1914-02-11

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Inland Revenue on Adulteration of Food for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. W. B. Nantel.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Is Dr. D. H. McFadden, M.P.P., of Emerson, Manitoba, in the employ of the Government?
2.	If so, when was he employed?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	What is his salary?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 1, 1913.
3.	Inspector of quarantine stations for western Canada.
4.	$1,800 per annum.


CHESLEY POST OFFICE.
Mr. TRUAX:: 1.	Was Sarauel Wright or any other person appointed as collector of letters from the mail boxes in Chesley, Ontario? If so, at what date was he appointed, on what date did he begin to attend to his duties, at what wages, salary or compensation, and what amount has been paid to him for services and expenses, if any, to date?
2.	Was William Haliday, or any other person, appointed as janitor or caretaker of the post office building in Chesley? If so, at what salary or wage per day, per month or per year; what was the date of his appointment, when did he commence to attend to his duties, tvliat amount has been paid him for his services to date, and has any allowance been made him as extras or otherwise for making and attending to fires in the building?
3.	When does the department expect the building to be open and used for the purposes for which it was constructed?
4.	Where and in what building is the post office now situated and in operation, and how long has it been there?
5.	(a) When was the construction of,the new building contracted for, and (b) with whom, and (c) when did the work thereon first begin?
6.	How long has it been in course of construction, and is it yet completed?


Mr. CODERRE:: In so far as the Department of Public Works is .concerned:
1.	Post Office Department to answer.
2.	No caretaker has yet been appointed. Mr. Haliday was clerk of works, at $80 per month, from 8th May, 1912. Amount paid to 8th January, 1913, is $1,600.
3.	The main contract is completed, but the fittings are not yet installed, but are expected to be very shortly.
4.	Post Office Department to answer.
5.	(a) Date of contract, April 3, 1912. (b) Gilpen Bros., of Wiarton. (c) Commenced work early in May.
6.	Main contract comenced early in May,
1912.	Final estimate passed December 16,
1913.
In so far as Post Office Department is concerned:
A street letter box service was established in Chesley, Ontario, on the 17th October, 1913. A temporary arrangement was made with Samuel Wright to collect the mail matter posted in the boxes until tenders could be invited for a permanent contract. For this temporary service Mr. Wright has been paid fifty cents per trip, or one dollar per day. For the quarter ended 31st December, 1913, Mr. Wright was paid $65. The Post Office Department is now considering the tenders for a permanent contract.


PAYMENTS TO MR. E. H. CIMON.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	What sum of money was charged either in fees or travelling expenses by E. H. Cimon, of Fraserville, in connection with the investigations held in the counties of Temiscouata and Kamouraska?
2.	Has he been paid?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Fees, $97.50; travelling expenses, $4.85; total, $102.35.
2.	Yes.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-SHOPS AT TRANSCONA.
Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Are the Transcontinental shops at Trans-cona completed? If so, what is the toal cost, including equipment?
2.	If not completed, what is the amount expended up to date, and what is the estimated amount required to complete?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No.
2.	Paid:
Locomotive shops-
Buildings	$1,488,983 35
Machine tools, motors and power house equipment - [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	829,726 65
Shafting, hangers, wiring, air and steam piping, yard water system, &c., &c., and miscellaneous equipment	 428,795 93
Total	$2,747,505 93
Car shops-
Buildings	$ 958,982 23
Equipment	 174,679 80
Total	$1,133,662	03
To be paid-approximate:
Car shops-
Buildings	$	24,846 39Equipment	
54,897	85Motors	
26,500	00Exhaust system	
15,000	00Miscellaneous items	
13,000	00Industrial track	
3,073	73Wiring	
29,904	97Total	$ 167,221 97Total, car shops	$1,300,884 00Total locomotive and car shops	- [DOT] $4,048,389 93


KITSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Are the Indians of the Kitsilano reserve now in occupation of that reserve?

2.	If not, where are they residing?
3.	What rights to land had they acquired where they now reside?
4.	Did they remove from the reserve with the knowledge and consent of the department?
5.	What is the present social and moral condition of these Indians now as compared with their condition before they removed from the reserve?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	It is reported that the Indians are not now occupying the Kitsilano reserve.
2.	It is reported that they are residing on other Indian reserves at Squamish river and other places.
3.	The Indian reserves on which they now reside were set apart by the Indian Reserve Commission in 1876-77.
4.	No.
5.	In so far as any information in the department is concerned, the social and moral condition of these Indians is not materially changed.


IRON AND STEED PRODUCTS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: What was the total value of the imports of iron and steel and iron and steel products of every kind into Canada during the year ending December 31, 1913?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 
Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Two. Breed, Yorkshire.
2.	W. A. Churchill, Lakeside; John A. Moir, Yarmouth North.
3.	H. W. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S.
4.	Highest price paid, $25; lowest price paid, $25.
5.	No commission was paid for purchase or examination. The representative of the department by whom the purchase was made was paid at the rate of $6 per day while engaged in the purchase and distribution of pure bred stock in the Maritime provinces.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many and what breed of horses have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase or examination? If so, to whom and how much?'


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	No horses have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913.
2,	3, 4, 5. Answered by No. 1.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many and what breed of cattle have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase or examination? If so, to whom and how much?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	One Guernsey bull was purchased by the Experimental Farms Branch of the Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth during the year 1913.
2.	Howard Corning, of Chegoggin, N.S.
3.	W. S. Blair, superintendent of the Experimental Farm at Nappan, N.S.
4.	The price paid was $150.
5.	No.


Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many and what breed of sheep have been purchased by the Department of Agricul-

ture in the county of Yarmouth for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1913?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and address of each agent or representative through whom purchase was made?
4.	What was the highest and lowest price paid?
5.	Was a commission paid for purchase or examination? If so, to whom and how much?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Five. Breed, Cheviot.
2.	R. B. Wyman, Arcadia; J. C' Corning, Chegoggin; B. B. Killain, Yarmouth; Ed. Colden, Chebogue Point.
3.	H. W. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S.
4.	Highest price paid, $25; lowest price paid, $15.
5.	No commission was paid for purchase *or examination. The representative of the department by whom the purchase was made was paid at the rate of $6 per day while engaged in the purchase and distribution of pure bred stock in the Maritime provinces.


ANTIGONISH FOOD INSPECTOR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	Is Moses Delorey, of Tracadie, Antigonish county, still food inspector?
2.	If not, when were his services dispensed with, and was anybody appointed in his place?
3.	How many prosecutions under the Act did he initiate?
4.	How many convictions did he obtain, and who were the persons convicted, if any?
5.	Is it the intention of the Department of Inland Revenue to appoint another food inspector for Antigonish county?
Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	

.
3.	The department alone takes the initiative regarding prosecutions.
4.	None. He collected samples from various parties, none of which were found to be adulterated.
5.	Not now.


ARMOURIES.'
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many armouries have been built in Canada by the Department of Militia and Defence since the year 1900?
2.	How many of said armouries have had sites contributed by the towns or cities where such armouries are situated?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:
1.	48.
2.	32.


OTTAWA PROPERTY PURCHASE.
Mr. MURPHY:: In connection with the scheme for beautifying the city of Ottawa, is it the intention of the Government to purchase the properties on the north side of Wellington street extending from the Perley Home westward to Pooley's bridge ?


Mr. ROGERS:: The question of the purchase of property on the north side of Wellington street extending from the Perley Home, westward to Pooley's bridge has not yet been considered.


SS. MONTCALM.
Mr. DELISLE:: When back from her trip to Seven Islands will the Montcalm be employed exclusively in future, to keeping the chanel free from ice between Quebec and Montreal?


Mr. HAZEN:: The Montcalm was due to return last night. She will, so far as the conditions of the service permit of it, continue ice-breaking operations between Quebec and Montreal.


SUPERINTENDENT OF PILOTS.
Michel-Siméon Delisle: Is it the intention of the Government to appoint a pilot as successor to the late Captain Riley, who was superintendent of pilots of the Quebec and Montreal division?


John Douglas Hazen: The matter is under consideration.


INSIDE CIVIL SERVICE.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Since October 10, 1911, how many persons have been appointed to positions in the inside civil service who had not passed the public competitive examination held by the Civil Service Commission in May and November of each year?
2.	How many of such persons were appointed in each department?


Louis Coderre: Number of persons
appointed in each department since October 10, 1911, who have not passed the semiannual competitive examinations for third and second divisions and 'for the lower grade, held by the Civil Service Commission in May and November of each year:
Number of
Department.	appointments.
Auditor General	 4
Agriculture	 38
Commission of Conservation 5
Customs	 3
External Affairs	 1
Governor General's Secretary 3
House of Commons	 20
Indian Affairs	 1

Interior	 66
Inland Revenue	'8
Justice	 6
Labour	  1
Mines	 35
Marine and Fisheries....	10
Militia and Defence	 10
Naval Service	 5
Post Office	 69
Privy Council	  1
Public Works	 51
Printing and Stationery. ...	1,
Railways and Canals	 10
R.N.W.M.P	 2
Senate	 1
Secretary of State	 4
Archives	 6


ST. CASIMIR POST OFFICE.
*Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a petition from the residents of the parish of St. Casimir, county of Portneuf, asking for the construction of a post office in their locality?
2.	If he has not yet received it, has it been addressed to the Minister of Public Works?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant the request of the residents of St. Casimir, to that effect?
4.	If so, will an amount of money be put in the next supplementary estimates respecting such construction?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3 and 4. The matter is under consideration.


OTTAWA DRILL HALL.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Has the Government acquired a site for a new armoury or drill hall in Ottawa?
2.	If so, where is the site located, and how much was paid for it?
3.	If not, will the Government make provision in the Estimates of the present session for the purchase of such a site?


Mr. HUGHES:: It is under consideration.


SEAMAN JOSEPH LE BLANC.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Was Joseph Le Blanc, of Port Felix, N.S., employed as a sailor on D.G.S. Canada during 1913?
2.	If so, when did his employment begin and when did it cease?
3.	At what date was he placed in a hospital at Montreal, by whom was he so placed, why was he sent there, and wh., is the name of the hospital?
4.	If he departed this life in said hospital, what is the date of his death and the cause of his death?
5.	Where was his body buried?
6.	Who owns the lot in which his body was buried?
7.	How can the place of interment be identified?
8.	Did the parties in charge of said hospital, or the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the captain of the D.G.S. Canada, or any officer on behalf of the said Government, receive a message from Mrs. Margaret Richard, of said Port Felix, requesting that the remains of said Le Blanc be forwarded to Port Felix for interment?
9.	Why was the remains of the said Le Blanc not sent to Port Felix for interment?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes, as able seaman.
2.	Began 11th of April, 1913; ended 22nd of August, 1913.
3.	Entered Montreal general hospital on 9th of August, 1913; sent by the commanding officer Canada, suffering from empyema, complicated by broncho-pneumonia.
4.	Died from empyema, complicated by broncho-pneuomnia, on 22nd August, 191.3.
5.	In the Catholic cemetery of Cote des Neiges, Montreal.
6.	The Catholic Sailors' Club.
7.	By the officers of the Catholic Sailors' Club, Montreal.
8.	On 22nd August the commanding officer Canada telegraphed Mrs. Richard the news of her brother's death and asked her to communicate with the hospital concerning the burial, otherwise the agent of Marine and Fisheries Department would arrange it. Ship proceeded to sea on 23rd August, and on arrival at Shelburne on 27th August a wire was received from Mrs. Richard as follows: ' If Government will forward Joseph Leblanc's body free of charge to Mulgrave, we will meet it there; otherwise please have buried Montreal. Advise answer.' A letter from Mrs. Richard dated 25th August, asking for the body to be forwarded free of charge, was also received by the Prime Minister.
9.	In accordance with the telegram from the commanding officer Canada and in the absence of directions from Mrs. Richard, the body was buried in Montreal.


THE SHELLFISH COMMISSION.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Government taken any action on the reoprt of the Shellfish Fishery Commission of 1913? If so, what action?	*


John Douglas Hazen: The report is still under consideration.


METCALFE DRILL HALL.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Since October, 1911, how often has the

drill hall at Metcalfe, Ontario, been used for other than military purposes?
2.	From whom was permission obtained to use the said drill hall on each such occasion?
3.	Was any rental or other fee exacted for such use?
4.	If so, how much was paid, and to whom was payment made in each instance?
5.	Have all moneys so paid been remitted to the Militia Department? If not, by whom, and under what authority have they been retained?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Twice.
2.	By the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence.
3.	No.
4 and 5. Answered by No. 3.


INTERCOLONIAL, RAILWAY GRADE REDUCTION.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MURPHY:
1.	Did the Government or any member thereof authorize the publication of the following item in the Ottawa Citizen of July 3, 1913 :-
' The new management of the Intercolonial has in view extensive improvements designed to facilitate the operative utility of the road. The principal question to be considered immediately is that of grade reduction. At present the maximum grade is one and one-quarter. It is the belief of General Manager Gutelius that a six-tenths grade is quite feasible and the adoption of this would result in doubling the present haulage capacity of the road. With this improvement in view, surveys and estimates are to be prepared this summer.'
2.	What arrangements, if any, have been made to carry into effect the improvements mentioned in the foregoing extract?
3.	Will a six-tenths grade be established on the Intercolonial railway? If so, what is the estimated cost of the necessary changes in the line?
Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	No authority was given by the Minister of Railways and Canals.
2	and 3. No decision has been arrived at.


SUBMARINE BELL FLOATS.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were tenders asked for thirteen submarine bell floats by the Department of Marine and Fisheries?
2.	If so, what tenders were received and what is the respective amounts of same?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded and what was the amount paid?
1.	Yes.
2.	The John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto, tendered for $6,370; the Eastern Steel Company, Ltd., New Glasgow, N.S., tendered for $7,735; the New Burrell Johnson Iron Co., Yarmouth, N.S., tendered for $7,800; the Sydney Foundry and Machine Works, Ltd., Sydney, C.B., tendered for $8,200; International Marine Signal Company, Ottawa, tendered for $11,700, with an alternative

offer in accordance with their drawings for $11,375; T. Hogan & Company, Halifax, tendered for $11,635; D. McLachlan & Sons, St. John, N.B., tendered for $28,600.
3.	To the John Inglis Company, Ltd., Toronto. Nothing has yet ben paid on this contract.


SS. GULNARE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Were tenders asked by the Department of the Naval Service for a boiler for the SS. Gulnai e ?
2.	If so, how many were received, and what are the names of the tenderers and amounts of same respectively ?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and what was the amount?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Five tenders were received viz.: the John Inglis Company, Ltd., $4,800; the Canadian Allis-Chalmers Company, $5,025; the Poison Iron Works, Ltd., $5,438; the New Burrell-Johnson Iron Company, Ltd., $5,700; the International Engineering Works, Ltd., $6,366.
3.	The John Inglis Company, Ltd., 14 Strachan avenue, Toronto, $4,800.


OTTAWA RIFLE RANGE.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	What is the total expenditure to date on the rifle range in course of construction in the township of March, county of Carleton?
2.	When will the work be completed, and the range ready for use?
3.	What arrangements have been made for the transportation of riflemen and others going to and returning from the said range?
4.	If none, is it the intention of the Government to have a spur line built from one of the present lines of railway to the said range?
5.	What is the distance from the city of Ottawa to the said range by public highway?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Cost of land, $193,379.86; cost of construction, $191,650.42.
2.	The range will be completed and ready for use early next autumn.
3.	Arrangements under consideration.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The distance from the city of Ottawa (post office) to the range by public highway is twelve and a half miles.


RICHIBUCTO LIFE-SAVING CREW.
[Stage Direction]
'Mr. EMMERSON:
1. Did the Department of Marine and Fisheries send an official to Richibucto, Kent county, N.B., in September last, to investigate charges of neglect of duty on the part of the life-saving crew at the north beach near Richibucto? If so, what was the name of the official

and what position does he occupy in the service of the department?
2.	Who did he interview in that vicinity, and did he take and receive evidence? If so, who were the witnesses examined, was the investigation held in public or was it merely an inquiry of individuals held in private?
3.	Did he examine and interview other than friends of the Government? If so, whom, and did he avoid interviewing all those who did not want to shield the members of the life-saving crew?
4.	Did the investigating official make a report? If so, what was its nature?
5.	What are the respective ages of Captain Dong and Henry D. Irving, members connected with the life-saving station at that place?
6.	Was Captain George Orr, master of the schooner Champion examined, was a minute taken of his evidence, and was the evidence of Captain Orr's two sons and James Degoff taken?
7.	Was the evidence of Captain Weston, of the schooner Maud Weston, or of Clem. Edward, his mate, taken?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes. Moses H. Nickerson, inspector of life-saving stations for Maritime provinces.
2.	Collector of Customs, Mr. E. B. Carson,
of Rexton, Captain Jas. Legoof, Mr. R. O'Leary and others. It was a private inquiry of individuals.	,
3.	No information in the department.
4.	Yes; that the charges were without foundation.
5.	Captain Long gives his age as 52. Henry D. Irving as 55.
6.	Captain George Orr made a statutory declaration as to the facts of the case. James Legoof was interviewed by Mr. Nickerson. The department has no information to the effect that evidence was given by Captain Orr's two sons.
7.	The department has no information to that effect.


CUSTOMS OFFICER ANGUS YOUNG.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What position did Angus Young, of North Sydney, hold in the Government service?
2.	When was he appointed, and at what salary?
3.	What were his duties?
4.	Is he still in the service?
' Mr. J. D. REID:
1.	Acting preventive officer of customs.
2.	He has been employed by the Customs Department since April 17, 1913; at salary of $900 per year.
3.	He was boarding officer in the harbour at North Sydney, and was also deputized by the chief preventive officer of customs to order the movements of the Alert in the waters surrounding Cape Breton.
4.	Suspended February 5, 1914, pending investigation re Str. Alert.


FERRONA-SUNNY BRAE RAIDWAY.
William John Macdonald: Does the Railway Department intend to continue to treat the line of railway from Ferrona to Sunny Brae as a separate railway, apart from the Intercolonial, in the matter of freight rates and other privileges?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1. It has not been decided to make any change in the present arrangement.


THE STEAMER ALERT.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Who is the owner of the steamer Alert?
2.	When was she chartered by the Government?
3.	For how long and at what price per month was she chartered?
4.	Where has she been since December 1, 1913?
5.	On how many occasions has she been outside the harbour of Sydney since December 1, 1913, and for what purpose did she go?
6.	Is the contract for her hire still in force?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	W. N. McDonald.
2.	October 1, 1912, for service from January 1, 1913.
3.	Charter may be terminated at any time upon one year's notice in writing by either of the contracting parties; $1,250 per month owner paying all wages, fuel and maintenance.
4.	In Sydney Harbour, Bras d'Or Lakes, Grand Narrows, St. Peters canal, Port Mul-grave, Port Hawkesbury, South Bay, In-gonish, Neil's Harbour, and on the fishing grounds from northern Cape Breton to the southward of Glace Bay.
5.	Twenty, on five of which her cruise extended for more than one day; for the protection of the revenue and of the inshore fisheries.
6.	Ordered out of commission on February 5, 1914, by instructions from Minister of Customs.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Neely.-For a return showing the number of binders, reapers, mowers, ploughs, seeders and cultivators exported from and imported to Canada, with their value respectively, in each of the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913?
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other papers to be found in the Department of the Naval Service in connection with the death and burial, at Montreal, of Joseph EeBlanc, a sailor on D.G.S. Canada.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all papers, telegrams, correspondence and petitions in any way referring to the dismissal of the postmaster at Ainslie Glen, Inverness county, and the appointment of Neil McKinnon to said office.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Mr. LariviSre, Dominion Lands agent at Grouard ; the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of agent appointed in his place, with date of appointment and salary?
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Gordon McDonald, homestead inspector in the Grouard Land agency, the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of inspector appointed in his place, with date of appointment and salary.
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Mr. P. Tomkins, Dominion Lands agent at Grouard, the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of agent appointed in his place, with date of appointment and salary.
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Mr. George McLeod, in charge of telegraph construction on telegraph line to Peace River; the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of the official appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and qualifications.
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Webster, immigration agent at Edmonton; the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of the agent appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and qualifications.
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Jacob Mohr, interpreter for the immigration agency at Edmonton; the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of the interpreter appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and qualifications.
Mr. Oliver.-For a return showing reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Shinbine, caretaker of the immigration hall at Edmonton, the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal; also the name of caretaker appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and qualifications.
Mr. Murphy.-For a return showing how many honorary appointments to military rank have been made by, or with the approval of, the present Minister of Militia and Defence since he assumed office, with the names of the persons so appointed, and the rank of each?
Mr. Boyer.-For a return showing how many seigniories there are in the province of Quebec : their names and the amount paid to each of them as an indemnity by the Government, after the adoption of the law of 1854; the value of each of the seigniories on which the consolidated funds were based.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in any way connected with the dismissal of the postmaster at Alexander, Inverness county, and the appointment of a successor.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all telegrams, correspondences instructions, recommendations and other documents that passed between the Shellfish Fishery Commission of 1913, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, from the date of the appointment of said commission to December 31, 1913, excluding such documents as have been printed in the published report of said commission.

Mr. Sinclair.-For a return showing the names, tonnage, port of registry and destination of all foreign vessels engaged in fishing, both sail and steam, that entered and cleared from the port of North Sydney during the year ending December 31, 1913.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of A. Michael Russell from the position of caretaker of the drill hall at Windsor, county of Hants.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of Albert McHeffey from the position of postmaster at Shubenacadie, county of Hants.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters arid documents of every kind relating to-the dismissal of Thomas Nelson, from the position of postmaster at Scotch village, county of Hants.
' Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of C. Stew'art McPhee from the position of postmaster at Enfield, county of Hants.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of John A. Roy from the position of postmaster at Maitland, county of Hants.
Mr. J. J. Hughes.-For a return showing the amount paid by the Government to complete the Elmira branch of the Prince Edward Island railway, after taking the work off the contractor's hands; also showing the amount paid to each person who performed any work whether paid by the day, month or year, with the time employed, the rate of wages and the nature of the work performed ; also showing the quantity of material supplied by each individual or firm, and the amount paid to each individual or firm for such material, with the price of each article whether by the pound, the yard, the gallon or by count, and the quantity left over, if any; also showing the quantity of material supplied-by the Government, if any, with full details, and the value of such material.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents relative to the purchasing of land from Joseph Fraser, in connection with the works at Cariboo Island, Pjctou county, in the Public Works Department.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all petitions, letters, telegrams, and other papers relative to the establishment of rural mail delivery routes in the county of Pictou since January 1, 1912, together with the number of said routes, the carriers on each route, the tenders received in each case for the service, a copy of the correspondence in relation to said tenders and their acceptance, and the post offices closed or to be closed as the result of the establishment of said routes.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, appraisals, and other documents relative to the expropriation of the lands of John Campbell and Albert E. Milligan, in connection with the improvements on the East river at Pictou.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the purchase for the Intercolonial railway of a quantity of coal in the United States,, within the past few months.

Mr. Proulx.-For a return showing: the total amount of the travelling expenses of the members of the Government since their advent to power; the number of trips to other countries, Europe included, they have made; the names of the ministers who have travelled at the expense of the public treasury; the total amount so expended by each of the ministers who have so travelled; the objects of these visits, and how long they lasted.
Mr. L. P. Gauthier.-For a return showing the total amount of the travelling expenses of the members of the late Government from the 1st January, 1897, to the 21st of September, 1911; the number of trips to other countries Europe included, they have made; the names of the ministers who have travelled at the expense of the public treasury; the total amount so expended by each of the ministers who have so travelled; the objects of these visits, and how long they lasted.
Mr. Oliver.-For a copy of the Orders in Council directing action in the Manitoba courts regarding the surrender and sale of lands of the St. Peter's Indian reserve, and of all letters and papers of instruction re the conduct of the action to be instituted, and of all papers showing the terms of the surrender, the specific parcels of land sold, the conditions of sale, the purchasers of the same, and the prices paid; also a copy of all papers showing the reasons of the Government for entering the action and the purposes which it proposes to attain by doing so, if successful, and what course it purposes to take if the action fails.	.

Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Halifax) moved:: For a copy of all contracts, accounts, bills, memoranda, letters, correspondence, receipts, vouchers, bills of lading, &c., referring to all materials, provisions, supplies and goods of every description purchased and forwarded to Port Nelson during the year 1913 by any department of the Government of Canada and agreements for employment of workmen in connection with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway terminals at Port Nelson.
He said: In making this motion I desire to address the House in regard to the work carried on by the Government during the year 1913 in connection with the establishment of Hudson Bay railway terminals at Port Nelson. From the information which came to the public, directly and indirectly, from those who were at Hudson Bay during the past season and who have since returned, I think it has been abundantly established that the Government is open to censure for its conduct of affairs in connection with the work carried on at Port Nelson during the past season. I think that if Port Nelson is at all practicable and is to be adopted as a shipping terminal for the proposed Hudson Bay railway, the reputation of the port has been very seriously damaged, which is extremely regrettable. A year or more ago the present Minister of Railways paid a visit to Hudson Bay with a view of conducting a personal investigation into the practicability and desirability of selecting either Port Nelson or Fort Churchill as a port for the Hudson Bay railway. This journey on the part of the Minister of Railways, which was an arduous one, was, in my judgment, highly commendable. I have often wondered why we have not had the advantage of a report or statement from him upon the floor of the House explanatory of his visit and observations in this far-off country. It is apparent that the minister recommended the selection of Port * Nelson as the Hudson Bay terminal port, but so far he has not seen fit to take Parliament into his confidence or, at least, we have had from him little or no justification or evidence for the selection which he has made.
The comment or criticism which I have to make on the operations conducted by the Department of Railways in connection with the Port Nelson terminal during last season would be about as follows: There was a lack of business method in connection with the whole year's operations or work of the department in connection with the establishment of the proposed terminals at Port Nelson. There was a general unpreparedness for the work they were endeavouring to carry on and complete during the past season, with the result that the whole project has been seriously damaged in the eyes of the public. To be more particular, there was a very obvious lack of aids to navigation in the Hudson bay waters; incorrect charts were furnished to captains of vessels navigating these waters. There was practically an absence of buoys in the portions of Hudson bay traversed by the ships chartered by the Government. There was an utter absence of facilities for the unloading of ships. There' was an utter absence of wharves. There was no organization to protect and preserve the supplies and materials which were landed there by the various steamers or vessels which visited that port under charter to the Government. There was, further, extravagance in connection with the amount of material purchased by the Government and despatched to the site of the proposed terminal during the last season. The amount so purchased, I say, was altogether unnecessary and could not possibly have been utilized, or consumed, for a considerable number of years.
I say further that there is evidence that in the selection of the ships chartered wise judgment was not exercised, and it is the judgment of some of the captains of ships

which went there during last summer that a grave error in judgment was made in the selection of the ships so chartered. There has been also grave complaint concerning the treatment extended to the labourers who went to Port Nelson last season under contract with, the Department of Eailways. That point, however, I do not propose discussing on this occasion. During the season we find that steamers were chartered at very great cost, carrying very extensive and valuable cargoes to Port' Nelson. They were kept there for several months without any provision having been made for discharging or lightering their cargoes. One steamer with its total cargo became an absolute loss, and this loss might have been wholly or partially obviated, we are informed on fairly good authority, by a little care and attention on the part of some who were in these regions as employees and servants of the Government. Other chartered ships were kept there for several months and were obliged to throw over portions of their cargoes and then leave without fully discharging the balance of their cargoes for Sydney and other ports in Nova Scotia. Had they not done so, they would have been frozen in there during the present winter season. Other steamers were sent there fully loaded with very valuable cargoes and were obliged to return without discharging any portion of their cargoes. In a general way, this is the story of the administration of affairs in connection with this matter and the results, I say, are not at all beneficial to the project of the Hudson bay railway, or creditable to the department of the Government charged with the responsibility of administering this particular public work. The result is,-as I have already stated, that the reputation of the whole project has been very seriously damaged indeed. There has been a great waste of public money and very little if any progress was made in the matter during the year 1913.


Mr. AIKINS:: Would the hon. member
give the name of the vessel which is said to have returned without its cargo having been discharged?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall reach that later. There were two, one was the Alcazar. Nothing was discharged except some of the cargo on the fore deck that was thrown overboard. She returned to Sydney with the balance of her cargo. The conditions which I mention raise the very important question, first, as to whether the construe-

tion of the Hudson bay terminal at Port Nelson during the last season was proceeded with and carried on in an efficient and businesslike manner. The other question, and it is worth while our discussing it briefly in order to elicit some information at least as to whether Port Nelson is the proper port terminal to select for the Hudson bay railway. I say that the burden is on the Administration to establish a favourable answer to these two points, which, I say, are now open to controversy and question. I think the burden of proof is upon the Government to establish that their conduct of affairs during the past season was of a businesslike character, and that Port Nelson is the proper port terminal for the Hudson bay railway.
The only evidence which we have at our disposal is that given to the public from those who Trent to Hudson bay last summer in one capacity or another. No official report has been presented to the public, so far, from the Department of Eailways, concerning the operations of the past season; consequently the only intelligence we have comes from the source I have indicated. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) asked me for some specific information concerning the return of cargoes which were despatched to Hudson bay during the past season, and I desire to refer briefly to the result of the trips made to the Hudson bay last season, by two or three steamers chartered by the Government. The first one I wish to refer to is that of the steamer Alcazar, which arrived at Port Nelson on August 14, from Port Arthur, Texas, laden with about 2,000,000 feet of hard pine lumber. The chartering of this steamer cost the Government about $60,000. I think the charter was $35,000 for the trip, subject to a demurrage of $250 per day, after the first day of September. I know it has been stated in the press that the total cost of chartering this steamer approximates the sum of $60,000. This report may not be absolutely correct, but I have no doubt it is substantially correct. This steamer returned to Sydney, Nova Scotia, without discharging cargo, as it found no facilities for lightering its cargo at Port Nelson. A portion of the deck cargo was thrown overboard, and so far as I can learn, was absolutely lost. The failure to provide suitable lightering facilities is difficult to understand. The Alcazar was unable to approach within from eight to ten miles of the mouth of the Nelson river on account of the low depth of water, and there was no other possible

method of discharging its cargo and conveying it .to the site of the port terminals except by lightering. It is extremely difficult to understand why the Government despatched ships laden with valuable cargoes to these waters without making ample provision for lightering the ships. The voyage of the steamer resulted in needless waste of public money, and its whole purpose rendered valueless. At the time of the arrival of the Alcazar at the Nelson river, there was but one lighter provided for the unloading of ships, and in addition to the Alcazar there were three other laden ships lying in the same waters. I cannot understand what possible defence the Minister of Railways can urge to justify his failure to provide sufficient lightering facilities. The cargo of the Alcazar was not available last season for the purpose for which it was required in connection with the construction of terminals at Port Nelson, and will necessitate its reshipment to Hudson bay next season. So much for the Alcazar. Another steamer chartered by the Government was the Alette, which was wrecked in Hudson bay and became a lotal I0&3, and the loss, it is urged by some who were on board the ship, was due to the lack of navigation' aids.


Hon. FRANK COCHRANE:: Has the
hon. gentleman any information
3	p.m. that it is a total loss? I have no such information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My information is that the Alette is a total loss.


Francis Cochrane: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to correct him, the Cearense may be a total loss, but not the Alette.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of Railways is correct, the Alette, however, met with some mishap. She was laden with 3,000,000 feet of pine, worth $75,000. Some of this pine was loaded at Port Arthur, Texas, and some of it at the port of Halifax. In addition to this cargo of pine, the Alette was conveying to Port Nelson two scows built at Toronto, which were to be used for lightering purposes I assume. The captain of the Alette says-perhaps it may be said that he is hardly an authority on a matter of this kind-that the cargo of pine carried to Port Nelson by the Alette was not actually required for some years.


Francis Cochrane: Which captain said
that? There were two on the boat.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Captain Robertson.
This ship found the same conditions prevailing, as did the steamer Alcazar, no lightering facilities and no wharfs for the reception of the cargo. It is also said that the scows which were conveyed by the steamer Alette were improperly constructed, and were not designed by persons having any knowledge of the conditions prevailing at Port Nelson.	It would appear
that these scows will not prove of much practical value. Actual conditions should have been anticipated before constructing scows of this design. Another steamer despatched with cargo to Hudson bay was the Cearense. This ship, I understand, was wrecked about 20 miles from Port Nelson, and I understand was totally wrecked and the cargo wholly lost. It is charged that the wreck of the Cearense was wholly due to the lack of proper navigation aids, and which was easily avoidable. I wish to refer to statements made respecting conditions there by one or two persons who were on board the Cearense, and I do so for the purpose of giving to the House the opinion of those who had the advantage of personal observation of conditions generally. Captain Howard, of the Cearense, was interviewed at Halifax on his return, and he is reported in the Halifax Chronicle newspaper.


Francis Cochrane: That is the man who lost the ship?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, he was the captain of the lost ship, and he says that the loss was due to the neglect of certain employees of the Government. This paper says:
Captain Howard, the commander in charge of the ill-fated steamer at the time of the disaster, speaks only in enigmas, the following of which, given to The Morning Chronicle and signed by him, is quite characteristic of all his statements regarding the wreck of his steamer.
Captain Howard refuses any statement regarding loss of Cearense but suggests that sleepers remember that parties are awake even though those who are responsible to aids to navigation should remain abed-servants of the people, even though Government employees.
That might sound to hon. gentlemen rather enigmatic, but what Captain Howard doubtless meant was that had proper assistance been rendered by other Government vessels there his ship would not have been lost. The steamer Acadia was provided with wireless apparatus and, Captain Howard alleges, had there been proper attention paid by those on board- *


Francis Cochrane: Did not he have wireless?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, he had wireless, but he could not get into communication with the Acadia because, as he says, the operators on the Acadia would not respond. While I am referring to the steamer Cearense, I would like to read a written statement furnished to a Halifax newspaper by one of the officers of this ship. His name is Mr. Joseph Anderson. This statement refers to conditions generally, and I would like to give it to the House. It is as follows:
In writing this article the facts and statements are taken while the steamer Beothic is lying at Port Nelson to be unloaded. The conditions as follows, are not the least bit exaggerated : Whilst aboard the steamer Beothic one could cast his eye across the Nelson river and meet with a sight of great distress, as some of the near-lying vessels which had been anchored from two to three months, were compelled to leave with the best part of their cargo on board, knowing that the bay, within another month, would freeze, and thus all chances of leaving would be lost. The cargo of lumber that the steamer Alcazar and the steamer Alette carried upon their forward and after decks, was thrown overboard, as this was their only salvation.
One could see 12 by 12 lumber, and all kinds of spars and logs floating down the bay. The whole cause of this situation is the inadequate system of handling freight.
Further, he says:
If ever conditions were in a state of remorse, things are certainly at their worst in the handling of provisions and the housing of the workmen at Port Nelson. On arriving on shore, the eye meets with such a spectacle that one can hardly believe that such a condition really exists. Food and provisions in every shape and form can be found lying in heaps, at the mercy of all weathers,.-like coal, heaped upon an open field,-only the more perishable goods, such as flour, &c., being protected by heavy canvas. This means that there are thousands of dollars worth of provisions that are found utterly useless within the period of a week or two, and condemned to the scrap pile.
He proceeds further, but I shall not give to the House the concluding part of his statement. However, such is the opinion expressed by one who was there and who personally observed the conditions. I wish also at this moment to read a portion of a statement made to the Halifax Chronicle by Mr. Page who, I think, was employed upon another, steamer but who, of course, had knowledge of actual conditions. I do not propose reading it all, but a portion only, and which is as follows:-
If they ever make a port of Port Nelson, they want a different class of men up there than they have today. They want a master

mind who will be able to direct affairs, who will have the knowledge of what is required, and who has had experience in building decks and marine equipment under the most trying conditions, for those at Port Nelson are sufficient to tax the power of any man. As it is now, the work is handled by men not much more than students. .	.	. One of the most
striking evidences of the incompetency and ' don't care ' attitude of the authorities is connected with the wrecked steamer Cearense. She struck in shoal water and almost every bit of her cargo could have been saved had there been any one present with enough interest to make the least effort to recover any portion of the valuable material she had aboard. As it is she lies there, every day meaning further damage, the waves and ice breaking asunder her hull and scattering her cargo. As proof that much of this machinery and provisions stored in her could have been salved, is the fact that sufficient of the wireless equipment was procured to enable the port to have communication with the Pas during the winter if they get it erected.
I believe the wireless equipment was saved by a representative of Lloyds, who went from New York to Hudson bay specially in connection with the wreck of the Cearense.
It was of course necessary to have a towboat to convey laden vessels and materials eight or nine miles up the Nelson river to the location of the proposed terminals. The Department of Railways purchased the tug Kathleen, at Halifax, and for which there was paid the sum of ten thousand dollars. This is the information contained in the answer to a question asked by me.


Francis Cochrane: The answer given to the question distinctly says that the Kathleen was bought after public advertisement calling for tenders. We certainly could not be in collusion with any one as to her purchase.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no recollection of that being a portion of the answer.


Francis Cochrane: I have a copy of the answer right here.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no doubt that the minister is correct. A powerful tugboat was needed, and the businesslike method to pursue in such a case would be to secure a tug sufficiently powerful and efficient for the purpose. I assert that the steamer Kathleen was totally unfit for the service, and nobody in connection with the Department of Railways should have shown such utter lack of judgment as to have purchased her for that work. I trust the minister was not personally responsible for it. A word or two further about the steamer Kathleen. There is a current of

about eight or nine knots an hour in the Nelson .river.


Francis Cochrane: That is exaggerated.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt if it is
exaggerated. That statement is made by persons who have personal knowledge of the conditions there. The steamer Kathleen was capable of making about nine knots, and when in use in Nova Scotia carrying lobster boats, it is said she could make about two miles an hour with a very light tow. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the steamer Kathleen in attempting to tow a heavily laden scow up this current to the port terminals could not possibly make any headway whatever. In fact she would make progress backwards. If given sufficient time she might find herself going through Hudson straits and out into the Atlantic, rather than up the Nelson river.


Francis Cochrane: That is exaggerated too.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is, perhaps, a little exaggerated, because the captain in charge of the Kathleen would take means to prevent that. It is quite clear, however, that very weak judgment was exercised in purchasing this steamer. It is the opinion of every person capable of expressing an opinion on the matter, that the Kathleen was unsuitable for the purpose for which she was bought.
The information which reached the public concerning the conduct of affairs at Hudson bay during the past season came from those who were there, and who submitted themselves to newspaper interviews. A very full and comprehensive statement was given to a Halifax newspaper by Captain Robertson, of the steamer Alette, with reference to the conditions as he found them, and concerning the project generally. Captain Robertson is a very competent and intelligent man, and was, I think, personally interested in a favourable outcome of the undertaking. I crave the indulgence of hon. gentlemen if I read rather copiously from his statement. I desire to put it on record, and if Captain Robertson is a reputable and trustworthy man, the facts should be before the House and the public. In his statement, which appears in the Halifax Chronicle of Tuesday, November 5, Captain Robertson, in discussing the whole matter, gives his experience in the Hudson bay:
Our great difficulty was that the aids to navigation did not agree with the charts furnished
43i
us at Halifax before proceeding north. The channel is very adequately and accurately charted, hut the Marine Department have failed to place buoys where the charts signify. The only buoys placed there are small iron barrels that I believe have been placed there by the Acadia. The channel is marked to be buoyed and certain buoys said to exist that are not there and never were there to my knowledge. This is openly the fault of the Marine Department, showing evident carelessness on their part. The big buoys were suggested and recommended by Captain Anderson and the Government charts show them, but they have never been placed in position, neither are they up there.
I have heard words of commendation expressed by persons who were at Hudson bay last season concerning the hydrographic work performed by the steamer Acadia, and I think it is only fair that I should make this statement. But I have-heard very serious criticism of the Marine and Fisheries Department for their failure to carry out the recommendations of the Hydrographic Board. Proceeding, he said:
These small barrel buoys have a flagstaff with a piece of rag tied to the top of them. With regard to that leading buoy it is marked on the chart, but it is not in the position indicated. In fact was not in existence, which again is the fault of the Marine Department or whoever your Government has to look after such matters, for I understand that the Acadia's duty was not to place these buoys, but only to chart them, and it was up to the Marine Department to see that they were properly placed. As I was trying to find the channel, the steamer Cearense lying to the port of us nearly piled us up on the ledge where she was stranded. Not knowing that she was aground I attempted to come around near her, but hit the bank. We were fortunately not going with much speed, so I forced down the helm and steered off to the starboard. There Is no doubt to my mind that the leading buoy not being in position was the cause of the Cearense being wrecked. Had there been a conspicuous buoy marking the outer end of the channel, or what is generally termed the fairway, the accident would very likely not have occurred. Had the buoy been there a valuable ship and a valuable cargo would have been saved.
I suppose it is only fair that I should say that any criticism which is made by Captain Robertson in regard to the placing of the buoys is not properly directed against the Minister of Railways, whose department is blameless, but against the Marine and Fisheries Department, which neglected to place buoys recommended by the officers on the steamer Acadia, and which should have been placed before the Government undertook the responsibility of sending valuable ships and cargoes to traverse the waters of Hudson bay. Captain Robertson proceeds to discuss his own experience in navigating Hudson bay. It

will be remembered that he was the captain of the steamer Alette which went there, timber laden, and was obliged to return to Sydney with its Cargo undischarged, except a small portion which he threw overboard.


Francis Cochrane: He did not return.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister is right and I am wrong. There were so many ships in the Hudson bay fleet that it is hard to keep in mind the names. Captain Robertson says:
About a couple of hours alter we arrived that beautiful tug Kathleen came down with Mr. McLaughlin, the engineer of the construction work, accompanied by Captain Fleetly, marine superintendent, on board. I served notice on them of being ready to discharge the cargo at 9 a.m. the next day and that X would count lay days from that date. We were then anchored eight miles from the site of the town which was as close as advisable for a steamer of the Alette's draft to get and where vessels of her size could lay. The Alcazar and Beothic were both lying near, one above us and the other below, Mr. McLaughlin looked over the scows and wanted to know how long before I would be ready to discharge them. X informed him as soon as the deck cargo was off the ship. The engineer then left, but came next day, again looking over the ship, went back to the camp, and returned that evening giving instructions to throw the deck load overboard so that he could see the scows. When he saw the scows after the deck load had been thrown overboard and partially lost and destroyed in the currents and tides, he came to the conclusion that the scows would be of no use to him in Port Nelson that year. After that he simply ignored us, never coming to the ship unless we sent for him. I urged him to allow us to discharge the cargo so we could get out before the ice blocked the passage. He was always making promises. He had not the means with which to perform them. He was continually promising to send men and lighters when he had only one lighter, the Neophyte. This lighter is an old motor schooner. She has a capacity of 200 tons.
I pointed out to Mr. McLaughlin as soon as I learned the true state of affairs that it was [DOT]dangerous for the Alette to remain, that it endangered not only the ship, but the lives of the men as well, and I asked him to let me sail. As far as the cargo was concerned they wanted provisions and stores more than they needed the lumber and piling with which the Alette was filled, for her cargo was not required there for a long time. I urged that, as long as we lay there, but was as persistently refused. Had it not been for Captain Saunders, Lloyds surveyor, who had come up on the Bellaventure, approaching him-
That is, Mr. McLaughlin-
__on the subject, he would have kept us there
until I would have been compelled to have taken the matter into my own hands and sailed to save the lives of my men and myself. By this time the ship was not in any too good condition owing to the damage done to the bottom of the ship by striking against the boulders which cover the bed of the Nelson river. These

boulders are the greatest danger to anything with a draught of over eighteen feet. On the evening of October 4 I received instructions from Mr. McLaughlin to sail. It took me until the 7 th to secure that portion of the deck load which still remained on the ship.
Now, I wish to refer to his criticism of the scow, sent for lightering purposes to Hudson bay:
Here I want to refer to the scows and the absolutely inadequate design of them for the work they were supposed to perform. It was nothing more than the idea of a jackass that would have provided such a thing for service in Port Nelson. They were great, huge, massive affairs, perfectly square, whereas the only thing that could ever navigate that river against those tides and currents should be built pointed with a bow and a helm that would answer readily. These were sent up with us in sections and were to be put together for the Kathleen, that beautiful little tug, that was built for pulling lobster pots around to tow up and down the river. We did get one of the sections overboard, but it sunk soon after we launched it. We then discovered that the scows could never have been properly put together at Port Nelson, for the only facflitiep for clinching a rivet is one old blacksmith, his son and a portable anvil.
This, if Captain Robertson is correct, is but additional evidence of the general lack of preparation on the part of Department of Railways. He proceeds to discuss conditions as he found them on shore. He says:
Piled high on shore you would find mixed in heaps, ropes, chains, boxes of provisions, Big Ben clocks, boxes of cigarettes and cigarette papers, and tins of milk. I cannot remember the stuff, but there were piles of it of all descriptions, some covered by tafpaulins, some had become uncovered by the wind, and there were piles of provisions over which nothing had been put.	*
He then refers to the provision made for housing the men and which he criticises rather severely. I wish to read further his remarks as to the provision made for landing facilities:
The facilities at Port Nelson consist of a small wharf like a fisherman's landing, not anything more. On this staging there is erected a small derrick capable of handling not more than five tons. The Neophyte ties up alongside of it with her load and as the tide goes down, sinks with it until left on the bottom. She then has to wait until the tide returns before she can leave the wharf to go back to the ship for another load.
Discussing the propriety of the project in a general way, he says:
The proposal to navigate Hudson bay may be a very good one, but at Port Nelson there is no possibility of ever making a port of shelter for ships, if finding too much ice in the straits, they return to port for the winter. From what I know of Fort Churchill it seems much more likely a place. Then, again, in the construe-

tion of any port at Hudson bay, there is need of engineers who have had practical experience in building ports in the most difficult places. Gold medallists may know how to mix concrete, but there is something more than that needed at Port Nelson to-day if there is ever to he anything done.
I am sorry to have occupied so much of the time of the House in reading the statement made by Captain Robertson, but 'inasmuch as he appears to discuss the question in a very comprehensive way, and in the light of his personal experience, I thought it desirable to give his views to the House, and have them placed on ' Hansard.' The assertions of Captain Robertson, which agree thoroughly with those made by others who were at Hudson bay during the summer, indicate, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, an utter lack of business methods in connection with the work carried on at Hudson bay last summer by the Department of Railways. Suitable or ample provisions clearly were not made by the Government for receiving the numerous valuable cargoes sent there for the purpose of the construction of the port terminals. It is difficult indeed to understand how any department of the Government, particularly the one presided over by the Minister of Railways, could have overlooked the provision of adequate facilities for lightering the cargoes from ships. I think the fact that the steamer Kathleen was the only steamer purchased and sent to the Hudson bay as a tow-boat is open to very grave censure indeed. On the whole, I submit that I have given the House sufficient evidence to indicate that the operations carried on last season in Hudson bay are scarcely creditable to the country or to the Government. I think the result has been, and will so prove in the future, to be quite damaging to the Hudson Bay railway project in the eyes of Canadians generally. If the establishment of a terminal port in the Hudson bay is possible, and is eventually selected, it will for quite a time be prejudiced by reason of the conditions prevailing at Port Nelson last season.
I do not propose to refer further to these matters at any great length, but, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, the question naturally arises whether a proper selection was made when Port Nelson was designated as the port terminal for the projected Hudson Bay railway. I do not propose discussing the advisability of the construction of the railway itself; that is a matter of public policy to which Parliament has long been committed. It is, however, very important that the best available port be
selected as the terminal of the railway. I will not attempt to urge upon the Government that in selecting Port Nelson a mistake was made. I would not present myself as a competent judge of such a matter. I do say, however, that the selection of a terminal port is a matter of extreme importance, and because of the experience of last season the selection of Port Nelson for the railway terminal is at least open to some question. I do trust that we shall have from the minister some statement indicating the reasons which led him to recommend to the Government the selection of Port Nelson. We should, I am sure, be very glad to hear from him particularly by reason of the fact that he has made a personal investigation. There is a great deal of evidence to the effect that Fort Churchill is the more desirable port. I have in my hand a published statement of one William Beech, of Winnipeg, who is reputed to have spent a great part of his life in the Hudson bay country. I have no personal knowledge as to his competency to give an opinion as to the desirability of selecting either port, but-


Francis Cochrane: I think he would be more capable of giving an opinion as to the townsite which he owns at Fort Churchill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At any rate, there is a portion of his statement which I desire to read, because it. agrees very thoroughly with the assertions made by some of the captains of steamers who were in the Hudson bay during the past season.


Francis Cochrane: By that I mean that he is a prejudiced witness.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
Francis Cochrane: The hon. gentleman led off by saying that the House had never been favoured with an expression of opinion or an explanation why Nelson was selected. If I remember correctly, and I have not looked up ' Hansard,' I gave the reasons last session. The hon. member has truly said that I went up there in 1912. I looked at both harbours, not for one moment thinking that I am a harbour engineer or an expert in navigation. When we arrived at Nelson first we looked over the situation, and I must say, frankly and freely, as I did then, that it is not an ideal harbour. On going up to Churchill and looking at it we found that it was not ideal either, although in regard to expense it could be created a harbour a good deal cheaper than Port Nelson. One strong reason influencing us is that there is 70 miles of barren lands which we would have to cross to go to Churchill. This tract has been frozen since Adam was a kid and I have yet to meet an engineer who will vouch for the building of a road across that 70 miles. As all people know, railroads when built should be ditched in order to carry off the surface water and it can be imagined what the result of building a road through such land would be. Taking that into consideration, no engineer would advise building across that country. There was no other place for us to develop but Nelson. Another great reason for that is that this will be a grain road to a great extent; it is 85 miles shorter to Nelson than to Churchill. It will cost more to develop Nelson.
One objection I have to the criticism of the hon. gentleman is that he has collected the opinions of men who were either interested or who had had mishaps, either through their own neglect or negligence or

accidents that could not be helped. I may say that the steamer Cearense is a total loss owing to it3 own captain. They arrived there some time in the evening. They anchored out quite a distance and alongside of the Marine and Fisheries boat Acadia. They communicated with the boat that night. The captain started off in the morning without asking the captain of the Acadia to give him any information about going in. I understand, further from our own people that the Cearenses' wireless was out of commission and to prove that two of the captains of the ships that were in Nelson harbour have told me that they tried to communicate with him in order to inform him that he was taking the wrong direction. He went on without taking any soundings at all, because had he done so he would have found that he was in very shallow water. He did not go where the buoys were and I am absolutely without fear of contradiction in the statement that this man was altogether at fault for the losing of the ship.
In 1912 we sent an engineer and party up to look over the situation, and bring down plans to show us what was needed. We employed Mr. Hazen for the purpose. He went up by the Beothic, landing there in August and he came down in the winter, I think in February. He brought his plans down. The chief engineer of the department, who has been there a long time and in whom I have absolute confidence, did not agree with the layout proposed by Mr. Hazen and after a long distance discussion Mr. Hazen said that if he could not have his way in reference to the laying out of the scheme he would not go back. But he said he would stay and see to it that the things they needed, both in the way of lighters, supplies and materials would be shipped up. He did stay, he was in charge of the loading of all of these things and of the engaging of the boats, and he went up with them. I may say that the scows, to which reference has been made, were to have been delivered at Halifax by the first of July. The makers, unfortunately, like a lot of other manufacturers, were away behind in filling the order, but we sent them up as soon as possible. We loaded the greater portion of the merchandise on the steamer Beothic which was going up for the Marine Department, and just to show the luck we had, I might say that she struck on a rock off the coast of Newfoundland and had to be put in dry dock at Halifax. We
have not been able to communicate with him, as we expected to, by wireless this winter. We hope, however, in a few days to receive the first message. The Cearense took up what apparatus was not carried by the Beothic, and the installation of the wireless was completed about the first of December. In reference to the harbour, we purchased a dredge which we proposed to use in the spring. We employed the best men we could get in order to get the dredge up there safely. The best man recommended was Captain Saunders, who was Lloyd's inspector in New York. He' went up there personally, and in a report which he sent me, he says in reference to the Nelson river:
The condition of Nelson river as compared with other swift rivers, such as the Mississippi, Delaware, Mersey, Thames, Hoogly, Moulmain, etc., from my own personal experience, X am satisfied that the navigation and anchorages in the above-mentioned rivers are far more dangerous and difficult to navigate than the Nelson river.
With regard to the timber, I may say that we never intended to lighter it in. Mr. Hazen recommended that it could be rafted in. He tried that and failed, although he took boom chains up for the purpose of making a boom out of the long pieces of timber by means of which the timber was to be taken in, but he never attempted it. I do not know why, he has never made a report. It was never, however, our intention to lighter in this timber.
In reference to the Alette, I may say that Captain Freakley, who has had
4	p.m. 15 years experience in those waters, tells me that if Captain Robertson's boat was hurt in the Nelson river, it was through his own fault. His explanation is that Robertson gave his boat too much chain-something over 90 fathoms -while swinging to the tide at slack water. The other captains used two chains. He tells me that Robertson was advised to do this, but did not take the advice and met with an accident. Later, when re-entering Nelson river with the Acadia following her into port as a convoy, Captain Robertson, for reasons not yet explained, turned his vessel about and ran her aground. There was about 20 feet depth of water at low tide in the river channel opposite the dock site. I may say the steamer Minto has been up, opposite to where the terminals are being built, without any accident. But these big boats absolutely refused to go up that far and I do not blame them very much. They

could have gone with perfect safety, how* ever, but the captains were afraid. In reference to not having facilities at Port Nelson for handling this freight, my hon. friend should think for a moment. We only had a survey party there. We cannot get timber to build a dock by the river, unless we go about 100 miles, and then it is very scarce. We had no horses to haul timber. We had either to do one thing or the other, and we thought it best to get this timber in so as to have a long season next year. The season this year was very short. The first steamer did not arrive there until August, as it was hindered by ice. We expected it to get there by the middle of July, as the boat got off in good time. All the ships were unloaded with the exception of the Alette and the Alcazar. As my hon. friend has stated, the Alcazar was chartered to go to Hudson bay, and it is a question whether we could not even now insist on their going back with the timber. As to that, I will not express any opinion.
Mr. McLaughlin, who succeeded Mr. Hazen, is a man who has been in the department for a long time. I think he is a live young man. He may have had more than he could possibly handle, but I have not lost any faith in him or in the port. They got off a good deal of the timber, enough to build a dock for the lighters. They also landed their engines and the track and were able to handle the stuff. We hope to send a large number of men overland this winter, in order to get a full summer's work done next season. If we took them up by steamer we could not expect to land there until the end of July at the earliest. I may say that we were very unfortunate in not getting those scows. They would have furnished ample lightering, according to the engineers. We have had considerable difficulty this year, but we must expect that in connection with the ports in that northern country. Everything has to be taken in, before we can construct anything. The big dredge that was sent in was not wrecked. Captain Saunders was good enough to take some photographs, and I have one here showing the dredge high and dry. I am quite sure we have made no mistake in the selection of men, and we feel we will get a good year's work done in the coming summer, and that we shall have sufficient dockage and the dredging well advanced when the road reaches Port Nelson. It will not be finished by any means, because if the strait is a success, we shall have to spend

an enormous amount of money in carrying out the scheme. I still have great hopes that the changes which have taken place in the St. Lawrence will also take place in the Hudson strait. I do not feel that we are entitled to any censure. We may have made some mistakes; we only had a short time to get in these things, and we got in as much as ever we could. We have got enough provisions in there to carry on the men till next summer, and I am quite satisfied that the results of another year will be pleasing not only to myself but to the House and the country as well.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Edmonton):: I am sure the statement that has been made by the minister is full justification for the motion and criticism of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). This is a matter of very great importance upon which the public should be informed, and in regard to which there should be no delay in giving the fullest information. I am very pleased with the attitude of the minister towards the question in hand. I accept his position as being entirely friendly to the project and I accept unreservedly the statement of his intentions to push it to completion as rapidly as possible. But, at the same time, where an enterprise is of such far reaching importance as this Hudson Bay railway, where it affects such a large number of the people of Canada and affects so directly what I claim is the most important interest of the people of Canada, anything that does, or seems to, throw discredit upon that project must necessarily be the subject of criticism and possibly of adverse criticism.
I need not say to the House-it has been said before and it will be echoed by all the representatives from the prairie west-that in the opinion of the people of that country, the future progress and welfare of the West is in large measure dependent upon the successful development of a transportation route by way of Hudson's bay and that any delay in the accomplishment of that object is a serious detriment to the welfare of that country, and, therefore, to the whole country. It must, therefore, be accepted that they look with hostility upon any action, or any failure to act, that may delay the completion of the enterprise or may discredit it to any serious extent.
In regard to the choice of the port of Nelson, as against that of Churchill, we have this situation, that there is beyond question a port at Churchill which answers every requirement resulting from the con-

struction of a railway to that port at a minimum cost for port development. The objections stated by the minister, are, first, that the road to Churchill would be increased in length some 85 miles, and would traverse for a considerable distance barren or frozen ground not suitable for railway construction, that there would be the extra cost for that additional 85 miles, and of course, the additional cost of the operation of that 85 miles. These are matters that are fair to be taken into consideration. As far as my hon. friend's objection, or the objection of his engineers, to the possibility of building to Churchill over that frozen ground is concerned, I do not think that the contention-


Francis Cochrane: Probably I forgot to
mention that there are about nine feet of moss and muck and stuff of that kind, deeper at some points than at others. By ditching the right of way at each side and carrying off the water and letting the wind and air into it, it might be possible to make a change in the condition of that material.


Frank Oliver: The experience in the
Yukon is that, when the first wagon roads were being built, the builders were careful to avoid the low ground; they carried the roads over the tops of hills in order to keep to the dry ground, but since that time they have built wherever the levels were most favourable and roads have been carried through muskegs. The ground, being permanently frozen, provides an absolutely solid foundation which is as secure as if it were solid rock, and roads built in that way have proved most satisfactory.


Francis Cochrane: You are referring to
traffic roads?


Frank Oliver: I believe that the conditions which apply to the one would hold good in regard to the other. I am putting that forward as the experience in the Yukon and therefore I maintain that the contention of my hon. friend does not hold. As to the length of the road, as to the capital expenditure that will be involved in the construction of that road and as to the cost of operation, if Port Nelson can be constructed and equipped for less money, or for an amount of money equal to that which it would cost to build the additional mileage to Churchill, I say, certainly, Nelson is the proper choice.
But it Ts just possible that the cost of establishing a satisfactory port at Nelson will really be greater than the cost of the construction of the 85 miles of extra railway
line and it is possible that the maintenace of that port when constructed will cost more than the construction and operation of these 85 miles. That may seem to be an extreme statement about conditions at the mouth of Nelson river. My hon. friend speaks of an engineer who has had experience in regard to ports at the mouths of many rivers of the world. I will venture to say that in not a single one of these cases is the condition approximately similar to that at the mouth of the Nelson river.


Francis Cochrane: This man spoke from his own experience. He was not an engineer, he was a navigator and his experience was applicable to this case.


Frank Oliver: I think that what he spoke of was the port after it was created, not the condition as it exists at the present time. There is no similarity between the conditions at the mouth of the Nelson river and those at the mouths of any of the rivers that he has mentioned. I do not condemn the selection of Port Nelson on that account-not at all, but I think the Government has scarcely appreciated the serious character of the work that will be required to make Nelson a satisfactory port.


Francis Cochrane: We certainly have.


Frank Oliver: I think they scarcely
appreciate the amount of work or the expenditure that will be necessary. It would appear to me that the mishaps of the present season afford evidence that the Government did not appreciate the difficulties they had to face. Beginning many years ago, examinations have been made at the mouth of the Nelson river, and they have been continued from time to time. The Government had the whole of the season of 1912 to inform itself regarding the difficulties to be encountered. Hon. gentlemen will remember a discussion in the House when the Government was criticised very severely, even by some of its own supporters, because work on the Hudson Bay railroad had been stopped for a time, and in the session of 1911-12 it was filially announced that the policy of the Government was to build the railway and to select the terminal port as soon as possible. The Minister of Railways himself visited Hudson bay in 1912, and yet in 1913 an expedition was sent up to begin the great work of establishing a port at Nelson, which expedition ended largely in disaster and disappointment.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no. I must take exception to that. There were only two

ships that had any trouble, and I have shown that it was their own fault. The other ships had no trouble, and two of them made two trips each without encountering any difficulty.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: How many ships went up?


Francis Cochrane: Six.


Frank Oliver: The loss of one of the ships-


Francis Cochrane: The loss was completely covered by .insurance.


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes.


Francis Cochrane: Then, it is not a loss.


Frank Oliver: It is not a financial loss, but I am speaking of the loss of the ship, and the bringing back of one of the cargoes, to say nothing of the reports that have been published as to the destruction of supplies, and the admission of the minister himself that the wireless apparatus arrived there only in part, and that for that reason he has not ibeen able to get into communication with the port.


Francis Cochrane: I said we were unfortunate that the principal part of the wireless was put on the Beothic, which had an accident along the coast of Newfoundland and had to go back. Some of the apparatus went by another of the ships, and we got that landed there.


Frank Oliver: That part of the wireless apparatus was saved by the salvage company.


Francis Cochrane: No; there was no salvage company up there at all.


Frank Oliver: That was the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean).


Francis Cochrane: I know, but he made a lot of statements that were not right.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The statement I made was that part of the wireless equipment had been saved by the representative of Lloyds who was up there, and that it might have been saved by some of the employees of the steamer Acadia, if they had just made a little effort.


Francis Cochrane: It was saved by
people employed by the Government up there, who took it off the steamer, and not by any one sent up there for that purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I take my information from the statements made by captains who were there.


Francis Cochrane: By captains who were in trouble and had to give some reason fo* getting into trouble.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps the officials of the Department of Railways are in trouble and are trying to get out of trouble.


Francis Cochrane: Oh, no.


Frank Oliver: I am glad to know that
the conditions are better than they have been reported.


Francis Cochrane: They certainly are.


Frank Oliver: But giving the minister credit for the very best, from his own statement to-day, it cannot be said that the work at Hudson bay last summer was a startling success.


Francis Cochrane: If you take the conditions into consideration I think the operations were successful.


Frank Oliver: Much as I do not wish to disagree with the minister, I am sorry to hear 'him say that, because it indicates that he and the Government do not appreciate the magnitude of the task they have undertaken. They do not seem to be fully alive to the adoption of the best means for carrying out that task with the rapidity and perfection which the enterprise requires. The tendency on the part of the Government and its engineers, has been to minimize the importance of this work. Because of a choice having to be made between Churchill and Nelson, it has been sought evidently to minimize the cost and difficulty of making the harbour at Nelson. If it is to be at Nelson, let it be at Nelson, but let it be understood that it is no boy's job to make a port at Nelson.


Francis Cochrane: That is true.


Frank Oliver: The Government must
take hold of the work as a great enterprise. The country cannot afford that the Government should tinker with it and bring to bear upon it means and expenditures that are not adequate, and which not being taken with due foresight, result in loss, and damage, and delay, and discredit to the enterprise. There is no doubt that the reports which have been circulated in regard to the lack of success of the expedition of last summer have had the effect of creating a very bad impression in the public mind with regard to the practicability of the route. That is felt by every man in the prairie west as something that affects his personal interest, and it is for that reason that I dwell very strongly upon the matter. I maintain that the Government

had ample time to take due precautions with regard to the buoying of the channel, and with regard to arriving at a conclusion as to exactly what kind of vessels would be required, and what kind of material was necessary. That the Government failed to arrive at sound conclusions is demonstrated by the result. I am not suggesting that it is because of any lack of good will on the part of the minister;
I am suggesting that it is because of a desire to minimize the difficulty and expense. This is an enterprise with which the future welfare of the prairie West is absolutely bound up. The completion of the Hudson Bay railway and the inauguration of the Hudson bay route cuts practically 1,000 miles of interior transportation out of the cost of delivery of grain by that route, between the West and Liverpool. Such a cut in the cost of transportation is worth an incalculable amount. It might mean the difference between success and failure, in a given state of the wheat market, for the men who are producing in the Prairie West. So that it is of the utmost importance that every step taken towards the accomplishment of this enterprise shall be taken with due forethought, with due judgment and with a due appreciation of the necessity that the route shall not be a failure and shall not create the impression that it is a failure. It is not that I am urging undue haste; I am not urging that the road should be completed this year, or next year or the year after. What I am urging is that the Government shall take due time, shall use due forethought, shall use sound judgment, and shall be prepared to make the necessary expenditures-not slackening the work, but so proceeding that when the road is completed there shall be a satisfactory port established and equipped to transact the business of the road, and so that the route may be a success once it is opened and the expenditure upon it thereby made profitable. There are many interests and many prejudices against this route, and I need not say that when the road is completed to the bay, if the port facilities are not as they ought to be it will take very little to establish in the minds of the public at large a prejudice against that route that will take years to overcome. It is absolutely necessary that nothing should be done, that no chances should be taken, to allow such a prejudice to be formed. It is because of this that I speak of it and criticise the minister for the condition of the enterprise of last summer and the results that have been
achieved. The road is under construction. It is not being pushed with great rapidity, but we are told that about one-third of the total length is now graded, and some 80 miles actually under steel. At that rate of progress, and certainly it is not a rapid rate, the road will reach Port Nelson before that port is fit to handle the business, judged by the progress of last summer. I would be glad to see the work on the road proceeding more rapidly than it is now, but I urge still more strongly that the port facilities shall be completed by the time the road reaches Port Nelson. Otherwise, the route and the enterprise will receive injury from which it will take it years to recover.
Mr. J. A. M. AIKINS (Brandon); I should consider myself remiss in my duty to Western Canadians if I did not express on this occasion our gratitude to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) for his prompt and energetic action in respect of the Hudson Bay railway and the Hudson bay route. Something is being done. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has made the statement that he would not like to urge on the Minister of Railways undue haste in the construction of this harbour. I imagine that when he was sitting on this side of the House as Minister of the Interior he was perhaps saying to the then Minister of Railways the same thing-that he did not wish to urge undue haste; and certainly they did not make it. If the advice of the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) were taken, that we should take very cautious steps one after another, year after year, then the Hudson bay harbour might be built, perhaps, when the millennium arrives. Any misadventures that have arisen during the year have arisen out of the prompt and energetic action of the minister, who did not wish delay. But
The best-laid schemes of mice an' men Gang aft agley,
it has been said. The statement of the minister has shown that he took every possible precaution to have the expeditions that went put last year to Hudson bay a success. It was not because the arrangements were not properly made, but because the human equations did not work out right. For instance, the scows did not arrive in time, and other plant was not constructed in time, and so when these vessels came up to Nelson there had

not been earried out by some persons the arrangements which the minister had very wisely made. Had they been carried out, there would have been no such accidents or misadventures. I do not intend to dwell further on this point, but I will say that I do not think the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) made out even a prima facie case against the minister. He read to us statements made by Mr. Beach, who, it was well known, is interested as one of the townsite owners at Churchill, and who, naturally, would favour the idea of the terminus being at Churchill. Then he read statements from newspapers, not verified in any way. If we are to accept statements contained in the papers, it seems to me we shall have a very poor basis for action by this House.
In respect of the harbour itself, the late Government let a contract for the Hudson Bay railway, at least the first part of it commencing at the Pas, but they did not then know where it was to terminate. It had a loose end-'which might be anywhere from Newfoundland to the North Pole.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Don't be extravagant, now. Newfoundland as a terminus for a Canadian railway is stretching it, rather.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Over toward the bay of Fundy, then, we will say.


George Perry Graham: They are not very close together.


James Albert Manning Aikins: 
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: In following the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I understood that he was speaking not of the expedition with which the railway might be constructed, per se, but rather of the question as to which should be completed first, the railway or the harbour improvements. I think the hon. member for Brandon took my hon. friend up wrong when he endeavoured to create the impression that the hon. member for Edmonton had said that he was in no hurry for the railway. What the hon. member for Edmonton did say was, that in any event, even if only very moderate progress were made, the railway should toe completed at least as soon as the harbour improvements. I think it goes without saying that the railway in itself is of no use until the harbour improvements are effected.
The hon. member for Brandon, as he usually does when he has a very weak case, endeavours to make some disparaging remarks with regard to the Government that went out of office in September, 1911. My hon. friend is an old and eminent practitioner at the Bar, and it is probably not the first time that, finding his own case weak, he has endeavoured to lend it a spurious strength by abusing the other side and introducing into the discussion matters entirely irrelevant. That is exactly what he is endeavouring to do in this case. I may tell the hon. member that the late Government is not guilty of the irrelevant charge that he brings in against it-because, I say, it is irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the responsibility of the present Government or the gentleman who holds the portfolio of Railways and Canals. However, even if it were not irrelevant, the Government is not guilty of the accusation brought against it by the hon. member for Brandon. It is true that during all the years the late Government was in office, requests were made of them from time to time that the Hudson Bay railway should be undertaken as a matter of government policy. Some years after I became a member of this House the matter was still a moot point, although neither party in this House was committed to it. Resolutions were moved by private members; the matter was spoken to by the leaders on both sides of the House, and in the course of time-I think it was in the year 1908-the late Government for the first time declared itself as being committed to the policy of the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. After that year the Government remained in power a little less than three years, and, in view of the number of preliminary steps that were necessary, I submit that there was no great

delay in entering upon the carrying out of this project. Within three years the project was well under way, and a substantial part of the construction of the railway had been let to the J. D. McArthur Company. The hon. member for Brandon, referring to the attitude of the Liberals and my hon. friend the member for Edmonton with regard to the matter, spoke sarcastically of what he termed their undue haste. Since he has taken upon himself to say that there was no undue haste in this matter, I wonder why the Government does not employ a little more haste in connection with the Hudson Bay railway? They have been in office quite a while now, and are practically no further ahead-that is the unfortunate part of it. The grain growers on the prairies are not looking at this question to-day as the hon. member for Brandon does; they are not comparing the attitude of the late Government with that of the present Administration-about that they do not care a rap. They look at it not from a partisan standpoint, but from the viewpoint of men who want the railway built and the harbour improvements effected as soon as possible so that they can get. their grain out. They are not concerned with the rhetoric of the hon. member for Brandon, nor with his scoffing at the late Administration.
These men in the constituency of Brandon wish that their representative would do what he could to urge* the Government to really get down to work and get this railway built and in operation to carry out their wheat, 60 pounds to the bushel. The grain growers are in a bigger hurry for this than they are for any great sum to be spent or squandered on navies; they are in a bigger hurry for this even than they are for free wheat, although the hon. member for Brandon, I think, will walk arm and arm with me on the wheat question before the session is much older. We will see whether he will come along with us. If he has the interests of his constituents at heart he will show some of his undue haste in the alacrity with which he will ally himself with the Liberal party on free wheat. The farmers of the West are desirous of having the railway built; but they wish this Government to first carefully consider what should be the proper policy to adopt and then get down to practical work and carry that policy to fruition. If there is anything the hon. member for Brandon can do to aid the Government, well and good; but if he cannot do that, let him at least urse the Gov-
[Mr. Knowles. I
emment that they must satisfy the demand of the grain growers of the prairies and get the road built; because all the people of Canada, irrespective of politics, are committed to this as a great national enterprise, now, no matter What the differences of opinion may have been in the past.
The Government seem to be very sure that they have given us good reasons for going to Nelson instead of to Churchill. The hon. gentleman who holds the portfolio of Railways and Canals tells us that he gave us those reasons last year. I do not think he is correct in that; I think he is under a misapprehension. I have looked through ' Hansard ' and after a careful search I do not see anything there in the way of reasons. The minister, as far as I am able to gather, never gave any real, public reason for deciding on Port Nelson, and I think his reasons dre such that he is not telling us all of them. I think the hon. member for Brandon probably could tell us more reasons than he has told us. I think if we got next a few club friends in real estate firms in Winnipeg he might get a different opinion from that of Mr. Beach.


Francis Cochrane: The land is all withdrawn for one half mile on each side, so nobody can get in there; there is no real estate proposition there.


William Erskine Knowles: I think I am correct in saying that the land around what is supposed to be the town of Port Nelson is, some of it, taken.


Francis Cochrane: That is withdrawn too.


Mr. ROCHE:: To the extent of two miles.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Your Government sold the lots at Fort Churchill.


William Erskine Knowles: We are not dealing with that now. There was evidently nothing wrong about it or it would have been brought up in this House long before. It was not like the Donaldson homestead, anyway.


Frank Oliver: I may say that there was no land sold at Fort Churchill by the late Government or while the late Government was in office.


Arthur Meighen: My information on the subject came from the deputy of the hon. gentleman who just rose, and who was formerly Minister of the Interior.


Frank Oliver: The deputy misinformed
my hon. friend.


William Erskine Knowles: The Minister of the Interior answered a question on January 16, 1912, with regard to this precious land which he has withdrawn-although I tell you we will all be surprised if there are not a few good Tories who get in on that half mile, knowing them as we, know them, the Minister of the Interior to the contrary notwithstanding. I would like to get all the land the Tories will get inside that half-mile. If I had it I do not think I would have to work any more.


Francis Cochrane: You will find out before you get through.


William Erskine Knowles: The question was asked:
Has a strip of public land one-half mile in width along the line of the Hudson Bay railway been closed against settlement?
And the answer was, ' yes.' That land was closed against settlement, according to the Minister of the Interior, before Port Nelson was finally decided upon as the terminal. That answer was given on the 14th of January, 1912.


Francis Cochrane: It was decided on
then.


William Erskine Knowles: It was decided on then, very good. The Minister of Railways says it was decided on then, on January 14. On February 26, 1913, the Minister of Railways answered this question:
Mr. Martin (Begina) :
1.	Has the Government as yet decided upon Churchill or Nelson as the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway? If so, which point has been settled upon?	,
Mr. Cochrane:
1.	Nelson, unless upon completion of the surveys and inspection it might be thought advisable to decide otherwise.
I do not think any House of gentlemen, taking the minister seriously, would take that answer as a final answer. I think we would be only fair to the Minister of Railways and Canals if we said the answer given on the 26th of February meant that the matter was not decided, but that the Government were inclined to Nelson and were keeping their minds open in view of the probability of further information coming to them from their surveyors. If the answer did not mean that it did not mean anything, as from one fair-minded man to another. The Minister of Railways said on the 26th of February, 1913: Nelson will be the place, but we will keep our minds open, there may be some information, for he said:
Unless there be some information upon the completion of the surveys-
Mark, they have not been completed

-and explorations it might be thought advisable to do otherwise.
His mind open, there was nothing decided unless his surveys teach him differently. He was going to rest his decision on what the surveys might show. The same minister, according to his own declaration, had already told everybody that it would be Nelson. I do not think the minister will deny that. He said in February: My mind is not decided yet, because I must get further information; and months before that he had told everybody it would be Nelson.


Francis Cochrane: When did I tell that ?


William Erskine Knowles: on the 26th of February, that this was not final yet because they had to get the surveyors' reports; but on the 4th of December of the previous year he had said: It is all settled, it is going to be Nelson. A decision made in that way is one that justifies the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in casting the greatest suspicion upon the whole fishy business.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Which report are you in favour of ?


William Erskine Knowles: I am in favour of getting good information and deciding it on the merits of the case. I am not in favour of doing anything to hurt Reach, or to help Beach. I shall tell my hon. friends, and I appeal to the hon. member for Prince Albert, if he has not heard it said many times by people who have gone into this matter, that Port Nelson was chosen for some ulterior reason not given to the public. It may be the best place, I do not know. I think my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. McKay) will bear me out when I say that there is a belief in the minds of many people, that all this was not done above board.


Mr. McKAY:: As my hon. friend has referred to me, I may say that I have heard nothing of it. So far as I know, the people are satisfied iyith the decision of the Minister of Railways, and are most gratified at the expedition with which he has taken hold of that matter.	.


William Henry Sharpe: As my hon. friend has referred to me, I may say that I have never heard this point discussed and the people of western Canada, at least so far as Manitoba is concerned, are quite satisfied with the decision of the minister.


William Erskine Knowles: I was not asking my hon. friend from Lisgar-he interrupted me -but I accept his statement without the slightest hesitation and the statement of my hon. friend from Prince Albert also, but I can tell my hon. friend from Prince Albert that I know some very great political friends of his, big men, and some of his clients, with whom I would like him to have a talk some day, just to hear the other side of the story. I am not saying that there is necessarily anything wrong in it. I do not care to make that statement as I cannot back it up, but I do say that we should have the fullest information, such as these papers call for, and that there should be an investigation. I do not say that the minister was actuated by ulterior motives in his decision. I am not going to say that, but

I do say there is enough suspicion in the minds of the people of western Canada to justify an investigation; and I think I am justified in saying that the minister decided this matter before he had full information. If he decided in December, 1912, on Port Nelson and two months later, was awaiting the report of a surveying party before making a final decision, then I say he is moving in a strange and mysterious way. If Port Nelson turns out to be the best place, it will be a lucky thing for the Government, because I believe they have gone blind into this matter. As my hon friend from Edmonton has said, it is a very expensive undertaking and of extreme importance to the people of Canada. At its commencement, it was a matter into which party politics very little entered. There was no opposition to the vote when it went through under the late Government. It seemed to be the common desire of all the people of Canada, even the people of eastern Canada, and I have never had occasion to observe any matter in this House which showed the national spirit to better advantage. All we ask is that the project be persisted in and that we may have the fullest possible light on it. The minister attributed a lot of his trouble to bad luck. Perhaps he may be lucky; and it may be that he has chosen the better place for the harbour, but if he has, it is mere luck and not after a thorough investigation of the relative merits of the two places.


William Henry Sharpe: My
hon. friend has isaid that polities entered into this matter very little at the outset. It was only within the last few years that the people of this country have been committed to this proposition. I remember quite well contesting a constituency in western Canada in 1904 when I was practically defeated on this proposition because the Reform party had taken it up and promised the people of western Canada that they would put the matter through. My hon. friend has said that we are no farther ahead than we were two or three years ago. Last fall I was over a portion of this road. I went over seventy miles of it, where they had the steel laid, and I want to tell this House that in my opinion it is one of the greatest pieces of work that has ever been carried on in this country; because, so far, not a single horse has been used in the construction of the road. It has all been done by hand work and you can have some idea of the work that had to be done by these

men in order to get as much done as they have at the present time. My hon. friend from Edmonton talks of tinkering with this proposition. If any proposition wi>,s ever tinkered with by any government, I am sure it is this question that was tinkered with by the Government of which ths hon member for Edmonton was a member. As to the selection of Port Nelson, I think the Government have made a very wise choice, because as my hon. friend from Brandon has said, Port Nelson is open much longer in the fall, and open much earlier in the spring than Fort Churchill. Not nly that but the railway will run pretty nearly all the way alongside the Nelson river, and in time to come there is no doubt in my mind that a very large proportion of the wheat now grown in western Canada will be milled by the power of the Nelson river. I am a great believer in the Hudson bay route. Some people tell us that it can only be navigated for two or three months out of the year. The Hudson Bay, and 5 p.m. the Hudson strait never freeze over, and the mouth of the Nelson river is open practically all the the year round; and I claim that with proper aids to navigation we shall be able to navigate' the Hudson bay and Hudson strait from eight to ten months in the year. In the early days they had a great deal more trouble navigating the St. Lawrence than they have had in navigating the Hudson bay for the last 200 or 300 years. In that time only two or three vessels have been lost in the Hudson bay and it has been navigated every year. I have read almost everything I can get my hands on, in connection with this proposition, and I believe the day will come, and is not very far distant, when 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the export wheat of western Canada will be going by this route. I believe, further, that in time ocean going vessels will be brought right up to the city of Winnipeg. I think the present minister deserves a great deal of credit, rather than censure, for the way he has handled this matter since he has taken hold of it.


Mr. G. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):: 1 desire to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways to another phase of this question, which is of considerable interest to the workingmen who live	in the
city of Halifax and who were engaged in the Government service at Port Nelson	during the past	summer.
The return of one of these steamers brought some fifty men who had been em-44
ployed in Halifax under contract with officials of the Government to work at Port Nelson. It is alleged that by their contract they were entitled to receive $3.75 a day for every day excepting Sunday after they had arrived at the scene of their employment. After being there but a short time they were made to understand that for every day, owing to unavoidable conditions of weather, they were unable to work, their pay would be kept from them, notwithstanding that their board bill continued. The consequence was that they saw no chance whatever of saving any money with the large expense they were under for board. When a change of superintendents took place they were asked to work at night instead of during the day. These men objected to that and they were told that if they were not willing to accept the altered conditions they would be taken back to Halifax. They were taken back to Halifax, and were charged $100 for their passage. Fifty-two men contributed $5,200 to the funds of the Department of Railways and Canals in respect of their transportation from Hudson bay to the city of Halifax. I do not profess to say that the Department of Railways and Canals might not have been justified under the terms of this agreement in charging these men for their transportation, but I desire to ask my hon. friend the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) to amend his motion so as to include all agreements that have been entered into between labourers in the city of Halifax and officials of the Government for the purpose of ascertaining what the rights of these men are in the premises.
The Minister of Railways and Canals endeavoured to minimize the effect of the indictment laid against his department by the junior member for Halifax by retorting across the floor that the statements which he quoted were chiefly those of the captains, who were themselves responsible for the accidents which occurred in Hudson bay, and who felt sore on account of their failure to discharge the duties which had been entrusted to them. I have before me the Canadian Courier of January 17, which contains an article signed Montague Vesey. I do not know the gentleman who contributed this article, but I am quite sure that he was neither captain, mate nor bo'sun bold upon any of these vessels chartered by the Government to go to Hudson bay. This is what Mr. Vesey says:



The work has cost one life and two ships already. The Cearense was wrecked, almost at her journey's end, and became a total loss. (Her crew and passengers had to be taken off in the lifeboats.) She is to be seen on the horizon yet, breaking up; and within a gun shot of her lies all that is left of the Alette, which, unable to make the open sea, on account of ice, returned to Nelson, ran on to a sand bar, was abandoned, and has since been totally destroyed by fire (thought to be due to combustion of gas in the bunkers).
These were the worst happenings; but ill-fortune, in a hundred minor degrees, has dogged the fpotsteps of the pioneers, from the very outset of the expedition. The Beothic went ashore on a jagged reef at Point Rich, Newfoundland, and had to sacrifice 300 tons of coal before she could be hauled off into deep water by a warship ; after which it was found necessary for her to return to Halifax, where she remained in. dry dock for a month. The Alcazar, the Alette, and the Sinbad all had to leave Port Nelson with only a portion of their cargoes unloaded, owing to the poor and fearfully inadequate facilities for discharging. The $3,000 gasolene launch brought up by the Beothic sank before she was a week in the bay; and one-half of a large steel scow, which was brought up in sections, went down within a few hours of touching the water. The dredge, Port Nelson, built by the Poison Iron Works (a photo of which appeared in the Courier of August 16 last), experienced such bad weather while being towed from Halifax by the Bona-venture, that it will be a long time before she can grapple with the bed of the Nelson. She lies with her back practically broken.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where?


George William Kyte: At Port Nelson.


Francis Cochrane: Which statement is absolutely untrue.


George William Kyte: (Reading):
Labour troubles broke out quite early in the operations, and nearly a hundred men, declining to remain any longer under existing conditions, treated their contracts as waste-paper, and demanded to be sent home on the 'Beothic' and 'Bellaventure.' This reduced the strength of the camp by nearly one-half, to say nothing of leaving the remaining half in a condition of extreme discontent. Finally, there is scarcely any oil or coal in the whole place.
The Minister of Railways and Canals interjected the observation, While I was reading this article, that there was not a word of truth in it, or something to that effect.


Francis Cochrane: In reference to the fact of the dredge being broken.


George William Kyte: Any statement that the minister 'has made, with authority as I assume, is all the more reason why the motion of my hon. friend from Halifax shoifld prevail, and that all the papers should be brought before the House. But, I believe, in view of the circumstances and in

view of the fiat denial which comes from hon. gentlemen supporting the Government as to the truth of these charges, something more than the motion of my hon. friend from Halifax as it stands today is necessary. I believe that a thorough investigation into the whole conduct of this expedition ought to be made by a select special committee of this House. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins) intimated that in substance all these charges were made by a man named Beach, who was a real estate agent at Fort Churchill. The quotation I read is not based on the statement of any interested parties as far as I know, because my information is to the effect that Mr. Vesey went to Port Nelson for the purpose of writing up this matter and the articles which have appeared in the Halifax newspapers and the Canadian Courier are the results of his observations.
There are two or three other matters that call for some consideration at the 'hands of the members of this House. The Minister of Railways, while attempting to make a defence of this matter, only succeeded in entering a plea by way of extenuation. He stated that there was bad luck, that the conditions were not familiar to those who had undertaken to carry on the work, that the season was short and backward, and that it was impossible to anticipate the difficulties that stood in the way of the successful carrying on of this undertaking. I have been long enough a member of this House supporting the Government led by my right hon. friend who to-day leads the Opposition to have heard, day after day, charges hurled across the floor by hon. gentlemen who now sit behind the Government benches in respect of public works carried on by the late Government and in no instance did I hear of any circumstances in extenuation of what they regarded as maladministration by the late Government in the matter of these public undertakings. I merely say this for the purpose of pointing out that circumstances have changed in the last few years, and that, while hon. gentlemen allowed no extenuation in respect to what they regarded as mismanagement by the members of the late Government, they are now willing to shelter themselves behind the plea that the circumstances which led to these disasters were such as they could not control. Mr. Vesey further, in an article in the Halifax Chronicle, writes as follows:
The cause of the prevailing unrest is, in outline, thus:	It is quite clear that (luring
the severest of the winter months all outside

work, will for a great part of every week, be out of the question. But work or no work, five dollars a week has to be paid for board, and clothing has to be bought. Now, every man who possesses a contract (ninety per cent of the whole) was under the impression when he signed It, that he was to receive his pay for every day in the twelve [DOT] months; exclusive of Sundays.
That, in fact, is what the agreement implies -almost states indeed in so many words (though a lawyer would find it a simple matter to read more or less into the thing than actually appears). But the men discovered upon the very first day that rain rendered outside work impracticable, that they received no pay for that day.
In fact, if they ceased work, say at four in the afternoon, owing to bad weather, they received only eight hours' pay. This, in effect, is hourly pay, and in direct disregard of the terms of the contract. However, after a meeting between the men and Mr. Pratt it was agreed that when the various foremen considered the weather too inclement for the men to remain out, the latter should receive a full day's pay. This, undoubtedly, was a concession-a step in the right direction-but it still remains-and this is the rock upon which the ship will ultimately split-that if the weather is too bad for the men to turn out at all in the morning they receive nothing. They are actually each in debt to the amount of seventy-five cents for their day's board. This is an undesirable condition of affairs. What the men ask for and what they certainly are entitled to, is straight time. Whether they will receive it or not is a question for the future to decide.
I desire especially to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to this phase of the matter. If these men have a substantial grievance, as the writer of this article represents, it is only right and fair that this grievance should be removed, and that the conditions of the men who are to carry on the work at Port Nelson in future be rendered as bearable as possible, and their wages paid to them without any deductions.
With reference to the tug Kathleen, which was the only tug, as I understand it, employed in the towing business at Port Nelson last season, I quote:
The purchase of a Halifax lobster tug by the Government for use at Port Nelson to pull massively heavy tows laden with the heaviest of construction material up Nelson river, eight miles, against a seven knot current, comes in for considerable ridicule. This chapter of mismanagement rivals all previous records In the story of Hudson bay.
The Kathleen's history on Halifax harbour showed her to be a nine knot craft, with a possible speed of eleven knots under pressure. When she tied up with an ordinary tow of lobster boats she could make two knots an hour. On the Nelson river, against the current of seven knots an hour, with a heavy tow, the Kathleen slipped back faster than she went ahead.
The Minister of Railways told the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) that the 44i
Kathleen was purchased from a gentleman in Halifax, who I believe is a political supporter of the Prime Minister. I do not desire to intimate for a moment that the political relationship existing between the owner of the Kathleen and the right hon. gentleman had anything to do with the purchase, but I do say that the Kathleen was utterly unfit, in respect to her machinery and towing power, for the service for which she was acquired. The inadequacy of the Kathleen was one of the reasons why so many thousand dollars worth of costly material was lost in the Hudson bay last year. The whole record of the expedition indicates that gross mismanagement characterized it from start to finish, and I believe that when the losses are figured up the total loss to the Dominion of Canada, resulting from this mismanagement, will be in the neighbourhood of $200,000. When the papers are brought down, I presume the information we seek will be contained in them.


James Joseph Hughes: When the papers are brought down, if there is any real discrepancy in the facts as given to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) by those who were in Hudson bay last season, and the information possessed by the Department of Railways, the House will be in position to judge of the merits of the question.


Francis Cochrane: With reference to the men who came back, I am only awaiting the report of Mr. McLaughlin, the engineer in charge down there, to arrive at a decision as to whether they should be paid or not. I have heard only one side of the question so far.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. minister and the hon. memher for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) both stated that the conditions at the mouths of the rivers Mersey and Thames are similar to the conditions at the mouth of the Nelson river. Would these gentlemen state what the natural conditions are that bring about this similarity?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentlemen
have already spoken, and it is not permissible for them to speak again.


James Joseph Hughes: My information is that very powerful dredges have to be kept at work throughout the entire year to render navigation practicable at the mouths of the Mersey and Thames. That is particularly true of the Mersey because of the

shifting sand, and if there be a like condition at the mouth of the Nelson, it would go far to militate against the success of that port from a commercial point of view. I trust that the Minister of Railways, or the member for Brandon, will give us information on that point now or at some future time.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew): The argument of my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has been well supported by hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion, but what I want particularly to refer to is a remark of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) criticising the action or non-action of the late Government. I can realize, that, desiring to make a speech to his constituents, and not having looked into the question, finding that the nearest thing at hand to hit was the late Government, he acted accordingly. This is a question which is too big to be discussed from a partisan standpoint. It has been in the public mind for over half a century.


William Henry Sharpe: How many years were you surveying before you started the work?


George Perry Graham: to that port. And that is not easy. I am not surprised that he rubs his brow when he gets up against this end of the scheme.


Francis Cochrane: That belongs to another department.


George Perry Graham: The responsibility of
making the whole project successful, I am afraid, will be left mainly with the Railway Department-I believe it would have been had the former Government remained in power. If it is to be a success, you cannot relieve the Railway Department of responsibility, even though the building of the railway is the smallest part of the project Of course the Marine Department is responsible for buoying the channel No one department of the Government is responsible for this scheme; it is the Government in its entirety that is responsible. Under the late Government, the Marine Department, if I remember rightly, sent a steamer up to the Hudson bay and made a hydrographic survey. The Marine Department should have carried this work on up to the point at which the Railway Department could take hold of it and carry out the improvements, whichever harbour were chosen. Whatever censure should be placed upon any department in reference to the non-buoying of the channel, or the neglect to mark it out, should be placed upon the Marine Department, and I am sorry the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here to discuss that phase of the matter. Something was done by the late Government when they sent the steamships up to the straits of Hudson bay to make a hydrographic survey with a view to assisting in this great project. As to the harbour itself, as I pointed out a moment ago, the work is only half done-no, not half or nearly half done-when the railway reaches the seaboard on Hudson bay. What seaboard is the minister going to reach? It is no difficult thing to see which harbour is the best. There are no two ways of viewing the matter. Approaching it from the railway standpoint only, there is no doubt at all, but that Nelson has the better harbour. It affords the best terminal facilities, and, so far as the railway is concerned, saves 85 miles of hauling which would be involved in the case of the adoption of Fort Churchill as a terminal port. As I say, from a railway standpoint, there is no question as to which port is advisable; I am inclined to think that Nelson is the port anyway. I do not want to pose as an expert or authority in the matter; I base my opinion upon the reports I received from the various engineers.
tMr. Graham.]
The House will pardon me if I again go back to what the late Government did in the matter. We had a staff of engineers at Nelson and at Churchill during the whole of one winter, making observations and soundings. Their report to me was that there was a safe channel in the Nelson river, but that it would need some dredging to make it straight, to put it in ordinary terms. The Nelson river is not a small stream; it is a river into which flow the Saskatchewan, the Red river and other tributaries. It. is a large and comparatively swift-running stream; hon. gentlemen of the House must not get the idea that in discussing this river they are dealing with some small stream like the Nation river. The Nelson is a mighty river. I think the Ontario Government has secured a right of way in order that they may, if they so desire, build a railway up to the Nelson river; I imagine they consider that Nelson harbour will be a fairly good one. To make a comparison between Nelson and Churchill from the information given me by the engineers -and that is the only information upon which I base my opinion-Churchill at the present time is the better harbour for a limited amount of shipping accommodation. If a large business is to be done on this Hudson Bay route, Nelson is the harbour. In other words, Nelson is capable of being made into a harbour that will take care of any amount of traffic, while Churchill could not possibly be enlarged, except at enormous expense, to take care of any more traffic than it can take care of at the present time, which is comparatively small. If we expect the Hudson Bay route to be successful, it is worth while considering whether we should adopt the harbour that will eventually lend itself to development for increased trade. The engineers of the Railway Department pointed out to me the difficulties at Nelson, and they pointed out some of the advantages of Churchill; I have summed up very briefly the opinions I formed. For several miles out, Nelson harbour is practically the Nelson river. The channel of the harbour at the present time is undoubtedly crooked, but that there is a channel there I am convinced by soundings, the record of which I have in my possession, and which I looked for to-day but could not find. I am convinced that there is a channel from the Hudson bay right up into the Nelson river. The bed of the river is, I think, composed of what they call boulder clay, and it is capable of being bleared out and the channel straightened to a width of say 800 feet. The con-

dition to which the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) referred may prevail; that is, the department may have to do periodical dredging on acount of the washing of sand down the river. That I am not prepared to say, but that the channel can be made at Nelson is quite evident, unless the engineers of the Railway Department were all wrong. Take, for instance, the entrance of one of the Empresses to Liverpool. They have a pretty narrow channel there, and it is subject to high seas, but no person would say that it is impracticable, as it is used all the time by the larger vessels. I am convinced that Nelson harbour can be made a magnificent harbour, tout the entrance to it will always be narrowed in proportion to the width of the Nelson river, which really gives us the harbour.. What will be the cost of the entire project; railway, elevators, docks, harbours, demarcation of channel by Marine Department, steamship line, and possibly elevators on the other side? It is a problem which, when you come to carry it out to its ultimate solution, may well demand the serious consideration of the House and the Government, and we should not dismiss it after but a few moments' discussion. Should the Government proceed to arrange at once for the construction of docks, having selected a port? Every one will say yes; they should at once proceed with the making of the harbour by clearing out the channel. If it is to be a harbour at all, that must be done. When that is done, and the elevators constructed, what are you going to do with the wheat or the merchandise coming in or going out? Will the shipowners come to Hudson bay of their own accord and enter into this traffic? I had discussions with some of them, and the different views they took upon this question were remarkable. Some large companies said to me: Yes, we will enter into this carrying trade if the Government will encourage us by cash subsidies. Others said: We will enter into this trade during part of the year, but we have to have specially constructed ships. I am not sure that the latter is the case. The bay itself is free from ice during many months of the year.


Mr. HENDERSON:: How many?


George Perry Graham: During a longer time than the harbour is at Montreal. The
bay itself is free from ice for months, but the difficulty with the navigation will be in the straits. There will be no difficulty unless on account, of the ice coming down the river into the bay. The late Governor General (pointed out that the Hudson bay is the Mediterranean of the north; he was surprised with the extent to which the bay was free from ice. But, as I say, the difficulty is in the strait. For two or three months in the year I do not believe specially constructed vessels will be necessary, but I may be wrong in that; vessel owners themselves seem to disagree on that point.
I am merely making these interrogations to impress on the minds of the Government-perhaps that is unnecessary-but on the minds of the country, the extreme necessity of proceeding at once if this is to be made a substantial aid to the solution of the transportation problem, in not only building the road, which is a small portion of the scheme but in completing the terminals finally and adequately, and looking out for some means of handling the traffic once it is established. I have tried to speak on this not in a controversial way.
I feel that somebody has made a bad blunder this year and the bad effect is not so much the loss of the money but the fact that to those who say that the road is impracticable this is a sweet morsel, and I have had a good many thumps from some of my friends, not in the West, in the last year, pointing out what a muddle I got the Government of Canada into inaugurating this Hudson Bay project. To those who are apposed to Nelson, whatever the object may be, this is also a sweet morsel, because they have pointed out to me in the last few months that if Churchill had been selected none of these calamities would have taken place. But the project is a good one and can overcome even the black eye of this year, and if the Government will proceed, I do not say rashly, to close up the gap and make arrangements suitable for the completion Df the project, arranging for the water end of the route as well as the land end, I believe we in this House will yet see the goods conveyed from the West to the mother country and from the mother country to the West, at a profit to all concerned and a special profit to the people of western Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR-for Mr. Law-moved:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, and written resquests during the years 1912 and 1913, addressed to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Naval or Marine branches of said department, or any officer or persons of either branch, by any person or persons,
[Stage Direction]
relating to proposals or requests that the vessels or any vessel or vessels under the control of the Naval Branch of said department, should be present at any regatta or celebration of any description held anywhere on the Atlantic or Pacific coasts of Canada during said years; also of all replies to such letters, telegrams and written requests.
John Douglas Hazen: I would suggest to my hon. friend from Guysboro, who is acting for my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Law), a slight amendment. The motion reads:
Addressed to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Naval or Marine Brari'ches of said department,
The Naval Department, of course, is a department just as much as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is, and it is evidently the Naval Depart-6 p.m. ment that is wanted here. I - would suggest that the motion be amended as follows:
Addressed to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of Naval Affairs, or any officer of either department.
That would cover the information which I think the hon. member for Yarmouth is seeking.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I would like to know what is to be the business of the House to-morrow-whether it is to be a Government day or a private Members' day.


Mr. BORDEN:: I understand it is a
Government day, so the Clerk of the House informs me.


Wilfrid Laurier: It all depends upon what we are to understand by the word ' week.' Rule 25 says that on Thursdays, after the expiration of the first four weeks, Government orders shall have precedence. The question is, when does that commence? It will be four weeks tomorrow since we met, and if you count Thursday as the first day on which the week is to commence, to-morrow will be the fourth week; but it seems to me hardly fair that the commencement of the week should be the day on which we first met. It ought to be the day following, Friday, and then we would have to-morrow as a private Members' day.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the four weeks
will be completed with the conclusion of this day's business. So far as the question

of Thursday is concerned, my right hon. friend will remember that it was his proposal to have Thursday as a Government day from the very beginning of the session, and that it was I who secured the four weeks for private members. I do not see that there is anything unfair in following the obvious intention of the rule. Heretofore the rule has not come into question, so far as I remember at the moment, because the fourth Thursday happened to come in the Christmas vacation. This is the first time the question has actually arisen. I understand the four weeks will terminate with to-day's business, and to-morrow we commence with the practice provided by the rule.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, February 12, 1914.