capital is choking to death with traffic today. Based upon traffic projections which I have seen it will be brought to an almost literal standstill before the Queensway and other arterial roads and bridges are completed.
A speed-up in completion of the Queensway is urgently needed. Under the deal among the federal district commission, the Department of Public Works, the province of Ontario and the city of Ottawa, construction is under the direction of the province of Ontario. I want to appeal publicly to the new minister of highways of Ontario, Hon. Fred M. Cass, a distinguished son of eastern Ontario, to allot a larger amount of the highway budget to the Queensway in order to speed up its completion as an essential part of the national capital plan.
National Capital Commission
I turn now, sir, to deal with the driveway system, for I am one who believes that the driveway system has been perhaps the greatest contribution of the federal district commission and its predecessor, the Ottawa improvement commission. But, as a distinguished journalist of this city has pointed out repeatedly in the Ottawa Journal, there has been very little construction on the Ontario shore in the last 20 years. All the land, or virtually all, for the proposed Ottawa river parkway and the east-west parkway has been acquired, and for this major advance I want to congratulate the federal district commission sincerely.
But I cannot refrain from pointing out the significance of the lack of construction on the Ontario shore in recent years. The concept of the Ottawa river parkway from Lazy bay, a short distance above the falls upstream from this building, to Britannia is magnificent. It will be an almost revolutionary addition to the parkway system of the national capital. To the capital I believe it will give a new character. No other project can have more immediate significance. The estimated cost of the Ottawa river parkway is $2J million.
My urgent hope is that the new national capital commission, in consultation with the other planning authorities, will make an early start on this project. In my opinion it has a priority close to top level, and I should like to add that it should be constructed immediately adjacent to the magnificent Ottawa river shore and not some distance back therefrom as in the existing short stretch from Island Park drive to Churchill avenue.
Under the new commission I venture to suggest that there should be established a strong, active architectural consultative committee. I am not satisfied that some of the more recent government building is adequate architecturally for the nation's capital. A speech which I made outside this chamber has already been quoted on a couple of occasions this session, but I believe that in this capital aesthetics should not be sacrificed to pure utilitarianism. Some of the new government buildings are less attractive than the new industrial plants in my riding, and in my opinion that should not be so.
Equally, as the Prime Minister pointed out this morning, we must preserve our historic buildings. The Prime Minister mentioned the destruction of the old supreme court building to make way for a parking lot which in my view, sir, was nothing short of an act of vandalism. My blood pressure rises every morning when I pass by the site of the old supreme court building. Fortunately the

National Capital Commission projected destruction of the west block was halted. I know the Prime Minister will be our protector in this respect, the protector of the unsurpassed architecture of parliament hill.
To the new national capital commission will be entrusted many problems, the completion of plans for the magnificent Gatineau park, federal assistance to the badly needed new bridges, particularly a bridge downstream from the present interprovincial bridge and a bridge at Deschenes rapids, federal assistance in the ending of the pollution of the Ottawa river, a matter to which the house gave considerable attention a few weeks ago, and another matter which was mentioned on Saturday, assistance in solving the problem of parking on parliament hill to prevent this, the nation's shrine, from having all the appearance of a used car lot and none of its charm.
These, sir, and some of the other national capital problems require a strong, active, vigorous and articulate national capital commission. I hope and I know the government will, in connection with any new appointments, seek men and women of outstanding merit who will accept appointment as a national duty and on a non-partisan basis.
Successive chairmen of the federal district commission have been men of great talent, distinction and public spirit. This morning the Leader of the Opposition mentioned that this community is greatly indebted to these men, Hon. Thomas Ahearn; W. E. Matthews; Hon. Fred Bronson; Duncan K. MacTavish, and the present chairman, Major General Howard Kennedy. This whole area, as I say, owes a debt to each of them, as it does to the able, effective and gentlemanly present general manager, Alan K. Hay, regrettably soon to reach the age of retirement. But I do not let my high regard and great respect for some members of the present commission obscure my belief that the present commission needs strengthening by the appointment, on a nonpartisan basis, of vigorous new members.
Many of the problems to be undertaken will require parliamentary approval of substantial expenditures. We may as well make up our minds, I think, that many of the proposals will cost more money if they are delayed. They will be proceeded with eventually; they will be achieved and they will be paid for, but the longer we delay the more they will cost. From the many chats I have had with new members of this house I am certain that the government can count on enthusiastic support from all sections of the house for vigorous action in the completion of the national capital plan.


The natural advantages of Ottawa, the achievements to this date, the concepts for the future, all these can make of this area a national capital symbolic of a genuine Cana-dianism. Planning, imagination and boldness; these are the keys to the future. All Canada will then be as proud of Ottawa, its national capital, as we in Carleton are of Ottawa, our shire town.


Mr. Dumas:: I am sure there will be agreement on the part of every hon. member as to the desirability of adopting a resolution such as the one which was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister. As both he and my leader mentioned, the wording of this resolution does not differ from that of a resolution introduced in this house on April 8, 1957, by the former prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
This resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region and in relation thereto,
1.	To provide for the constitution of a national capital commission and to repeal the Federal District Commission Act;
2.	To provide for the objects, purposes and powers of the commission; and
3.	To enact such financial provisions as may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act.
However, the fact that both resolutions are exactly the same does not mean that the measure which this resolution precedes will conform in all details with the text of Bill No. 417 which was introduced on April 8, 1957, and given first reading. In his concluding remarks, part of which were mentioned by the Prime Minister this morning, previous to the introduction of Bill No. 417 the then prime minister said this, and I quote from page 3276 of Hansard for April 8, 1957:
We hope that by having the bill read the first time now it will be available for distribution, not only to hon. members but to those of the public who are interested in the activities of this commission. That is why I am stating that whoever happens to be constituting the government when parliament reassembles will, I am sure, be appreciative of any suggestions which in the meantime are sent to the privy council office with the object of improving this bill in order that when it is brought forward again it may be the best legislation which those responsible for considering it here and in the other place can possibly devise for the purpose of realizing this important objective of further establishing the national capital of a country which is going to last for a long time, which is rapidly increasing in population, in industrial and commercial activity, and also, I hope, in the activities of the mind or those concerned with the aesthetic side of human nature.
It is possible therefore, Mr. Chairman, that since April, 1957, some recommendations for amendments might have reached the privy council office or that of the Prime Minister, and it may be that the measure which this

resolution precedes will, therefore, in some parts of the context differ from Bill No. 417. I am confident, however, that the new bill will, as did Bill No. 417, encompass most of the amendments suggested to the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons in 1956, and that it will also make possible the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the report of that committee.
The activities of the Ottawa improvement commission, which was set up in 1899 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and the splendid work accomplished by the federal district commission since 1927, reflect the contribution of this country toward the practical improvement and beautification of the capital city, more recently of the national capital region. These works reflect also the interest of parliament and the people of Canada in creating a national capital which will be a source of legitimate pride and inspiration to all Canadians.
As was explained by the Prime Minister, the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons was appointed in 1956 to review and report upon the progress and program of the federal district commission in developing and implementing a plan for a national capital. This committee, as was mentioned this morning, reported to parliament on August 1, 1956. Amongst other recommendations, the joint committee in part VI of its report recommended that the Federal District Commission Act be revised so as to bring the definition of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the commission in line with the development of the national capital area.
Judging from the resolution which has been introduced by the Prime Minister we can feel confident that most, if not all, of that part of the recommendation contained in the report of the joint committee of 1956 will be implemented. For the benefit of those who were not here in 1956 I wish to say that each and every member of this joint committee had a keen and genuine interest in what was being done to try to create a national capital which would be the pride of all Canadians. I had the great honour of being co-chairman of this committee. I think I can say without fear of being contradicted that the members of this house and of the other place who acted on the joint committee worked very hard and did an excellent job.
The committee held 35 sessions of which 32 were entirely devoted to the study of briefs submitted by the federal district commission and by representatives of civic and public bodies including the city councils of Ottawa and Hull. The joint committee also heard
National Capital Commission from the Auditor General of Canada, the officers of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; the director of the division of sanitary engineering of the department of health of the province of Ontario and Mr. Jacques Greber, distinguished French town planner and consultant for the federal district commission. The co-operation of all those who appeared before the joint committee was of an extreme value to it. It helped in laying the foundation for the preparation of what I would describe as a very constructive report.
In reviewing the progress and programs of the federal district commission in developing and implementing the plan of the national capital, the members of the joint committee considered that the most important event in the history of the commission was the completion of the national plan under the supervision of Mr. Jacques Greber, with whom was associated a group of prominent Canadian planners, architects and engineers. The members of the committee thought that from this master plan a true national capital could be fashioned. They were of the opinion also that, when implemented, the national capital would be a monument around which and within which the historical and cultural interests and activities of our people could be developed.
In city planning language, the master plan is the form in which the whole project is generally first given out to the public. It shows the anticipated development of the community over a certain period, sometimes as long as 50 years or 75 years. The project shown on the plan is general as to location. It is intended to serve the purposes of a guide plan; it is elastic and easily changed. In city or town planning practice, the experts, with good reasons, always emphasized the fact that the character of the master plan should be clearly explained to the public so as to avoid the misunderstanding that this long-visioned plan is intended for full accomplishment in the immediate future at great and unusual expense.
So it should be and so it is with the national capital plan as prepared by the advisory committee headed by Mr. Jacques Greber. In brief, the master plan was designed to guide development of the capital's urban and suburban areas over the next half century. It is a flexible instrument and within its framework it is capable of adjustment to meet new requirements and changing conditions.
Members of the joint committee were very much interested in what was being done in the sphere of planning in the national capital region. They were conscious of the fact that the national capital plan should be developed as far as possible without infringing upon

National Capital Commission either provincial or municipal prerogatives, without imposing undue or unreasonable burdens upon activities of either jurisdiction, but also without assuming obligations proper to the provinces or the municipalities concerned. As there is no single authority in control of planning and development, rural or urban, within the national capital region, it can be easily appreciated that the realization of a national capital plan implies the co-operation of federal, provincial and municipal authorities.
For this reason, in formulating its recommendations in 1956, the joint committee was of the opinion that the over-all or master plan should be submitted to both the Ontario minister of planning and development and the Quebec minister of municipal affairs. It was felt that if agreement was possible, this should be regarded as the background against which details of the master plan should be dealt with as they arise.
It was thought advisable also that an appropriate representative of the government of Canada should consult with the above mentioned provincial authorities with a view to determining ways and means of implementing the plan, and it was felt that this objective could be achieved in such a way that it would be fair to all concerned.
I am convinced myself that if this procedure is followed the official adoption of the national capital plan would be possible. This would be a definite declaration of intention to carry out the different projects of the master plan; it would give them strong legal status; and it would more or less crystallize the use of land affected thereby. Then it would be an easy matter, in fact a matter of formality, for the municipalities within the national capital region to enact comprehensive and up to date zoning bylaws.
A few minutes ago my friend the hon. member for Carleton mentioned that he was very much in favour of the federal district commission going into the project of buying the necessary land for the green belt, but he said that we would have to be careful so that developments would not leap-frog outside of this green belt. He mentioned a few municipalities. He mentioned one municipality which would be in the green belt, namely Bells Corners. I think he is right. I think there should be a severe and clear zoning bylaw that would govern construction within those municipalities, especially within those municipalities which are within the green belt.
In the interests of a proper development in the national capital region zoning bylaws should also be enacted by the municipalities outside the green belt. In

order that those municipalities would be in a position to enact fresh bylaws I think that we have good reason to say that there should be co-operation between the three levels of government, namely the federal, provincial and municipal; and the province of Ontario in this case should be approached and the master plan brought to their attention. They should approve the plan so that in the future those municipalities involved which are located within the national capital region would be able to pass the necessary bylaws so that construction and development could be proceeded with in good order and in accordance with the plan prepared in advance.
In the annual report of the federal district commission, for 1957, I was pleased to read the following paragraph at page 8. The paragraph is entitled "Liaison with Municipalities" and it reads as follows:
Discussions and negotiations between the municipalities within the national capital district and the federal district commission, on both policy and technical levels, have had a mutually beneficial effect for such municipalities and for the over-all development within the national capital region.
I hope that such close liaison between the commission and the municipalities within the national capital region will be maintained. It is to be hoped, also, that similar progress may be achieved on the provincial level. The officers of the federal district commission are to be congratulated for the very excellent form used in the preparation of their annual report for 1957.
In reading these reports those who are interested in the progress of the federal district commission will be able to note that emphasis has been placed on those subjects which were classified in the report of the joint committee of 1956 as top priority projects. It is true that a relatively slow start is being made with respect to these projects but I am of the opinion that the federal district commission, if it is invested with the proper authority and if it is given the necessary funds, will do its utmost to see that there will be a realization of these plans within a reasonable period of time.
It was indicated in the report of the joint committee that under the provisions of the national capital plan of 1950 some portions of the central plan appeared to be of more urgent character than others. Those projects which involved the expenditures of very large sums of money and which were given special consideration by the joint committee are to be found in part 5 of the report as follows: Firstly, the elimination of the causes of pollution of the Ottawa river; secondly, the completion of the ten-mile section of the Queensway within the city of Ottawa; thirdly, the completion of the second stage of the

railway relocation program; fourthly, the construction of a new interprovincial bridge; fifthly, the establishment of an intermediate zone between the urban and rural areas, commonly called the green belt; and sixthly and lastly, the acceleration of the work in the Gatineau park.
Of those six projects we can say that only one is really the sole responsibility of the federal district commission, and that is the work which has been and will be undertaken in the future in connection with the Gatineau park. Two others, namely the elimination of the causes of pollution in the Ottawa river and the construction of an interprovincial bridge to help alleviate the traffic problems between the cities of Hull and Ottawa, are really provincial and municipal projects. When I say that, I do not mean that the federal government, through the federal district commission, should not try to resolve these problems or to carry the projects to completion. The construction of the interprovincial bridge is to cost $10 million, and this is strictly the obligation of the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec as well as that of the municipalities of Hull and Ottawa. If the federal district commission can help in building, let us say, the approaches, so much the better; if it can help in the construction of the bridge, we will all be very pleased, because it is urgent that the bridge be built.
This is, however, first of all a provincial matter, and we must not forget that in respect of the pollution problem, even if we work hard to try to eliminate the causes of pollution which come from the cities of Ottawa and Hull we are still a long way from having cleaned up the Ottawa river. Work in this connection would have to start from the headwaters of the river, from as far away as lake Timiskaming. Work will have to be done in many municipalities up the river and along the river and, of course, much work must be done in our local sector comprising the cities of Ottawa and Hull, the town of Aylmer, the town of Gatineau Point, the village of Deschenes and the surrounding small municipalities. Both the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario will have to accept responsibility in this connection, and it is very gratifying to note that the government of Ontario is going ahead through the organization within the department of health to try to eliminate these causes of pollution. We are also very glad to see from the newspapers that the city of Ottawa, also through this provincial organization, will probably start immediately to build a sewage disposal
National Capital Commission plant at Green creek and will also build necessary tunnels and sewer lines to connect all the sewers of Ottawa to that sewage disposal plant.
I understand the federal district commission will contribute to this work up to a certain amount and that the commission will help the city of Ottawa to acquire a site at Green creek. This help may not be sufficient; the federal district commission may also have to help in the construction of these tunnels and sewer lines. We have heard mention of the amount of $11 million, but we know this project will cost $43 million and maybe more. It has been said that the federal district commission may contribute the amount of $11 million, and I am in favour of this, but even if this is done the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull still have a responsibility in this connection.
The city of Hull, has an obligation to go to the government of Quebec and to force the premier of that province to do something about the Ottawa river on the Quebec side. The city of Hull should also force the provincial government to share in the cost of construction of an interprovincial bridge across the river but, more particularly, if the city of Hull has the responsibility to make clear to the provincial government that it has an obligation to share in the costs of these projects, and even if the federal district commission assists the Ontario side, that is not enough. Assistance will also have to be rendered to the Quebec side. If the federal district commission is to contribute to this work in Ottawa I do not see why it should not also contribute to the work on the Quebec side, more especially to the work within the limits of the city of Hull.
Those two projects are mostly provincial and municipal in nature, but there is another project which is also of a provincial and municipal character, and that is the construction of the full length of the Queensway, which is 22.8 miles, about 10 miles of which will lie within the city of Ottawa. I feel that the federal district commission has a responsibility with respect to those 10 miles and it has subscribed a large amount to this project, so that it has rights in that connection. I understand the total cost of the Queensway will be between $50 million and $60 million, and that the estimated cost of the first stage is $32 million. The federal district commission has already indicated it is ready to supply the right of way which is valued at $8,500,000 and it is ready also to take care of improvements after the Queensway is built. These improvements are estimated to cost $300,000. That takes care of the Queensway.
We also have another project which is a federal responsibility although in this case

National Capital Commission the federal district commission has to work in co-operation with both railway companies, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railway. I refer to the relocation of railways within the limits of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. The first stage of this relocation is completed and the second stage has already been commenced. We hope the commission will be given the proper authority to proceed with the second stage. This is an extremely important project and is at the base of the master plan. Not many years ago one could see a number of miles of railway tracks and crossings within the limits of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. Great progress has been made in their elimination but much remains to be done.
I see that my time has practically elapsed and there are a number of things which I should like to mention. Nevertheless, I think I have given a fair resume of the recommendations made to parliament in 1958 by the joint committee. I am happy to see that the Prime Minister is following in the steps of his predecessors in office in taking a keen and determined interest in the national capital of this country. I hope that the bill which is preceded by this resolution will contain all that was contained in Bill No. 417.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


Armand Dumas: May I have just one moment in which to conclude, Mr. Chairman?


Charles Edward Rea: Has the hon. member permission of the committee to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Armand Dumas: However, if some practical recommendations in the form of amendments have been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister I hope he will include them in the new legislation. We want the new legislation to be such as to permit the national capital commission to do a good job. I am sure the Prime Minister realizes that even if we give the commission authority we still have to supply the necessary funds and I am confident he will see that the required moneys are provided to the commission so that it may carry on its work. There are certain projects such as that concerning the Ottawa river, the Interprovincial bridge and perhaps others that are not strictly projects that are the responsibility of the federal district commission. I feel the government should participate in these project to the extent it

can. There are also projects which are entirely the responsibility of the commission and these should proceed as fast as possible.
One hon. gentleman proposed that the planned parkways in the city of Ottawa should be built as soon as possible. Other hon. members from various parts of this district might also have projects they would like to see built as rapidly as possible. I can think of the Gatineau park project. The parkway from lake Fortune to lake Phillips should be built as soon as possible. The federal district commission is doing a wonderful job in the parkway. It has built the lake Fortune parkway which is very beautiful and is now building the link between the outskirts of Hull and the parkway in lake Fortune which should be completed by the middle of next summer. The section north of lake Fortune should be built as soon as possible and there are many other such projects which we would like to see completed rapidly. Every hon. member of this committee wishes to see created a national capital of which we may be proud and I am convinced there is not an hon. member who would oppose the resolution proposed this morning by the Prime Minister.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to observe that the Prime Minister is in his seat while I make my few brief remarks on this resolution. The other hon. members of our group who have spoken dealt more with the general so far as the federal district commission arrangements are concerned and I shall avail myself of the opportunity of speaking about the particular. I intend to tread for a few moments where some parliamentary angels fear to tread. I intend to romp in the Elysian fields of the country estates owned by heads of states, governments and prominent persons since the time of Solomon. I believe history proves that persons burdened with responsibilities in government and in affairs of state have found it necessary to seek solace and refreshment in solitude with nature usually near water, an oasis, a river, a lake or a sea. My reading indicates that Solomon took 13 years to build his town house and later a summer estate in the forests of Lebanon. Socrates had a retreat in the hills of Greece. The Caesars had some of their private baths away from Rome. Napoleon had a hunting lodge which I understand was near Fontainebleau and perhaps it was there he had his vision. The early Georges had their country estates at Eastbourne and Exeter and the prime ministers of Great Britain have been fortunate in having Chequers since 1921 owing to the generosity of Lord and Lady Lee of Fareham. President Roosevelt had his retreat and the former Prime Minister Mackenzie

King, of course, had Kingsmere. The present Prime Minister inhabits a retreat at Harrington lake but I should not like it thought for an instant that I begrudge him that.
As a matter of fact, my first knowledge of the Prime Minister's visits to Harrington lake came when a waggish neighbour asked me if I knew that John the Baptist had gone into the wilderness. Then, he explained to me the newspaper account of the Prime Minister's going to Harrington lake. I said, "With the burdens that the Prime Minister has to carry today I do not blame him wanting to get the advantage of forest, water and solitude."
However, Mr. Chairman, my reading of history indicates that in the past the title of occupancy of those residences has been established by law or as the result of private ownership. So far as I can judge-and I have not had an explanation yet-this has been the cause of quite a lot of, not caustic but, interesting comment that is always aroused by this type of topic.
The present occupancy of the residence at Harrington lake, as I understand it, is based on rather slim legal foundations. The Prime Minister, coming from the west, may have thought he was living in the pioneer days and that the old squatters' rights still exist. In effect, it may be possible that he took the lead of some of the dictators of ancient Europe who occupied properties by what was known as the right of eminent appreciation, or possibly the federal district commission may have permitted a sort of trial occupancy until the owners, through parliament, decided what the terms of occupancy would be. We do not know what those terms of occupancy are. However, Mr. Chairman, I do think the procedure seems to be irregular and that is all I am going to deal with. I do not envy the Prime Minister one bit enjoying such a place. In fact, any tendency I have had during my lifetime of envying those in prominent and high positions has always been mellowed on remembering these lines in Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard":
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
Anyway there is a possibility of a future cabinet with less rectitude than is exhibited by the government in power putting into effect without an order in council and without a bill being adopted by this parliament something along the same lines. The Minister of Transport-I see him here-could occupy a disused wharf shed, as a fishing camp. A minister of justice could occupy an empty penitentiary as a baronial castle. The minister of defence could use some decommissioned destroyer as a private yacht and a
National Capital Commission postmaster general might use some antiquated post office mail van as a travelling trailer to spend his holidays in Canada. I can see the minister of public works in some future day making a house boat out of an obsolete dredge, and the secretary of state using the basement of the printing bureau as a private swimming pool. There are infinite possibilities, Mr. Chairman, for a cabinet that has not the conscience and rectitude that the present ministers of the cabinet have.
While everybody recognizes the need for an official country residence for the Prime Minister, this group and some members in other groups, some members in every party and some people in the country think it so necessary that it should be established by law and as a result of legislation in this house.
I want to refer to the bill that was adopted with respect to the official residence of the Prime Minister, and I am very glad that he has an offical residence. The act is entitled, "An Act to provide for the Operation and Maintenance of a Residence for the Prime Minister of Canada." Clause 3 states:
The minister of public works shall furnish, maintain, heat and keep in repair the buildings situated on the lands described in the schedule, and the federal district commission shall maintain and, from time to time as required, improve such lands.
By this bill the federal district commission have the authority of parliament to do certain things in connection with the residence of the Prime Minister. I do not know how the present Harrington lake house is being maintained or whether there are any expenditures by the federal district commission for that purpose but, so far as I can find out, there is no actual provision by order in council or by law. In contrast with that, I want to draw briefly to the attention of the committee the remarks of the present Minister of Finance when the bill for the operation and maintenance of the Prime Minister's residence which I have mentioned was under discussion. I find at page 3346 of Hansard of 1950 the Minister of Finance, who was in opposition at that time, had this to say, and I expect in his usual, vigorous, lambasting manner;
I think it is time, sir, to face this situation very clearly. What the government has done is this: Without asking for specific approval of parliament, without bringing before the house last fall, as it should have done, a bill to set aside a particular property, if they thought that was the best property, they made an announcement in the house without mentioning anything of that idea. They proceeded by order in council to set aside a house that had been acquired by the government several years before by expropriation for a purpose that we did not then know,-

National Capital Commission
Of course, this house was acquired by the federal district commission by expropriation several years ago.
All that was said in the house on that occasion, on September 30, by anybody who spoke in the house was that the idea that the government should provide at the expense of the country an official residence for the prime minister was approved; but no one went beyond that. Whatever has been done in regard to selecting this property, whatever has been done in the way of expenditure of vast sums of money upon it to try to modernize an ancient house, has been done solely on the responsibility of the government and without any approval on the part of this house.
Then, later, on the same page he had this to say:
What did the government do, entirely on its own responsibility? I have said in the first place that by order in council they set aside a government-owned property for this purpose.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to contrast the words of the Minister of Finance and his attitude to the problem and his chastising the government, as he said, for setting aside a property as a residence of the Prime Minister of Canada by order in council only with what has been done with respect to the Prime Minister's summer estate. I know the Prime Minister has a great appreciation of history, tradition and the customs of the past. I know that from experience. I am going to tell a little story with respect to the Prime Minister. I was going out of the house some five or six years ago and the Prime Minister was then in opposition. The session had ended. I might explain that the Prime Minister had gone down toward the Chateau Laurier. He will remember this. I was behind him. He turned around and walked back to the front of the building, had a look at it, and then walked away again. Do you know what he said to me? The Prime Minister will remember it. He said to me: "I had to come back for another look at the old building. I love it. It stands for such great traditions in Canada." That is why I know the Prime Minister thinks a great deal of history, tradition, practices and customs.
While I am only a humble member of this group, being quite content to leave the major issues, such as the distribution of box cars and the shape of Churchill's legs to other more brilliant members of the group, I do notice these little things.
I am somewhat lacking in intelligence, have a somewhat meagre education and humble background. I often go by instinct and I know from instinct that the Prime Minister of Canada has a great respect for these things. I know his approach to problems. I can almost visualize his mental processes, and I am quite sure that he will recognize what I
[Mr. Herridge.l
am saying is correct. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in concluding my brief remarks I do suggest that because we all realize that an official country estate is necessary for a person carrying the burdens of the prime minister's office in this country the occupancy should be regularized by the introduction of a bill such as was introduced in connection -with the official residence; first to avoid any unnecessary criticism and, second, to avoid any unpleasant public clamour on the part of the owners, who are the people of Canada and, shall I say, using that good old Anglo-Saxon phrase, for the quietening of title to provide for quiet possession by the Prime Minister himself on all occasions and future prime ministers.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, in concluding this rather rambling statement of the legal problem, which is somewhat beyond my capacity, I urge the Prime Minister to give this matter consideration and introduce a bill at the next session of parliament somewhat after the form of the bill that was introduced by the former government so that he and his successors will have an official summer residence to enjoy. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, he will put himself in the long line of succession from Solomon to the present day by following the historic practices, traditions and customs of all those who sit in the seats of the mighty.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, one cannot but congratulate the hon. gentleman for the degree to which he has engaged in research.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, is the Prime Minister closing the debate?


John George Diefenbaker: No. This is an interlude of humour brought into the discussion of a serious matter. I could not allow the occasion to pass without congratulating the hon. gentleman on the degree to which his research might well be described as love's labour lost because in point of fact there has been no such establishment. Throughout the period of some seven years since the property was acquired the federal district commission has made arrangements from time to time with private individuals, and at no time has it been established nor is there any reason for its establishment as a country home for the Prime Minister.
I understand that there are two pieces of property, one given to the state by Mr. Mackenzie King. I understand that that is being occupied today by one of the officials of parliament. There is no occupancy on the part of the Prime Minister of the place in question. Unoccupied as it is, I have spent few week ends there. If the hon. gentleman

had got in touch with me he would have saved himself a tremendous amount of heartsearching and examination of history. I tell him now that it has not been and will not be established as the Prime Minister's country residence as far as I am concerned. As I see it, there is no purpose in that regard. This place was occupied from time to time in the summers by one official or another, and if my hon. friend feels that grave wrong has been done let me tell him that he is as astray as it is possible for anyone to be.
The property was unoccupied except for periods of a week, ten days or two weeks in the last three years. Being unoccupied, I did not think there would be anyone who would search the recesses of history in order to make a facetious speech with regard to something that has no foundation. I have great respect and regard for the hon. member and I think his researches into the fields of history could have been exercised in a better cause.
As far as I am concerned, there is no country home established for the Prime Minister and it is not my purpose to have one so established. The place was unoccupied except for short periods when various officials were there for week ends. I do not want to understate the matter but the total amount of occupancy on week ends-I may have to correct what I said earlier-does not extend altogether beyond five or six days. If my hon. friend has any criticism to make under these circumstances I should like to hear it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Let me say that I have none under the circumstances but I have given the Prime Minister the opportunity to correct the false impression caused by some press reports. I may say further that these ideas were formed because I could not sleep early this morning.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be very brief. I am certainly in agreement with the statement of the Prime Minister regarding the improvement and development of the national capital area. I am sure we all agree that the capital, as he said, should be worthy of Canada and its people. My reason for rising at this time is to endorse the Prime Minister's views regarding the preservation of records of the historic past throughout our great country. In my own city of Moose Jaw we have some historic links with the past which we are attempting to preserve through the voluntary efforts of a museum committee of which I have the honour to be a member. The museum has been housed in a school building and has drawn a great many visitors. Now we have been told that we have to vacate because the space is required to accommodate the growing population of school children.
National Capital Commission
That is a local problem for us, of course, but I think it emphasizes the point I am trying to make, the need for greater encouragement by all levels of government to local areas to preserve their historic relics so that, as the Prime Minister states, the traditions and history of the past shall not lightly be removed or forgotten. I realize, as I said, that this is mainly a local and provincial problem and we receive some assistance from those sources, but I would hope that when the country's capital is being enlarged and its historic background preserved for all time the federal department in charge of historic records would also give greater encouragement and assistance, if that is possible, to the preservation of local history in other areas. I should like to endorse the principle of preserving historic records implied in the resolution presented by the Prime Minister and directly referred to by him in his remarks.
(Translation):


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, in connection with this proposed resolution, which is of the very greatest importance in so far as the national capital is concerned, I think I should rise at this time to express the feelings of the great forgotten men on the Quebec side. In fact, over the years, the Quebec side of this area has been looked upon as something of a gangway leading to the lovely Gatineau area, so that people from the national capital may enjoy scenic beauty without parallel in the world: a national park like that one, only a few minutes drive from the capital itself.
I might say that the city of Hull, founded several years before the city of Ottawa, did not have a railway station until 1901. In that year, the authorities condescended to build a station and to make the city a train stop. However, the station was not called Hull, but Beamer. There again, the name of the first town built, in this area, on the banks of the Ottawa river, was being overlooked.
When it came to putting up buildings other that those absolutely required for administrative purposes, the city of Hull was forgotten for years. True, on my representations, a new post office was eventually erected; but that building was most urgently required indeed. The old structure was actually falling to pieces and could no longer accommodate the parcel post department, either for incoming or outgoing items. The building was not completed until 1956.
It is true that the new printing bureau was also built in Hull, but unfortunately certain people, just because this happened to be on

National Capital Commission the Quebec side, have indulged in what I consider unseemly criticism. I propose to deal with this matter later on, in some other debate.
A moment ago, the hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Bell) speaking of buildings, stated -and rightly so-that due regard must be had for aesthetics. Nobody will quarrel with this, but aesthetics in architecture can vary according to people's tastes.
At salons or art exhibitions, for instance, you will see people raving over a Picasso who are quite unmoved by a Millet. It only shows that tastes vary and that different people see beauty in entirely different things. Just the same, I agree with the hon. member for Carleton, and I think we could preserve in the area some of the architectural style found in the parliament buildings, or the Confederation and Justice buildings. They give Ottawa its particular cachet. I also think that we should think of Hull as the possible site for other buildings in this sector of the national capital. It should be remembered that while the Quebec side covers a larger part of the area of the national capital than does the Ontario side, Hull gets only a small portion of the favours granted in this field.
As for representation on the commission- this is a point I wish to emphasize-it will be noted that the Hull or Quebec side representation was made up of only two members, namely, the mayor of the city of Hull and Mrs. Fontaine who, for a number of years, had been representing the Quebec side. On the other hand, the Ottawa side had eight representatives on the commission. There was the chairman, Major General Kennedy, an Ottawa resident, Mr. Charles Camsell of Ottawa, Mr. Ewart of Ottawa, Colonel Fraser of Ottawa, Mr. Lawrence Freiman of Ottawa, Mr. A. J. Major of Ottawa and Dr. R. A. Valin of Ottawa. Moreover, there was the then mayoress of Ottawa, the present mayor of Ottawa, whereas Hull had only two representatives, namely the mayor and Mrs. Fontaine.
I think that, considering the area of the national capital which is on the Quebec side, the Hull representation on the commission should include at least three Hull citizens, namely one for the rural part of the Hull constituency, one for the Gatineau part and one for the Pontiac part.
If the appointment of these individuals should create difficulties, we could always fall back on the metropolitan council which comprises about all the municipalities on the Quebec side interested in the national capital. We have, for example, East Templeton, the


municipality of Templeton, the village of Templeton, North Templeton, West Templeton, the town of Gatineau, the city of Hull, the village of Pointe-Gatineau, the municipalities of East Hull, West Hull and South Hull, Wakefield, the township of Wakefield, the municipality of East Wakefield, St. Cecile de Masham, North Masham, Eardley, the village of Deschene, the town of Aylmer, South Onslow and North Onslow as well as the village of Quyon. These municipalities on the Quebec side are all members of the metropolitan council and council officials could be asked to name representatives of the different sections, that is one for the rural parts of the constituency of Hull, one for the Gatineau section and one for the Pontiac section; I am sure that the people who would be appointed by that council could not be accused of intending to introduce politics in the commission since we do not know in advance what representatives the metropolitan council could appoint. Contrary to what the hon. member for Carleton said a moment ago, not only the cities of Hull and Aylmer are interested in a national capital; in fact, a good number of other municipalities are just as much interested if not more.
Another remark I wish to make has to do with bilingualism. I congratulate the federal district commission on that score. During the two years when I was a member of the commission, I advocated bilingualism. For a number of years, they had forgotten to put up bilingual signs even on the Quebec side.
I am quite prepared to believe it was not intentional; it was merely an oversight; and you know how easily human nature can cause people to forget certain things. At all events, I think I repeated my objections when we appeared before the committee which examined the federal district act in 1956. 1 asked the committee to refer the matter to the federal district commission, and urged them to have proper regard for bilingualism in the federal field. In this connection, I am heartened by the words of the Prime Minister this morning when he revealed to us the bilingual policy of the federal government.
Now, the federal district commission is part of the federal government. Also, I want to congratulate its members, inasmuch as for some time past they have agreed to use bilingual notices. This simplifies things, and it shows foreigners coming here that, on a federal plane, we are a fully bilingual country.

Quite a few people came to give explanations and descriptions of the areas at the sessions of this committee of inquiry. As the member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) has just reminded us, we heard, first of all, Major General Kennedy, formerly chairman of the federal district commission. We heard Mr. Marcel Couture, chief accountant; Mr. Jacques Greber, internationally known town-planner, who directed the commission's work for a good many years, and who now acts as their advisor; Mr. D. L. McDonald, director of planning, preparation; Mr. Allan
K.	Hay, general manager; Mr. Walter Walker, public relations director. We heard Mr. Stewart Bates, chairman of the Central Mortage and Housing Corporation; Dr. A. E. Berry, sanitary engineer of Toronto, who spoke of water pollution; Mr. Quipp, president of the western Quebec metropolitan commission; the representations of the city of Aylmer, through Mr. Proulx, its alderman. The city of Hull was represented by its mayor, Mr. Moncion, who was assisted by the city clerk, the legal advisor, the treasurer, the engineer, the assessor, the buildings inspector, the police director, in addition to the Hull chamber of commerce, the junior chamber of commerce, the retail merchant's association, and several other associations from Quebec. All those associations were asking, on behalf of the Quebec side, a better share, as far as representation is concerned. And they were right. That is why I believe that now that we are about to revise the act, that we are considering it as a whole, it is time that those anomalies be removed.
Some might ask: "Why did you not say these things when the Liberals were in power?" Well, I said so, I made those requests and still request those things, and if I believe that our representation in the past was not in keeping with the one we should have had, I repeat that a new wrong does not right a past one. At the moment we are not looking at the past; we are concerned with the present and I urge the Prime Minister and ask all those who are in his confidence to see to it that this anomaly which exists in our area through the poor Quebec representation in the federal district commission, be removed.
We have here a bridge which is a real disgrace. For many years we have been asking for a new bridge, and the federal government has always been and still is ready to remedy the situation. The government of Ontario has given its assent but the Quebec government
National Capital Commission is holding back saying that since the bridge is for the federal capital district, it is up to the federal government to build it. I do not want to enter into a controversy on the subject, but since we are amending the national capital act, we could also decide this matter, as such a disgrace cannot go on indefinitely. When we see traffic held up sixty or seventy-five minutes during rush hours, it is time something was done.
We have spent $20 million on the so-called green belt. Now, a green belt is essential for several reasons. First of all, it is not so much a green belt as an intermediate zone between rural and urban areas. However if we are able to spend $20 million to establish and maintain a green belt around a city with industrial plants-it is, indeed, necessary where there is industry-surely we can also spend over the next few years several million dollars to make the bridge practicable and eliminate the present ghastly conditions.
I respectfully request that, when we come to vote the estimates for the new national capital, we might some time include certain amounts for the building of a bridge.
Much has been said about water pollution. This water pollution has been presented like an evil mainly due to industry. I heard that matter discussed by Dr. Berry and, more recently still, we heard an expert from the Eddy Company, a chemical engineer, produce evidence to demonstrate that the industries were not the main causes of pollution. Though he admitted that they were responsible, to a certain degree, he held that such pollution for which they could be held liable could not really affect the purity of the water. He added that the great cause of pollution is the fact that sewage is poured into the river by the city of Ottawa, the city of Hull, the towns of Aylmer and Gatineau and surrounding municipalities. That problem must be settled. I am convinced that this is far beyond the means of the municipalities concerned. I will go so far as to say that this even goes beyond the capacity of the provincial governments that are quite incapable, by themselves, of assuming full responsibility in this regard. The federal government then, through the commission which is about to be set up, should hear experts representing both sides-those who-claim the factories are largely responsible and those who claim that municipal sewage is mainly to blame-and attempt to determine where, exactly, this responsibility rests.

National Capital Commission
Of one thing I am sure and that is: municipal sewage is really the cause of considerable pollution. It follows that the government will have to come to an agreement with the municipal governments to help them build sewer systems and purification plants so as to make the Ottawa river what it was years ago, that is a fine place for canoeing or boating and even for swimming.
This brings me to the green belt question. I know that, especially outside this house, many have criticized the spending for the purchase of lands for the maintenance of this green belt because, so they say, this will become lost land and the cost is, so to speak, exorbitant.
If they had heard the experts telling the commission dealing with this matter that a green belt girdling a great city is as essential to it as trees are to the countryside, so as to maintain moisture in the soil and purify the air, they would certainly wish the good work to go on.
I am convinced that the policy followed in the past, and being adopted now, must be continued, so that we may not only cleanse the air around us but also brighten the picture both for residents and for visitors to Ottawa.
Another thing. While there are many lakes in the national capital area itself, there are not enough fish in them to make them reasonably attractive to anglers. I feel that the federal district commission, or rather the national capital commission should set up a fish breeding station in order to stock those various lakes, making it possible for visitors to this area to fish those waters.
A few years ago I was in Granby. The mayor of that town has publicized it in every imaginable way. He has even set up an artificial lake which is stocked with fish, and visitors were being invited to fish from a little bridge across that pond. This is a wonderful attraction for out-of-town visitors. If our lakes have been fished out to a large extent, it is because the fishing done out there by our people has been carried out in an unreasonable way, and even, on occasion, illegally. If we could manage to have a fishbreeding station, we could supply our lakes and it would profit the national capital.
Now, the French version of the title reads: "Commission de la capitale nationale", while the English version has it:	"The national
capital commission". Now, I think this title

is not quite comprehensive enough. It seems to apply solely to the city of Ottawa, which is the national capital. In my opinion, we could change this without much difficulty because, today, initials rather than full titles are used. If it were called the regional commission of the national capital, or the metropolitan commission of the national capital, this would indicate that its area extends well beyond the city of Ottawa and would tend to please the people on the other side of the river, who have always had misgivings about the federal district commission. The word "district" seemed to give the impression that the intention about the national capital was to set up a district along the lines of the district of Columbia and people on both sides of the river were strongly opposed to this.
They wanted to remain themselves, and to go on running their businesses. We know that residents of the district of Columbia, U.S.A., consider that district to be the greatest fiasco in the world; we do not want that to be a pattern for Canada. Let me add that I appreciate fully that nothing was further from the thoughts of either the former prime minister or the present one and his colleagues, but who knows that someone might not one day wish to turn this place into another district of Columbia? And so, in order to rid ourselves of that apprehension, would it not be expedient to change the name to "regional commission of the national capital", or metropolitan commission of the national capital"?
There you have, I think, the kernel of my thoughts for today. When the bill itself comes up, we will examine it with an open mind and hope to be able to suggest amendments. For we are not pandering to party politics, but acting as the servants of a community; and it is up to all the political parties holding office in the future to respect the common accord on which we shall be asked to set our seal during the next few days.
It is my hope that, once the resolution has been adopted, this bill will be introduced as swiftly as possible, so that we may have a few days at our disposal to examine it and to cast the amendments we shall judge appropriate.


Mr. Campeau:: Mr. Chairman, rising as I do, for the first time in this house, may I be allowed to express first and foremost to the citizens of the riding of St. Jacques, all

my thanks for the confidence they kindly put in me when they entrusted me with the representation in the Canadian parliament of one of the oldest counties on the island of Montreal.
As a professional town-planner, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for his happy thought when he gave us the guarantee that the major elements of the general national capital plan would be carried out in the near future.
As a matter of fact, the bill that has been introduced is, without any doubt, one of the most important ones submitted to date on the national level with regard to town-planning.
One of the main tasks of the federal government today in the field of town-planning is, indeed, to give to the nation a national capital of which all Canadian citizens may be proud.
The speech from the throne, at the beginning of May, announced federal legislation designed to insure a long-term functional development of the national capital. The legislation now before the house is designed to reorganize the federal district commission so as to insure the carrying on of the embellishment program of Ottawa and its environments, as well as to endow the whole nation with a capital city in keeping with its progress. One of the main provisions aimed at by this embellishment program is the protection of the green belt provided under the capital development plan.
The federal government will put several million dollars at the disposal of the commission to expropriate lands included in this green belt.
The federal district commission has sought without success to prevent construction in that green belt. So that, after due consideration, it was resolved that the best means of achieving this green belt was not by zoning, but indeed by expropriation. By experience, I can state that such a decision is sound and, moreover, the only practical one.
The aim is to keep that area as a reserve for future extensions and to make sure that, in future years, the capital shall not have to spend money through various public services for districts laid out in a haphazard way.
It is expected that the population of Ottawa will reach about 600,000 by 1980; it
57071-3-212
National Capital Commission is now about 230,000. Water and sewer services have been anticipated for that figure and a faster growth would mean an alteration of plans prepared at great cost. The federal district commission has already invested many millions of dollars in the present program of municipal services.
The green belt will serve as a barrier, maintaining the metropolitan area within the limits of 600,000 inhabitants. New districts could be built outside it but would have to be serviced by suburban municipalities.
When he announced the bill, the Prime Minister indicated that the crown would buy those properties and would lease them, with the reservation that all necessary restrictions to carry out the objective would be applied.
The Prime Minister added that areas to be included in the green belt, and the limits with regard to the use of the lands therein, would be settled and submitted to the approval of the government by the federal district commission after consultation with the interested local authorities. The government wants to be assured that the views of the local people interested in the matter with regard to detail will be considered.
As the Prime Minister rightly indicated in this parliament, experience has shown-and my own experience as a town-planner cannot but confirm it-that if efficient control is not exercised in this respect, cities tend to draw themselves out into suburbs. The result is what we can call ribbon development, which cannot be reconciled with longterm programs that are essential if the capital of Canada is to be preserved and developed so as to justify and rouse the pride of present and future generations.
The Prime Minister also mentioned the need for implementing a number of other development and improvement projects for the national capital.
We are convinced that, through the understanding the Prime Minister has always shown with respect to city planning, and owing to his energy, the national capital will, before long, be a true symbol of the greatness of the Canadian nation. As a town planner I cannot but wish, Mr. Chairman, that the legislation now before the house will be passed as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Chairman, I think it has been made clear from the speeches thus far that practically all members in this house

National Capital Commission welcome this resolution. I must say that I am very glad it has now been brought forward.
It is rather interesting to note the development over the years of this whole concept. The first commission was known as the Ottawa improvement commission and as the country and the capital developed, the name was changed and the powers under the legislation were also changed and enlarged. From 1927 on the commission was known as the federal district commission. We are today taking one more step through the resolution we are now discussing and which, as I understand it, proposes among other things to change the name of the commission to the national capital commission.
When one considers the whole subject and what has been done thus far, he cannot but admire the foresight of the persons who dealt with this matter in the early days, when it was not a popular subject which gained universal support in all parts of the country. For my own part I would like to acknowledge the foresight of the politicians in all parties back as far as the late 1890's and in the years since. One cannot but feel indebted to these politicians for their work which, in relation to their times, was of very real importance. I would also like to say a word of appreciation for the work done by the members of the various commissions and by the employees of those commissions. Such work, especially in the case of the commissioners, who receive no compensation, and the employees who have received inadequate compensation, deserves acknowledgment and commendation. I wish to express my appreciation to them and have it placed on the record.
The resolution stage, I suppose, is the stage at which questions on this subject should be asked but before asking some questions I should like to make one or two more general remarks which I think must be borne in mind when considering this proposal. A great deal has been said about the nonpartisan nature of this measure. At the risk of being somewhat repetitious I should like to reiterate those words and point out that there is a real need for approaching this matter in a non-partisan way. That genuine need arises for two main reasons altogether outside of this house, one of them being a need for having what is achieved in national capital development appreciated by Canadians from all parts of the country regardless of their political outlook or affiliation.
There is also another very practical reason -and in dealing with legislation we have to be practical-and that is that it is inevitable with regard to this subject that we come up against the problem of provincial and

municipal jurisdiction. Indeed, in some of these problems I confess I am not quite clear where federal jurisdiction ends and provincial jurisdiction begins and where municipal jurisdiction begins and ends. In any event as a practical matter it is important that any real work that is done be accomplished with the concurrence and approval, tacit or otherwise, of all three levels of government in the particular areas concerned. We must bear in mind the number of municipalities involved, the difficulties local in nature that these municipalities have, the common financial difficulties with which they are all faced and the underlying question of provincial jurisdiction in this whole matter. When one considers these matters one appreciates the necessity for always seeking to treat this resolution and the measures that will follow it as nonpartisan measures.
I must be frank to admit that this does involve some problems. It very often means that one has to forbear when one would perhaps like to differ a bit concerning some small, relatively unimportant phase of a matter that is brought forward for discussion. One must refrain from stepping in to strongly attack an individual concerning some question of policy. But I believe the forbearance from taking a partisan approach is worth while and will eventually lead us all to realize more quickly the end which we have in mind and hope to achieve through this legislation.
I have always felt that it is particularly fortunate that Ottawa was chosen as the capital of this nation. Lest some hon. gentlemen think I say that merely because at the moment I happen to have the honour of representing a part of this capital city I hasten to assure them that is not my reason for stating that view. The truth of the matter is that the concept of this great country and its history is very accurately expressed through the idea of a capital city with its government buildings located on top of a cliff overlooking a magnificent river. In the case of Ottawa the parliament buildings are high on a cliff overlooking the beautiful Ottawa river across which there is the magnificent panorama of the hills of another province. I have always had difficulty expressing in words my concept of the background and history of Canada but that concept is symbolized and given eloquent physical expression through the present location of the capital buildings being located on the Ottawa river with more poignancy than any words of mine could depict. I find my own ability with the English language wholly inadequate to express my ideas in this regard. Nonetheless I adhere to those ideas and seek on occasions where I can to lend my support

to any measure that will perfect the concept the material expression of which found reality through those who chose this city as the site of the capital of Canada. I hope that over the years all Canadians will come to regard the site of their capital in that light.
It has been interesting to observe the development that has taken place in the national capital even within my own time as one taking an active interest in this matter. It is fascinating to note how the development of Canada is reflected in the growth and development of its capital city. Indeed, as the nation has developed over the years the capital has kept pace with that development. It seems to me it does not grow much faster or much slower than the country as a whole but almost at the same pace.
The implementing of the national capital plan is a continuing operation. I hope no hon. member here today will regard this resolution as embodying a few items of public works that are to be accomplished in any given time. The work of improving the capital of Canada must never be finished. It must be continuing and continuous and I hope it will always be viewed in that light. Having said that I must comment that we are now at a stage in the development of the plan where we are taking steps to ensure the continuity of action in this regard. When the Prime Minister enters the chamber I should like to ask him one or two questions which in my opinion are strictly relevant to the resolution before us.
Perhaps before the Prime Minister returns I might make one or two observations which I trust he will appreciate and not misunderstand. I address these comments to him as the person through whom the commission will report to this house. My observations relate firstly to the green belt area which represents a very large expropriation of lands through the use of public funds. When this vast amount of real estate is expropriated its management and operation will tax the capacity of the commission and I would hope that as the pressures of management on the commission grow, the Prime Minister will not allow that to crowd out and overshadow the proper activities of the commission in other respects. That is, I hope he will not let the practical things arising out of the demand for the management of this vast acreage of real estate crowd out the attention that needs to be given, and will require to be given over the years to the development of the rest of the national capital itself.
The same observation applies to the park area. We have now a vast park area in the Gatineau hills, a far-sighted policy in acquiring those lands, that has been carried out.
57071-3-212|
National Capital Commission The state now owns that land. I hope that the pressure for development of that vast and wonderful parkland will not be such as to divert the attention of the commission from the development of the capital itself. There is always the danger of that because, in the art of politics and the administration of government business, as I suspect the Prime Minister has found out, it is only possible to make so much money available each year. It is never as much as those of us who are particularly interested in any particular scheme would wish, and it has to be used as best it can be used. I hope that the Prime Minister will keep-if I may use a somewhat slangy expression-his eye on the ball in this, and keep always before him the idea of the development of the national capital. Then, these other very important and very good projects in the scheme, which I speak very highly of, will fall into their proper places and not displace the main objective.
Since I have some general questions having to do with the resolution, perhaps I can state them now and the Prime Minister can answer them either one at a time or later if he sees fit to do so. Perhaps if I state them now it will be the best way for me to do it. I know the Prime Minister cannot deal with the individual sections of the bill, but I should like to ask him at this stage whether there are any main aspects or main principles on which this bill differs from the previous bill introduced by the last government on, I think, April 8 1957?
rnen, what about the method of financing the new commission? Will the Prime Ministe? say something at this stage about the method of providing the financing; that is, the necessity for funds which will be in the nature of capital and^ which will not lapse at the end of a financial year and the provision of the operating funds for the annual maintenance work. What I have in mind is the type of problem that arose in June, 1948, when the national capital resolution was before the house. I think the Prime Minister is probably quite familiar with the debate at that time He will recall particularly the speech of the Prime Minister of that day, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, when he was bringing the resolution before the house, approving certain capital grants to be expended through the federal district commission for the national capital development. Does he envisage under this legislation the same sort of thing? Is it going to require a resolution of that sort, or what form will the financing take?
Then I should like to ask him about the commission itself. He will notice that when the previous bill was introduced by the

National Capital Commission former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, in 1957, a good deal was said about the operations of the commission itself; that is, how it was proposed to be set up. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would feel free to tell the committee just what he envisages in that respect?
There was some discussion about an executive committee, the size of the commission and that sort of thing. That raises the question of the chairmanship of the commission. Always, until the very last few years, the chairman of the federal district commission received no compensation whatever. The work of the commission has become so onerous now that it is getting to be a fulltime job requiring the time of a thoroughly competent, full-time man. Can the Prime Minister tell us what he envisages in that respect? What are the plans?
Then there are some smaller matters, but it seems to me this is the proper place to raise them. There is the very important matter dealt with by the committee, namely the pollution of the Ottawa river. I may tell persons who do not know and who think it is a dirty river that it is a wonderful river. It is dirty in this area because we people have polluted it. It is actually a very clean stream, and I myself have caught Quebec red trout in the Ottawa river not very far from here. In areas where there are no towns to pollute the river it is naturally very clean; it is a magnificent river.
A good deal of discussion, with which I was familiar at the time, went on with the former government about sewage disposal in the city of Ottawa and the part of the federal government in that. The subject is very much a live issue again at the municipal level, and action is being taken. If the Prime Minister is in a position today to tell us I do not know whether he is or not-I would ask him to tell us what he can about the participation of the federal government in that scheme. If he is not in a position to tell us I will understand because I know that these things require some negotiation. I think he will also appreciate my interest to get on with the scheme as quickly as possible and have this pollution stopped. I could express myself in very strong language on that but perhaps there is no need for it. I think all hon. members share the same view as I do on that matter and when I was sitting here this afternoon I could not help but recall the views expressed by the late Dr. Blair on the subject. For my part, I wish that he was here today to encourage the government to do all it can to speed up the solving of that problem.

There are some other smaller matters. When this work was carried on by the Ottawa improvement commission, at one stage it was thought that the south boundary of the city was in what is now the centre town section and the driveway system, which we are all proud of now, extended along what is now Clemow avenue and Monkland. That was under the Ottawa improvement commission but it is now under the jurisdiction of the federal district commission. Owing to some legal technical difficulties it is very difficult to have that removed from the jurisdiction of the federal district commission and put back under the jurisdiction of the city where,
I think, most persons concerned with the maintenance of those streets agree that it belongs. As I see the legal problems, the way to clear them up is by provincial legislation and I would hope that the Prime Minister might find a moment in his busy days to draw that fact to the attention of the appropriate provincial authorities so that the necessary provincial legislation can be enacted to put the matter under the jurisdiction of the city.
There is also a small thing that somewhat alarms me. I understand that it is proposed to put parking meters on Wellington street immediately in front of parliament hill. I am not absolutely sure of my facts but I understand that is so. If there is anything in it I hope the Prime Minister will use his office to see that it is not done or even have his Minister of Public Works do what he can to see that it does not take place.


Howard Charles Green: It has nothing to do with me.


Mr.   Mcllraiifc@: I think I can help the
Prime Minister a little bit here. I think there may be some work done by the Department of Public Works or some spending of the taxpayers' money. There used to be and I would ask the minister to check that closely. I know it is a small thing but I find that the combination of small things can interfere with something much bigger. I hope the Prime Minister does not mind me mentioning these smaller things at this time.
There are other matters but there will be an opportunity to ask about them in more detail later. I should also like the Prime Minister to tell us what main projects he has in mind requiring a substantial expenditure of money in the immediately foreseeable future. These things take time to develop fully. I am particularly interested in aspects. In 1947 expropriation proceedings were started with regard to properties along the Ottawa river with a view to completing the driveway system along the river in a westerly direction from the centre of the city. The expropriations are completed and

the big expenditures have been incurred. It is now a matter of developing the driveway itself. I am very keen that this should be done. I think the timing is right now to proceed. When there was a post-war housing shortage it was not desirable to go into the area and evict people for a development of this kind and the expropriations took somewhat longer than normal for that reason. They have now been completed and I would hope it would be possible to get on with the project.
Work also requires to be done to develop the driveway system along the south and southeast shore of the Rideau river. I hope that project will be among those undertaken at an early date. Then there is the matter of expropriations in the Sussex street area. I would hope it would also be possible to develop that project rapidly. The sites I am talking about so arouse my enthusiasm that I find it difficult to use moderate language in describing them. I hope that among hon. members there are those who like to walk or, indeed, to drive if they must drive, on those days when we are not fully engaged here and who will examine the areas about which I am talking for themselves. If they do I think they will share my enthusiasm for the site chosen by our forebears as the national capital of Canada. I hope that in the years to come the commission we are now establishing and its successors will continue the good work so very well undertaken by the Ottawa improvement commission and the federal district commission.


Mr. Martineau:: Mr. Chairman, it is indeed expedient that this committee should consider the adoption of this resolution which provides for the improvement and enlargement of the national capital area. I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister particularly on his initiative and I am sure, as hon. members who have spoken so far have indicated, that in this undertaking he has the unanimous support of members on both sides of the house. While at this stage we are planning for the future greatness of our capital city, I believe it is not entirely uninteresting or inappropriate to look back into the past to see how our capital city has evolved from a very humble beginning and how its development has been influenced by a multitude of chances and events that none could have foreseen.
This site, of which some members have spoken so eloquently and which today is the site of our great capital, was known for unrecorded centuries by succeeding tribes of Indians who travelled the majestic river of which we are so proud, a river that in the days of the Indians was known as the Grand
National Capital Commission river and in Indian bore the name Kit-chi-sippi. For many centuries before the dawn of the history of North America the Indians looked at these cliffs and hills and certainly they never thought that some day the great capital city of a growing power would be situated on these hills.
To come closer to our own time, we are familiar with the voyages of Samuel de Champlain who bivouacked not far from here and who, indeed, was the first to note in his records the natural phenomenon of a spray or curtain from which the name of the Rideau river originated. It is in memory of his journeys that on Nepean point in this city we have a bronze statue to that great explorer and founder of New France and of Canada. After Champlain there followed wave upon wave of explorers, traders and missionaries who knew the Ottawa river and who also no doubt admired the wonderful scenery presented by what is now the hill of parliament.
Later, military men surveyed the sites and in 1791 the legislature of Canada recommended the forks of the Ottawa and Rideau rivers as the site of a future military fort or a fortified city. Then came the Napoleonic wars and the American revolutionary war, and as a result the Ottawa river area became known as a great source for white pine timber. It was truly this quest for timber that opened up the Ottawa valley, and it was the succeeding generations of lumbermen, lumberjacks and farmers that opened up this valley.
After the union of the two Canadas, Mr. Chairman, Ottawa came, by mere chance I would say, as a result of the bickering of other cities, older and more famous, who claimed to have a greater right to become the capital city of the new nation that was to be born, to be chosen as the capital city. It is interesting to read from the proclamation of Queen Victoria on December 31, 1857, with reference to Bytown:
-as in the judgment of Her Majesty, combining more advantages than any other place in Canada for the permanent seat of the future government.
Indeed, when Queen Victoria fixed her choice on Ottawa as the future capital many of the inhabitants of the older cities of Canada sneered. As a matter of fact, a certain gentleman from Toronto, who was known as a gentleman philosopher, commented that this sub-Arctic lumber village was suddenly converted, by royal mandate, into a political cockpit. Despite the unpopularity of the choice of Ottawa, nevertheless in 1860 the then Prince of Wales, who afterwards became King Edward VII, laid the cornerstone of the new parliament buildings of the nation of Upper and Lower

National Capital Commission Canada. It was only in 1865, almost eight years after its choice, that the public services were finally moved and housed in the new buildings erected for that purpose in Ottawa.
Since those primitive days the sub-Arctic village certainly has progressed. It was in 1896 that the then prime minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, envisaged, I believe for the first time, the future greatness of our nation and of this capital city. He referred to Ottawa in those days as the new Washington of the north. It was in 1899 that the first improvement commission, to which the hon. member for Ottawa West referred, was founded. From then onward the city progressed with amazing rapidity; so much so that in 1933 the Jacques Greber plan for the improvement of the capital area was adopted by the national government. This plan provided particularly for confederation square and the enlargement of Elgin street into the wide boulevard that we know today. In 1945, the federal district commission was enlarged, as well as the federal district area until it comprised an area of some 900 square miles.
Today we are again taking stock of our capital and its resources. We are again looking towards the expansion of the national capital area, and we are doubling this area. I submit that when we do so, we should do so in the light of the greatness that appears to be promised for our country; in the light also of modern conditions and modern methods of communication. Today the entire world has shrunk and distances no longer mean anything. If we consider modern technology and so on we can, and this is certainly no dream, look forward to the day when Ottawa will be one of the great cities of the world. It is fitting that it become one of the great cities of the world because it is destined to be the capital of one of the great countries of the world.
I feel that we should plan accordingly. We should plan for that greatness. We should plan for the future, and that is why I am in agreement with this resolution, with the planning and foresight that the Prime Minister has shown in introducing it to the house. Hon. members have spoken of the great technical problems that are connected with the future growth of this city. These problems include the mastery of the vexing question of pollution of the waters. They include also an increase in the number of bridges across the Ottawa river. For many years a new bridge across the Ottawa river has been requested by all the authorities. I should like to join with all those who have fought to obtain

this bridge, and I feel sure that with the right job of planning we will have it in the near future.
I am thinking also of the green belt area and of Gatineau park. I mentioned earlier that methods of communication have been revolutionized; that distances no longer mean anything. I think future residents of this capital would certainly appreciate a scenic driveway outside of Ottawa that would cover more than the few short miles that can be travelled today in minutes. We should plan for a long scenic driveway out of the city of Ottawa. When I speak of scenery, I naturally think of the Gatineau hills and my own constituency of Pontiac. I think that following the adoption of this resolution much thought should be given to the establishment of a beautiful, scenic driveway along the Ottawa river, along that great, historic and majestic river which was known for so many years before the dawn of our own era, and which was a great artery of travel many years ago.
In order to create a driveway, we must extend the capital area for 60 or perhaps 100 miles along the north and south shores of the Ottawa river. We should plan also for future bridges so that the inhabitants of our capital will be able to drive out to these beautiful places and have the necessary accommodation to enjoy them.
That means good roads. It also means stopping places along the road, parks and so on. These facilities have been begun but so far they are only a beginning. We must continue to expand them so that really and truly our capital city will be not only a city but a great area of beauty, a fitting tribute to the nation that we all know Canada is destined to be; and that it will also be a place to which diplomats from foreign countries and notable visitors may come, may relax and may enjoy something that is typically Canadian,-because it has scenery which is different and cannot be found anywhere else in the world,-is typical of our own country and of our sort of people. In doing that I think we are planning the future course of Ottawa. That is the way in which I like to look forward to the days ahead; to Ottawa, a great city, the capital of a great country.
In closing I should just like to read this quotation from the Scriptures. I may be something for our planning fathers to remember.
I read as follows:
Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
(Translation):


Mr. Gour:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to commend the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for having introduced this resolution in the house. However,

I wish he had submitted it during the 1957 session. Yes I am very pleased it has been done during the current session.
At the same time I cannot but congratulate the Right Hon. Mr. St. Laurent tor having appointed, in 1956, a joint committee of the higher and lower houses and the federal district commission, the fruits of which will soon be harvested. I also cannot but recall here former prime ministers like the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, the Right Hon. Mr. Borden, as well as one of the greatest men who contributed to the forming of our country, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They all have very efficiently contributed to the development of Canada's national capital, of the region of Hull and of surrounding districts. I remind hon. members of these names because I am afraid that a number of new Conservative representatives have been thinking that before the session which began on June 10th last year, nothing had ever been done in our country. Indeed, they seem to believe that our country was not born until then. If those people discovered our country only on June 10th last, I may say that they made a fine discovery.
While I am handing out bouquets, may I be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to pursue in the same vein. I have always been interested in the federal district commision, as it was called. We now call it the national capital commission. I want to commend the various successive chairmen of that commission who have all been worthy of this honour, as all interested in the commission, as I have been for a long time, could see for themselves.
My friend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) refers to it, in English, a "new development"; I do not call it a "new development", in French, but rather a continuation of what was done previously. In fact, it is merely a continuation of what was already started. I am glad to know that we are in a position to carry on the work. I therefore take pleasure in congratulating all who have contributed to the work of the commission previously known under the name of federal district commission.
My good friend from Carleton, according to a report published in the Ottawa newspapers, has claimed that the federal district commission had done nothing. "Nothing was done", he said. I am somewhat nonplussed at a statement like that because I thought he was very well informed. I should like to tell him that no city has achieved so great development, in so short a time, as the capital of Canada, the city of
National Capital Commission Ottawa. Anyone who reads the history of any country-I do not know how you say it in English, but, in French, to those who complain that things are not going fast enough, we answer that Paris was not built in a day-will realize that the capital of Canada is bound to continue to develop with time. I congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) who said a moment ago that the development of the capital of Canada will not be completed this year but will go on as long as Canada continues to exist.
I congratulate the distinguished town-planner, Mr. Jacques Greber, who has drawn the plan of the federal capital. I was able, during the meetings of the committee in 1956, to ask him whether he believed that Canada and the city of Ottawa would develop at the same rate as during the past ten or twelve years, and his answer was: "Not at all, in my opinion, the city of Ottawa grew 10 years sooner than I expected". I was glad to hear that admission on the part of such a qualified man; that was when the Liberals were in power and, consequently, they had been the promoters of that fast development of the capital city. It has been said repeatedly that Ottawa will be a fine city; I would prefer however that my good friends admit that it is not only the finest city, but also one of the finest capitals that can be found.
Of all the capital cities I have visited- and there are at least seventeen of them-I have never found one as lovely as Ottawa, taking into account, of course its population and the number of years it has been the capital of this country.
I have been to the capital cities of the United States, England and other countries, but of all the cities I have visited none is as beautiful as the city of Ottawa. I have travelled almost the length and breadth of the United States, England, France and Italy, I have been to parts of Holland, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, Egypt and Greece. There is no finer city, anywhere, than Ottawa, and I do not care who says otherwise! And that is not only because of its parks and buildings, but because of the sterling qualities of the people who live here. Whatever their race, or creed or class, they all live in harmony. Nobody will convince me that tourists are not well received in' Ottawa.
I am sorry that one hon. member heard from another hon. member that there were garbage cans on the sidewalks. I have been to other cities and I can say to this gentlemen that he could very well begin by looking to his own city. He would probably find garbage

National Capital Commission cans right in front of his own house. Why go around saying in newspapers that there are a few garbage cans on the sidewalk or that some houses should be rebuilt? Obviously, there will always be some obsolescent housing and, forty years from now, houses that are new at this time will have to be replaced.
I would therefore urge the Prime Minister to ask that enough money be voted, because it takes a lot of it, and besides this, it will give jobs to the unemployed.
So, I hope, first, that the green belt matter will be settled as soon as possible while at the same time justice is done to the property owners of this area.
Care will have to be taken also that the commission does not pay exorbitant prices to some individuals who have purchased land for the mere purpose of speculation. Some profiteers who have purchased land in this area should not make excessive profits on the land to be purchased or expropriated by the federal district commission. Furthermore, some owners should be prevented from raising the value of their properties.
Nowhere in Canada, I believe, is there a riding where you will find more expropriation than in mine-for purposes of national defence, public works, the Department of Transport, and the federal district commission, whose representatives are most likeable. It is precisely because they are so likeable that all has gone well, and I hope it will continue that way.
I would like to see the earliest possible development of the federal capital. Let land be purchased by expropriation or otherwise, provided these people are left free to do as they wish with their property. But we must act now.
I hope also that people living outside the green belt will be able to obtain loans from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(Text):
Perhaps if I speak in English I might be better understood by the Prime Minister and other members of the house.
In connection with the green belt and also the areas outside of the green belt, I think the people of my constituency are entitled to fair play and in this connection I am quite sure that the federal district commission is doing a good job. I have no criticism to make of that body, which is non-political in character.
The commission, of course, has had to face a lot of trouble. There have been problems caused by the fact that they have had to deal with so many municipalities, city councils and also with the two provinces. These bodies, however, have represented their people and have tried to do their best for them. One cannot blame them for introducing a little politics; that is natural. If the reeve of a township or the mayor of a city is concerned, for instance, he will want to do his best to protect his people and to get for them perhaps a little better consideration than that given to others. There is no harm in that and such people cannot be blamed. In the same way we try to look after our constituents and we are not above using a little politics for their benefit.
I find, therefore, that during the relatively short time during which the commission has been in existence it has done a first class job. It has not pleased all my people-oh no, one should ask my electors about that. Some of them think they should have had twice as much as they have had, but that is natural, too, and you cannot blame them. The main point is, however, and I am sure they would agree if they were asked, that they have been well used. They were looked after in the past and I am quite sure this government will continue in the same way as the Liberal regime.
I would ask that if possible the building of the bridge between Ottawa and Hull should be expedited. I am happy to know the relocation of the railways is to take place as soon as possible and all these things are to take place, at least in part, in my riding. The land is to be bought by the federal district commission and there will be ample opportunity to use the railways and also the new Queensway. The Queensway, in particular, will be a most suitable means of crossing from one city to the other and will also be a very pleasant road.
The next thing I would like to urge upon the Prime Minister is that as soon as he can get enough money something should be done to clean up the Ottawa river. I represent a riding on the Ottawa river and I am well informed on this subject. I have a little peanut shack on the river and I like to go there whenever I have a chance. Last year I had a bad time in this connection in view of what happened in this country in connection with the election and it was not much better this year. However, I do think it would be a good thing if something could be done quickly. This project, in addition to the construction of the bridge and the

Queensway and so on will provide work lor the people who need work and I am sure all the people of Canada are in favour of these measures.
I would like to pay tribute to all the members who have sat in this house since 1945, members from Vancouver to Halifax. Regardless of political opinion, they have all been very willing to co-operate in the making of the capital of our country the most attractive capital it is possible for human beings to create. I would also like to pay the same tribute to the new members, for I am sure in this respect they are just the same as those who have preceded them. They, like their predecessors, raised no objections to the spending of money in order to beautify Ottawa. Ottawa is their own capital, just as it is the capital of every Canadian. It is reported that more than 50,000 additional tourists came to Ottawa last year and, to be materialistic for a moment, that means something for our country, that is a big thing for our country.
There is one more request I would like to make and that is with respect to the many attractive spots in my riding which might, in my opinion, be made into beautiful parks. I have in mind such places as Manotick. There are many more, but I am sure that the federal district commission will do everything in its power to develop such places.
Having had extensive dealings with the men who form this commission, I must say that I could not ask for people more devoted to their duties. They will do their best for my riding, for Quebec and for Canada, and it is not a question of having friends in the right place. They are doing what should be done and they are doing the most necessary things first, without being bothered by us. If there is a change to be made or something to be done, I am sure, as pointed out by my friend the hon. member for Carleton, that no question of politics will be involved. We Liberals chose the chairman of the federal district commission. He was not a Liberal but he was a fine man, possessed of great ability. If a man was chosen to be chairman of the commission and if, twenty years ago, he was a Liberal, he could still be a good man for the job, and he would do just the same as he would were he of any other political opinion. This is because we in the Liberal party make no distinction and as we all know the present chairman, who is not a Liberal, is a great man and a very able man.
I do not think I have any more to say at this time except to reiterate that I hope everything that can be done will be done as soon as possible and that if the Prime Minister finds that he needs more money I am sure if he comes to the house he will find he will 57071-3-213
National Capital Commission receive our support. I will support him for the good of the capital, for the sake of the future and for the benefit of the people of this country.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few words to what has been said by previous speakers. I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister for bringing this resolution before the house. I believe it has been brought forward as soon as possible following the findings of the committee in 1956 and the introduction of the bill in 1957. I hasten to say, too, that it is gratifying to observe the general agreement that obtains in this house on the subject matter of this resolution. To those who think it was always thus I only want to say it is especially gratifying at this time because it was not always this easy to discuss a proposal involving the expenditure of such large amounts of money for the development of a national capital in the way we are now.
I as a citizen of Ottawa believe I echo the feeling of every hon. member of this house when I say that Ottawa is a beautiful city, a wonderful capital. The citizens of Ottawa have as much interest in making Ottawa a beautiful city as other citizens have in their respective communities. The citizens of Ottawa have done their best and have done their share at all times in making the city an efficient community with all the adjuncts of an advanced city with services on a par with those in other communities in this country.
I say this because it is easy for any of us to find fault with any community. I do not believe Ottawa has been lax in its development. I believe it has been as progressive as has any other community in Canada. Although contributions have been made by the Ottawa improvement commission and the federal district commission let us remember that the citizens of Ottawa through paying their taxes have contributed a great deal to the development and beautification of this city through projects that are not projects that would be encountered by cities that were not capital cities.
We have much to be thankful for. There has been splendid co-operation between the federal district commission, the city and the provinces. For example, in my own riding we have Sussex drive which is well known to the Prime Minister, the bridges over the Rideau leading to the falls and the new city hall. The cost of these improvements was contributed to by the federal government but we are also indebted to the citizens of Ottawa for their contribution. The people of Ottawa are grateful for the improvements that are being made. They want a beautiful

National Capital Commission capital and have always been prepared to make their contribution through the payment of taxes and in other ways.
I could enumerate the projects mentioned by my good friends the hon. members for Carleton, Ottawa West and Hull but I shall desist. However, I wish to urge on the Prime Minister consideration of the bridge about which we both spoke in the last election campaign on opposite sides of the river. I know he is sincere about it and appreciates the necessity for it but I honestly believe the only solution is for the government of Canada to make up its mind to build the bridge on its own as quickly as possible and consider it a national capital bridge. The federal government contributed much to the Chaudiere bridge, and built the Champlain bridge and I believe the time is very distant when we could expect contributions from others toward the construction of a bridge across the Ottawa river.
I am endeavouring to conclude my remarks before six o'clock so I shall not deal in detail with some of the proposals before us but I urge upon the government consideration of the removal of the railway tracks at Sussex street and the speedy erection of suitable government buildings on that beautiful site. I believe the Prime Minister appreciates as much as I do the beautiful locations that are available along Sussex drive for the construction of public buildings. There is not a better site in Ottawa. I personally hoped that the policy of a previous minister of the former government would have been carried out and a museum and building to house offices of the Department of External Affairs constructed on Sussex drive to follow the general pattern of develoment in that area. However, whatever may be located there I hope the Prime Minister will exert his influence to see that the area is properly developed. This is one of the finest locations in the district and was neglected until the time of the inception of the federal district commission which body took it upon itself to acquire the necessary property along the Ottawa river to make sites available for construction of buildings for the government of Canada.
The bill foreshadowed by this resolution will, I hope, provide the federal government with an agency which will have greater powers than the federal district commission. We have been asking for a revision of the Federal District Commission Act for a long time and this revision came about as a result of the report of the joint committee. We asked for a permanent chairman. We are satisfied with the present chairman and staff but I believe the staff has been insufficient just as the financial assistance given in the


past has been insufficient to enable the commission to carry out the projects recommended by the committee.
I shall say no more because my time has nearly expired and I merely close by expressing my warm support of this resolution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I wish to suggest to the hon. member for Ottawa West that the questions he raised could be answered immediately after the bill is presented. I know that when it is presented he will find the answers to many of his questions. I wish also to express appreciation to all hon. members who have participated in this debate. May I say their contributions have been helpful and their suggestions will receive the most serious consideration. I believe the contributions that have been made by hon. members today have been in keeping with the responsibilities of parliament to assure that the capital city of Canada shall be a reflection of the greatness of our country and I thank hon. members in all quarters of the house.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Prime Minister some questions that are proper questions at the committee stage of the resolution because they concern finances but would be out of order at the committee stage of the bill. I would hope that when we come to that stage he would be willing to answer them then.


John George Diefenbaker: I have no objection.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-48, respecting the development and improvement of the national capital region.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LAKEHEAD HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-26, to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock. The Deputy Chairman: The house in committee on Bill No. C-26, to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners.
Clauses 1 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

On the title.
Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I think the speed with which you moved through these clauses is a credit to the chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and I just want to speak both for myself and the hon. member for Fort William, who unfortunately cannot be here, and express again our approval of the bill and to compliment the minister on working on it. All I can say to him now is that we shall take the pressure off him and begin to press the Minister of Public Works for the great manifestations which are going to come from this bill in the form of a lakehead terminal and warehouse set up.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-25, to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister tell us what the amendment is all about?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the other place feels that their phrasing is better, and I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


George Harris Hees: the second reading of Bill C-24, to amend the Indian Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in precisely the same form as the bill which was passed by both houses of parliament at the last session and which failed to become law only because the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) was in a hurry to dissolve parliament and did not arrange for royal assent beforehand. I see no useful purpose to be served by repeating the debate that took place on January 30, last, and which will be found in Hansard of that day.
57071-3-213J
Penitentiary Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. George H. Hees (for ihe Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of Bill C-21, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to conform with the Public Service Superannuation Act. If I am correct, this act provides that any civil servant who contributes to the pension fund-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: I am not too
sure that the hon. member for Megantic has the right bill. This is a bill to amend the Penitentiary Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member is talking about the right bill. His remarks are completely in order.


Gabriel Roberge: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if you read the explanatory note of this bill we will see that the purpose of the bill is to remove subsection 2 from the statute and by doing so the tenure of office of the commissioner and of the deputy commissioner can be extended if at any time this is considered to be advisable. Provision for retirement age and for extension may be made by regulation under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
I see that under section 12 of that act, which is chapter 50 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, a contributor to the fund has to be removed from office at the age of 65 but that the chief of the department, in this instance the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) as far as the commissioner is concerned, or the commissioner as far as the deputy commissioners are concerned, can take action to extend the tenure of office beyond 65 years one year at a time for a period not exceeding five years.
I am sure that we on this side of the house have no doubt as to the integrity and capacity of the gentlemen who now occupy these posts but perhaps the Minister of Justice would like to tell us their age and why he wishes to continue them in office. From the bill itself we cannot see why this is being done. We might suppose that it has something to do with item 17 on the order paper. It may be that the gentlemen who now occupy the posts of commissioner and deputy commissioners will be appointed to the parole board to be created by that

Criminal Code
legislation which we will consider later. I think this house wants to know why this legislation is before the house.
Under the Interpretation Act, which is also referred to in the explanatory note, all civil servants are appointed during tenure of office or during bon plaisir. We would like to know from the minister exactly what is behind the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the minister speaks now he closes the debate.


Mr. Daschaielels:: Would the minister tell us if this bill is part of the recommendations of the Fauteux report and to what extent?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is not part of the recommendations of the Fauteux report but I can explain to hon. members who have asked about the reason for the bill that, as they will appreciate, the Fauteux committee in its recommendations put forward a number of suggestions of far-reaching import which will take considerable time to work out. The commissioner of penitentiaries now holding that office is an experienced, skilful and able penitentiaries officer and we are anxious to retain his services so that when the very important discussions with the provinces take place which are to start after September 16, his advice may be available and, more importantly, so that when any program which will result from these discussions and from the agreements that may be arrived at is being implemented- which will take a number of years-we may have available the services of the present commissioner of penitentiaries. If we do not make this amendment so that he may continue to hold that office after the age of 65 we will lose his services in just over a year's time. That is the reason why we are asking that the clause requiring his retirement at 65 be deleted, in order that we may retain his services for whatever period may be desirable after he reaches his sixty-fifth birthday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: the second reading of Bill No. S-9, to amend the Criminal Code.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister say a word?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make an amendment to the

Criminal Code which has been requested by the province of Saskatchewan. That province, in the session of the legislature held earlier this year, amended their act to change the constitution of their district court. They had previously, as I recall it, 21 judicial districts of the district court of Saskatchewan and by legislation introduced this year they changed that system and provided that there should be one district court for the whole of Saskatchewan to which the various judges of the district courts will have to be appointed subsequently.
Since under the Criminal Code the relevant provision which we are amending here is framed by reference to the present constitution of the district courts of Saskatchewan, it is necessary for us now to amend the Criminal Code to bring it into conformity with the revised district court system in that province. That is the purpose of the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I understand the minister's explanation, it is purely to bring one statute into conformity with another.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is correct, yes, and in line with the request of the province.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish a board to be known as the national parole board; to provide for the remuneration and expenses of the members of the board; for the appointment of the officers, clerks and employees necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the board; to provide generally for the administration of the act; and further for the repeal of the Ticket of Leave Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the minister going to say something?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, is to ask authority of the house to bring in a bill to set up a national parole board. This is perhaps the most important recommendation of the Fauteux committee. Indeed, the purpose of the constitution of that committee was to study the administration of the remission system in the Department of Justice. It was from that study that there grew the larger study which the Fauteux committee undertook and which resulted in its report, with the very far-reaching series of recommendations that they made.

As will be appreciated, one of the provisions of the bill to be introduced if the resolution carries is to amend the Ticket of Leave Act, and, in effect, to substitute a new parole system administered by a national parole board for the present system under the Ticket of Leave Act administered by the remission service of the Department of Justice which reports to the Solicitor General. The present Ticket of Leave Act authorizes the governor general, on the advice of the appropriate minister of the crown who is now the Solicitor General, to grant to an inmate of a penitentiary, jail or other public or reformatory prison a licence to be at large in Canada during such portion of his term of imprisonment and upon such conditions as may be fixed. This statute is the authority under which the parole system of Canada is presently administered by the remission service.
As hon. members will recall, in 1953 the then minister of justice appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Gerald Fauteux, to make the inquiry which I have outlined. The purpose of the bill is to implement this particular recommendation of the Fauteux committee, that is the recommendation having to do with the parole system.
I should perhaps, in view of the interest that has been aroused in the matter, say a word or two about the system of parole itself. Parole is a well recognized procedure which is designed to be a logical step in the reformation and rehabilitation of a person who has been convicted of an offence and, as a result, is undergoing imprisonment. It is a procedure whereby an inmate of an institution may be released before the expiration of his sentence, so that he may serve the balance of his sentence at large in society. While serving the balance of his sentence at large he is under appropriate social restraints which are designed to ensure, so far as possible, that he will live a law-abiding life in society. Parole is, therefore, a transitional step between close confinement in an institution and absolute freedom in society. The sanction that is imposed for failure to live up to the conditions that govern the release is the return of the inmate to the institution.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that at this stage, as I read the temper of the house, the opinion of the house and of the country at large, it is not necessary for me to enter into a detailed statement or defence of the grounds for a parole system. I referred at some length to this matter on my estimates less than a week ago, at which time I referred in general terms to our tentative program for the reformation and modernization of the
National Parole Board
penitentiary system, and expressed it as a fundamental goal of that program to ensure the return to society of persons who have undergone prison sentences, as useful and fruitful members of society, in the shortest possible time that can be done consonant with the obligation on the government and those who administer the prison system to protect society from any potential or possible recurrence of crime on the part of those who have undergone prison terms.
The parole system which is contemplated under the bill to be based on this resolution, is an integral part of that approach to the problem. As I have said, the present national parole system in Canada is carried on by the remission service of the Department of Justice under the Ticket of Leave Act. This act was passed by parliament in 1899 and it has not been amended in any substantial way since that time. Of this act the Fauteux committee said the following:
That this legislation was never designed to meet the complex problems of modern corrections, is quite apparent from the difficulties that are encountered in its administration under present-day conditions. We are astonished that such satisfactory results have been obtained in recent years by the service under this antiquated legislation, and much credit must be given to those who are charged with the administration of it.
I should like to echo those words of the Fauteux committee, both with respect to the personnel of the remission service of the department and with respect to the present minister, the Solicitor General, who is in charge of that administration. I know that that same feeling has been shared by former administrations with respect to the work done by the remission service in the department.
It might be useful for me to outline briefly the way in which the present Ticket of Leave Act operates, and to make a short comparison with the system which will be brought into effect by the bill. The governor general, acting on the advice of the appropriate minister of the crown, now the Solicitor General, may grant to any person under sentence of imprisonment in a penal institution for an offence against the criminal law of Canada a licence to be at large in Canada during such portion of his term of imprisonment and upon such conditions as may be indicated in the licence. Under subsection (2) of section 3 of the act, that is the Ticket of Leave Act, the licence may from time to time be revoked or altered. The sentence of imprisonment is deemed to continue in operation even though the licensee is at large; that is to say, the licensee serves the balance of his term of imprisonment by satisfying the conditions of the licence. The licence may contain any conditions that the governor general,

National Parole Board on the advice of the appropriate minister, sees fit to apply to the licensee.
If the licensee is convicted of any indictable offence, the licence is forthwith forfeited by operation of law and the licensee must return to the institution to serve the balance of his sentence that remained unexpired when the licence was granted. If the licensee is convicted of a summary conviction offence or in any way fails to abide by the conditions under which the licence was issued, it may be revoked by the governor general, again on the advice of the appropriate minister, and thereupon by virtue of subsection (3) of section 8 of the act the licensee is to be returned to the institution to serve the balance of the term that remained unexpired when the licence was granted.
The licensee is required to notify the local police authorities of his place of residence and of any intention he may have of changing his place of residence. Male licence holders are required to report to the police authorities once each month. Female licensees are not required to report. A licensee is required to carry his licence with him and to produce it when required to do so by a judicial officer or a peace officer. Any peace officer is entitled to arrest, without a warrant, any licensee whom he reasonably suspects of having committed any offence or who, it appears, is getting his livelihood by dishonest means.
The Fauteux committee suggested a number of fundamental principles that should be kept in mind in determining what method of parole administration would be best for Canada. The committee said that the system should take into account, among other things, the large size of Canada, in a geographical sense, and its relatively small size, in terms of population. The committee said that the system should also take into account the division of legislative power between one federal and ten provincial governments.
With these matters in mind, the committee suggested that Canada's parole system should be developed in accordance with the following principles:
(a)	it should provide for continued uniformity of parole administration, but at the same time avoid undue rigidity of practice and procedure;
(b)	it should take into account local conditions which may vary in different parts of the country;
(c)	it should be designed to assist in the development, as far as possible, of probation services, specialized penal institutions and after-care agencies;
(d)	it should, as far as possible, be a simple but efficient system; and
(e)	it should be built up from the present system during an appropriate transitional period and not instituted by any sudden, wholesale abandonment of the present system.

The Fauteux report continued:
We are firmly of the opinion that the parole authority for Canada should be a quasi judicial body rather than as is presently the case, a minister of the crown acting in an exclusively administrative capacity. The parole authority, we believe, should not be one that is liable to be subjected to the external and internal pressures which are, inevitably, brought to bear on ministers of the crown. We have no reason to believe that such pressures exert any influence in connection with the granting of tickets of leave at the present time. However, we do believe that it is in the best interests of Canada that the parole authority should, at all times, be in a position to say that its judgments can only be based on the merits of the particular case and that it is not open, in any way, to influence by extraneous considerations.
The bill to which this resolution relates is designed to give effect to the principle to which I have just referred.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely regret that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes) who was to express the views of the official opposition on this proposed resolution, is ill at this time. I feel sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton), will join me in extending to the hon. member our best wishes for a prompt recovery.
The Minister of Justice referred to the Ticket of Leave Act. I think I should remind the house that this act was incorporated into our statutes in 1899, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
(Text):
In 1938 the Right Hon. Mackenzie King appointed the Archambault commission and this matter was also taken into consideration by the committee presided over by Mr. Justice Fauteux. At this time I want to say that we on this side of the house are in agreement generally with the principles of the resolution to institute a national parole board and also to provide for the framework of that new act which will be passed by this house, I suppose.
I want to commend Mr. Justice Fauteux who was chairman of that committee and also those able men who worked with him for a number of years and who brought down the report we now know as the Fauteux report from which the Minister of Justice quoted during the few minutes that we have listened to him. In general, implementing the recommendations of the Fauteux report will certainly be an improvement in the parole system or in the way to give leave from penitentiaries. I know that the minister advised the house the other day that there will be a conference of the attorneys general of the provinces during September or October. I hope that all these gentlemen will be able

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
to arrive at some understanding in order to improve the parole system in our country and therefore in all the provinces.
(Translation):


Gabriel Roberge: Mr. Chairman, I started my remarks in French and I intended to continue them in French but, because of the difficulties we have had with the loudspeaker system, I switched to English without really noticing it. Perhaps this is a novel method of simultaneous translation.
Mr. Chairman, all hon. members will agree, I am sure, that civil servants now working in the remission service under the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) are making commendable efforts, that they willingly assume their responsibilities and that they do a fine job of it.
(Text):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I understand five commissioners will be appointed on a full time basis. I should like to know whether a French-speaking commissioner will be appointed according to this resolution.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, at present all I want to comment on are matters affecting the resolution stage itself. We in this group most heartily commend the Minister of Justice for the introduction of this resolution which is the forerunner of a bill for the establishment of a national parole board. With all of the changes that have taken place in penology over the years it seems rather strange that we should on a federal basis hope to administer an act which fundamentally has not been changed for, I believe, in the neighbourhood of 60 years.
We in this group were very appreciative of the action of the previous government in establishing a commission to make a thorough study of the entire question of parole. We feel they did an excellent job and brought in a good report. We are very happy this evening to find the implementation of the first move being brought about as part of the recommendations of the Fauteux com-mitee. A great deal, of course, could be said on this resolution stage, but it is the decision of this group that at the present time it is not appropriate to go into the entire field relating to this question. We feel that the efficiency of parliament would be better served by waiting until we actually have the bill before us, complete with all jits principles, its implications and its sections.
All I am now doing, therefore, on behalf of our group is to commend the government for bringing in a resolution leading up to the establishment of a national parole board and at the second reading, after we have had a chance to study the bill and to see
exactly what the government has in mind, we will make our comments.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I appreciate very much indeed the attitude of the committee towards this resolution, which I think illustrates the striking degree of unanimity in principle on the general approach to this problem. There may be details with respect to administration and so on about which we will differ, but I do think it is quite an interesting illustration of the extent to which there is in this house and in Canada generally agreement that our system does require overhaul in this respect.
I join with those who have spoken in expressing appreciation of and tribute to those of my predecessors who have made the Fauteux report possible, and to the committee itself which had made possible the resolution now before us.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont asked a specific question with respect to the number of the members of the board and as to whether there would be appointed a French-speaking member. I can assure him that it is our intention to appoint to this board the best possible representatives who can be found, bearing in mind their interests, experience and skills in this particular field. In appointing these members of the board, due regard will be had for the racial and geographical composition of Canada.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fulion thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-49, to provide for the conditional liberation of persons undergoing sentences of imprisonment.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMERGENCY GOLD MINING ASSISTANCE ACT


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1959 and 1960 and to provide for a twenty-five per cent increase in the amount of assistance for the years 1958. 1959 and 1960.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Rea in the chair.
(Translation):


Armand Dumas: I wonder if the minister could make a statement on this resolution?
(Text):


Mr. Comfois:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution proposes to extend the Emergency Gold
3376	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act Mining Assistance Act to the years 1959 and 1960 and to provide for a 25 per cent increase in the amount of assistance for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960.
In presenting the Canadian budget for 1958 on June 17 last, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, outlined the government's program of assistance to the gold mining industry. He referred to the serious problems of adjustment confronting this industry since the war, which problems had adversely affected those northern communities which are dependent upon the gold mining industry for their survival.
I would like to supplement the remarks made by the Minister of Finance by briefly reviewing the history and the operations of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and by making a few comments on our gold mining industry and its problems.
At the beginning of the war, the industry was making notable headway and this was continued through 1941 when Canada's gold output reached an all-time record of 5.4 million ounces. By this time, however, the urgency of the war effort was making it increasingly necessary to divert all available labour and supplies to the production of munitions and related activities and, as a consequence, gold mining production declined steadily to a low of 2.7 million ounces in 1945. Although our gold mining production reversed this trend and steadily increased from 1946 through 1950, it has never reached the peak output of 1941 and was still considerably short of that peak in 1957.
The drop in the price of gold in terms of Canadian dollars from $38.50 an ounce in 1940 to $35 in 1946, the difficulties of rebuilding the depleted labour ranks and the rapid rise in the costs for labour and supplies caused some mines to close down and a number of others to operate at a loss. This brought hardships to many northern communities and our development of the northland was materially slowed down. This was a very disturbing situation which led to the introduction of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in 1948.
Over the years the gold mines have made very commendable and successful efforts to decrease their operating costs by making use of every improvement in mining and milling methods and techniques. In recent years these improvements had reached the point where very little more could be done while costs, on the other hand, have continued to mount. This severe situation has been further complicated by the adverse exchange rate when applied to the sale of gold at the Canadian equivalent of the fixed United States price of $35 an ounce.
It is proposed, therefore, not only to extend the period of application of the act to the
[Mr. Comtois.l

calendar years 1959 and 1960, but to increase the amount of assistance payable under the present formula by 25 per cent. The increased assistance would apply from January 1, 1958 to the end of 1960.
In this connection I should explain that the payments which the gold mines receive under the act are based on a formula which has been changed on occasion in order to meet new conditions which arise. The essential features of the formula are the rate of assistance and the number of assistance ounces. The assistance to any one gold mine applies to two-thirds of the number of ounces it produces in the year concerned and no assistance is given unless the average cost of producing an ounce of gold exceeds $26.50. The assistance payment is determined by multiplying the number of ounces eligible for assistance by two-thirds of the amount by which the average cost of producing an ounce exceeds $26.50.
Only those mines whose output of gold is 70 per cent or more of their total output are eligible for assistance payments. Also, a mine must produce more than 50 ounces of gold in the year concerned.
A mine may request assistance on a quarterly, half yearly or yearly basis. Applications are given an initial check and the advance payments, amounting to 80 per cent of the approved assistance payable, are made. The 20 per cent holdback is paid after the final audit of the company's books by the office of the comptroller of the treasury.
A company may submit an application for cost aid up to six months after the end of the year. Consequently, final figures for payments made in respect of the year 1957 are not yet available. However, it is anticipated that they will amount to $9.4 million. Total payments for the years 1955 and 1956 amounted respectively to $8.9 and $8.7 million. It is anticipated that the amount of assistance payable for the year 1958, including the proposed increase, will be approximately $12 million.
The cost aid under the act applies to placer as well as to lode gold operations, lode gold mines being those in which the gold occurs in veins. Forty-three of the 52 lode gold mines in production in 1957 were eligible for cost aid. The output from these mines, plus the 69,000 ounces derived from placer operations, amounted to 2.5 million ounces. These 2.5 million ounces on which assistance payments were made, represent 57 per cent of all the gold produced in Canada in 1957.
By the end of March 1958 payments under the act had reached a grand total of $108.8 million, this being for a total period of ten-years. Canada's production of gold from all

Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
sources during that period was 42.8 million ounces and cost-aid payments were made on 31 million ounces, or about 73 per cent of the total.
The $108.8 million paid out since the act came into force does not appear at all excessive when it is realized that in 1956 alone the gold mining industry paid out a total of $117 million in salaries and wages, fuel, electric power, and supplies and equipment. It provides direct employment for 17,000 and it is the main support for 80,000 people who reside in the gold mining communities.
I stated earlier that the gold mines have made every effort to decrease their operating costs. In this respect they have done well. The average ounces of gold produced per year per employee was 53 per cent higher for 1956 than in 1948. Also, the average number of tons of ore hoisted per underground worker was 35 per cent higher in 1956 than in 1948. However, despite the improved efficiency, the cost of production per ounce of gold has continued to rise.
A continuation of the cost aid beyond 1958 and the proposed 25 per cent increase are needed to prevent irreparable damage to a large segment of the gold mining industry. Actually, from a survey of the situation by officials of my department it seems likely that 20 gold mines would have to close down after a two or three year cleaning-up period should assistance payments be discontinued at the end of 1958. These mines would very likely remain closed permanently and numerous other gold mines would be adversely affected to a varying degree.
The effect this would have on the dependent communities need not be stressed, for it can be readily visualized. It is hoped, therefore, that the proposed extension of the act and the additional assistance will serve to extend the life of our northern communities, to provide assurance of good conservation measures in our gold mining operations, and to maintain the level of our gold production, an all-important sector of Canada's mineral industry.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take very much of the time of the committee at this stage of the proceedings. However, I wish to express the hope that the resolution just introduced by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys will be supported by all hon. members of the house. Speaking on behalf of this party I may say that we will wholeheartedly support the resolution which is in these words:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act to extend its application to the years 1959 and 1960
and to provide for a twenty-five per cent increase in the amount of assistance for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960.
This is a very simple amendment. The formula which has been applied for approximately the last four years will remain the same and in calculating the assistance the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys will simply add 25 per cent to the assistance paid. This is a substantial increase and I am happy to congratulate the minister and the government for having decided to amend the act in this way.
As was stated by the minister in his introductory remarks, the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act first came into force on June 15, 1948, and was applicable to the full year 1948. Since the inception of the act it has been amended and extended and, as was mentioned by the minister, the total amount paid under the act since 1948 is $108.8 million. It is interesting to see how much the government paid for all the gold it bought from 1948 to 1957 and how much the government paid for gold it bought between 1938 and 1947. Between 1948 and 1957 the gold mines in Canada produced
42,722,000	ounces of gold. I presume that the bulk of this gold was bought by the government. If we take the average price for the years 1948 to 1957 we arrive at a total amount of $1,500,320,000. If we add to that the cost to the government for assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act we arrive at a total amount of $1,610,-
466,000	or an average price per ounce of $37.70.
And again, if we take the average price for 1937-48, we come to a total amount paid by the government, assuming the government bought all the gold, of $1,515,466,000, or an average price of $37.43 an ounce. Therefore, between 1937 and 1948, when there was no assistance paid to the gold mines, the government paid an average price of $37.43, and during the period between 1948 and 1957, when the government paid a total amount of roughly $110 million in assistance to the gold mines, the cost per ounce to the government was $37.70, a difference of only 27 cents per ounce to the government. Therefore, by studying these figures, we realize that after all the cost to the government in keeping the gold mines in operation during that period of 10 years between 1948 and 1957 amounted really to only about $12 million. I think it was a wise move that the government made and I think it is a wise move which is being made now by the present government in amending the act to extend the act not only for two years but to increase the assistance by 25 per cent.
3378	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act
I myself firmly believe-and I am not the only one-that eventually the price of gold will be increased. If the price of gold were to be increased, let us say, in a month or two months, in a year or two years, it does not matter, the government would be in this position. It has over $1,200 million worth of gold in the vaults of the Bank of Canada and if the price of gold were to be increased by 50 per cent hon. members can appreciate the enormous profit that would be made by the Canadian government as compared with the very little assistance given to the gold mines in the past. I understand the situation. I know that if the government were to keep on paying subsidies to industries sometimes it would not be a good situation. Let me tell hon. members that the industry itself does not like to receive this assistance. It takes the assistance because it needs it.
I would like one hon. member to tell me of one commodity, the price of which has not increased or did not increase during the last 10 or 15 years. Gold is the only commodity, the price of which did not increase. Not only did it not increase but it went down between 1948 and 1957. In 1948 the price of gold was around $38 an ounce. Today the price of gold is below $34 an ounce. In fact, I hold in my hand a list showing the average price of gold between 1938 and 1947. This is the mint price. The average price was $37.43. The average price of gold between 1948 and 1957 was $35.12, a decrease of $2.31. The average price during 1955 was $34.52. In 1956 it was down to $34.55 and in 1957 it was down to $33.45 an ounce. For the first six months of 1958, the average price of gold per ounce was $34.08. The average price during the month of June, 1958, was $33.67, and that price did not vary very much during the month of July. Therefore, this is one commodity the price of which not only did not go up but went down. Therefore, I say between 1948 and today the Liberal government were justified in paying that assistance to the gold mines.
Sometimes we hear some, I will not say irresponsible persons but persons who do not stop to think of the great difficulties experienced by the gold mines say, for instance, that the gold mines are not paying the same wages as the base metal mines. Let me tell hon. members that the gold mining industry did not do too badly even during those depressed years for the industry. In 1948, the average weekly wages for gold miners was $49.64; the average for 1957 was $73.30. Of course, we admit that those weekly wages are below the weekly wages paid by the base metal mines; but we must realize that the industry is facing a great deal of trouble.


The industry is competing with the base metal mines not only for ordinary miners but for engineers, technicians, managers and accountants, and hon. members know how difficult it is today to hire highly qualified engineers, geologists and experts to work in the mines.
In this country the production of base metal mines and other mines has increased tremendously. The total value of production in 1957 was more than $2 billion. There was a large increase in the activities of the uranium mines. Therefore, the gold mines have to compete with those base metal mines which were hiring men at higher wages. However, the fact remains that since 1948 more than 50 per cent of the assistance paid by the government to gold mines went for increase in salaries and wages. Even if the gold mines are experiencing some trouble today, they are paying heavy federal taxes, provincial taxes and municipal taxes. I am told that taxes paid in some of the gold mining camps exceeds 40 per cent of the assistance which those mines are receiving from the federal government.
Last year when the Canadian metal mining association came to Ottawa to present the problems of the gold mines they outlined the principal factors which had contributed to the marked deterioration in the past year and which have caused the current critical conditions in the gold mining industry. They are as follows:
1.	The sharp and steady decline in the mint price of gold. I have mentioned that over the last two years the average price per ounce for gold was below $34.
2.	The increase in costs of operation incurred through increases in basic wage rates combined with a shorter working week. This has been another burden which has had to be absorbed by the gold mining industry.
3.	The loss and scarcity of manpower, especially trained miners as well as technical and professional personnel. I mentioned a few minutes ago that the base metal mines were getting the cream of the technicians because they were paying high wages. They were short of technicians and miners and they were coming to my own constituency to hire miners who wanted to move from a gold mining camp to a uranium mining camp such as Blind River.
4.	The Canadian metal mining association mentioned the increased cost of certain items of supplies and equipment and some services. We know that the price of materials has been increasing all the time. The price of supplies to the mines has been increasing for the last ten or twelve years and in some cases provincial taxes have also been increased. In the province of Ontario the tax on the mines

has been increased, and I do not have to mention again that so far as the price of the commodity is concerned the mines have to take the price quoted each week by the Department of Finance. We know very well that due to the fact that the Canadian dollar is at a premium and with the price of gold being based on 35 United States dollars per ounce the price has always been below par during the last three or four years.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to extend the debate at this stage of the procedure. However, there is one thing I should like to mention. I was very surprised the other day when I read in Hansard that the Minister of Finance-I was not in the house when he said it-had said, as found at page 1849 of Hansard of July 2, when replying to different members who had spoken in the budget debate:
I have one final comment of this preliminary nature. It is with regard to gold. No hon. member of this house has yet said a word expressive of even the slightest measure of disapproval of what we have proposed by way of an increase in assistance under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. But among those who have importuned the Minister of Finance

Note this, "importuned the Minister of Finance."
-in the last year on this subject have been the hon. member for Villeneuve and the hon. member for Timmins. Did they express joy that the government had moved to increase assistance by 25 per cent?
The minister continued:
No, they were withholding their comment. They were not going to be heard as expressing approbation. All I have to say on this subject is that I hope their constituents will take note that this increase in the assistance under this act apparently kindled no enthusiasm or appreciation in the minds or the bosoms of their respective members.
I did not hear the minister say that but I read it in Hansard the following day. This was on July 2 and on June 25, as found at page 1617 of Hansard, I had this to say with respect to the proposed amendment of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act:
I was very happy to hear the Minister of Finance's statement with regard to the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. This 25 per cent increase is certainly welcome, and the retroactive effect which the government intends giving to that legislation will compensate, to a certain extent, the considerable losses which the industry has suffered because of the premium on the Canadian dollar.
I was not blaming the government for the premium on the Canadian dollar. Then I said:
This government program, involving the amendments which I have just mentioned, was welcomed by everyone in the gold mining industry, including the miners themselves, whose livelihood and that of their families is in that industry. The government is making no mistake in accepting, in part
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act at least, the representations of the leaders of the industry itself and those of the municipalities which quite recently sent an impressive delegation to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys.
I do not mean to act the part of a chronic grouch-
Then I said that I thought the act could be extended for three years instead of two years. I think the minister was not fair in his remarks on July 2 when he said that we were not appreciative of what the government was doing for the gold mines. I was surprised because the Minister of Finance knows the situation of the gold mines. The Minister of Finance knows the work I have done in the house pleading the case of the gold mines. I pleaded the case of the gold mines not because I wanted to plead the case of the companies operating the mines. They certainly deserve a lot of credit. As was mentioned by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the mining companies did all they could to increase efficiency in the mines. The gold miners co-operated with the management so as to improve efficiency. Every time I pleaded the case of the gold mining industry I knew I was pleading the case of the people living in the constituency of Villeneuve. I have 10,000 miners working in the gold mines and base metal mines. About 50 per cent are working in gold mines and 50 per cent in base metal mines.
With regard to the comparability of the wages paid by the gold mines and base metal mines, let me say this, Mr. Chairman. We have seen many gold miners leave Malartic to go to Sudbury, for instance, where they could get a few cents more an hour but many times they would come back to Malartic within a few months and say, "We like to be in Malartic; even if we get a few cents an hour less the cost of living here is less". I do not mean to imply that Sudbury is not a good place to live. It is one of the nicest places in northern Ontario. It is a very important base metal mining camp and certainly one of the outstanding mining communities in northern Ontario. Nevertheless, the cost of living is higher in Sudbury than in Malartic and these miners who left Malartic for Sudbury in order to get a few cents more an hour were pleased to come back to Malartic and work in the gold mines. After all, these men are not obliged to stay in a gold mining camp. They can move to a base metal camp. It has been done in the past and they always come back. Why? Because they are happy and the differential in salary is not very large.
So, let me conclude by saying this, Mr. Chairman. We are happy that the government has seen fit to extend the act and to
3380	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act make it retroactive to the 1st of January, 1958. The amount will be small. The act could have been amended, possibly, so that the increase to the gold mines would have been larger. However, we understand the situation. It is not so easy for a government, faced with a deficit during the current year, to be too generous. This is a good investment, and if the price of gold could be increased by this government I think it should be increased. However, if we were to increase the price of gold it would simply be in the form of a subsidy because the international price for this commodity is established by the United States price of $35 per ounce.
I have heard some members mention that the price of gold should be $75 an ounce. So far as I am concerned, the price of gold could be $100 an ounce, and I would be very happy. However, it is useless to talk like that, and I think it is useless to say the price of gold should be this or that because if the price of gold were to be set by the government at $75 an ounce it would simply mean a subsidy of $40 an ounce.
I see that my time has run out. I say that I am happy that these amendments have been brought forward by the government and I hope that within the next few years we will see an increase in the price of gold so that there will be no further need for this subsidy and we will see the government make a great profit on the gold reserves they have in the vaults of the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: We have heard the case for the gold mines, Mr. Chairman, presented very well by the hon. member for Villeneuve. I think in fairness to all concerned I should devote the major portion of my remarks to the case of the gold miners. I find it a bit unfortunate, in view of the spirit of good will and mutual co-operation that has abounded in this chamber today, that this particular matter had to be raised because I think we have been setting records all day long. The spirit has been very good. We have not torn each other apart today.
It so happens that I have found it very difficult to get my teeth into this gold mining assistance act. When I came down here last year as a new member I hoped to have the opportunity of dealing with this matter. I waited until the estimates came up and after much patient waiting I found when they did come up that we could not deal with the matter because it was statutory. We had the same experience when the matter came up in the committee on mines and technical surveys this year. We hit the same snag, that it was statutory and could not be debated there. Fortunately today, as a result


of this amendment to the act, we have an opportunity to deal with it at some length now.
I had intended to raise the very point the hon. member for Villeneuve raised in regard to the remarks of the Minister of Finance. I think it is always necessary to protect oneself against implications, so I should like to quote from page 1626 of Hansard for June 25, 1958, what I said in the throne speech debate:
I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister of Finance on giving some assistance to the gold mining industry. However, before going too far in that direction I should like to have some assurance as to just what form the assistance is going to take.
I should like to say, however, in view of the remarks of the Minister of Finance, that I would welcome him if he were to visit the town of Timmins. I would welcome his appearance on television up there, and I would foot the bill if he would present his side of the case for this gold mining assistance, after which I would present the side I am going to present now. As he mentioned, we would then leave it up to the voters at the next election. I am quite willing to stand on the ground I take today in regard to this matter because I do not believe there is a riding in this great country of ours that is so completely and totally dependent on the production of gold as is the riding of Timmins. There are certainly large gold mines in other areas, but I do not think there is any area as completely dependent on this industry as the riding I have the honour to represent.
The Minister of Finance did not explain too clearly the purpose of this act in his budget address on June 17. In one place he mentioned that it was for the purpose of assisting the gold mining communities and in another place he made reference to the fact it was to maintain the present standard of production and in this manner assist the gold mining communities. I hope to point out today that that is not necessarily one and the same thing. They certainly could be related but there is no guarantee that the maintenance of the present production, by itself, is going to benefit the gold mining communities.
We had a very good example of that. I believe that negotiations between the gold mines and the miners started last September, or thereabouts, in the Timmins area, and were still continuing when this increase in assistance was announced. The negotiations followed the usual various stages, and when the announcement was made by the Minister of Finance some of the mines were at the conciliation stage. When it was announced

that the emergency gold mining assistance had been extended for another two years and in addition had been increased by 25 per cent retroactive to the first of this year a question was asked at the next conciliation meeting as to what share the miners could hope to receive of that additional 25 per cent. The answer was very brief, and very flat-nothing.
I believe that in order for hon. members to obtain a picture of the situation as it pertains to gold mines and gold miners and the community in which they live, I should go into some detail tonight. I should like to try to present to hon. members here a picture of this emergency gold mining assistance as it is seen through the eyes of the miners. In order to do that, we have to realize that the gold mine operators today are amongst the few, if not the only people in this country who still refuse to accept the fact that there should be labour unions. They recognize them in some places only up to the extent that the law compels them to do so.
The gold miners feel that they are subsidizing this industry twice. They feel that they are subsidizing it in the first place through the taxes they pay, the same as are other Canadians, and of course from these taxes comes this subsidy back to the industry. They feel that they are subsidizing it in the second place by the much lower wages in the gold mining industry than those in other industries of a similar nature. They also see that the same mines or many of them which are receiving this subsidy or assistance have built vast empires in other places through the money that they have earned in these very gold mines. I can give you no better example than the huge iron ore industry in Ungava bay which was handled mostly by the Hollinger gold mine, the biggest mine in the Timmins area. I will give you another example. I understand that McIntyre Porcupine Mines, Limited have bought out the major portion of Algoma Steel.
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I am endeavouring to bring to hon. members this picture as the miners see it. They have seen these gold mines spare no money in fighting the unions right down the line. Back in 1953 we saw a strike of about 9 of the 11 mines in the Porcupine area that went on for a period of 8 months until the men could go on no longer. It appeared that no bill of expense was too high in order to keep the unions in their place. They have seen unions in there fighting for their very life for the last ten years or more but they still have no security whatsoever. They see
11, 1958	3381
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act where gold miners-men whose occupation is possibly just as hazardous a way of making a livelihood as there is in this country-have no pension. They work a longer work week than does the rest of recognized industry across the country. Heaven knows, if there is any one industry that should have a short week, it is the mining industry where the men work thousands of feet underground. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, they have seen so many of their fellow workers who appear to have received a rather raw deal as a result of industrial accidents. I realize that that is a matter of the provincial compensation act, but to the ordinary person in the street sometimes it is rather difficult to differentiate between provincial governments and the federal government, especially when the federal government is paying a subsidy into this industry.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should just like to read two short letters in order to put one particular case on the record and to illustrate this particular point. This is one particular file on one accident that a man had. I am certainly not going to read all the letters but I should like to read two pertinent letters in this regard. One is from one of the three big mines in the Porcupine area. It is headed "To Whom it May Concern". I will not use the name of the employee but will call him "Mr. X". The letter reads as follows:
Mr. "X", an employee of this company since 1931, was injured at work on March 9th, 1954. After long treatment and hospitalization, Mr. "X" returned to work of a less arduous nature. After ten days his foot and ankle, which became more swollen each day, reached a condition which prevented Mr. "X" continuing at work.
We were unable to place Mr. "X" on work suited to his lame condition and still are unable to do so.
Then here was the letter that Mr. "X" received from the compensation board:
The board, at the present time, is considering a small award for permanent disability which will pay you a pension of $7.75 a month for life. Before making this award, we would like to point out that information on file indicates that you are in debt to the town of Timmins for relief to the amount of $185.30.
No doubt you will wish to reimburse this amount out of your pension and, therefore, for this purpose we are attaching hereto an assignment form for the purpose of refunding the amount owing.
Yours very truly,
I could cite many more cases like that one, although I will grant that this is the worst one I have seen. However, there are many others which are almost as bad. In the short time that I have been down here in this House of Commons I have received many similar letters. Of course, as I said before, these people do not realize that these matters are in the main more provincial
3382	HOUSE OF
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act than federal by nature. To them the government is the government, regardless of whether it is Queen's park or Ottawa. But that is the reason that I do not feel that this measure, as good as it might be, would necessarily receive the reception that it should receive among the gold miners of the north. I wonder whether there is not some way in which this government may find a more - equitable and better method of assisting the gold miners and the gold mining communities in which they live.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, I raised a point in this house recommending that this government set up a committee consisting of representatives from the federal government which are paying the subsidy to the industry; from the provincial government which administers the labour laws, the compensation laws and so forth under which the miners and of course the companies operate; the municipal officials which of all three government levels are the most keenly interested in this problem; representatives from management and representatives from the union. I suggested that that committee, composed of the five interested bodies, should go into all aspects, of not only the good mine but also the problems of the gold mining communities. In the years gone by I am sure this government has had many delegations from the mine operators. They present their side of the case. The unions come down and present their side of the case. The municipalities come down and present their side of the case. I think we all realize that when any delegation go on a mission to Ottawa they present as rosy a picture as they possibly can of their own particular side of the problem. I think that is only natural. Before this government can get a really true picture of the problems and of the measures we can take to solve them I think that a committee of this nature is necessary.
For example, just as a suggestion, I think that half a million dollars or possibly much less spent in building the road from Sault Ste. Marie to Timmins could possibly do far more for the municipality of Timmins than even the $5 million or $6 million or $8 million, whatever the Porcupine share of this subsidy is going to be. That is as far as the municipality itself is concerned, it could open up a tourist industry that at present and for years to come would possibly mean far more than an increase of 25 per cent in the gold subsidy. Maybe this gold subsidy is not the answer at all. Maybe there is some other solution that would be better. Maybe as a federal government we should look at the possibility of assisting with secondary industries that eventually are going to have to take over and supply 

these towns when the gold mines will be expended, as they will be expended some day, whether it is 25 years from now or 100 years from now. The gold mines are an expendable proposition which is not going to last forever, regardless of how much subsidy might be paid.
I am certainly going to support this measure because it is a step in the right direction-at least I hope it is-but I would feel a great deal better if I were sure that it was the best measure this government could introduce. In the circumstances which exist today I am not sure that this is so.
I remember the Minister of Labour expressing himself last fall in connection with this matter and I was very impressed with the attitude he adopted at that time. He seemed to have a firm grasp of the situation, and I hope that he will use his influence in the cabinet ranks with respect to the setting up of this committee in order to ensure a complete picture being provided to this government, upon which it might act. I would like to be assured that, whatever money this government invests in this particular industry, the miners and the communities in which they live will, above all, receive the priority which they deserve.


William Arnold Peters: I would like to add a word of appreciation to those of the two other members from mining communities who have just spoken in support of this resolution. I would like to point out also that half of the members of this group at one time or another have worked in gold mines, and that three of us represent gold mining communities at this time. Someone has remarked that we must be rich, and if it were back in the days of the depression I would agree with him, but at the present time this is just not the case. This lack of prosperity, I am sure, is one of the reasons why the government has seen fit to offer this increase in assistance to the gold mines.
In moving this increase in and extension of the gold mining assistance legislation the government has perpetuated the original act which was set up for the purpose of solving an emergency problem which developed at the end of the war. The gold mines in years gone by have done a great deal to develop Canada, not only in northern Ontario but in other parts of the country. All areas, in fact, have benefited from the operations of the gold mines. It has been pointed out many times that 200 or 300 factories are necessary in order to produce goods essential for the operation of the gold mining industry, and these factories exist over a great portion of our country. The work created as a result of this industry has greatly assisted in the

maintaining of our economy, even though it has not always been a buoyant economy and during the depression periods this has been particularly apparent in that it has enabled some people to at least make a living.
The gold mining industry, in my opinion, has been the initial stage of development in the part of the country from which I come, namely northern Ontario. We are very sympathetic to the vision of the development of the north, but we feel that the visionary part of our development has already taken place and that we in northern Ontario have reached the stage where we must either go back or go forward in a different way. We might go back as did the town of Cobalt when the price of silver dropped very rapidly. Cobalt folded up and overnight became a ghost town, although it now produces a great volume of silver once more. At that time, however, it was left to its own resources and its economy virtually disappeared. The same thing has happened and now appears to be happening with respect to the gold mining industry and we would be very well advised to read the words of the present Minister of Finance when the legislation was originally before this house for renewal back in 1956. As reported at page 4972 of Hansard for June 12, 1956, he said:
I have emphasized, sir, that this measure is no solution of the deep-seated problem of the gold mining industry. The difficulty and the flaw in measures of this kind is that they often lull the government and lull parliament into thinking that the problem has been solved, or at least the problem has been met for the time being. No hon. member should delude himself into thinking that this measure is any solution, even on the short-run basis, of the needs and the problems of the gold-mining industry. These problems are going to require much more farsighted solutions than are offered by the hand-to-mouth, stop-gap type of assistance that we have in the present measure.
I am in complete agreement with that statement. While it is necessary to continue the emergency gold mining assistance and, because of the rising cost of living, to increase it, it is no solution in the long run to the problems we have to face. Some communities, in fact, have finally decided they must take a look at the situation. The hon. member for Villeneuve spoke very strongly in favour of the mining industry and I might say that the previous representative of Timiskaming, who sat in this house during a previous parliament, also spoke very strongly in favour of the gold mining industry. That hon. lady has been fairly well rewarded by that industry and is now secretary of their association. These communities, however, have suddenly decided that they can no longer speak as partners of the industry but that they must speak for themselves, because their views
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and their needs are not necessarily the same as those of the industry itself.
Over the past few years the industry has faced new problems and has taken some of the money it has accumulated and has reinvested that money in other industries. It is no longer promoting the gold mining or other mining industries in many cases. For instance, as the hon. member for Timmins pointed out, the $60 million reported to be in the profit fund of the McIntyre mines is now being used to buy steel companies and is to a very large extent being invested in airplane companies, railways, etc. The mining industry is no longer looking after the development of the mining areas or the industry itself; it is quite happy to take its money and apply it in other places. This leaves the communities to look after themselves.
I am quite happy to see that the town of Timmins, in particular, and mining communities in general have joined hands in presenting to the government this year a booklet entitled, "The Gold Mining Community", which is a study of the problems of the economic growth of these communities. This booklet is by William Lougheed Associates, consulting economists, located in the Temple building, Bay street, Toronto, and it is a very interesting document. Every member of this house has now received a copy and I suggest we should all read it. I suggest this particularly because the measure before us does not solve the real problem and it is necessary that we take a look at the situation in the industry in order that we can implement a measure to provide the measures necessary for its survival.
This booklet goes on to point out some of the problems that are faced by the mining industry. In the first place there is a debased price which does not remain constant at the base price of $35. Because of the premium on the Canadian dollar the base price decreases on sales to the United States and less than $35 is received. This appears to be a responsibility of the federal government for two reasons. It has the power to determine the price of gold and it can decide what the premium on the Canadian dollar may be from day to day.
We in this group have supported the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act because we felt it would be of some benefit to communities that so desperately need it. We have also looked for other solutions to this problem as have the municipalities themselves. The municipalities have seen the price of materials in the industry go up and the cost of living has gone up. The municipalities are entirely dependent on the people who live
3384	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act there as a source of tax revenue. The mines which are mostly located outside the town limits pay very little taxes. In finding moneys for the building of schools, sewers and all the necessary services of a community the municipalities must tax the value of the property owned by the townspeople. The industry is of little service to the community in this way.
The municipalities are also faced with the problem of having had the more highly skilled miners locate elsewhere. I worked in the mines for many years. When I left that employment in 1956 the base rate I received as a highly skilled workman was $1.19. Workers in the uranium fields today receive at least $1 more than that. Some receive as high as $2 or more for the same kind of work. It is not surprising that many miners have left Kirkland Lake, Timmins and other communities to settle in Blind River, Elliot Lake, Geko and other base metal fields where the industry is paying a fair and reasonable wage.
We have all heard stories of the wages received by the miners in Timmins and Kirkland Lake during the depression years. If the mines are making a profit today in view of the increased wage structure and increased cost of equipment they have to buy and in view of the selling price of $35, imagine the kind of profit they must have made in the days when they paid workers like myself 58 cents an hour. If one considers this one cannot feel very sorry about an industry that is always depicting itself as poverty stricken. In my own opinion the industry has cried wolf once too often for me to have much sympathy for it but this does not apply to the people who are dependent on the industry for their livelihood. If we are to maintain the industry, and I think we must at the present time, we will have to pay sufficient money so the miners will receive a decent wage and in turn can provide the municipalities with sources of revenue from which they can supply the necessary facilities in the mining communities. I suggest to the minister, and I may very well move an amendment to this effect, that in giving this money to the mining companies we add the stipulation that a portion of it will be given to the workers in the form of wage increases.
Let us consider the situation in one mine. The Financial Times of November 22, 1957, points out that Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Limited was recently paying a regular quarterly dividend on company's stock of six cents a share, plus an extra dividend of 20 cents a share. Distribution on the stock in 1957 represented a total of 70 cents a share with extras of 20 cents a share in March and six cents a share in June having been paid

in addition to the regular six-cent quarterly disbursements. It also points out that for the five-year period from 1952 to 1956 distributions on stock of 25 cents a share yearly were made. The dividend last year was 22 cents and the profit was $1,093,260. The assistance paid by you and me through the federal government was $530,424.21. It is obvious that the mine also should have been able to pay their workers higher wages to provide them with a better standard of living than that which they now enjoy. The company could also probably have introduced a pension plan so that when an employee is no longer able to work he would at least be able to hold up his head in the community and live like a decent human being instead of hanging around a sanatorium with silicosis waiting to die.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I presume we go on first thing tomorrow morning with the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Could the house leader give us the business for tomorrow and also for Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot meet the wishes of the hon. member for Essex East in this regard. Tomorrow we shall start with item No. 3 on today's order paper, which is the house in committee on a bill respecting the taxation of estates; then the Customs Tariff resolutions which come under item No. 22 on today's order paper; then item No. 5, house in committee on the act to amend the Excise Tax Act; then item No. 15, second reading of the act to amend the Financial Administration Act; then item No. 13, second reading of the act to amend the Loan Companies Act; then item No. 14, second reading of the act to amend the Trust Companies Act; then item No. 11, second reading of the act to amend the Income Tax Act; then the resolution appearing under "government notices of motions" on today's order paper which will precede a bill having to do with supply; then the three items under the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs; and the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Transport, which is No. 23 concerning the railway grade crossing fund.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And on
Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: On Wednesday we may take estimates or we may have to deal with some

of these legislative items. If we take estimates we shall commence with those of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources and then take those of the Department of Labour and the Department of Fisheries.
Business of the House Mr. Martin (Essex East): And finish this week?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Rouleau: 1.	Have any employees been dismissed from the national film board since June 10, 1957? If so, liow many?
2.	How many were technicians, producers, department heads?
3.	Have any employees been appointed since June 10, 1957? If so, how many?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
National film board:
1.	Yes, two.
2.	None.
3.	Yes, from June 10, 1957 up to June 30, 1958, 78 persons have been regularly appointed in continuing positions; 24 have been engaged on a term basis and 30 on a contract basis.


UNION RAILWAY TERMINAL, OTTAWA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Are negotiations presently being conducted between the federal district commission, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to establish the joint operation by a union railway terminal company of the railways in the national capital?
2.	If so, what stage have these negotiations reached and when is it expected they will be concluded?
3.	What rearrangement of railway facilities is dependent upon the successful conclusion of these negotiations and what is the anticipated year of completion of each stage of such rearrangement subsequent to the conclusion of the negotiations?
Answer by: Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker
(Prime Minister):
1.	Yes.
2.	Substantial agreement has been reached on the physical rearrangement of facilities and methods of operation required by the formation of a union terminal company. Agreement has yet to be reached as to financial arrangements. It is expected that final agreement will be reached during the calendar year 1958.
3.	The following rearrangement of railway facilities is dependent upon the successful conclusion of these negotiations and the anticipated year of completion subsequent to the conclusion of negotiation is as shown:
(a)	Connection west of Bells Corners between C.P.R. Carleton Place subdivision and the C.N.R. Beachburg subdivision. (1959)
(b)	Connection at Walkley diamond between the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision and the C.N.R. Walkley cut-off line. (1959)
(c)	Connection at Ellwood diamond between the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision and the C.N.R. Beachburg subdivision. (1961)
(d)	Construction of additional trackage at Walkley yard to permit removal of C.P.R. switching yard at Ottawa West. (1960)
(e)	Connection at Ottawa West joining the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision and Montreal and Ottawa subdivision. (1960)
(f)	Construction of a new double-track high level bridge over the Rideau river at Hurd-man. (1961)
(g)	Realignment and elevation of existing trackage west and east of the Rideau river at Hurdman to provide for joint operation of railways and to provide for grade separation crossings of the Queensway and other important traffic arteries. (1961)
(h)	Construction of a passenger train turning loop west of the Rideau river. The location of the Queensway will be on the existing wye turning track and the new loop will do away with the necessity of constructing grade separation structures. (1961)
(i)	Installation of additional centralized traffic control signal equipment and communication lines to control train movements as a result of new connections and joint operation of both railways' trains. (1961)
The aforementioned items will permit the removal of C.P.R. passenger and through freight traffic on the Carleton Place subdivision through Britannia and Ottawa West. All through traffic of main line trains will be routed from Bells Corners on the C.N.R. Beachburg subdivision to the switching yard at Walkley or to Union station. This will permit the removal of rail traffic from the Interprovincial bridge (Alexandra bridge).
(j)	Connection at Hawthorne between the C.P.R. Montreal and Ottawa subdivision and the C.N.R. Alexandria subdivision. (1962)
(k)	Elevation of a portion of the C.P.R. Prescott subdivision between Ottawa West and Walkley diamond to permit the construction of grade separation structures at major street crossings. (1961)
(l)	Construction of freight shed and track facilities at Hurdman for the C.P.R. to replace their existing facilities on Broad street. (1965)
(m)	Abandonment of C.P.R. Sussex street subdivision from Bank street to end of track at Sussex drive. This can only take place when a suitable industrial area is provided to relocate existing industries now on this track. Present plans are for the establishment of such an area in the Russell road-St. Laurent boulevard part of the city for all industries who are displaced by the railroad relocation plan. The federal district commission has suitable land available. It is expected that this matter will not be completed before five years or when existing leases on railway land in the Sussex street area have expired.

Tuesday, August 12, 1958