Lloyd Roseville Crouse
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
And the government is going to blackmail every province into entering the plan, whether the province has the money for it or not.
September 20, 1968 COMMONS
You are against
I am not against medicare; I am all for it, but it must be on a sensible basis, where we have the doctors to do it.
What sort of medical care will our people obtain when one considers that in the emergency departments of many hospitals one has to wait several hours before being treated. That is the sort of thing I object to. We cannot have adequate medical services if the country has not enough doctors. At the present time in Canada there are approximately
2,000 people for every general practioner. Our doctors, apart from their duties in treating patients, are harried by forms they have to fill in, by bureaucracy and by all sorts of red tape.
I ask, what has the government done since 1963 to increase our supply of qualified doctors. Mr. T. C. Douglas, who is not here at the present time, supported me in a speech I made on this particular point. I urged the government to allow the medical schools to operate all year round and thus increase our supply of doctors. I believe six medical schools agreed to do so, provided the government came up with the necessary funds to help toward the professors' pay. This assistance was refused and today, when medicare is in operation, we have insufficient doctors for our needs. Consequently our medical services will be inadequate.
It is time that we took a serious look at the situation. The government ought to make available through the health resources fund money which will help to train additional doctors. I am sure that the majority of medical schools in Canada would be willing to operate all year round if given the chance and the money. They did so during the war, when doctors were turned out in four years. Dr. John Evan, the young and distinguished dean of the McMaster medical school in Hamilton said, "We could do it in three years if we have active support and the necessary funds."
The government turns a deaf ear to such pleas, at the same time shoving down our people's throats a form of medicare that will not work. I am greatly concerned about the quality of medical care that our people will obtain from doctors who are hopelessly harried and overworked by the demands of bureaucracy. I saw the work of medical practitioners deteriorating in England. There were so many forms to be filled in that patients
The Address-Mr. Broadbent after a very cursory inquiry were told that they had to come back next week and the week after that. In the end, when the doctor has little time to see the patient and only has time to guess at what is wrong with him, he says, "I have made a reservation for you to enter the hospital where the doctors will find out what is wrong with you."
When this happens your hospital operating expenses go up. All your health costs soar, simply because doctors have insufficient time to spend with each patient. We have one doctor for every 2,000 patients, and in that regard Russia is away ahead of us, with one doctor to about 500 people. Even the United States is better off than we are. Yet we are crowding medicare through in one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world. I say this in all sincerity; I do not say it offensively: While I have been critical, I hope some of the things I have said this afternoon will be noted by the government and by this house, and that action will be taken to see that the people of this country get proper medical care, and to see that the picture of the just society which has been built up across Canada gets going. This is not just a matter of priorities; it is so obvious it is staring them in the face.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise and make my first speech in the House of Commons. I must say I am particularly pleased to see such a crowded house at 5.15 p.m. on a Friday afternoon. Who would have thought that so many thousands would have turned out?
Before I get to the main body of my speech I should like to say a few words about my predecessor. Michael Starr represented what is still the core of my new riding, Oshawa-Whitby, formerly the Ontario riding, from 1952 until this year's general election. There can be no doubt that in terms of his services to the personal needs of his constituents Mr. Starr performed an outstanding job as a member of parliament.
This is widely recognized by his constituents, whether they were his political supporters or not, and it is widely recognized, I am finding, among all parties in the House of Commons. I am also learning that among members of this house in all parties he is regarded as a man of great integrity
310 COMMONS DEBATES September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
possessing all the qualities of a genuine gentleman. I should like to add that I am not saying any of these things because it is, supposedly, the conventional thing to do; it is something I genuinely believe, because I heard it expressed on countless occasions since I arrived in Ottawa and, prior to that, in my riding. I have rarely agreed with the policies of the party which Mr. Starr represented for many years, but I unhesitatingly salute Mr. Starr the man.
Now, in my short but, I hope, not completely irrelevant speech I wish to address myself to the two issues raised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In his speech on Monday of this week the right hon. gentleman suggested that in our discussions during the present debate we should concern ourselves with questions which relate to "the kind of country in which we want to be living and the directions in which we should be moving to build such a country."
Earlier this year the Prime Minister suggested, if I understood him correctly, that in Canada we had gone about as far as we could in our efforts to construct a welfare state. Once we have medicare established on a national basis, he implied, the structure would be almost complete.
As a member of the opposition, and more particularly perhaps, as a New Democrat, I am in the unfortunate position of having to agree with the Prime Minister on both issues. In short, it seems to me that the debate on the speech from the throne is an occasion when the social philosophical objectives of Canada should be discussed; and, second, it is true that we now have in Canada the basic structural components of a modem welfare state.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my contribution by saying something about the second issue. The 100 years since confederation can be divided roughly into two socioeconomic periods. Up to the 1930's Canadians were concerned with laying the foundations of a viable capitalist democracy in which our two principal cultural groups could at least co-exist peacefully within the framework of a liberal constitution. The central components of a liberal democratic society were firmly established throughout the land: universal franchise; freedoms of speech, religion, press and assembly; competing political parties, and a national banking system.
Since the 1930's we have experienced important modifications of the classical liberal structure. The more important of these include: (1) the right of trade unions to exist and to strike; (2) the gradual implementation of old age pensions; (3) some form of progressive taxation; (4) comprehensive medical and health programs and (5) an unemployment insurance scheme.
No sensible Canadian would deny that these measures have made a very significant change in the kind of life the majority of our people can now experience. They have provided the quantitative basis for a qualitatively enriched life for millions of adults and children. These five changes have provided the structural core of our modern welfare state.
I emphasize the point that we have the core. It would, however, be both false and irresponsible for me to suggest that we have the whole apple. Previous speakers in this debate have ably indicated serious deficiencies which still remain and about which the government gives almost no indication of seriously concerning itself. The most glaring of these are: (1) the abysmal lack of adequate housing, (2) severe economic inequality between both individuals and regions, (3) the absence of a guaranteed annual income, and (4) an outmoded and inequitable system of taxation-a shock to the western world, I might add.
Mr. Speaker, these four areas of concern should not in any way be dismissed as being of minor significance. They are the major evils of the day. They can be and should be remedied. Previous speakers from the New Democratic party have indicated their existence and have suggested solutions in this house. Earlier in the year our leader-soon to be returned to this house-and candidates across the land discussed them directly with the Canadian people. There is little need for me, at least in this debate, to add to what has already been said.
Instead, what I wish to stress is that every one of these evils can be substantially dealt with within the existing socio-economic structure. We do have the core of the welfare state. We need only the will to complete it. Houses can be built, taxation can be improved, a guaranteed income can be introduced, and regional disparities can be significantly modified. All this can be done without making any further significant changes in the distribution of power within Canadian society.
September 20, 1968
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It is in this sense that the Prime Minister is almost right when he suggests that in terms of welfare we have gone about as far as we can go. It is also his implied suggestion, that it is as far as we should go, that makes me believe that the Prime Minister is a profoundly conservative man. His vision extends to the welfare state, but not one step beyond. His vision of the just society is what we almost have. To defend what we have and to refuse to go beyond is to cease to lead. And to cease to lead beyond the welfare state is to leave Canadians with a kind of society which is inherently inegalitarian, inherently acquisitive, and inherently unjust.
Having indicated substantial agreement with the Prime Minister on the nature of the welfare state I want now to proceed to suggest why we New Democrats-unlike the Prime Minister and the Liberal party-cannot accept it as being an adequate kind of society. Perhaps the major objection to the welfare state is that for all its advantages it rests on a grossly inadequate understanding of democracy. In Canada today children are taught in schools throughout the land that our country is democratic primarily because there is more than one political party and because citizens have both the right to criticize and the right to change their rulers every few years. This view of democracy, Mr. Speaker, is a distinctly modern phenomenon and is in marked contrast with the understanding of democracy of both the early Greeks and 19th century Europeans. Prior to our century democracy was seen by its defenders and critics alike as a kind of society in which all adults played an active, participatory role not only in the formal institutions of government but also in all the institutions which crucially affected their daily lives. Similarly a democratic society had been seen previously as one in which all its members had an equal opportunity to develop their capacities and talents; it was not seen as one in which citizens had an equal opportunity to earn more money or advance up the class ladder.
It is this old view of democracy that we must once again take up. We must use its standards and apply them to Canadian society. We must once again talk about equality. We must see justice and equality as going together. Of course, Mr. Speaker, if we do this we know we will find our society grossly inadequate and significantly unjust. Every sociological study done in European and
The Address-Mr. Broadbent North American welfare states in recent years has revealed their inherently inegalitarian nature. One of the most important of these, Professor John Porter's "The Vertical Mosaic" documents in chapter after chapter the inequalities of Canada's social system. The recent report of the Economic Council of Canada provides additional concrete information on the existence of economic inequality.
It might well be granted that this is the case. But what, asks the defender of the status quo, can be done about it? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is a lot. We must begin by insisting that in a democratic society-in, if you would a just society-all adults should have equal rights in all those institutions which directly affect them. Where authority is delegated, then those to whom it is delegated must be responsible to those over whom they exercise their authority.
In concrete examples, Mr. Speaker, this means that in our factories, in our offices, and in our large commercial and financial institutions, legal power must shift from the few on the top to the many below. We can of course have no illusions about completely dispensing with authority. In a complex industrial society, this is impossible. But we can democratize authority in our non-political institutions just as we have in the political. Management can and must be made responsible to the workers, just as we are responsible to our constituents.
More than this, however, is required. Not only must legal control pass from the few to the many, but also the many must be given the right to make more of the decisions themselves. Responsible university students around the world in recent months have initiated this process on their campuses.
I urge the Canadian government to promote this development, to lead the way, not only because such democratic institutions would be more just, but also because they would be infinitely more conducive to the development of responsible and creative men and women. Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill realized this one hundred years ago. Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and many others have stressed the same truth in our own day. We as the political leaders of the country have a duty to initiate this battle for a truly democratic society. We have a duty, Mr. Speaker, not simply to praise our past and celebrate our present, but also to create the future. We must reject the sterile view of both the government and the official opposition. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties are bound not by bad intentions but by an outmoded and unjust
312 COMMONS DEBATES September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Francis ideology. They have their heads as well as their feet firmly imbedded in the ideas and practices of the past.
No amount of parliamentary reform, social razmataz, or fiscal responsibility can lead to a just society. At the very most they can remove little pockets of inefficiency. The basic unjust and unequal structure will remain. What Canadians require is a leadership deeply dedicated to the, democratization of the whole of society and thoroughly committed to changing by means of law the existing power relations needed to bring this about. In recent decades we have built a welfare state. It is now time to go beyond it.
Mr. Speaker, in these brief remarks I have attempted to follow the Prime Minister's suggestion and discuss in a general way what I think the future of Canada should be. In so doing, I have also tried to indicate the inadequacies of the present. In addition, a serious approach to politics also requires proposals for specific legislation intended to bring about the desired future. In the past the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the New Democratic party have accepted this important responsibility, and have led the way in providing ideas for the welfare state. In the days and months ahead we shall continue to provide programs intended to take us beyond the welfare state.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):
Mr. Speaker, according to the custom in the house I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), the mover of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who seconded the address. Those two new members have already attracted attention in this house, because they spoke quite well and have shown their ability.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I understand there are some 100 new members in this House of Commons. To these I want to say a few particular words about the city in which they will be residing for a good part of the year, that is the city of Ottawa.
I can well remember in 1963, when I was first elected, the then member for Renfrew South in a brilliant and witty display of oratorical talent talked about the way he
could feel the cold waters of the Ottawa river lapping at his back from the point at which he observed the proceedings of this house. He has since moved down to the front benches and perhaps he swims in warmer waters from time to time.
I would like to call to the attention of hon. members of this house those waters of the Ottawa river which raise an important question of policy, and which must concern us. In these beautiful days of early fall I hope that members will walk around the back of parliament hill and look down on the Ottawa river from the cliffs. I am sure every one of you will feel, as I do, the tremendous pride we as Canadians enjoy in this truly magnificient river. When I saw the rivers of other parts of the world that I have read about in history books, the Thames of London, the Tiber of Rome and, yes, even the Seine of Paris, none of these could equal the majestic river which is part of our heritage.
When Champlain came here 350 years ago he must have seen a truly inspiring sight. He must have looked at the junction of the Gatineau and Rideau rivers, naming the falls by the French word meaning curtain, and naming also the Chaudiere falls. He certainly could never have anticipated the degree of pollution of this stream that we have permitted right under our noses.
Look across to the pulp mill on the other side of the river and there you will see a symbol of the industry itself and its contribution to Canada. The pulp mill means investment, a high standard of living and many things to many Canadians. The industry is advantageous in many ways; but day after day you can observe in the Ottawa river that milky, contaminated layer of discharge of pollutants. Correction of this will be costly, but failure to correct it will probably be very much more costly in its ultimate consequences. Remember as well that the extent of sewage treatment on the far side of the river is almost negligible and the city of Ottawa itself provides only primary, coarse screening of its effluent from a metropolitan population of over 400,000.
I have placed a measure on the order paper that I hope will come up for debate before this house, which will create a national capital pollution control board, and I hope hon. members will join with me in calling this national disgrace to the attention of the people of Canada.
September 20, 1968 COMMONS
I hope also that hon. members will stroll down the beautiful Sparks street mall and then turn right down Elgin street. As you approach confederation square you will see before you the national centre for the performing arts which will cost, I understand, more than $45 million. From confederation square the outline of the centre has some interesting features and it is abundantly clear that the view from the side of the Rideau canal will be truly beautiful. But walk down to the Lord Elgin hotel on Elgin street and then turn back and look at it.
To the visitors on Elgin, Laurier, Albert and the mall it appears as a huge, dirty, brown wall of ugly, unrelieved cement which presents a fagade that, for sheer ugliness, is almost impossible to surpass. I was one of those who looked forward with anticipation to the performing arts centre and believed, as I still believe, that it will make a tremendous contribution not only to the cultural life of Ottawa but to all Canadians.
Certainly the early models which were displayed on the Sparks street mall gave no sense of the ugliness that would be extruded from the western side of the building. Something will have to be done about this wall. In Mexico they would, no doubt, engage artists to create brilliant, ceramic tile concepts which would be striking and beautiful.
If we must have something more Canadian,
I suggest we invite some of the Eskimos from Cape Dorset to come down and see what they could do to relieve a large panel of it. Possibly some of our Canadian Indians could develop some themes based on their culture, which would be distinctly Canadian. Failing this, if Treasury Board feels that they cannot afford such extra costs, and I can well sympathize with their sensitivity about the cost of this project, I suggest that they mark it out in little panels and issue spray paint cans to the citizens of Ottawa. Certainly the artarama project suggested that it was possible to do some interesting things to improve dull space of this nature. No matter what the results were, there would be a substantial improvement.
I did not mention the centre for the performing arts in an effort to be picayune or to be purely negative in criticizing the National Capital Commission, which has been responsible for advising the government on these matters and has done some tremendous things for Ottawa. It has created some parks and is building a parkways system of which we are all justly proud. But the National Capital
The Address-Mr. Francis Commission itself is in a process of transition and so, for that matter, is the future form of government for the nation's capital.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in this debate, indicated the scope of reforms which are going to be undertaken and the pragmatic way in which the government will approach these reforms. He indicated that conferences were planned at a technical level relating to the future of the Canadian constitution, and he hoped to have discussions in October or November of this year with provincial premiers.
On the subject of the national capital, there has been much speculation and a number of suggestions have been made that, in my opinion, will not stand close examination. Very few people indeed believe that the present form of municipal organization in the national capital region can survive without substantial changes in order to serve national purposes. I know that the Minister of regional development, who is responsible for the national capital is carefully studying the problem and all its ramifications.
There are those who believe we should simply create a federal district and make it a bilingual and bicultural show-piece for the rest of Canada. Indeed, the resolutions that have been passed at the conventions of all the major parties represented in this house at times came close to a simple declaration of this nature. In my opinion it might have been possible to create a federal district in Queen Victoria's day, but many things have happened since that time.
The first and foremost difficulty in creating a federal district, of course, is the matter of property and civil law within the federal district. Which law would be adopted, the common law of Ontario or the code law of Quebec? Would an attempt be made to create a district in which the two systems of law would co-exist side by side with equal rights? My legal friends tell me there are very great practical difficulties no matter what solution is chosen in this respect, although anything is possible if we are willing to put up with the annoyances involved and the possible substantial changes in property values and property rights which would ensue.
The second and equally grave difficulty, in my opinion, would relate to education. Would the new federal district adopt the educational system of the province of Ontario, or would it adopt the educational system of the province of Quebec? Perhaps it would feel obliged to create still another educational jurisdiction in
September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Francis this confused land of ours-a jurisdiction in addition to that of the ten provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Speak to the families of bank managers, of servicemen, of employees of corporations whose livelihoods require them to be transferred from one part of Canada to another, and you will receive in an overwhelming majority of cases an eloquent plea for a reduction in the number of educational jurisdictions, not a proliferation of them. In any case, the proposed new federal district would have to break entirely new ground in the field of education. This might be desirable but it does raise grave difficulties.
Lastly, the creation of a federal district raises a fundamental problem of provincial sovereignty. It is expecting a great deal to ask the province of Quebec to yield sovereignty over a large region which is included, by the statute of the federal authority, within an area known as the national capital region.
Has there been any indication that the province of Ontario is any more willing to concede its sovereignty over an even larger area, with more people? Elected representatives who sit in the houses at Toronto and Quebec city can hardly be expected to view with equanimity legislation which would eliminate their constituencies.
In my view the solution will have to be resolved along different lines. Frankly, I prefer the twin city national capital concept. I believe that the future capital of Canada will consist of two regional municipalities. One will substantially follow the borders of the recently created regional municipality of Ot-tawa-Carleton in the province of Ontario. The second, in my opinion, will include a similarly constituted regional municipality within the province of Quebec on the other side of the Ottawa river.
If we do follow this development of a twin city national capital, and this is the most workable and possible solution that I can envisage, there will then be the difficulty of relating the national capital commission, as the federal arm, to the regional municipalities in Ontario and Quebec. The measures which I am proposing and have placed on the order paper are designed to assist in tying together these components into what will be a functional national capital.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have already mentioned the national capital region pollution control board to deal with both air and water pollution. I believe it will
also be necessary to create a national capital commission transit authority charged with the responsibility of integrating the bus lines and an underground rail rapid transit system with north-south and east-west routes.
Frankly, I would place the rail rapid transit system as a high priority in this national capital. Indeed, a bridge for rail rapid transit, in my opinion, should have a higher priority than any future automobile bridges across the Ottawa river. This will require negotiations between the federal authority and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Only joint action involving the three government authorities can solve the confused tangle of jurisdictions, intermittent services and costly rivalries that now plague public transit in the national capital region.
I believe, also, that there should be created some form of advisory national capital region planning authority. This is difficult, because of the primary constitutional role of the provincial authorities in property and civil rights. But somewhere, at some time, representatives of the area municipalities, of the provincial authorities and the federal government, represented by the national capital commission, must sit down at the same table and agree on long term plans of the land use, traffic patterns, future building sites and the like. Lastly, I believe that an official languages board, following the general recommendations of the bilingualism and bicultur-alism commission, should be created for the national capital region.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to close without some reference to the special task force on housing which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has so ably undertaken at this time. I have had discussions with the minister and am very much impressed with the drive and integrity he is employing to resolve our national housing crisis. If one man in Canada is equipped for the task, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is so equipped.
In the national capital region the federal government has destroyed more housing than in any other part of Canada. This has been a by-product of the elimination of some bad eyesores in LeBreton Flats, Sussex Drive, and many other places. The sites that have been taken for national purposes are part of the creation of the national capital for all Canadians.
In Ottawa there is a frightful housing shortage, as the new members coming to this city will have discovered. I do not believe
September 20, 1968
there are any apartment dwellers in my constituency who have faced increases of less than $20 per month in the last year. The remedy for a shortage in housing is not controls over rents, as some have urged, but creation of more housing. I hope the Minister of Transport, who has spoken so eloquently and well of the need for new Canadian cities and satellites, will choose Ottawa as the initial point for a demonstration project of what a future new satellite city should be.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of the future form of the city itself. The national capital commission regards itself as the planning arm of the federal government and attempts to exercise an over-all responsibility for such things as height control, general zoning problems, the aesthetic appeal of new buildings and the like.
There has arisen a major conflict between the municipal authority of the city of Ottawa and the national capital commission on building heights. Yesterday, for example, the national capital commission called a Professor Wilbur R. Thompson from Wayne State University at Detroit to present testimony before the Ontario municipal board regarding Ottawa's skyline.
Some of Prof. Thompson's remarks, as reproduced in the Ottawa papers yesterday, gave me the greatest concern, and I question what purpose is served by the national capital commission bringing a two-day wonder of this nature to testify on such controversial matters in such unqualified fashion. For example, Prof. Thompson is quoted as follows:
Planning concepts in Ottawa should focus around aesthetics and economic factors were in no way significant and possibly even trivial.
That is a good quote. He is further quoted as saying that Ottawa does not need large buildings. The Ottawa Citizen quotes him in this way:
It was quite all right and even desirable for Toronto and Vancouver to have 20th century skylines, but it was quite another matter for Ottawa to have the same.
Mr. Speaker, the national capital commission is not responsible for providing the health, welfare, recreation, traffic engineering, street maintenance and other services that the city of Ottawa provides. It does not have to levy a mill rate on the citizens and answer for gaps in service. The citizens of
The Address-Mr. Francis Ottawa do not call the national capital commission if their garbage collection is unsatisfactory, but they do call their aldermen, controllers and mayor, and the city council must have the resources to do the things that the citizens require. It is a cavalier thing for a spokesman of the national capital commission to say that economic factors are not important, but members of this house know that very few of us in this life are privileged to set our rules of conduct in such narrow limits.
Mr. Speaker, I invite hon. members of this house, especially the new members, to drive along the magnificent western parkway which has just been created by the national capital commission. Drive west along the parkway from its junction on Wellington street to its termination on Carling avenue, and then turn around and come back. It is a beautiful drive. As you approach Wellington street from the west, you will pass beside Nepean bay which has been substantially beautified by the national capital commission's efforts. Look ahead and you will see Ottawa's skyline. I hope you make the trip some time just at sunset, when the lights begin to glow, and see the skyline Ottawa has created.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
the hon. member join with me in the hope that this view will not be obstructed by the national defence tower, which is planned for this area?
Mr. Speaker, I have discovered in this world that some people start with the answers and if the facts obscure the answers with which they start, so much the worse for the facts. I have always been of the opinion that one should study and observe. My view of the skyline is not that everything must be thus and so, and everything else that is built must detract from it.
I invite the hon. member to look at that skyline from the western bridge. If he does, I think he will agree with me that it is a magnificent skyline in spite of the new buildings, hotels and all the other things that have come to this city. This is good for the city of Ottawa. There is a view held by a number of people engaged in the national capital commission which runs something like this, that
September 20, 1968
The Address-Mr. Francis on Parliament Hill we have a Gothic jewel in this house, the east and west blocks, and that this view must be preserved for all time. It is believed by these people that we must create a cocoon around Parliament Hill and must desist from building other structures which might detract from this main jewel.
We have heard a professor from the United States saying that Ottawa does not need large buildings and should grow horizontally, not vertically. However, he does not have to answer for the tax base, and so on, in this city. He is putting forward purely aesthetic principles. If one is talking about the rear of the national centre for the performing arts, that is one thing; but I believe Ottawa must have a skyline. I believe there is no purpose in having federally appointed members of a public body if they do not have to answer for these things.
I read in the newspaper that an architect yesterday said that the extension of Place de Ville was not acceptable to the federal government. If Place de Ville is not acceptable to the federal government, there is a very simple remedy; the Department of Public Works could simply refuse to lease space in this building and it will not be built. On the one hand we have the federal government stating that they wish to have office space within the city in order to provide those services which the federal government must provide, and on the other we have the group concerned with aesthetics, who say that such construction is neither necessary nor desirable.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is quite understandable in my opinion that when members of the council of the city of Ottawa and other municipalities read such testimony given by the N.C.C. and see the actions of those responsible for leases in other government departments, they think that one government department is contradicting another, and they may feel that the time has
come for a major reconstruction of the N.C.C. itself.
In this brief outline I have tried to suggest to members of the house the kind of problems about which we are going to have to think in the development of our national capital. Hon. members have already had an opportunity to observe such problems in dealing with air and water pollution as the conflict of jurisdiction, the lack of adequate definition of municipal authorities on the Ottawa and the Hull side of the river, and the lack of proper liaison between these authorities and the planning arm which the government has created. One government department enunciates one type of policy while another department appears to create another type of policy.
These are the kind of problems which I am sure are being carefully studied and are the subject of a good deal of discussion behind the scenes which must continue to take place.
I invite hon. members of this house to continue to take an interest in the structure of the national capital, the form of government, and the instruments which must be created so that it will be a symbol of unity and pride for all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
Mr. Speaker, befare the house rises and in order that the hon. member for Pembina may continue on Monday I should like to annonce that the business of the house on Monday starting at
II a.m. will be the continuation of the address debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):
It being six o'clock the house will now rise until 11 a.m. on Monday.
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, September 23, 1968