1923-03-12

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1025	Volume II: Pages 1027-2045


Volume III:: Pages 2047-3044	Volume IV: Pages 3045-4005


Volume V:: Pages 4007-4756



VOLUME CLVI


[Stage Direction]
House ol Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 12, 1923
Mr. MEIGHEN:: In connection with the returns brought down in answer to motions for papers, I would suggest to the government that instead of referring to an order in council by number, the subject matter be given, which I think has been the usual practice. Then hon. members will know in answer to whose motion fhe return is made.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HOEY:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to bring down and submit to the House at this session amendments to the Dominion Elections Act. I understand that certain amendments have been suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, and there is also the matter of the single transferable vote endorsed by this House some weeks ago.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In this matter the government will wait to see what further suggestions may be made to the House before reaching a decision. There is a committee on redistribution, which will have to report to the House. Up to the present time it has not been thought advisable td bring in any amendments, but during the course of the ses- ' sion if it should seem to be advisable the matter will be taken under consideration.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS - COAL SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
['The bill changes the method of government of the society, and re-enacts in a proper form the French sections which, I understand, have been improperly translated in the original bill. The powers of the society are also increased.']
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I am informed that the Canadian National Railways are refusing to take the run of the mine coal from any small companies in Maccan and River Hebert districts and that this means that some eight hundred men are thrown out of work, and these districts are being ruined. Has the government any information with regard to the withdrawal of orders from these districts?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The matter is under consideration at the present time. Time may be given in order to install certain screens that will help out the difficulty. That matter is now being considered by the Vice President.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 5, respecting certain patents of Charles A Channell.-Mr. German.
Bill No. 19, respecting certain patents of Albert Manvers.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 25, respecting a certain patent of Arthur R. Wilfley.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 27.-respecting a patent of Hans M. Olsen and Esther Maud Butcher.-Sir Henry Drayton.	,

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, to incorporate La Banque Rurale.-Mr. Parent.
Bill No. 18, respecting the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryckman.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Hanson the House went into committee on Bill No. 26, to amend the act incorporating "La Societe des Artisans Canadiens Franeais."-Mr. Seguin.-Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
On Section 4-General Convention.
Mr. CALDWELL:: I cannot help thinking we are passing these sections without very much consideration. For example, I notice that in this section it is proposed to strike out the words "a majority of." I think this should be explained.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: An increase of protection is it not?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: We want to be sure
of that.


Mr. HANSON:: This bill was before the
Banking and Commerce committee and all the sections were carefully considered. I can

Questions

assure the hon. member the change referred to is in the way of increasing the protection to the society.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That is all I want to
know.


Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Will the
hon. member give us a summary showing what the general purpose of the bill is? .


Richard Burpee Hanson: The bill changes the method of government of the society, and re-enacts in a proper form the French sections which, I understand, have been improperly translated in the original bill. The powers of the society are also increased.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, bill reported, read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. DENIS (St. Denis):: 1.	In what year was Mrs. Gibeau appointed postmistress at Morinville?
2.	Did the Civil Service Commission institute an inquiry before making the aboVe appointment?
3.	If so, who had charge of said inquiry?
4.	Did the Civil Service Commission not follow the recommendation of its inspector? If not, why?
5.	What is the name of the person recommended by the inspector?
6.	Who recommended Mrs. Gibeau?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Mrs. Gibeau was never postmistress at Morinville. In July, 1918, following a vacancy in the postmastership at Morinville, the Civil Service Commission approved of the temporary appointment of Mr. Trancrede Gi-beault, pending the return of a qualified returned soldier for the position. Mr. Gibeault was temporarily placed in charge of the post office, and from the official records it appears that Mrs. Gibeault was actually performing the duties. This arrangement was in effect until 6th August, 1919, the date on which a returned soldier, appointed by the Civil Service Commission, was placed in charge as postmaster.
2,	3, 4, 5, and 6. No information.


EXPERIMENTAL FARM, SAINTE ANNE DE LA POCATIERE
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	On what date was Theoretic St. Marie appointed herdsman at the experimental farm of Sainte Anne de la Pocatiere, Quebec?
2.	Who was intrusted by the Civil Service Commission with the examination of the above candidate?
3.	What was the result of this examination?
4.	What recommendations were furnished by the candidate?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	August 23, 1922.
2.	The superintendent of the experimental farm at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Mr. J. H. St. Marie, where the vacancy occurred, was instructed to receive applications and forward them with all other papers and his report to the commission.
3.	Mr. L. T. Ste. Marie was the only candidate and he was found to possess the necessary qualifications. He was accordingly assigned to the position. There was one other applicant from Western Ontario whose nonresidence disqualified him.
4.	As to experience and qualifications: Mr. Henri Gerin, Coaticook, Que., Mr. Leo Broderick, Mr. P. O. Lock. As to character: Mr. Oscar Lessard, secretary, Agricultural Council Quebec; Mr. Louis Philip Roy, agronomist; Mr. Emile Belanger, manager of the Central Co-operative Society of Agriculturists, Prince-ville.


DISPOSAL OF WASTE PAPER
Mr. DENIS (St. Denis):: 1.	How do the various departments dispose of the
waste paper coming out of their offices:	(a) ia
Montreal: (b) in Ottawa?
2.	Is the waste paper sold under contract for a given period or otherwise, to any firm or individual in particular: (a) In Montreal; (b) in Ottawa?
3.	Are the departments under contract at the -present time? If so, with whom and when does the contract expire: (a) in Montreal; (b) in Ottawa?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Post Office Department:
1.	(a) In Montreal the postmaster is authorized to sell waste paper to the highest bidder, (b) In Ottawa, Post Office Department waste paper is disposed of under contract made by the King's Printer for the disposal of all waste paper from government offices.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1. (b) No information as to terms of contract in Post Office Department.
3.	(a) No. (b) Yes.
Public Works Department:
1,	2, and 3. (a) In Montreal, the waste paper in the Customs buildings is baled and sold to the best advantage by officials of this department. The paper in the post offices is baled by this department but disposed of by the Post Office Department, (b) Understand that all waste paper is disposed of under contract, by the Department of Public Printing and Stationery.
Department of Public Printing and Stationery :
1.	(a) No knowledge; (b) by contract.

Questions
2.	(a) No knowledge; (b) the waste paper in Ottawa is sold by contract for a given period to an Ottawa firm.
3.	(a) No knowledge; (b) Yes, with Sachs Bros., Ottawa. The contract expires January 31, 1924.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-FIDELITY INSURANCE
Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: 1.	What is the nafne of the company that carries the fidelity schedule of the Canadian National Railways ?
2. What is the total amount of the schedule?
3. What is the annual cost or premium?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	London Guarantee & Accident Company; Guarantee Company of North America; Lloyd's, London.
2.	Approximately $10,000,000.
3.	Approximately $16,000.
Mr. W. N. TILLEY, K.C.


Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	On what date was Mr. W. N. Tilley, K.C., employed by the Dominion government in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration?
2# On what date did his services in connection with the said arbitration cease?
3.	How many hours per day did he devote to the service of the government at the time he was drawing fees amounting to one hundred dollars per day?
4.	How many hours per day did he devote to the service of the government at the time he was drawing fees amounting to four hundred dollars per day?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	On or about 1st December, 1919.
2.	July, 1922.
3.	Not specified.
4.	Not specified.


GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION
Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What was the name of the minister of the government who engaged the various counsel in connection with the Grand Trunk arbitration, during the years 1919, 1920 and 1921?
2.	Was the said minister, at the time he fulfilled such ministerial duties, receiving any pension whatever from the government of Canada?
3.	If so, in what capacity, of what amount; and what amount, if any, is he at present receiving in this connection ?


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: 1.	Right Honourable Charles J. Doherty, Minister of Justice.
2.	Yes.
3.	As a superannuated Judge of the Superior Court of Quebec, he receives an annual statutory pension of $4,666.66.


PORT COLBORNE ELEVATOR
Mr. MANION:: 1.	Does the government own an elevator at Port Colbome?
2.	If so, is it leased or do they operate it themselves?
3.	How much grain did it handle during 1922?
4.	What were the charges for handling grain during the season of open navigation?
5.	What profits, if any, were made for the past year?
6.	What is the total amount of government investment in site and plant?
7.	In reporting profits, is any interest charged on invested capital, and is any reserve made for depreciation on plant?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Operated by the government.
3.	53,349,811 bushels.
4.	On grain forwarded by vessel: Shovelling and elevating into elevator, $4.35 per 1,000 bus.; Delivery to canal vessels loading, $1.15 per 1,000 bus.
On grain forwarded by rail: Shovelling, $4.35 per 1,000 bus., elevating, domestic grain, .01 cent per bushel; elevating, export grain, .00^ cent per bushel; storage, when in excess of fifteen days allowed, .001 cent per bushel.
5.	$210,395.29, less an amount to be determined for electric power.
6.	Approximately $2,100,000, which includes cost of elevator reconstruction after explosion.
7.	No.


MORRISBURG AND WADDINGTON FERRY
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Has a license been issued for the operation of a ferry between Morrisburg and Waddington, N.Y.?
2.	Was suchi license issued pursuant to an order in council ?
3.	If so, what is the date of such order in council?
4.	What is the date of such license?
5.	What is the duration of such license?
6.	What is the name of such license?
7.	Was the council of the corporation of Morrisburg asked to approve the application for such licence?
8.	Did the council of Morrisburg approve of such application?
9.	Was an investigation or report made by any official before the issue of such license; if so, what official made such report or investigation?
10.	What recommendations were made in favour of the applicant for such license?
11.	What regulations are applicable to:-
(1)	The size and description of vessel to be used.
(2)	The accommodation and convenience of passengers.
(3)	The tolls or rates at which persons and chattels
shall be carried.


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	July 6, 1922.
4.	July 1, 1922.
5.	Ten years.
6.	Walter V. McGannon.
7.	Yes.
Questions

8.	No.
9.	Yes. District Engineer R. deB. Corriveau.
10.	A petition signed by Rev. L. B. Garvin and others.
11.	(1) The license shall provide and place on the route a substantial seaworthy steamer, of not less than seventy-two feet keel and seventeen feet beam, propelled by steam, and running at a speed of not less than ten miles per hour, so constructed and equipped as to adequately and satisfactorily care for the transportation of passengers, horses and other live stock, automobiles and other vehicles and freight on said route. The vessel shall be kept in all respects fully equipped and shall be kept in a cleanly state throughout, and subject to the inspection and approval of the Dominion Board of Steamship Inspectors. The vessel shall have a respectable and efficient commander, and the Department of Public Works shall be at liberty to reject any steamer which may at any time be placed upon the said ferry or the commander thereof, should it consider them or any of them respectively unsuitable to the service, or inadequate to meet the wants of the public.
(2) During the continuance of the license in each and every year the licensee shall maintain during the season of navigation which is governed by the operation of St. Lawrence canals the following schedule of trips between Morris-burg and Waddington:
Leave Morrisburg, Ont.
Trips.
1.	- 8.00 a.m. Daily except Sunday.
3.	- 9.00 a.m. Sunday only, from June 15
to Sept. 15.
S.-10.15 a.m. Daily except Sunday, from
'	June 15 to Sept. 15, if
there are any cars to cross.
5.	-*"-1.45 p.m. Daily except Sunday.
7.	-4.15 p.m. Daily except Sunday
9.	-4.15 p.m. Daily from June 15 to Sept.
15.
(Trip 1) is connected at Waddington, N.Y., with jitney service between Massena, N.Y., and Ogdensburg, N.Y.
(Trip 5) is connecting at Morrisburg, Ont., with G. T. Ry. train No. 9 going west from Montreal to Toronto.
Leave Waddington, N.Y.
Trips.
2.	- 9.45 a.m. Daily except Sunday
4.	-10.00 a.m. Sunday only, from June
15 to Sept. 15.
6.	- 2.45 p.m. Daily except Sunday.
8.	-5.00 p.m. Daily except Sunday.
10.	-5.00 p.m. Daily from June 15 to Sept.
15.

If, in the opinion of the master of the ferry boat, there is sufficient fog or foul weather to endanger either life or property, the schedule herein provided to be maintained shall be suspended during the continuance of such weather.
Provided, however, that if regular crossings are temporarily suspended, the crew of said boat shall remain on duty until the time for the final trip shall have passed in order that regular crossings may be resumed whenever and as soon as the condition of weather warrants.
(3) The charges for fares and tolls to be made on the said ferry for each way during the hours stipulated shall not at any time exceed the following:
Passengers, incl. drivers of vehicles and
automobiles	$0.35
Children under 12 years of age .. .. 0.20 Children under 12 years of age round
trips	 0.35
Trunks, not exceeding 100 lbs	 0.15
and for each additional 100 lbs. .. 0.15 One-horse vehicle, light or loaded .. ..	1.25
Two-horse vehicle, light	 2.25
Two-horse vehicle, loaded	 2.25
Plus for each 100 lbs. of freight	 0.15
tAutomobiles, roadster or 5 passenger 1.00
tAutomobiles, 7 passenger	 1.25
Auto-trucks, light	 1.25
Auto-trucks, loaded	 1.25
Plus for each 100 lbs. of freight	 0.15
Motorcycle, with rider	 1.00
Single rig, without horse attached .. .. 0.25 Double rig, without horses attached .. 0.50
Lumber, per 10,000 ft. B.M	 2.00
Horses, each	 1.00
Horned cattle, per head	 1.00
Sheep, each	 0.35
Pigs, each	 0.35
Grain, potatoes, etc., per bag	 0.15
Remark 1.-From the opening of navigation to the 1st of June and from the 1st of October to the closing of navigation, the fares for passengers shall not exceed 0.50 and for children, 0.25 each way.
tRemark f.-On Sundays, the charges for automobiles shall not exceed $1.50.
HOMESTEAD PURCHASES Mr. McTAGGART:
1.	How many letters patent were issued in 1922 for pre-emption and purchased homesteads within the pre-emption area as defined by Dominion Lands Act, 1908?
2.	What was the total revenue received in 1922 from pre-emptions* and purchased homestead lands within pre-emption area?
3.	How many pre-emption and purchased homestead entries were cancelled in 1922?
4.	How many pre-emption and purchased homestead entries were abandoned in 1922?

Questions


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: (Argenteuil):
1.	Pre-emptions, 596; purchased homesteads, 94;
2.	Pre-emptions, $321,379.74; purchased homesteads, $26,760.49; total, $348,140.23.
3.	Pre-emptions, 363; purchased homesteads,
14.
4.	Pre-emptions, 440; purchased homesteads, 25.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DIRECTORS
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1* Is the Mr. Talbot who has been appointed a director of the Canadian National Railways, the same Mr. Talbot that was appointed to the department of the collector of provincial revenue of the province of Quebec in the district of Quebec, on November 18th, 1911, at a salary of $2,500 per year, and whose name appears in the Comptes Publics, 1921-22, of the province of Quebec, at page 257, as being still employed at the same salary of $2,500?
2.	If the fact is that this employee of the provincial government of Quebec has been appointed to the board of the National Railways, does the government propose giving other provincial governments similar representation on the board by appointing one of their servants to that body?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No information, but probably he is the same gentleman.
2.	No director has been appointed to represent a provincial government.


LIVE STOCK INDUSTRIES-CANADA
Mr. HODGINS:: 1.	What did the trip of Messrs. Dryden and Marshall to South America and return, in the interests of the live stock industry of Canada, cost the government?
2.	How long were they away?
3.	What countries did they visit?
4.	Has any report on the possibilities of developing a trade in live stock with South America been made? If not, when will such report be made?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Mr. Dryden, only, visited South America; cost of trip, $2,127.76.
2.	72 days.
[DOT]3. Brazil, Uruguay and Argentine.
4.	Yes.


POSTMISTRESS-ST. CLAIRE
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Was Miss Evangeline Cayouette, postmistress at Ste. Claire, county Dorchester, Que., before December 25th, 1922?
2.	If so, has she been since relieved of her duties?
3.	Were any accusations made against her or for what reason was she discharged?
4.	Have any petitions either for or against Miss Cayouette been sent to the department?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for the Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Representations were received that the post office was not centrally located and after inquiry the office was removed to a more convenient site.
4.	Yes, both for and against.


CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	How many men were enlisted in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces in Canada?
2.	How many men so enlisted went overseas?
3.	How many men so enlisted went to England only?
4.	Was any record kept of men who returned to Canada and afterwards went overseas for a second time?
5.	If so, what number so returned?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	590,572.
2.	418,052.
3.	This information is being tabulated but will not be available for some time.
4 and 5. This information has not been
tabulated.


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT-CARLETON
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: .
1.	How many farms were sold by the Soldier Settlement Board to returned men of the county of Carleton, Ontario ?
2.	What price was paid for each of these farms?
3.	From whom were they purchased?
4.	What inspectors or inspector recommended paying the purchase price?
5.	Who were the purchasers?
6.	Are anjr of said farms now vacant?
7.	If so, in what township or townships?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Twenty-eight.
2.	Price paid by the board: $3,050, $2,700,
$4,500,	$2,880,	$2,970,	$4,500	$4,300,	$2,970,$3,600,	$3,150,	$4,500,	$3,240,	$1,970,	$4,300,$4,500,	$2,700,	$2,565,	$3,600,	$3,150,	$4,000,$2,645,	$3,600,	$3,600,	$1,800, ' $3,550,	$4,500,

3.	M. Leduc, J. S. Moxby, J. Robillard, W. J. Buell, M. T. Power, Mrs. E. M. Mc-Latchie, B. Shanahan, A. Brown, W. J. Bradley, W. J. Bradley, G. D. Armitage, Andrew Brown, W. J. McCurdy, J. MacArtney, James Bradley, M. J. O'Meara, H. Lusk, R. Graham, J. Plunkett, F. S. Richardson, James McNeil. W. Conlin, J. Hunt, Mrs. Godfrey, Peter Anderson, John Graham, 0. H. Switzer, A. Dolan.
4.	E. F. Leidy, E. F. Leidy, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, D. J. Mather, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, Geo. Hopper, Geo. Hopper, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, G. N. Aeyue, E. F. Leidy, D. J. Mather, W. J. Spratt, E. F. Leidy, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, Geo. Hopper, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt, D. J. Mather, W. J. Spratt, W. J. Spratt.
Hudson Bay Railway

5.	J. Briere, Peter Budd, S. Liboiron, F. Mole, O. Charron, A. V. Roles, E. P. Shanahan, A. N. Smith, N. G. Bradley, A. W. S. Phillips, Godfrey D. Armitage, H. Pope, S. Elley, T. E. Binks, Robert Bradley, A. Dyer, T. P. Beasley, J. E. Welch, L. Eggins, W. H. Otto, W. J. Stewart, Chas. Goodwin, H. T. Shirley, W. H. Snider, Wm. Anderson, J. W. Prophet, J. Christie, T. A. Dolan.
6.	Yes, one vacant and two leased.
7.	Township of Osgoode, township of Goul-bourne.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN SCHOOL LANDS


Mr. McTAGGART:: 1.	What is the total area in acres of all lands within what is known as the pre-emption area as defined by Dominion Lands Act, 1908?
2.	How many acres of such lands are under the administration of the Dominion government by virtue of: (a) Unproved pre-emption;	(b) Unproved purchased
homesteads; (c) Forest reserves and parks; (d) Grazing leases; (e) School lands?



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Attorney General, Honourable Alex. Manson of British Columbia, and the Solicitor General, in reference to the proposed amendment to the Canadian Temperance Act, together with copies of resolution of the British Columbia Legislature, with the accompanying brief of the Attorney General of British Columbia, containing his references regarding the vote of the British Columbia Legislature.


Hon. D. D. McKENZIE (Solicitor General) :: I have no objection to the proposed motion, but my hon. friend must not be disappointed when he finds that I have no document of the class he is calling for except one letter with a draft amendment which came to me from the Attorney General of British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, communications, cablegrams, telegrams, writings, documents, etc., passing between the government of Canada or any

member thereof and the government of Great Britain or any member thereof or the representations respectively of other governments referring to the recent negotiations for and to the execution of a treaty with the United States respecting halibut fisheries, and also between the government of Canada or any member or representative thereof, and the British Ambassador at Washington respecting the same subject.



MR. CAMILLE BOLTE

Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a copy . of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, telegrams and other writings exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Civil Service Commission, at Ottawa, and Mr. Camille Bolt6, an employee of the Post Office, at Montreal; also between Mr. Gaboury, Superintendent of Post Office, at Montreal, Mr. P. E. Coolican, at Ottawa, Mr. Lionard, Postmaster, at Montreal, and the Post Office Department, in regard to Mr. Camile BoltA



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY


Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada give further consideration to the report of the Senate committee on the Hudson Bay railway with a view to safeguarding the investment of public moneys made in the construction of that portion of the work completed to date and that the government recognize the priority of this undertaking with reference to other transportation projects started subsequent to the Hudson Bay railway.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution, which is seconded by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), I wish to say that we have no apologies to make. The resolution should be its own justification, because the matter has been before the people of Canada for the last forty years and has been discussed annually from every angle. I admit that some of the more enthusiastic supporters of the scheme may have painted the picture in colours that would not stand the acid test; on the other hand, we know that its opponents have in many cases tried to enlarge the difficulties. No great project has ever been carried through without the overcoming of difficulties. In the observations I intend to make I shall try to be fair and to lay the facts dispassionately before the House.
The Hudson Bay railway project has been investigated time and time again, and as the result of the various investigations held, both the old historic political parties have endorsed the scheme. Nothing has ever been brought forward to prove that it .is not feasible or not workable. For the benefit of any hon. members who may not have heard the discussions of previous years, I should like, by way of introduction, to draw attention to a few facts in connection with the project.

Hudson Bay Railway
Work on the Hudson Bay railway was started by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910. The present Acting-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) turned the first sod at that time, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it would give us a great deal of satisfaction if before the end of the present season we could see the same hon. gentlemen [DOT] drive the last spike. When Sir Robert Borden assumed office in 1911 he and his party again investigated the scheme, and the result was that they also were convinced of the feasibility of the work and the advisibility of carrying it on. Work proceeded slowly during the war years up to 1918, when, without any apparent reason, except possibly that of necessity for economy, the work was stopped, and during the past four years or more nothing has been done.
The railway consists of 424 miles from the Saskatchewan river at The Pas right to the bay. The grading has been done to the bay, but there still remain 92 miles of steel to be laid, and it is for the purpose of asking the government to proceed to lay that 92 miles of steel and to bring the road up to the necessary standard that we are pressing for a reconsideration of the matter.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is any part of that line in operation to-day?


Andrew Knox: Yes, a part of it is in operation, but only once every two weeks. I have not the exact mileage-


George Perry Graham: Two hundred and fourteen.


Andrew Knox: Two hundred and fourteen miles; a train goes out every two weeks. The amount of money expended on the road up to the time the work was stopped was something like $14,000,000, and on the terminal at Port Nelson, nearly $6,000,000. It was shown on the evidence of the Deputy Minister of Railways, Mr. Bell, before the Senate committee which sat in 1920, that the balance of the $25,000,000 which had been estimated as the amount necessary to complete the whole work, would actually have completed it, terminals and all.
It is not my intention to discuss at great length on this occasion the feasibility of the project, because that has been established time and time again. The report of the Senate committee, in which the view was expressed that the project was feasible and would likely be profitable, was placed on Hansard by myself last year; I do not therefore, care to take up the time of the House now by going into it further. I would like, though, before leaving the question of the feasibility of the
scheme, to read a short extract from a speech delivered by Sir James Lougheed in the Senate on May 15, 1918. He said:
I have no doubt that when that road is completed, as completed it will be, it will be found of inestimable advantage to the development of that western country.
Further on he said:
Permit me to say that so far as the carriage of materials is concerned, construction work has not been proceeded with seriously since 1914, but in that year no less than 36 passages through the straits, through the bay, and through the estuary were successfully made, over 20,000 tons of freight for the construction of that road being carried. The ships which navigated the straits were not built for the ice traffic they were simply tramp steamers without any special constructive features for this particular navigation; yet during that year those ships, not at all adapted for the navigation of the waters in that Hudson straits, made no less than 36 passages. It seems to me that should be unanswerable evidence of this fact.
I would also like to read a short extract from a speech delivered by the late Hon. Frank Cochrane, who was Minister of Railways in the government of Sir Robert Borden. After making a personal inspection of the proposed route, this is what he had to say:
I have every faith in the scheme and I will push the Hudson Bay road for all I am worth. We intend to make this a good road-we have a four-tenth grade; we are using 80-pound rails. I believe the Hudson Bay route will mean much to the West in the way of lower freight rates.
If the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie) were here I would call his attention particularly to this:
Just consider how much cheaper iron, steel and coal, for instance, from Sydney, N.S. would be shipped to the prairie. It would be the greatest advantage to the East and I believe eastern opposition is dying out. We found the bay free from ice, in fact the only ice we saw to amount to anything were the bergs near Belle Isle where all the Atlantic steamers encounter them. The straits are very wide and with the aid of wireless I believe can be kept open for a long period. The early settlement in the North West was made through Hudson bay and straits and what sailing vessels have done steamships can accomplish with much more ease.
I think I am justified in dismissing that side of the argument. Taking it for granted that the feasibility of the undertaking has been demonstrated, and nothing to the contrary having been established, I think we can dismiss the argument in that respect. What I want to impress upon the House is the absolute necessity for more outlets.


Mr. CLARK:: How many months of the year would the route be open?
Mr. *KNOX: The senate committee state, from the evidence laid before them, that they consider that the route could be kept open four months of the year, and, with up-to-date appliances, probably much longer.
Hudson Bay Railway


John Arthur Clark: What are these months?


Andrew Knox: I believe they are July, August, September and October. And I would point out that these are the months during which it would be most beneficial to the western provinces for the route to be open, because it is during this period that the grass-fed cattle, which we hope we shall now be able to ship to the British markets in view of the removal of the embargo, would be ready for shipment overseas. And with the route open during these four months, we should have had during the past season two clear months for the shipment of grain. Grain was going to Port Arthur about the first of September, and if the route were open for these four months that have been mentioned, it will be seen that in the past season we could have had two clear months in which to ship grain. But we believe the route could be kept open much longer than that.
It will be observed that in the resolution I ask that the government shall:
-recognise the priority of this undertaking with reference to other transportation projects started subsequent to the Hudson Bay Railway.
Now it has been suggested to me that some people have interpreted this request to apply to branch lines.	I wish to point out at
once that I had no reference whatever to branch lines when wording this resolution, because I realize quite well that there are some branch lines in the West that are an absolute necessity at the present time; and I may say that there are some that are urgently needed in the constituency I represent. Although there are no better districts in the West than those which these branch lines would serve, at the same time I must say that unless these people obtain the necessary railway connection they will be compelled to pull up stakes and leave. I have in mind the line running north-east from Prince Albert to Paddock-wood, and the line extending from Melfort north-easterly. Let me emphasize the fact that there is no opposition between the branch lines and Hudson Bay line; they are both necessary. And there is no more relationship between these two classes of railways than there is between the branch lines and Welland canal or some of the.other big projects which have been started and which are consuming a great amount of money without giving any adequate return. As a matter of fact, the Hudson Bay railway is*not in the same position as these other undertakings, for the building of this railway was provided for by the sale of western lands which were especially earmarked for that purpose. The
[Mr Knox.]
road was intended to be built from the sale of these lands. Whether the proceeds will be enough to complete the project I cannot say, but I know that enough has been raised up to the present practically to cover all expenditures; and we believe that the amount still to be obtained from these sales will pretty nearly provide all that will be required to complete the road. I think that those who try to drag the branch lines into the discussion might just as well come out in their true colours and show themselves as being opposed to the scheme, because there is no connection whatever between the building of branch lines and the completion of this railway.
I have no quarrel with the Vancouver route, because	I know that	what we want
to-day are more outlets. It is imperative that the West especially should have more outlets than it has at present. The cost of getting our produce on the markets of the world is consuming the profits which formerly probably went to the producers. It is therefore absolutely essential that we should get more outlets. I want to say here that in spite of all we are passing through to-day I have every confidence that the West-and when I say the West I include British Columbia-has ahead of it such a future that it will be absolutely necessary to provide more outlets for its products. We know the congested state of the grain route last fall, and we hope that we shall be able in some measure to relieve that condition. It requires no great stretch of imagination on my part to foresee the time when the Pacific ports will not only be used as outlets for our own produce but will be utilized in connection with the trade from the Orient, which will be landed there and transhipped to the port of Nelson and thence across the ocean, thus effecting a saving in both time and expense in getting shipments from the Orient to European ports. The strongest argument in favour of the Hudson bay route in preference to any other is the short railway haul, which is necessarily the cheap haul, and in that connection I might give some of the distances. The distance from Winnipeg to Port Nelson is 892 miles as against a distance from Winnipeg to Montreal of 1,422, which shows a saving of 530 miles. Brandon is 870 miles from Nelson and 1,555 from Montreal, or a difference of 685 miles. Regina is 694 miles from Nelson, via Sturgis-the line is not yet quite completed-and to Montreal it is 1,78# miles, a saving of 1,086. Medicine Hat is 996 miles from Nelson and 2,082 from Montreal, a saving of 1,086 miles. Calgary is

Hudson Bay Railway
1,176 miles from Nelson and 2,262 from Montreal, a saving of 1,086 miles. Edmonton is 1,038 miles from Nelson and 2,247 from Montreal, a saving of 1,209 miles. Battleford is 766 miles from Port Nelson and 1,994 from Montreal, a saving of 1,228 miles. Saskatoon is 736 miles from Port Nelson and 1,924 from Montreal, a saving of 1,188 miles. Prince Albert is 670 miles from Port Nelson, and 1,958 from Montreal, a saving of 1,288 miles. The fertile Swan river valley in Manitoba and other good wheat producing areas are still nearer to Port Nelson.


Mr. MANION:: In regard to these figures, of course my hon. friend will admit that the distance to Montreal is less from a practical standpoint, due to the fact that much of the route is by water in the summer season?


Andrew Knox: Yes, Mr. Speaker; but I think my hon. friend .will admit that the distances to Nelson which I have shown are in nearly all cases less than the distances to Fort William and Port Arthur. However, even if they were the same to these respective points, it would enable us to eliminate the carrying charges on grain from Fort William to Montreal, which, during the past year, have been particularly heavy. The transhipping charges as well would be saved.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a net saving in freight rates by way of Hudson bay as compared with any other route?


Andrew Knox: If the freight rates are the same per mile as they are by any other route-and I see no reason why they should be higher-there certainly must be a great saving.
The ruling grade on this road is particularly good-only four-tenths. Besides this favourable feature, the natural watershed of the prairies is towards the bay, so the route would be practically all down grade, but in any case there is nothing worse than a four-tenth grade, and, with 80-pound steel, we have one of the best roads for carrying grain that can be found on the continent.


Mr. EULER:: Would the hon. member contend that the shipping charges after reaching Port Nelson or Fort Churchill are as low as those from Montreal?


Andrew Knox: We have really nothing to go on at the present time, but we see no reason why there should be any difference. We fully expect there would be a higher insurance rate at the beginning, but the elimination of so much rail transportation would far more than offset this extra expense.
Now, as to the sentiment in the West in regard to the completion of this road. I need only point out that the legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan after fully debating the matter have both passed resolutions urging that the Dominion government complete this work. The organized farmers-the United Farmers and Frain Growers' associations-in all three of the prairie provinces have passed similar resolutions. I have copies of resold tions passed by many boards of trade in the West, by the Associated Boards of Trade of Saskatchewan and by numerous other organizations. There can be no question about the sentiment in the West in relation to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
I could quote many extracts from western papers, but I do not think it necessary to do so. In fact I am confident that before the debate closes the House will be convinced that the West means business in this matter. In proof of that statement I would point to the resentment which was expressed in the West when the order was given last fall to lift one hundred miles of rail from this road. Happily that order was countermanded. I should like, however, to read two short extracts from eastern papers which go to show that even in the East the importance of this railway is not overlooked. The Toronto Star some six weeks ago contained the following editorial:
More grain last year poured into Port Arthur and Fort William by rail, and poured out of there by boat than ever before. But the cost per bushel to the western farmer of getting his wheat from his front gate to the docks at Liverpool is regarded by him as a handicap almost fatal to his hope of success.
The West wants and needs cheaper access to Europe with her grain. How is it to be had? Competition with grain from everywhere fixes the price of Canadian wheat at Liverpool; the railways and boats fix the price of hauling the grain to Liverpool; the producer of the grain gets what's left. It isn't enough. What the western grain growers see in this Hudson Bay route is that in shipping their grain to Europe they can cut out the long haul from Fort William to Montreal and place their farms as near tidewater as the farms of their competitors in Australia, Argentine find southern Russia.
Isn't it too splendid a possibility to be left untried, or abandoned when so nearly completed? The West is growing insistent about this enterprise and eastern Canada must consider it seriously. Canada has not at Montreal a large enough spout for the trade she has to pour out and will have to pour out in the future.
The other extract is from the Port Arthur News Chronicle, and I would particularly draw the attention of my hon. friend for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to the following;
In ordering the stripping of the road of rails and material the government has flown into the face of the West. It is- not surprising that the West looks with suspicion and fear upon the attitude the government has adopted towards the Hudson Bay road. Whether
Hudson Bay Railway

we believe the road will prove a failure or success is beside the question. The whole matter may be concentrated into the statement that the West wants the Hudson Bay Railway and will never be satisfied until it gets it. Give them what they want. It will not break Canada, the few millions that are required, and it will do more to remove western suspicions of eastern motives than anything else in the world.
If this only were the result it would be worth far more than all the completion of the road will cost. The eastern provinces can form no conception of how fierce is the demand of the west for the Hudson Bay Railway. That road must be completed and an appropriation of the necessary funds for that purpose should be made at the forthcoming session of parliament.


Robert James Manion: If I may interrupt my
hon. friend for a moment-I do not wish him to think that I am opposing the completion of this railway; I. was merely trying to elucidate the point regarding comparative distances.


Andrew Knox: I quite understand that, Mr. Speaker, I also have a short quotation from an Old Country paper, the Monthly Trade Review of London. This appeared in its issue of November, 1917-not of recent date, it is true, but it is interesting as indicating the view taken in England:
. At the moment, when the Canadian government is pressing forward the completion of the new railway from The Pas to Port Nelson on Hudson's bay as a new outlet for the gigantic wheat fields of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it is opportune to focus attention on an undertaking which will need every encouragement and support from the home government.
Canada's prairies to-day are the crucible of the nations, the imperial granary, the nearest and most prolific wheat-producing areas of the empire. What, therefore, can be done to ensure that they shall be developed for enormously increased supplies remunerative to the Canadian fanner and making the Briton's bread at home secure and more reasonable in price ?
The most direct and practical answer is, develop transportation-transportation on the railways and lakes of Canada and transportation from Dominion ports to the ports of the United Kingdom. The completion of the state railway from The Pas to Port Nelson on Hudson bay and the est ablishment of a line of grain-carrying and other ships by the Hudson strait route is the beginning, therefore, of a movement of enormous importance, both to Canada and to the United Kingdom.
It is evident from this, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Old Land are not unmindful of the importance of the wheat-growing provinces of the Dominion and realize that they are within much easier reach of tide-water ^nd much nearer the Old Land than the present route would suggest.
A few days ago the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) instanced the cost of transporting a steer from Saskatoon to Liverpool-$51 and some cents. Since then I have been making a little investigation, and I find that the portion of that amount which would be attributable to the rail haul from Saska-

toon to Montreal would be something like $18. Applying that to the rail haul from Saskatoon to Nelson, at the same rate there would be a saving of something like $12. But that is not all. The shrinkage on such a rail haul amounts to at least five per cent. The average shrinkage between Winnipeg and Montreal is between three and five per cent, and the longer the haul the greater the shrinkage. The shrinkage, therefore, between Saskatoon to Montreal is easily five per cent. Now, five per cent is a very important item in connection with the price which the farmer would receive, and adding that to the saving on the rail haul which I have just mentioned, we can easily see that there would be a great saving if we could cut off something like twelve or thirteen hundred miles of rail haul. If we could save only $10 per head on these cattle to the farmer who produced them, I want to emphasize that that would mean the difference between success and failure to the stock industry of the West to-day. We in the West have been urged to go into mixed farming; it has been said that we cannot possibly succeed ' by continuing with grain alone. Now that the embargo has been lifted I see a great opportunity for bringing the stock industry into something like the condition we had some years ago, but unless something of this nature can be done the stock industry is doomed in the West. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I have a right to know because I am interested along that line myself.
Along with the shipment of our beef, we have also our dairy products, and a number of other products which will benefit very, very largely if we can make this route work out as we believe it will work out.
There is one other point I would like to make, and it is this. The Ontario government at the present time is projecting a. line of railway to the southern extremity of James bay. We in the West are determinedly looking forward to the completion of the Hudson bay lines, thereby giving us 'connection with that great Canadian sea at the other side. When these are both accomplished .facts, we shall have something more in common with the East, and I believe that is urgently needed at the present time. We also look forward to the development of great natural resources in that country, a development which I believe would justify the completion of the road even if the route to the Old Country was never opened up. The resources of that north country are something wonderful. We have assurances of that from every man who has gone up there, and we

Hudson Bay Railway
look forward to the development of these great resources.
Speaking on this subject last year I expressed myself as somewhat doubtful if the proper selection had been made of the port, but since that time I have convinced myself that the port of Nelson will supply all the necessary requirements of a shipping port.
I was confirmed in this view by a conversation which I had with a gentleman who was in charge of the machinery for several years while working at the bay. This man informed me that there would be ample room and ample protection for the shipping there and for .the ships which would lie at the harbour. The harbour was being constructed alongside the main channel, and he said that it would be a crime to abandon the work which had already been done, and which was still standing up well. Consequently I am convinced that the government should carry on the work which has been in progress there. As I pointed out before, there is 80-pound steel on the road, and the grade is four-tenths.
To sum up, I would just like to say that this project has been found feasible after repeated investigations, and nothing has ever transpired to prove it otherwise. The people of the prairies claim the completion of this road as their right and as a national enterprise. Money was provided for it by the sale of lands in the West especially set aside for that purpose. We believe there is no great opposition to the road except possibly among a few doubting Thomases and those who may be directly interested. Conditions demand that if we can get a shorter and a cheaper route to the European markets we must take advantage of it, and this fact is all the more emphasized since the tariff barrier has been increased between us and the United States market. We believe that with an increase in the British preference, coupled with this shorter and cheaper route, much of the handicap imposed upon us by the American tariff would disappear, and that a better, brighter day would dawn for the western provinces and incidentally for the whole of Canada.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: It is usual
for the opponents of the Hudson Bay railway to magnify the usual difficulties of the engineer and the navigator into insuperable obstacles. I am reminded of an incident which occurred during the original survey of the railway. The engineers came to a soft place that required considerable filling. Of course, the engineers took it as part of their ordinary day's work, but a certain eastern journal, which I think is still hostile to the project, immediately announced that the engineers
had come to a standstill before a bottomless bog. The matter was taken up in this House, and it was found that the bottomless bog had no existence except in the mind of the editor of that journal.
Before I go on to deal with the feasibility of the route, w'hich I think is a very important, in fact, a crucial matter, I want to say a few words as to the question of expediency as it has been applied to this matter. We of the West, Mr. Speaker, have sometimes had an uneasy feeling that we have been bamboozled by this plea of expediency. Up to 1917 it was thought expedient by two successive governments which to all appearances entered upon this enterprise with the feeling that they were doing sc^in the national interest-up to that time I say two successive governments spent over $20,000,000 upon the enterprise. Then suddenly in 1918 it was thought expedient to close down the whole thing, and from' that time onward it was thought expedient to neglect the work done, to allow it to deteriorate and decay; and to crown everything, it was found expedient last fall to add human devices of demolition to those of nature, and to make an attempt to blot the whole thing out of the remembrance of man. During all that time yearly expenditures were made, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, upon other projects which had not one whit more claim than the Hudson Bay railway had. One is disposed to exclaim: "Oh expediency what wrongs have been committed in thy name! " and we of the W est feel that there is a good deal of explanation to be made on that score. So much for the plea for expediency.
What has been the actual condition in regard to this matter financially? The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has referred to this. The impression that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway up to date has run the country into a debt of something like twenty millions, with enormous interest charges, is, of course, >
totally false. I think it is well understood in the House here, that every cent that went into construction was paid out of current revenue, and that current revenue was amply reimbursed by the provision which the hon. member (Mr. Knox) has referred to-that is the setting aside of certain lands, certain homesteads and preemptions. So the plea of economy can only apply to the small amount it would have taken to complete the route; and I think it can scarcely be denied that four or five millions, or six millions, would have been ample to have placed the Hudson bay route in a condition that would have allowed of an operation of at least an experimental kind.
Hudson Bay Railway

Therefore, the amount of saving that has been accomplished amounts to that four or five million dollars spread over two or three years; and when you set that over against the amount of deterioration that has taken place in four or five years one fails to see where the saving comes in. There is an old saying that "a dollar saved is a dollar earned"; but in this case a dollar "saved" was a dollar wasted.
Now, let me deal more particularly with the question of feasibility, for I know that in the minds of certain members there is some doubt as to the feasibility of this route, although it is a matter that has been discussed for a good many years. I want to say that the sources of what may be termed exact knowledge concerning the feasibility of the Hudson bay route consist of the reports of the several expeditions that have been sent out by successive governments. - A vast amount of money has been spent, at one time and another, in sending out competent people, properly equipped, to ascertain the truth about this route. It is no use contending that the governments-the Liberal government and the Conservative government-undertook this thing for purely political reascms, and went into it blindly and inadvisedly, because there is evidence that is readily accessible to show that all the material facts were at hand, and those facts are very well set forth in these reports. Now the more important of these reports are * the Gordon report of 18845-6, the Wakeham report of 1897, and the repdrts of of the Hydrographic surveys under Captain Anderson, and others, from 1910 to 1914. I know that attempts have been made, at times, to discredit these reports. Partisan zeal has sometimes led people to try to discredit these reports, but I say that any candid student of them must admit their great value, and, I would add, to a certain extent their finality. The evidence which they give is cumulative and progressively convincing, and you cannot get away from it. They vary as regards details but on essential points they pretty nearly all agree. I think they may be taken as being trustworthy, and practically nearly all that you need to consult-I think they may be said to be a compendium of all that can be said for or against this route. Another thing I might interject is this-that these reports have an added value because they contain, embedded within them, all the available unofficial evidence, evidence that has been gleaned for a long period from sea captains, from Hudson's Bay Company officials, and from others that are qualified to fMr. Bird.]
speak. All this evidence is to be found in these reports.
Now, having carefully studied these reports the conclusion I have come to-and I hope my bias in favour of this route has not in any way interfered with my judgment; I do not think it has-is that, as was stated a few moments ago, the months of reasonably safe navigation are July, August, September and October. Indeed, in some favourable years you may add part of June and a part of November to that period. The opening and the closing of the straits for navigation depends upon the Arctic stream of ice, coming from Baffin's bay, which closes the eastern entrance to the straits from the latter part of November to early in July. . In the early part of July, usually in the first week of that month, the ice opens out and permits steamers to enter, and the date of that opening is fairly constant. Reports that extend away back for two hundred years show that the first week of July is a fairly constant date for the opening of the straits. Sometimes, indeed, steamers can go in there in the middle of June and instances of this having been done can be quoted. The closing of the straits is also pretty constant and takes place every year about the last week in November, although sometimes the closing is extended ' to December, and in some cases the beginning of January, on one or two occasions in fact the straits might have been cleared in the first week in January. These are the facts concerning the navigation of the straits, and although I believe that on the west end of the straits the Fox channel ice is a factor, yet from the evidence given it cannot be said that the Fox channel ice governs the navigation of the straits. Whatever you prove of the eastern end of the straits applies to the western end also. In establishing this, one does not contend that the route is such that it will not require a certain amount of adaptation on our part. The difficulties are great of their kind, but they are not at all insuperable. They can be overcome. They have been overcome and are being overcome. The reports of Captain Anderson of the Hydrographic survey prove that with every successive season of investigation something of value is discovered concerning the navigation of the straits, and perhaps the most instructive thing is this: that in 1911 when the Minto went into the straits it had a very difficult passage and suffered considerable damage, but in 1912 under similar conditions the Minto, benefiting from its previous season's experience, went in and made the passage with the

Hudson Bay Railway
greatest of success. Another matter that is very-instructive is the experiences of different steamers in the same season and at the same time. These experiences which are in documentary form can be examined and are very instructive. For instance at one time the Acadia was hopelessly stuck in the ice between Mansell island and Coats island, and yet practically at the same time the Bona-venture found a passage five miles wide at the same place. In the eastern end of the straits Captain Anderson-I think it was in 1914- was badly stuck in the ice, and at exactly the same time there was a fleet of five ships, including the Sheba which is an ordinary unprotected tramp steamer, went through unscathed. So that you see these incidents prove that with every season of navigation something new is learned, and the conviction that comes to one is that continued investigation with its accumulated experience, and with the advantage of modern methods, the navigation of those straits will be increasingly safe and practicable.
Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the Senate report of three years ago. Now I will admit the weakness of that report from an argumentative point of view. It has its limitations. That has to be conceded, but I think it was an honest attempt to co-ordinate all existing evidence on material points. One of the things I might refer to briefly is the fact that it confirms unequivocally the opinion that has prevailed for over a generation that the straits are navigable for at least four months of the year, and the only point on which it is inconclusive is that respecting the comparative merits of the two ports. I want to interject a word here to show this much disputed question of the comparative merits of the two ports is not such that it need retard the completion of the Hudson bay route. The choice that exists between them is not very important. Take, for instance, the initial cost. There are some figures in existence that were given by the present hon. Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham), I think in 1909 or 1910, showing the comparative estimates for these two ports. The estimate for Churchill was over $4,000,000 more than the estimate for Nelson; that is, for the initial expenditure. Then with regard to operation, does it not seem reasonable that the additional mileage that would be required at Churchill would cost at least as much as the dredging that would be necessary from year to year at Port Nelson?	*
As to the question of terminals, we have been told on official authority that development at Churchill on a small experimental
scale would be no more favourable than at Nelson, and at Port Nelson, development on a big scale would be distinctly favourable. I would not have hon. members forget also that $6,000,000 had been spent on Nelson harbour, that the railway had been headed in that direction and is nearly completed to Nelson. As to navigation of these ports, I may say that it is a delicate matter for a layman to deal with. One does not even begin to understand the technical words used, but I think it is self evident that, from the point of view of natural accessibility, Churchill has the advantage. Nature meant it for a port. But then the difficulties that are associated with Nelson are not insuperable, and by no means formidable. Before any survey was made it was not difficult for a skilled mariner to approach the port, and an accurate survey exists to-day. It has been properly charted, and with the addition of the necessary buoys and beacons, and perhaps, radial stations, the accessibility of Nelson will be beyond the shadow of a doubt. Without expressing any personal bias in either direction, I simply want to point out that the choice between these two ports is not such that it need retard the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
I would like to say a word as to the desirability and urgency of this route. I do not know whether I should detain the House by giving some idea as to the enormous natural wealth that exists in the country bordering on the Hudson Bay railway, but in a brief way, without giving many figures, or reading many quotations, I think I can convey to the House some idea as to the natural wealth that does exist there, which certainly some day will be a contributing factor to any railway that runs into that region. Taking the country that is already traversed by the Hudson Bay railway, beginning at ' Mile 82, we find that wonderful country called The Pas mineral belt. It commences a few miles west of Mile 82 and stretches to the Saskatchewan border. In that district there have been invested in the last few years over $2,000,000. At one period during the war $2,000,000 worth of copper was taken out of one mine under most difficult conditions. The area called The Pas mineral belt is rich not only in copper but in gold, and has big promise for the future.
Then, if you proceed to Mile 130, you enter that large area-I think it is 10,000 square miles-of valuable agricultural land-good clay land that is capable of producing and ripening wheat. That alone is a consideration that ought to have influence. Then, proceeding from that valuable agricultural area toward the bay, the railway actually
Hudson Bdy Railway

parallels-indeed, twice crosses-the Nelson river with its wonderful water-power potentialities. At the very place where the railway crosses the Nelson river, Kettle rapids, there is a possibility of developing over 1,000,000 horse-power. That northern country is perhaps richer than any other place in Canada in that respect, with possibly one or two exceptions.


Mr. GOOD:: What about the development of water-power in the winter time at those places?


Thomas William Bird: I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Nelson is a mighty river; it is one of the biggest in the world, and has a very strong current. While I have not investigated the matter in detail, I believe the government reports refer to minimum flow in connection with this potential power development. I suppose that means that it is the flow all the year round.


William Findlay Maclean: May I interpose an answer to the question? I was talking with Sir Adam Beck less than two weeks ago, and he tells me that it would be possible to generate over" 4,000,000 horse-power on that slope to Hudson bay. That power can be used for the mining country to the north all the year round, as well as for the railway.


Thomas William Bird: I have seen the total available horse-power in the north of Manitoba estimated as over 6,000,000; I think the government report gives it at about $3,000,000. All that power is adjacent to the Hudson Bay railway and may be utilized at points where the railway crosses the river. In addition to these major resources there are minor ones, such as fur, fish, and possibly pulp, which will in a smaller way be contributing factors to the traffic that will some day maintain the Hudson Bay railway.
' When we get beyond the railway we have the Hudson bay. Although the extent of the resources of the bay itself is somewhat problematical, it is the only means of access to an area in Canada comprising over 2,000,000 square miles-an area the extent of which almost baffles the imagination. I say that the Hudson Bay is the onl}' means of access to this vast territory which everywhere show's signs of being richly mineralized. This is not imagination; it is not especially got up for the purpose of debate. To prove that, I will read my only quotation; it is from Dr. Corless. President of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, an utterance he made only last year. He said:
We can well afford to stand off for a few moments in order to try to estimate the probable significance to

mining of the enormous region surrounding Hudson bay, with an area of 2,000,000 square miles, occupying considerably over one-half the entire surface of Canada.
I will summarize by saying that Dr. Corless emphasizes the fact that not 10 per cent of this area has been investigated and that only a small proportion of that 10 per cent has been thoroughly investigated. ' But the result of the investigations made goes to prove that this vast area is very similar to the area in northern Ontario that has already produced such vast wealth for this country. Further on he says:
Fortunately, enough is known to make reasonably certain that the broad average formations of the less known parts will closely resemble those of the part already more fully examined. In the only parts where any detailed geological examination and prospecting have been carried out there have already been discovered fabulously rich deposits of iron, nickel, gold and silver containing many thousands of millions (billions) of dollars in gross value of these metals.
If anyone desires further information respecting the character of that country I would commend to his perusal a publication issued by the Department of the Interior in 1914, entitled The Unexploited West. It would make all of us better Canadians if we knew that this vast country, equal, as Dr. Corless says, to one-half the total area of Canada, and often represented on our maps by a blank, is not totally devoid of use, but is full of splendid possibilities. And the only key to that area is the Hudson Bay railway.
I would like for a moment to divert my remarks to the accumulated traditions that have gathered around this route during centuries of adventure and of trade. From the splendid old sea-dogs of Queen Bess right down to the modem Yankee whaler, there have been those who from one motive or another have been prepared to brave the obstacles of this route. In those days it was , not only the play writer who was of such stuff as dreams are made of, but every bluff sea-master who went down to the sea, sometimes to do grim business, was animated with vision. It is often difficult to know which to admire most, their splendid seamanship or their visionary power. Such men as Frobisher and Davis and Hudson dreamed of Cathay and the route thither, and dreaming of it were able to accomplish things that they could not otherwise have accomplished. Those northern waters had a fascination for them; they played upon their imaginations in such a way that unconsciously they began the process by which Canada has become what it is to-day. We would not know Canada as it is now had it not been for the vision of those brave men of old. The spirit of those olden times speaks to us now;

Hudson Bay Railway
It has been enshrined imperishably in story by such men as Hakluyt and to-day it is voiced in thrilling song by such men as Sir Henry Newbolt, from whom we had the privilege of a visit the other day. Sir Henry Newbolt is Britain's finest interpreter of the spirit of those early days; through his verse it seems to call to us like a "far bell a-ring-ing," imploring us not to become urbanized and sophisticated, not to allow ourselves to suffer the blight of soul in which vision perishes and heroic effort languishes.
Coming down to a later time, we find this route associated with traders who for generations enriched themselves through its natural wealth and associated' with their prowess was the vigorous contention of the nations of Europe.
I would pause here just to express my appreciation of the decision arrived at by the Department of Interior to preserve for all time to come Fort Prince of Wales on the shores of Hudson bay. There it stands and will continue to stand, we hope, for all time as mute evidence of what this bay and this region meant to minds of the eighteenth century. Surely a route which the ill-equipped Elizabethan seamen conquered, which has enriched generations of traders, and for which nations have contended, has something for the imagination of the Canadian of to-day.
Returning again to the urgency of this route I want to say that for the West it is primarily a matter of transportation. The western farmer has slowly realized that the profits of his toil from year to year are fated to be continually precarious; and that fact has worked upon the mind of the western farmer and the residents of the West generally. The western farmer has felt himself in recent years constantly ground between the upper and nether millstones of high cost of production and high cost of marketing. With respect to the high cost of production, he scarcely knows to-day whether the fiscal system, against which he has protested so many years, or the financial system is his greatest enemy. If he has as much success in attacking the financial system as he has had in attacking the fiscal system a great deal of sympathy is coming to him. With respect to marketing, last session something like a gleam of hope came into the breast of the western farmer, although I am afraid it was almost entirety illusory. He asked the Dominion government for a wheat board and it was granted him, but granted him grudgingly and with much opposition, and, I am afraid, in such a way that it will never be of any use to him. And then as to transportation, he did get some satisfaction, but he had the
chagrin last season of seeing the advantage filched from him by the predatory interests of the Great Lakes. Now, it is this hopeless fight in order to stabilize the products of his toil that has worked upon the mind of the western farmer; and it explains to a large extent the phenomenal revival of interest in Hudson bay which took place last winter. The farmer realizes that this fight is almost hopeless, and the Hudson Bay railway fascinates him because he thinks, and rightly I believe, that it offers at least a partial remedy for the malady of distance from which he suffers. And distance to the western farmer is a malady. It is a blight, just as much as the rust on his wheat is a blight, just as much as foot and mouth disease would be in his cattle; and a few million dollars that the Dominion government might expend in removing this blight would bring a benefit not only to western Canada, but to the entire Dominion.


Charles Marcil: Has the hon. member considered what effect the opening of this route would have on the Canadian National railways?


Thomas William Bird: Well, I have not; other considerations have had precedence ip my mind; and having watched the writhings of the western farmer upon the grill of economic conditions during the last few years I think his case has a right to have precedence over the National railways. I believe a way could be found to solve the problem of the National railways, but in the meantime I think the western farmer has a right to go ahead and deliver himself in the most speedy manner he can. The western farmer has come to the point where he sees in the Hudson Bay railway a gleam of hope denied him in other quarters, and the reason is that the Hudson Bay railway brings his farm, his cattle and his grain just one thousand miles nearer to his market. I have read somewhere that the Parisian truck farmer, when he goes from, one farm to another, takes his soil with him. He digs it up and carries it away to the new farm. Suppose the western farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta could dig up that wonderful soil of theirs and transport it one thousand miles nearer Liverpool, imagine what that would mean to them. You will see, then, why they insist on this thing. In conclusion, let me refer to another aspect of the question which is not quite so tangible as those I have dealt with, but which is just as important, and that is the psychological effect that the completion of the Hudson Bay railway would have on the western farmer. We have heard recently some talk about the discontent of the
Hudson Bay Railway

West in comparison with the contentment of the East. I imagine that the placidity of eastern conditions has been somewhat exaggerated; and I am convinced also that the discontent of the West has been misinterpreted. I think that trivial causes have been alleged to explain that discontent. But the real causes are not trivial; they go to the very roots of western life. The fact is that the West, like every other spot on earth, has been endowed by Providence with certain advantages and certain disadvantages. And this is what has happened. Under the pretext of a national policy, in the name of Canada, we have ruthlessly cut through natural conditions, emphasizing in every case the disadvantage and nullifying the advantage. That is what we have done in the name of a national policy. Shut out absolutely from its natural outlet to the south; its outlet to the east preyed upon by the bold, bad, barons of the " Big Sea-waters ", and its only outlet to the north too often made the sport of political caprice, you cannot expect the West to be content under conditions of that kind. No intelligent and vigorous people ever have been content under such conditions. The West suffers from its isolation and it knows it. Buried, so to speak, in the depths of a continent,-people who live in the East cannot realize what this means-and with no outlet "to the outside world except such precarious ones as are controlled by other people, how can you expect the West to be content? The sentiment which an isolated people develops towards its natural outlets is the most potent sentiment that can actuate any people; and to tamper with it, to make it a political question, to refuse it in the supposed interest of any other section of Canada, is almost utter recreancy to the best interests of the Dominion as a whole.
We often hear-at least I have heard more often during the past year than ever before- irresponsible talk about separation. There is a stirring in the tops of the mulberry trees which our statesihen would do well to n6te before it becomes a tornado. Now if, this irresponsible talk be folly, it is only surpassed by one other folly-the constant refusal of this spontaneous and universal aspiration of the West. I repeat, its refusal under any pretext whatsoever is a species .of folly that surpasses even the folly that I have mentioned almost under my breath.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with a great deal of interest to the excellent speeches of both the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) with regard to the possibilities and

the feasibility of the Hudson bay route. Before dealing with the question I should like to say that as far as I am personally concerned I have a great deal of sympathy with the aspirations of the western people. On one subject which is very close to our hearts -the tariff-I think I would go almost as far as they would. I realize too the handicaps under which they suffer by having to bring their grain and other farm products such a long distance by rail to reach the European markets. We in the Maritime provinces suffer just the same in that we are kept out of our great market to the south, with the result that any goods we might find an outlet for in Quebec, Ontario or the western provinces we cannot very well sell on account of the high freight rates. So in any remarks I shall make I want my friends to understand that my sympathies are entirely with the West, and if I thought for one moment that this Hudson bay route was feasible I would support the resolution.
Now, Sir, it seems to me that this matter may be dealt with in three phases. The first is, whether it is feasible to build the line of railway from The Pas to the terminal at Hudson bay. I think everything any government can do should be done for the people of northern Manitoba. If, as the hon. member for Nelson says, there are great possibilities of development in that part of the province, and if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the railway authorities, of parliament and of the government, that it would be wise for the line to be completed, then I think the work should be undertaken. But I cannot deal with this phase of the question satisfactorily because I do not know very much about it.
The second phase I should like to discuss is the feasibility or otherwise of the water route from the terminals at Port Nelson to Europe. As the hon. members have both said, a great deal has been written in the past two years in regard to this route. The hon. member for Nelson quoted what Captain Anderson, who was out there for several years, wrote with regard to the Hudson bay and strait. I have under my hand his various reports from 1911 to 1915, and I intend to deal with them in a few minutes. The hon. member for Nelson said that some years this route was navigable for four or five months of the year, and he added that during that period whilst one vessel could not get in for a long time another vessel came in a day or two afterwards without any difficulty. If the hon. member had had the slight experience I had in the ice fields for

Hudson Bay Railway
about two seasons he would understand exactly what that meant. In my opinion it was a very poor argument in support of his case because it proved that the bay was full of ice at the time both these steamers attempted to get in. While one was jammed in the ice, the other vessel, perhaps on account of pressure of wind from a certain direction making a lead in the ice, was enabled to get through. I have under my hand some photographs taken of Hudson bay, showing ice conditions there, from 1911 to 1915, and if any hon. gentleman thinks that the Hudson bay route is feasible for ordinary steamers, then after looking at these photographs I am confident he will change his opinion. In every one of these photographs where the Minto, the Acadia, the Bonaventure and the Boethic are trying to get through the ice, it will be observed that this ice is not merely five or six inches thick, but extends to a thickness of ten or twelve feet, and it is impossible for any steamers to get through such a solid obstruction without a great deal of difficulty.


Andrew Knox: Has the hon. member never seen conditions of the same kind in the straits of Belle Isle?


William Duff: Yes. If my hon. friend and I could this afternoon travel by aeroplane to the Isle-au-Bois, in the straits of Belle Isle we would find the channel completely blocked with ice. If we went down to Quebec this afternoon we would find there that although the lower reaches of the St. Lawrence right down to the straits are blocked with ice, at Quebec it is possible for any vessel to get part way to Montreal by working her way through what is known as drift ice. So although a ship may be able to navigate a way through the ice flows, out in the mouth of the strait near Button island and cape Chidley practically throughout the whole year the ice blocks that strait. It is quite true that after a southwestern gale when the wind blows at a high velocity for four or five days the ice is shoved away over to the northeastern side, and if a vessel arrives at that particuliar time she is able to work her way into Hudson strait and reach the bay.
My hon. friend from Nelson said that if this railway was completed and the terminals built the farmers of the West would be a thousand miles nearer their market than they are at the present time. That is quite true so far as distance is concerned but he forgot to take into consideration the fact that even if steamers were able to get into the bay and take aboard their cargoes they would be two or three days longer navigating out past cape Chidley, even 67
if there was little or no ice. The captains would not navigate their ships after dark fearing ice conditions. Consequently there would be so much more time taken in navigating the passage which would offset the saving in distance. I might say that the photographs to which I referred were taken during the months of July and August, right in the height of the season when if this route was at all feasible there would be no ice in the bay or the strait yet every one of these photographs shows a heavy field of ice covering practically the whole of the bay.
The hon. member for Nelson said that if they could get the railway built to Hudson bay and the terminals constructed a route would be established between Hudson bay and Fjurope which would be a great thing for the western country. I do not think it would make very much difference. If parliament and the government decided to complete this road and make a test of this route, what would we have to do? In the first place, after the railway had reached Port Nelson, which it has been acknowledged here is better than Fort Churchill for the purpose of terminal facilities, it would be necessary to construct there docks and terminals. I am told by men with whom I have talked, and who have worked in Hudson bay for several seasons on the dredges, that it is practically impossible to get proper dockage facilities at that place, and for several reasons. The first reason is that although $6,000,000 has been spent practically all on dredging at Port Nelson, yet to-day there is very little if any more water there than there was when the dredging started. It is also a well-known fact that it would be necessary to build miles of terminals, not miles in width but in length, because the water at Port Nelson where the railway is supposed to end is very shallow. The result is that perhaps miles of dockage would require to be constructed. That would take a large sum of money.
But even when these docks were constructed I am told that the current coming down the Nelson river is so strong and the velocity of the wind in Hudson bay so high most of the time, that it wbuld be practically impossible to hold these vessels to the dock for loading and unloading except in very unusual weather for that part of the country. My hon. friend perhaps knows himself that in Hudson bay we hardly ever get summer breezes. The wind blows at a terrific rate of speed practically every day, and what with the strong current coming down the Nelson river and the wind and undertow from the northwest blowing across these docks where the steamers would

Hudson Bay Railway

lie, it would be almost impossible, I am told, to hold them at the docks for loading.
But supposing all these difficulties were overcome. What next do we have to contend with? I think everybody will agree with me that the ordinary cargo steamer would not be suitable for this route on account of the ice conditions. A special kind of ship would have to be constructed and especially strengthened from the bow to the fore rigging and perhaps further aft. These steamers, of course would cost very much more than the ordinary tramp steamer or cargo boat and as they would only be able to operate in Hudson bay, as my hon. friend himself says, for four months at most during the summer, what would they do during the other eight months of the year? They would not be practical business carriers for this reason: They would cost about twice as much as the ordinary boat to build, and when they went into competition with other steamers on other routes after they had finished their charters on the Hudson bay route for four months, in order to pay dividends and even make expenses they would have to get higher freight rates than competing boats. It would be impossible to let these boats after only four months on the Hudson bay route lie up for the rest of the year. It is hard enough now for people in the shipping business to make both ends meet with their boats running twelve months in the year instead of only four. Consequently, I say that unless my hon. friends expect the government to build these steamers and spend large sums of money in building proper dockage facilities no shipping man is going to invest in boats which would have to be specially constructed for the Hudson bay route.
If the government did construct these boats, or if shipping men did, "what would be the result then? I think every hon. gentleman will agree with me that no boats are going into a dangerous business, no steamers would go over this route unless when their charters were made with their agents or with the railway companies, they were guaranteed a higher freight rate than if the Hudson bay were all clear of ice and they could go in and out night as well as day without any difficulty. Consequently, special steamers having to be constructed, operating only four months in the year and demanding a higher freight rate, the insurance companies also asking a higher freight rate both on the steamer and cargo, my hon. friends would find that instead of getting lower freight rates than at the present time the freight rate on the Hudson bay route would be much higher than the rate via Quebec, Montreal, St. John or Halifax.

I think it is unnecessary for me to say much more. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) has referred to what Captain Anderson had to say about this route. I do not wish to weary the House by quoting at length, but I hold in my hand Captain Anderson's report for the year 1914, and I shall give a few extracts to show what he thinks of the feasibility of the Hudson bay route. He says:
After clearing the ice about Belle Isle, the course followed was from 75 to 100 miles off shore and little or no ice was seen until we hauled in for cape Chidley, on Sunday the 19th.
That is the 19th of July. Cape Chidley is the cape outside of Hudson bay.
At 3 a.m. light winter ice was entered and passed through without difficulty until 7 a.m., when about 90 miles southeast from cape Chidley and 60 miles off shore, heavy winter and Arctic ice was entered, making progress slow and hazardous. Later in the day, the rudder received damage by coming in contact with a large pan while "backing up" and the ship was hove to for repairs.
Backing up means that when the steamer cannot get through the ice she has to back, up in the water behind her and go ahead a second time.


Mr. SHAW:: What was the name of that
boat?


William Duff: The Acadia, but I can also quote from the experiences of the Bcethic, the Minto and the Bonaventure. It goes on:
It was found that the rudder stock had been twisted, necessitating the removal of the quadrant and cutting a new key slot. This operation took the remainder of the day and the night.
The ice fields appeared very extensive, no open water being visible from the mast-head. The steamer Bonaventure, chartered by the Department of Railways and Canals for carrying supplies to the Hudson bay terminus at Port Nelson, was picked up by wireless and reported that Bhe was icebound about 25 miles southest of the Button island.
The Bonaventure was icebound about twenty-five miles away from the other steamer, showing conclusively that this was a very extensive field of ice covering practically the whole of Hudson bay.


Robert Alexander Hoey: You mean Hudson strait.


William Duff: The water outside Hudson
bay.


Mr. BANCROFT:: The location the hon.
member is speaking of is Hudson strait, which is a good many miles from the bay.


William Duff: How can you get into the
bay unless you pass through the strait?


Leland Payson Bancroft: I did not understand
the hon. gentleman was arguing that.


William Duff: I do not quite understand
what my hon. friend is driving at. I am saying

Hudson Bay Railway
that the ice conditions were such that these steamers were jammed there for a considerable time, whether it was in the Hudson bay or the Hudson strait.


Mr. FORKE:: It is the strait.


William Duff: What difference does it make? The steamer must pass through the strait before it gets to the bay.


Mr. IRVINE:: Unless it comes in on the
railroad.


William Duff: I did not quite catch my
hon. friend's remark. Captain Anderson goes on:
On the following morning, Monday, 20th July, a move was attempted, but with little success, as it was not safe to try and force a passage in such heavy ice and so closely packed.


Mr. MARTELL:: Was not the steamer
Bonaventure that is referred to formerly a Newfoundland sealing boat specially constructed for ice conditions?


William Duff: It belonged to the Newfoundland sealing fleet and was sold to the Department of Railways and Canals for the special purpose of trying to get into Hudson bay. Here is another extract:
From this date until the 30th of the month-July- the ship was more or less hemmed in by the ice pack, which apparently extended to the land. Though able to make an occasional move of a few miles, there was little gain as the southerly Arctic current would carry the ship back again.
The general position was about forty miles off shore and sixty miles S.E. of cape Chidley. During a gale from the south-east, considerable swell entered the ice pack and made a very uncomfortable berth with huge pans of ice bumping and scraping against the. sides of the ship, however, we finally succeeded in securing the ship to a large pan in such a way as to afford protection to the propeller and rudder.
Although no serious mishap took place, minor damages were received. A leak developed in the forepeak tank, necessitating pumping out frequently, and the shell plates were much dented especially at the turn of the bow, breaking connection inside and causing leaks, but we were lucky enough to get them stopped up.
I need not read any more but I may be-


Mr. MILLAR:: Would my hon. friend give the summing up of Captain Anderson?


William Duff: When 11 come to it. But it will be a long time before I do reach it if I read all the paragraphs I have marked here. What I was going to say was this: In addition to this report and these photographs showing the ice conditions in Hudson strait and Hudson bay it is also a fact that during the very months when the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Nelson said that navigation was feasible, they have very heavy fogs there. This fog is 67 J
caused, as hon. members no doubt know, by the atmosphere being warmer than the ice. with the result that it would be very dangerous for steamers to try to navigate either the straits or the bay even if there was very little ice; the fog is so thick that you cannot, perhaps, see any more than the length of the steamer, and no steamship captain would dare to let his vessel go ahead at very much speed in the effort to navigate this channel. So I say, for that reason, in addition to the ice, the conditions are such that no shipping man would want to charter any boats to go into Hudson strait or Hudson bay.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Would the hon. member say that the fogs in Hudson bay and Hudson strait are any more dangerous than they are on the southern coast of Newfoundland?


William Duff: I cannot answer my hon. friend's question. I do however know what the Newfoundland fogs are like. All I know is that Captain Anderson in his report says that fogs are very heavy there sometimes. I do not care whether it is only for one day, or for the whole season, the fact is that in Hudson bay and Hudson strait they have fogs, ice, and gales. Consequently, these conditions do not make satisfactory reasons for shipping men or such as to cause them to feel justified in chartering vessels either to go into Hudson bay or out of it.
Now, I need not quote any further from these reports. My hon. friends can see these reports, they can read them for themselves -I refer to the reports from 1911 down to 1915, every one of the reports made by Captain Anderson. I think a reading, of these reports will convince every man who has some knowledge of the sea that no shipping company, or no captain, would want to take a chance of going into Hudson bay to load cargoes if he could get freights elsewhere.
Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that although I speak this way, I would be very glad indeed if the Hudson bay route in the opinion of competent men was found to be feasible and for this reason: It would open up a new route for shipping, would give cargo boats more business and in the present depressed state of shipping it would be an excellent thing for the people who own shipping, whether they are steamers or sailing vessels.


Andrew Knox: Does my hon. friend think he is fair in quoting exclusively from the reports of Captain Anderson and ignoring the reports presented to the committee and upon which they founded their conclusions submitted to the Senate?
Hudson Bay Railway


William Duff: I may say in answer to my hon. friend that the reason I am only quoting from one report is that I do not want to take up too much time to-day. Moreover, I do not think it would help the ease of my hon. friend if I did quote from other reports. For instance, I think it was my hon. friend (Mr. Knox) who quoted the opinion of the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Cochrane, "that the strait and the bay could be kept open by means of wireless telegraph." Now, I would like to know how either the strait or the bay could be kept open by that means.


Andrew Knox: Would it not be an aid to navigation?


William Duff: I understand that a certain amount of electricity would-


Andrew Knox: Would it not be an aid to navigation?


William Duff: I cannot see how the wireless would be an aid to navigation either at the terminals or at Port Nelson when a vessel was off cape Chidley or half way in the strait trying to make her way through the ice. You could not put a wireless station out on a pan of ice so as to be of any use to a vessel between Port Nelson and cape Chidley.


Andrew Knox: It would not be necessary to do that. We have islands in the straits. The strait is five hundred miles long and between thirty-five and one hundred miles wide and one of these islands could be used for the purpose.


William Duff: If the dimensions given by my hon. friend are true one of these islands would not be of very much use; a tower many hundred feet high would have to be erected in order to look out over the ice and see whether there was ice or open water so as to advise steamers coming round cape Chidley.


Thomas William Bird: I quoted an incident showing that an ice breaker was stuck in the ice at the eastern end of the strait and at the same time the Sheba had a clear passage all the way through. In that case a radio would have been of service in pointing out the open channel.


William Duff: I may say to my hon. friend that I had a similar experience when a ship that I was on board of, called the Greenland was caught in the ice one spring and had to stay there for thirty-two days with a catch of seals on board. Only about ten miles away there was open water and other vessels were able to get through. They saw our predicament and when they got home re. f Mr. Knox.]
ported . that we were stuck fast in the ice without any seals. That was the case in regard to the vessels of which he speaks. There may be a lead or channel of open water through the ice caused by the wind or the current where vessels can pass. Not far away other vessels may be caught fast in the ice. But let me tell my hon. friend that no shipping man is going to send his vessel into Hudson bay if he is likely to meet with that danger.


Thomas William Bird: Does my hon. friend apply his statement to the early part of July or to the whole of the period I have referred to?


William Duff: This investigation showed the conditions in different months-in July, August and September. The hon. member spoke about the experience of the Minto. I would advise him, if he wants some information about Hudson bay and Hudson strait, to consult Captain John Reid who was commander of the Minto when she was in Hudson bay. Captain Reid has enlarged photographs showing the exact conditions in Hudson bay and Hudson strait during the period he was there. Looking at these photographs an>
reasonable man will be convinced that the navigation of either the bay or the strait under such conditions is a very difficult proposition. I repeat that I am not opposed to this route if it can be shown to be practicable and would be glad if I could get evidence showing that it is feasible. We have not all the information that we should have on this project and for that reason I would suggest to the government that they should make further inquiry before spending any more money on it. From the financial standpoint I think it would be unwise-and I am sure my hon. friends from the West will agree with me- to spend any large sum of money in continuing the railway to Port Nelson, or in the building of terminals, or the construction of steamers, to open this route, until we are possessed of further information. Before spending any further large sums of money parliament and the government should go very slowly in this matter.
What, I would suggest, in fairness to my hon. friends from the West who desire to secure a fresh outlet for the grain and other commodities of the West is commendable, is that parliament should ask the government to have a proper survey made of the whole field both with regard to the railway to Hudson bay and the terminals there, and with regard to the feasibility of the navigation of the bay and strait. I would suggest that practical men such as Captain Reid, Captain

Hudson Bay Railway
Bob Bartlett, and other men who have spent many years in the Arctic, should be asked to go up there, stay one or two years, and make proper surveys, inquiring into the whole situation and investigating the advisability and the feasibility of this route. In that way the government would get information that we have not got now. I know practically nothing about the project except what I have read and what I have heard from Captain Bartlett, and others, who have voyaged for years in the Arctic and worked in the Hudson bay, and who have made statements to me which I have given to the House this afternoon. I would suggest that before spending any further large sums of money qualified engineers and qualified seamen, used to Arctic work should go up there and make a thorough inquiry into the whole situation, and then report to the government. Then it will be possible for us to discuss the matter in an intelligent manner. At present we cannot do this.


Robert Forke: I am glad the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) closed his speech in the manner in which he did. He admitted that he did not know the exact facts of the case. Nevertheless, he maintained that it was unnecessary to go any further into the matter as he was already satisfied that the strait was closed the whole year round. My hon. friend added that he had the results of investigations to prove it. Now, if his contentions are correct I do not see why this debate should proceed any further.
I think perhaps he is right in saying that a very close study of this question should be made by the members of this House. Perhaps the members more directly interested in the matter have already made considerable study of the whole question, and for many years it has been described on the one side as a route feasible and on the other side as a route very difficult, but I have never until to-day heard the statement made that at no time of the year was the route feasible. I have always understood that there was no doubt about at least two months of the year. I had the privilege of looking over a great many charts not very long ago, comparing the voyages of the boats in and out, from Sydney and other eastern ports to Hudson bay, and I did not find in any one of these charts any great difficulty at any time-in fact no difficulty during two months or so. I believe it is correct to say that the Hudson bay route is feasible for at least two months of the year. The question then would be: Is it a feasible or a right project to go on with this work on the supposition that we have
only navigation for two months in the year? It has been discussed pro and con for a great many years. I would like to read a short extract from a speech delivered in 1908 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Niagara Falls, where he stated:
We have undertaken the construction of another railway, the Hudson bay railway. We have come to the conclusion that the time to build this railway is now, not to-morrow, but now.
That is a long time ago. On September 22, 1908, the Hon. Clifford Sifton, now Sir Clifford Sifton, speaking at Brandon, said:
Now we come to the latest development and indeed the best is still to come. The prime minister proposes to build for these provinces the Hudson Bay Railway. (Loud cheers). That pronouncement was a very material factor in inducing me to become a candidate for this constituency in this election, because I felt, and feel now, that the time has come when we men from the west have succeeded in proving that a Hudson bay railway is no mere chimera-no foolish project, but one which the people of the West are bound to see carried into effect, and the time to do it is now. ,
Fifteen years ago the people of Canada and of the West were convinced that it was no mere chimera, that it was a feasible project, and now we find ourselves debating as seriously as ever the question as to whether the project should be	carried	on or	given	up.When we realize that two different governments have investigated this project, have pronounced it feasible, and have declared that it should be carried on, that its completion was only deferred on account of war conditions, that $20,000,000 has already been spent upon it, is it reasonable	that we	should	now cometo the conclusion	that the work	should	bestopped and that	nothing	more	should	be
done?
It has been discussed again and again by the public men and parliaments of this country, both Dominion and provincial. The matter has been so well discussed and so well placed before the House by the mover (Mr. Knox) and the seconder (Mr. Bird) that I really cannot add very much to what has been said. However, I would like to point out again the necessity of some other outlet than the one which we have at present for the products of the western provinces. It is needless for me to repeat, but I sometimes think cannot be too often repeated, that we will have tremendous resorces in those western provinces when they are properly developed. We have realized during recent years the difficulties and disadvantages from which we suffer on account of being located in the centre of the continent, where transportation has become the one great problem which we must and shall overcome. It seems to me that the Hudson bay route as
Hudson Bay Railway

an alternative outlet for our products will to a very large extent solve our transportation difficulties. Not only will it be an outlet but it will be a competing outlet for our produce to the sea, bringing into line the other routes and the interests that control the other outlets.
It has been pointed out by the seconder, and I think also by the mover of the resolution, that Canada has suffered no loss through the building of the Hudson bay railway. Too often we hear repeated what the East has done for the West. I do not like that kind of argument, because I do not believe there is very much in it. Most of the money that has ever been invested in the West has been at so much per cent, and I hope the interest has been paid most of the time. When we come to deal with the building of railways I think we will find that the railways of the West have been largely financed from the values that have accrued through the building of the railways in the West,' and the Hudson bay railway at the present time, as far as I can understand the situation, has not cost this country very much, because the land that has been set aside for that purpose has met the demands made in this respect. So that from a financial point of view we have not suffered very much in the building of the Hudson bay railway up to the present time.
It has been pointed out that the natural outlet to the western provinces has been to the south of us. Those of us who live in the West realize that fact, but I think we are good enough Canadians to say that if we can possibly make things go along successfully, we are prepared to do anything we possibly can to develop a national feeling and a national business within ourselves. We appreciate to a very large extent anything that would tend to develop trade between Great Britain and Canada, which I claim would be of great benefit both to Canada and Great Britain.
Now the opening up of this suggested route, should it be feasible-and I believe it is- would do a great deal towards solving one of the great problems we have in the West at the present time. Agriculturists who have studied the situation in the West, and who know the conditions as they exist, are pretty well convinced that the salvation of our western provinces will be in the development of the live stock industry. I know very well that for a great many years to come wheat will be the principal export value that will be produced in these western prairie provinces. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the public debt will have to be paid to a very

large extent by the produce of those same western provinces, and that the wheat will play a very large part in paying that debt. Nevertheless from experience we are finding out that, in order to carry on agriculture successfully, there must be diversified farming, and there must be a rating of live stock. The transportation of live stock to the sea by a long railway haul ia a much more difficult problem than the hauling of grain, and if we could make it possible to export cattle by the Hudson bay route, I believe we would be going a long way towards solving a great many of the difficulties in the way of the development of agriculture in the western prairie provinces.
I should like to point out to the eastern people that the eastern agricultural interests can well supply all eastern wants in that direction. That is one of the unfortunate situations of the western people. I do not care what interests you have in the East, you know very well that the eastern provinces are quite capable of supplying all the agricultural needs of any industries you are likely to have in the East for many years to come, and the western provinces are impressed with the fact that they have to find a market outside for their products.
I hope hon. members of this House will look upon this situation sympathetically and will not dismiss it without consideration. I have heard round the corridors of this House, almost with a laugh, the question: "I suppose you are going to bring up the Hudson Bay railway question"? I want these gentlemen not to dismiss the matter without giving it the attention it deserves. If it can be shown that the project is impracticable, then by all means we do not want the Hudson Bay railway. I would qualify that, however, by saying that I believe the completion of the railway would in itself be a feasible thing, even though the development of the bay should not go on. As the mover of this resolution has said, the road would be a colonization road, and the completing of the line would be something well worth doing, something which would contribute to the development of northern Manitoba. We do not want money spent foolishly; we want the question decided on its merits. But I do believe there will never be contentment in the West; never will the western people be satisfied, until that railway has been completed and the question has been decided by actual experience. It has been demonstrated conclusively that the route is feasible, because the charts in the department show that vessels have made the trip back and forth time and again without encountering ice at all

Hudson Bay Railway
I met the proprietor of a magazine not long ago and he told me he was going to publish photographs which were similar to the ones the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was displaying this afternoon. Well, they never appeared in the magazine; I suppose he got a little more knowledge of the subject and thought it just as well not to publish them, at least for the present. I have no doubt that there will be abnormal ice conditions up there at times and if you are anxious to do so you can get photographs that will present the matter in a very unfavourable light. Anybody who knows anything about the northern seas -and I know the hon. member for Lunenburg knows about ice floes and all that sort of thing -will realize that the conditions vary a great deal. I do not think we need take seriously the hon. gentleman's little joke about melting the ice with electricity, but it is possible that a great many difficulties that were formerly considered insuperable may under modem conditions be easily overcome. By the use of electrical appliances, aerial inventions, beacons, buoys, and so on, navigation into the harbour at least can, perhaps, be made perfectly safe.
So far as dredging in the bay is concerned, I do not think dredging has been very extensively carried on. The information I have is to the effect that what has been dredged has remained clear; so that these difficulties may be very easily overcome. I know it is difficult to get within quite a number of miles of where the harbour would be, but that area has been charted and the investigations already made no doubt point to a solution of the difficulty in that respect. It would surprise hon. members who have not gone into the question to find what a large amount of data the department has accumulated in this connection. It would well repay the attention of those who have not investigated the conditions to find out just what they are to-day. I had an opportunity of seeing the photographs to which reference has been made, and a great many more, and quite a number of them are favourable to the proposed route, indicating, as they do, that the bay is open for a great many months of the year.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House; other hon. members are very much better posted than I am in regard to the conditions that exist in Hudson bay. Of course the difficulty is not in the bay, but in the straits; the great question to decide is how far the straits are navigable. I have not discussed the matter with the mover and the seconder of the resolution but I think it would be well to go a little carefully at first, and to that end a thorough investigation would be in
order. I do think, however, that the government should at least complete the railway to the bay and put us in a position to obtain more accurate information along these lines.
I hope that the matter will not be dropped without further investigation and without a decision to complete the construction of the line to the bay.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I am thoroughly in sympathy with the proposal that has been made. My view of this matter is that Canada is committed to the early construction of the Hudson Bay railway. The boast of Great Britain in connection with her war debt to the United States-and it was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day-has been that England keeps her word and pays her debts. Just as seriously have we committed ourselves to the people of the West to build this road. We voted the money, and for the psychological reason alone, if for nothing else; if only to put heart into the people of the West we ought to complete it. But I can give another reason, and it has been advanced this afternoon. The opening up of that country would result in the road paying for itself. There would be made available the most valuable mineralized area in the world. Ontario to-day has a road within 120 miles of Hudson bay, and it is the intention of the province to complete that line to the bay this year. One of their reasons for doing it is to open up the northern portion of Ontario, a district, which, sloping down to the bay, has much good land and much valuable timber. A fine fishing industry * can be worked up in Hudson bay, and a traffic in fur can be carried on. Power can be developed on the rivers on the Hudson bay slope and made available to the mines that have been opened up in that part of Ontario -the most marvellous mines in the world. The territory in Quebec adjacent .to Hudson bay is equally rich, if we are to believe the reports of the geologists who have made investigations there; and the same applies to portions of Manitoba. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) quoted from the remarks of the president of the Canadian Institute ol Mining and Metallurgy, who pointed out that that pre-Cambrian shield was the richest mineral area on the whole face of the globe. The successes in Cobalt and Porcupine are such as to justify the completion of this line on its own account. I believe there is enough power on that Hudson bay slope to drive all our locomotives on the Canadian National between Winnipeg and Montreal, and to meet the needs of all the mines and pulp mills in
Hudson Bay Railway

that district. Besides, employment would be furnished to large numbers of people and opportunities for settlement would be afforded.
For these reasons and many others I could give, I say we should complete that road. The amount involved would not be very great, and the experiment is worth making, if only in order that we may keep our word. The main source of the money expended on that road has been the public lands of the West. The West is therefore security for it, and there certainly will be just as much local traffic over that road to Hudson bay, altogether apart from any consideration of sea traffic, as has followed from the development of the Northern Ontario and Temiskaming road. That is almost the best piece of railroad in Ontario today, although when it was first projected everyone declared that it was a mere chimera, that there was nothing in it for the province or for those who put their money into it. That part of the country is one of the best sections of the Dominion to-day; it is the best country in the world for men to go to, whether they have capital or are seeking labour. It is the best market in America for labour at the present time, because the demand for men for the mines cannot be supplied. And it may be a great coal country; we shall probably get anthracite there if we are to believe what some of the geologists tell us. But at all events there are great coal and timber resources in that part of the country, and there is also a good chance for farming.
One thing, however, is lacking; and for some reason or other this parliament is reluctant to keep its word. Why should we not keep our word and complete that road? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government will see its way to complete this railway, and I hope that before this debate closes the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will announce on behalf of the administration that it is the intention to carry out the contracts that were made, first by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and then by the Conservative government. I do not know whether the Union government was committed to the undertaking, but certainly this House has pledged its word in the matter; and the people of Canada want to see the road completed. The people of Ontario, the people of Manitoba, and the people of the West generally are anxious to have the work carried through, because they see in the completion of the road some hope of relief from the excessive freight rates that have obtained in the past. The western people hope for some relief from the opening up of the Vancouver route' in conjunction with the Panama canal, fMr. W. F. Maclean.]
as an outlet for the grain of the West. And we in Ontario wish to see the waterways between Port Arthur and the Atlantic, by way of the St. Lawrence and the canals, improved as another outlet for the products of the West. We must try all these things and make various experiments, because the providing of more outlets for our products is a vital necessity.
And here let me say a word for the National Railways. The greatest asset Canada has today is its national railways. These railways have not done their best; they have done their worst so far. But a new and better management is perhaps coming into operation, and the men now in charge will be held responsible for a genuine attempt to solve the grievances of the West in so far as the railways can do so. Up to the present this has not been done; there is rather too much delay in putting the National Railways to the work they are capable of doing. Certainly a reasonable time should be given the new board to organize. But after all we want results; and I have no doubt as to what the National Railways will be able to do if they are properly managed. There is not a better railway in the world; and I will say, to the credit of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, although I do not know where he got the inspiration, that the greatest branch of the National Railways to-day is that line running form Winnipeg to Quebec. It is on the top of a great plain and has a two-fifths grade; and the part of the country through which it runs is rich in agricultural possibilities and in mining. It is a fine country in every way, and the railway from Winnipeg to Quebec is one of the best pieces of railway we have on the Canadian National. No matter what we do with the waterways, this line from Winnipeg to Quebec is one of the solutions of the grievances of the western farmers. These farmers have two real grievances, one in regard to transportation, and the other the fact that they are debarred from the great American market. Whether in the new and broader view that mankind is inclined to take of some of these problems that have arisen since the war, this impediment will be removed, I do not know. There seems, however, a possibility of better relations between the people of the United States and those of Canada, although I do not say that there is. At any rate, there is a better feeling growing up between Englishspeaking people generally. On the whole, therefore, I do not despair of the future of the Canadian West, but this parliament must help them in the present situation; and I will give what little support I can to this proposition. Canada owes it as a duty to carry out this work, because the country has beer

Hudson Bay Railway
pledged to it. The government is committed, not so much to further investigations as to a completion of the work that has been undertaken.
If we do that work the West will have no great grievance against this parliament, except that we must also do what we can to develop the port of Vancouver and our waterways. We must go after the. railways, both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, and try to find out, either by experiment or by litigation, what justification there is for these abnormal charges that have obtained in the West. This parliament, too, or the Railway Commission, or whatever body has jurisdiction in the matter, must get after the shipping profiteers on the upper lakes. I do not know anything more discreditable in the history of America than these abnormal freight charges which have been put into force since the war by the people who control the shipping on the upper lakes and on the St. Lawrence. Every concession which the railways have given to the western people has always been absorbed in shipping charges. There seems to be, I was almost going to say, an infamous understanding between the two. Perhaps there is a quiet "divvy"; I do not know whether that is so or not. The fact, however, is that there have been unfair charges levied by the shipowners and the railways. We have got after the railways in an endeavour to obtain, reductions and we must get after these other people as well. The main thing is to put heart into the people of the West by building this railway which they require. If we do I feel confident that substantial results will accrue to the people who live in the western provinces and who to-day ask this parliament for relief in various ways. I hope that this parliament will give them that relief not only in regard to transportation but in regard to reasonable banking facilities, and possibly the improved credit which has come to the United States in the last two or three years might also come to the people of the west of Canada. I shall therefore have much satisfaction in supporting the motion. Still greater satisfaction will it be to me if the government make good the pledge of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and complete this experiment -even if it is only an experiment-and so keep faith with the people of the western provinces.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. C. DAVIES (North Battleford):: In rising to support the resolution moved by my hon. friend for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) it is not my intention to deal at any great length with the subject. I understand that there are a number of other speakers who will have something to say on this question, and it would not be fair to them if I made any extended remarks at this moment. But the question of transportation, and especially the question of the early completion of the Hudson Bay railway, is of such vital importance to the agriculturalists of western Canada that I feel I should be remiss in my duty if I did not in my poor way try to add something to this debate.
Public opinion in the West has been practically unanimous upon this subject for very many years. I remember when I first came to this country over twenty years ago how the Hudson Bay railway was dangled as a bait to the settlers in the West, and it seems almost inconceivable to me that after twenty-three years we are debating in this House of Commons the question whether this is a feasible route or not. From the beginning of this year the question has been discussed iri practically every public assembly in western Canada. Unanimous resolutions have been passed by all the great farmers' organizations in western Canada, and by the board of trade of practically every city and town of importance in that part of the country. During the past few weeks the question has been thoroughly discussed in the legislature of Manitoba and the legislature of Saskatchewan, where unanimous resolutions have been passed pressing this government to complete the Hudson bay route as early as possible.
I wonder if hon. members who represent the eastern part of Canada ever realize the vital importance of the question of transportation to the western farmer. We in western Canada have a great problem to solve: how to raise our agricultural products and place them on the markets of the world in open competition with agriculturalists from every other part of the world, situated as we are fifteen hundreds miles away from a seaport. That is the question we have to solve in western Canada, and it can be solved if we open up the Hudson bay route. The problem of transportation in relation to the distribution of agricultural products is of vital interest to western Canada, and a route which brings us one thousand miles nearer the sea is a route which must receive the earnest consideration of this government.
Hudson Bay Railway

, I listened with very great interest to the speech this afternoon of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) and I was pleased to note the warm feeling of sympathy that he manifested towards the western farmer. I have noticed before that a number of members on the government benches are willing to show us very great sympathy in some of these projects which are of such importance to the farmers of western Canada, but I would say to them that a little practical help is worth a great deal of sympathy, and at this time if they will support this project which we believe will help to solve the agricultural problems of western Canada, it will perhaps be better than showing us quite so much sympathy.
The statement has been made on the floor of this House a number of times this year that when the economic chaos in Europe rights itself once more, the price of our agricultural products will be enhanced. I cannot subscribe to that doctrine. I do not think the price of agricultural products will go up in Europe, and consequently they will not go up here. Wheat in the Old Country markets is above normal value. Reef and meat products are away above normal value in the Old Country markets. Butter is 100 per cent above normal value at the present time, and if our agricultural products are to compete in the European markets we must reduce the cost of production and the cost of transportation. The question before us is the question of reducing the cost of transportation. We have to compete with the other nations of the world who are not under the physical and geographical handicap that we settlers in western Canada have to contend with. We are in competition with the Argentine with its peon labour, with its short railway haul, and no expensive handling system. We are in competition with India, with practically slave labour, and no long railway haul. We are in competition with Australia, with its fringe of agricultural land around the coast, and with a twelve months working season. We have also to compete with Denmark and other European countries which are rapidly coming back to normal, and I say that if we are to build up in this country a permanent agricultural policy which will leave the farmers something over the cost of production, then this question of the Hudson bay route is of vital importance to us.
I am not going to talk about the feasibility of the route for very long, but I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members a report which was issued by the Manitoba government in the year 1884. I am taking that year because in those days the various

aids to navigation in the matter of buoys and so forth, the depth of vessels and their strength, were not nearly so perfect as they are to-day. If, as far back as 1884, practical men who had great experience in navigating these northern waters said that the route was a feasible one, how much more feasible should it be at the present time in view of the perfection that has been reached in the construction of oceangoing vessels? Now, I want to read a few extracts from the report to which I have referred. Dr. Bell, director of the Canadian Geological Survey, who made five voyages through the straits, stated that the straits are: "Navigable from middle of June to middle of November. Captain Chisby, of New London, Conn., who has had fourteen years' experience in these waters, stated that "the straits are navigable for four months and often five." Captain William Kennedy, who acompanied an expedition in search of the remains of Sir John Franklin, and who had had eight years' experience of the straits, declared that the straits are navigable "from June to November."
Captain William Pritchard, who was in the Hudson's Bay Company's service for 39 years, reported as follows:
The straits never freeze; there is no reason why steamships should not navigate at any time.
He also said:
The icebergs seen in Hudson's straits in August and September would form no great barrier to navigation, nor do those met with off the straits of Belle Isle, nor were they more numerous in Hudson's straits than they frequently are off Belle Isle.
Further on in his evidence, he stated:
Steam has now effected a complete revolution in ice navigation and the most advantageous time for pushing on is when the ice is loose.
Under similar circumstances a sailing ship would be utterly helpless. It is therefore only reasonable to infer that what has been performed regularly and year after year by sailing ships can be accomplished with greater regularity and certainty by well-constructed steamers, especially built for ice navigation and provided with powerful machinery.
The legislature of the province of Manitoba appointed a select standing committee in 1884 to procure evidence and report upon the practicability of establishing a system of communication via Hudson bay. After taking the evidence of a number of men, with thorough knowledge of the subject, the committee say in their report:
Many of the gentlemen examined have had personal and extended experience as officers and servants of the Hudson's Bay Company at their ports on Hudson and Ungava bays. No evidence has been given that goes to prove that Hudson straits and bay proper freeze over or that the ice met with in these waters is sufficient to prevent navigation at any time of the year; that consequently the period of navigation is defined

Hudson Bay Railway
by the time during which the ports, harbours, or roadsteads on the shores of the bay can be entered by vessels of a suitable description for such navigation.
From the evidence adduced it appears that such ports or harbours are open on an average from four and a half to five months in each year to ordinary vessels.
The latest report that we have had on the subject, that of the Senate of Canada, declares that the route is a feasible route and that in time it will be profitable.
I said a moment ago that I first heard of the Hudson Bay railway when I came to this country over twenty-three years ago. I well remember how, in the first general election in Canada of which I have any knowledge, that of 1908, speakers on behalf of Liberal candidates made a number of statements at that time referring to the Hudson Bay railway. They pointed to the courageous manner in which the late Liberal chieftain, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had made his announcement in the town of Welland, Ontario, that the Liberal government of that day were going to build this railway. When the Conservative party came into power in the year 1911 they took up the question of the Hudson Bay railway and began to carry it to completion. I cannot conceive that the Liberal government in 1908 would undertake such a work as this without full and complete investigation. Neither can I believe that the Conservative party, when they came into power, would carry on such a work without a very exhaustive investigation as to the possibilities of this route. Engineers were sent out by both governments. Both governments proclaimed that the Hudson Bay railway was a feasible route and that they were going to carry it to completion. I know, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes in the West we hear it said, in regard to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, that both parties were playing politics, and that the project was simply a bait used at election time to obtain the votes of the western people. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, subscribe to that idea either. I do not believe that our governments and our statesmen have sunk so low in this country that they would willingly spend $20,000,000 of western money in order to bribe the electors of western Canada. I believe that both governments came to the definite conclusion that this route was a feasible one and determined to carry out the work.
I would like now, for a moment or two, to discuss the question of the financing of this railway because I know that it is not generally understood in the West-or in the East either for that matter-how the financing of the Hudson Bay railway was undertaken. It has been understood that the whole of Canada
. had been financing the Hudson Bay railway. The facts, however, are as follows: In the *year 1908, when the Dominion Lands Act was brought before parliament, provision was made whereby homesteads, or second homesteads and pre-emptions were set apart, a large area of land in western Canada being selected for the purpose, and the proceeds of the sale of this land were to be devoted to the financing of the Hudson Bay railway. Under the statute of 1908 approximately 8,050,720 acres of land have already been sold, the revenue derived therefrom being $24,152,160, and the whole of this amount has not yet been spent. There are 2,500,000 acres at the present time which have not been paid for in full. You will see, therefore, that practically the whole of the revenue devoted to the building of	the	Hudson Bay railwaycame from	the	lands of the West.
It is western land that is paying for this road, and there are enough homesteads or second homesteads and pre-emptions still in the West to yield sufficient revenue for the completion of the project.
I would like to quote here as an additional authority on this matter, what was said during the session of 1912-13 by a former Minister of the Interior, Hon Mr. Oliver. As reported at page 10951 of Hansard, Mr. Oliver said:
The question has been raised here in regard to the cost of this railway, the charge upon the treasury. Some years ago the principle of pre-emptions was introduced into the western country, with the understanding that the fund accruing from the sale of preemptions would be considered as an extra source of revenue from which the Hudson bay railway might be constructed. There was no ear-marking of money received. When the policy of the sale of pre-emptions was introduced, it was introduced with the understanding that a new source of revenue was being created, which would relieve the general treasury from the cost of the Hudson bay railway. Therefore, the treasury of Canada is not finding the money for building the railway. It is the land of the Northwest and the price that is being paid for that land that is building the Hudson bay railway. Enough money is being taken out of pre-emptions of the West to pay for that railway.
Again in the year 1901, during a discussion in Committee of Supply, the following question was put by Mr. Lake, the representative of a western constituency at that time, and replied to by the hon. gentleman who is now Acting Minister of Railways.
Mr. Lake: It was understood by this House I think that the money to be expended on the construction of the Hudson bay railway was to come from a special fund to be created by the sale of pre-emptions?
Mr. Graham: Yes.	.
I would like to take up the question of the Hudson Bay railway and the branch lines, which was referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) in his speech
Hudson Bay Railway

this afternoon. When men who are in authority in the West are questioned upon the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway, they always sheer off from the main question, and ask "which would you rather have, the Hudson Bay railway on branch line railways?" We know, Mr. Speaker, that branch line railways are vitally necessary to western Canada, but I claim there is no connection whatever between them. This special vote, as I showed a moment ago, was created for the purpose of building the Hudson Bay railway. It is a national undertaking and has nothing to do with the branch line construction.
I notice by the Estimates that we are going to spend $11,800,000 this year for the Welland canal. I claim it would be just as right and fair for us, and for hon. members who oppose the Hudson Bay railway, or who advocate branch lines in lieu of the Hudson Bay railway, to argue that we should cut down the estimates for the Welland canal. I noticed last year the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) took that side of the question, but when the question of a grant of $8,000,000 for the Welland canal was proposed, I observed the Minister of Agriculture had nothing whatever to say about branch line construction. I think he still holds that view. When the vote for $11,800,000 for the Welland canal comes before the House, I at least expect him to move for a very substantial reduction in that item.
I have the honour to represent a constituency in the northwestern part of Saskatchewan which is one of the finest mixed farming constituencies in Canada. There is no doubt about that. It lends itself to immigration. Large tracts of land are waiting for the settler, and I think the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), if he would look over that country and see the land that we have there ready for settlement, would immediately become a very strong advocate of the building of the Hudson Bay railway, because it would be of very great assistance to him in bringing in new 'settlers. We must have a shorter outlet for our wheat, our live stock and dairy produce-the products of the farm. If the western farmer is to continue to place his products in the markets of the world in open competition with the products of all the countries of the world, having to buy all the commodities which enter into the cost of production on his farm, he cannot under present conditions succeed, but it would certainly be a vast help to the western farmer if the Hudson bay project were completed. If vessels were sailing out of Hudson bay with cattle, dairy products and wheat, and if it were only possible for the government to
TMr. Davies.]
increase the British preference, so that the vessels coming back to Hudson bay could bring back a return cargo, it would have a very great bearing on the freight rate we would have to pay. I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert and every other western member in the House, that we have a great country and a great heritage in western Canada. I am not pessimistic. The West does not breed pessimists. I believe if we had a fair field and no favour, if the government would assist us and complete the Hudson Bay railway, western Canada would yet become what we always conceived it was designed by nature to be, the granary of the Empire.


Mr. WILLIS KEITH BALDWIN (Stan-stead):: I cannot believe that politics have been played by either the Liberal or the Conservative party in undertaking such a vast construction as the Hudson Bay railway. I have listened to the speeches and I have not heard anything in this House in opposition to the proposition, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has suggested. The member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) has referred to the climatic conditions and has spoken of the ice which is to be found in the Hudson strait. Considering that so much money has been spent on this undertaking, I am going to say frankly, without hedging, .that if I understand the amount that is to be spent on this railway, I am in favour of it, because I understand this railway has been graded and the rails are now there, and it would be a great *waste not to open up a country that has such vast possibilities. The natural resources of this country have been mentioned in this debate, and I think it would be well worth while to construct the line, if we only got to the navigable part of the river, which I understand is about 30 miles from the end of the rails already laid.
I cannot believe that this railway would hurt Port Arthur, at the head of the Great Lakes, or would injure the railways of this country. Quite the contrary. I believe you cannot benefit one part of the great Dominion of Canada without helping the whole country. The member for South York (Mr. Maclean) has said that Ontario has a railway within 130 miles of-he said Hudson bay, although, I think he meant James bay. In looking at the map I see our Transcontinental railway, running from Quebec to Winnipeg, runs within 250 or 300 miles of the south end of James bay. I will be glad when the province of Ontario has completed that railway, and I likewise will be glad when the great province of Quebec, builds a railway to James bay. Hudson bay has more than 3,000 miles

Hudson Bay Railway
of shore line; we may call it an inland sea, for I believe, according to the scale, it is the largest bay on the map of the world. Practically a thousand miles of the province of Quebec borders on Hudson bay; in Ontario we have 500 miles and in Manitoba more than 500; then there is the great district of Kee-watin. People living to the south of us wonder why Canada has not struck out into its vast interior country. The amount it woud take to complete the railway is surely not a ponderous sum. I am emphatically in favour of the Hudson Bay railway because it would conduce to interprovincial trade. It is sometimes difficult for us to get a proper perspective of these things. We are asking immigrants to come here but we have not developed more thant one-tenth of the vast area which comprises the Dominion. Are we always going to be picayune, small in our conceptions of things? If we are to get people to come to our country we must do big things. We must let the world know that Canada is a country of vigorous people who are ready to take any reasonable step that will lead to its fuller development. The great barrier that is in the way of action of this kind, of course, is our vast debt, and more particularly is that true because of the fact that our railroads have been the cause of much of our present taxation. I wonder what my own constituents will think of my standing here to-night and advocating the extension of railways at this time. Well, I can justify my attitude by saying that we have already spent $20,000,000 on this project; that we have a road bed; tjiat we have the rails laid on a great part ot the line, though it is true that the ties are rotten. By making a further small expenditure at this time we can open up that great interior with all its possibilities. And it is an interesting fact that north of the territory through which this line runs lies nearly one-half the area of the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in accord with the resolution.


Mr. D. W. WARNER (Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing this resolution I wish to take occasion to present to the House a new idea. It is unnecessary for me to try to establish the feasibility of that route; that has already been done. I have been somewhat interested in the matter; I have taken note of the facts, and I am convinced that the evidence of its feasibility is beyond question. I would like to point out, however, that we have modern steamships which go where sailing vessels formerly could not. But with regard to the length of time during which
navigation is possible on that route, I think there is more to be said than has been stated here to-day. I believe we can use the Hudson bay route during a longer period throughout the year than we can use the Great Lakes. In those parts of the world where ice conditions have to be overcome, ice-breakers are maintained to keep navigation open the year round, and they operate in ice to the depth of four feet. Salt water will not freeze as readily or as firmly as fresh water. I have just been reading of Mr. Stefansson's explorations in the north, and he tells us that the thickest ice he ever encountered, frozen in one season, was six feet. It has been represented here to-day by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) that ice in Hudson bay freezes to the depth of eight feet in one season. Well, I do not see how the ice there could be so much heavier than the ice a thousand miles or more to the north, in the areas explored by Stefansson. We have evidence however, that will offset any argument of that kind, especially when that argument is brought forward by one who claims he does not know anything about it.
I am convinced that the straits are navigable for at least four months in the year, during which time we can be shipping our grain out in that way. That is important. The part of the country in which I live is as good as can be found anywhere else in Canada; so far as productiveness is concerned I would not exchange it for any other part of the world that I have any knowledge of. Our climatic conditions and our soil are such that there is a possibility of production beyond the imagination of the Canadian people-that is, if all the land is used. I am not going to lay much stress on what we want for the future; it is what we need now that counts. We do need that outlet; we are producing in such amounts that it would be of advantage to us. From a mixed farming country we are sending out large quantities of beef, pork, and dairy products, and if we had the advantage of a better transportation rate, our production would increase very substantially and very rapidly.
It has been stated here to-day that it would be of advantage to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in connection with immigration to have this route in operation. I am sure that to go ahead with this project would be one way of giving heart to the people in the West and of making it easier for the Minister of Immigration to get people to come to our country.
We have in Alberta large coal seams; the coal is there in any quantity that we want to
\
Hudson Bay Railway

take it. We want to sell that coal. There is a fuel problem before Canada that we cannot ignore. I have been told on good authority that this winter coal has been shipped 2,100 miles into Winnipeg, which is only 700 or 800 miles from our coal fields. Upon reference to a government map I find that the distance from Edmonton to Hudson bay is only about 800 miles, and from Port Nelson to the southern end of James bay is another 650 or 700 miles. According to the map the distance from this point to the National railway in Ontario south of James bay is 125 miles-I am taking the government maps for my measurement-and the total distance traversed by the time we reach Cochrane on the National line is 1,575 miles. At this point we commence to distribute coal both ways east and west on the National Railways. We also have government railways to carry it south to the bigger centres, and the railways could be getting traffic from the south as well to carry back west.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked what the effect would be on the National Railways if we opened up this route. In my judgment we should be giving these railways more to do than they can possibly get if the route is left unopened. We should have increased settlement and production and should be able to supply our people with our own coal, so that we could retain in Canada about $60,000,000 a year that we now send out of the country for this commodity. If it is possible to haul coal 2,100 miles to Winnipeg, I contend that it is possible for our National Railways to haul coal from Alberta to central Ontario for distribution from Cochrane. We want to supply our people with our own coal and to employ our own miners in bringing this coal to the surface. At present, however, we are dealing with a financial problem in connection with our coal supply which we must solve sooner or later, and it is the duty of this parliament to solve that problem. It seems to me that we should do everything in our power to keep this $60,000,000 a year in our own country instead of sending it away to keep in employment the railwaymen and miners of another country. We can help to make our railways a success by hauling our own produce both ways. Now, we can ship coal from Port Nelson to the south end of James bay. Because the water is salt I am absolutely sure we can use that water route as long as we can ship on the waters of the Great Lakes, although probably there should be a greater emphasis on the facility of shipping grain, beef, pork and dairy products and lumber through Hudson Strait. I think that this route would be better than 
any other for the shipping of any perishable products such as meat; dairy products and whatever is produced in the mixed farming line.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: What would be the probable cost pf that coal delivered at points in central Ontario?


Daniel Webster Warner: I can give only an approximate estimate, but I believe it could be laid down at Cochrane at $15 a ton, coming practically all the way over the National Railways.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If it were
shipped to Port Nelson and then by water carriage on James bay, and thence by rail into Ontario, what would it cost then?


Daniel Webster Warner: I could not give any definite answer to that question. I believe, however, that we could lay the lignite and bituminous coal clown in Ontario cheap enough for the people to use it. Scientists have told us that our anthracite coal in Alberta is practically equal to the best anthracite in Pennsylvania. I have, of course, only their statement for that; but we can see what possibilities there are. And when we reflect that our National Railways are not paying and that we have been sending out about $60,000,000 for fuel, it seems to me that this House might give some consideration to this problem.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Suppose
American coal could be landed at a given point in central Ontario at $9 a ton, would my hon. friend be in favour of prohibiting the importation of that coal by means of a customs tariff?


Daniel Webster Warner: I am not aware that American coal can be laid down in central Ontario at $9 a ton.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, say,$13.99.


Mr. BUREAU:: Including graft?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Suppose it
could be got in at that figure, how would the hon. member exclude it?


Daniel Webster Warner: The best information I have leads me to believe that $15 or $16 is about the lowest you can buy good coal for in Ontario to-day. Now, all that we want is something that is reasonable. I would impress upon the House this fact, that it would be worth something to eastern Canada to have western Canada given a better transportation service. If we were enabled, through the production of more coal along with the rest of our products, to use more of the manufactured goods of the East, surely that is a

Hudson Bay Railway
matter that should be taken into consideration. The people of the district in which I live are more interested in shipping westward, and I want to express my appreciation of what has been done in the way of opening up that western route. The government did something worth while when they granted money to facilitate the establishment of elevators at Vancouver and the opening up of that western route, and while we are more interested in that route at present, we are nevertheless interested in the opening up of the Hudson bay route. We want that route opened up and tested, and we believe that Canada can afford to do this, because nearly all the money needed has already been expended. And as has been shown, the East was not called upon to pay for what has so far been done. I do not know whether there is enough money in the western lands to pay for the completion of the rest of the road and the opening up of the harbour. I do not know all the details, but, if we had to do it, it seems to me that we could afford to complete the work into which we have already put $20,000,000 by expending a few more millions on it. I do not believe there is any reason to doubt the feasibility of this route. By proving that the route is worth while you will have a more contented West, for the people will realize that you have done something to help them out. And they need your help. In order that they may develop that country as it should be developed we must give them a chance to feel that there will be a profit in what they undertake to do. Therefore we want eastern Canada to feel that it is worth something to the East to have this railway completed.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is not my hon. friend afraid that in the event of the Hudson Bay railroad being completed and the sea route opened up oleomargarine might be imported from England?


Daniel Webster Warner: Mr. Speaker, I am not discussing the oleomargarine question now. I expect to do so later, and I hope then to have the support of my hon. friend. I want to impress on this House that it is worth while to give favourable consideration to this project. If hon. members want proof of its feasibility they have only to consult the records. All we ask is that the promises of two earlier administrations be redeemed. I do not know whether the Union government approved of the completion of this railway, as a matter of fact not much was said about it during the war, but at least two of our governments not only approved but promised to build this railway to tidewater.
I take pleasure in supporting this resolution, and I support without any fear of the railway interfering with the branch lines which we are asking, and expecting to have built. If I were undertaking to open up a farm on the prairies I would have to make a certain outlay in order to carry my development to the point where it would produce me an income. Similarly I do not see why Canada need be afraid to spend a little more money to complete this route and so provide a much needed outlet to European markets for the grain products of our western provinces.


John Millar: Mr. Speaker, before entering upon a discussion of this question allow me to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I take it that when he selected from the evidence before the Senate committee the testimony of Captain Anderson he did so because it seemed to him above all others to favour the view that he was taking, that is, opposition to the project. This being so I think it pertinent to read the second paragraph of Captain Anderson's evidence which is as follows:
Navigation in Hudson bay may be relied upon Irom the 15th July until the 15th November, with an extension of a week at either end according to the season.
If that is the strongest evidence which the hon. member for Lunenburg can find against this project, I take it that there is not much to be said against its completion.
The Hudson bay route is not an experiment. It has been open for 240 years. It was used in 1846 by the British troops landed here to assist the Hudson's Bay Company in retaining what was then known as the Northwest Territories for Canada and for Great Britain against the aggression of the Americans. If in 1846 it was a route of importance by which troops could be brought in to save Canada, it might possibly
9 p.m. serve that purpose again. Happily we are not at war with any country, but it is quite evident that the League of Nations has not abolished war, and we do not know when we may again be at war. In such an emergency what an advantage it might be to Canada to have a back door whereby we could maintain communication with the Mother Country.
In that connection let me point out that the port of Archangel during the Great War became a thriving centre, although it is seven hundred miles farther north than Port Nelson. When the Black Sea ports of Russia were closed it became necessary to have maritime communication farther north and at the close of the war Archangel had a population of
Hudson Bay Railway

46,000. And I repeat this fact again for I want hon. members to give it particular notice, that this port is seven hundred miles farther north than Port Nelson.
It has been asked, what effect would the operation of the Hudson Bay railway have upon our National railway system as a whole. It seems to me that when we consider that there is tributary to this route a vast area rich in undeveloped agricultural and mineral wealth, the completion of this railway cannot be other than beneficial to our national system of transportation. It is worthy of note that the tar sands alone in that northern country contain great potential wealth. I noticed in the newspaper quite recently that a sample of these tar sands was taken to the United States, and in competition with similar products from all other parts of the United States and Canada it carried off the first prize. We do not know what vast wealth we have in this country; we have only touched the fringe of it. We know, for instance, that it is very rich in oil. There is a great oil gusher in the Fort Norman district. For a short time after it was discovered the flow gradually decreased and it became evident that the well had been blocked up. It has since been opened up again and is now a strong flowing well, I understand. When a country so little explored shows such indications, what vast mineral wealth may there not be awaiting development? If this country is opened up and settled as its climatic conditions show it can be settled-because we are told the snowfall is much legs there than around Winnipeg and the cold is no greater-I see no reason whatever why it should not be a rich traffic producer for the local railway, which in turn will enure to the advantage of our national system generally. Probably some hon. members will remember that some years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway directors strongly objected to railways being built from the United States into Canada. Those lines were completed, and I believe it is a fact that now the Canadian Pacific Railway Company find those railways are an advantage to them. May it not be so too with the Canadian National railways in relation to the completion and operation of the Hudson Bay railway?
I believe those living along the St. Lawrence river especially the people of the port of Montreal, where a great deal of our grain is handled, are somewhat perturbed over the development of this project because they believe it is going to injure their port. I am very doubtful indeed if the Hudson bay route will have any detrimental effect on the busi-

ness of the port of Montreal. Its only effect, I am inclined to think, will be to draw traffic from the United States. Is it not strange that with the St. Lawrence route open to the sea 65 per cent of our Canadian grain passes through American channels? Why is it sof Let us look at this feature for a moment. In 1913 Canal Statistics, a government publication had this to say:
The rate Fort William to Buffalo and New York-
That is, New York by Buffalo.
-was 8.796 cents per bushel, the rate Fort William to Montreal at the same time was 6.341 cents per bushel, an advantage to Montreal of 2.455 cents, and yet ten times as much of our Canadian grain went through Buffalo to New York as passed through Montreal.
Why is that so? Is it not natural it should take the line of least resistance? I will tell you. At that time, and this is what usually happens under normal conditions, the grain flows to New York because there is greater space in the boats from New York to Liverpool than in the boats from Montreal to Liverpool. At times the advantage in the ocean rate is sufficient to overcome that amount of 2.455 cents, and that is the reason that our grain passes through American channels. This is the point I wish to make. Just a very slight advantage, that difference of less than three cents, is sufficient to call to American ports 65 per cent of our Canadian grain at the present time. Now, though it is impossible to say exactly what will be gained by opening up the Hudson bay route, is it not possible that the advantage will be sufficient to draw that traffic from the United States? If we can save four cents it can be done, and the greater part of 65 per cent of our Canadian grain that passes through American channels to-day will be drawn to the Hudson bay.
I am quite convinced that Montreal will always be a live port, but there is this disadvantage at the present time. The Farm and Ranch Review pointed out some little time ago that there was danger of over-production. It gave the acreage of western Canada partir cularly, and pointed out that if we had a reasonable crop in any one year, with no large tracts being dried .up or otherwise injured, we would have a crop and an exportable surplus that no country in the world had ever produced, that could not be consumed by Europe, and could not be handled by our present outlets. They would be glutted, and that would be disastrous. That may or may not be so, but I am convinced that with a fair chance the western provinces are going to produce much more grain than they have in the past, and you know what took place last year, that whereas grain was carried the year previous for 2} cents a bushel, last year

Hudson Bay Railway
the charge was 8 cents, and whereas for several years the cost to Montreal was from 4 to 41 and 5 cents, last year at one time it went to 20 cents. There is the disaster that comes from having a bottle with too small a mouth. If you are going to increase our production in the West, is it not- necessary, even though Montreal handles as much grain as it now does, even though the Pacific route is going to be opened up-is it not necessary to have a third outlet? I think it is.
I would like to meet a few objections. One is this. Soipe ask, where are you going to get a return cargo? You have not a population in that northern country, and for some years there will be very little return cargo. Let me point out this: Montreal has no large return cargoes in comparison with the amount shipped out. Canada ships out four tons for every one brought this way across the Atlantic. That means that even at the present time three out of every four vessels must come back across the Atlantic empty, or else the four vessels must return with quarter-cargoes. How much difference is there then? Is there any great disadvantage for the Hudson bay route in that respect? I think not, and it is quite apparent that with the development that will take place in the northern country considerable return cargoes can be brought back. That is something that must be developed.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made the statement that the advantage of the thousand miles saved-that is about the difference between Fort William and Montreal, and I would point out that that is a most difficult part of the route-was nearly all lost by the slow progress through the Hudson straits. I I would ask if that is any slower than the rate of progress of the boats that must pass through the 44 miles of canal in the St. Lawrence river, or go through the Welland canal or the St. Clair flats or the Soo canal? That is the more difficult and the more circuitous route. Surely by the Hudson bay route, .with plenty of depth, with no canals, and wide open water for four months in the year, the progress will be greater, and therefore instead of the advantage being lessened by that route, it will be increased and mean a saving of perhaps 1,200 or 1,500 miles.
Remarks have been made by two or three hon. members that we ought to go slow m this matter, that we ought to take a year or two to investigate. Well, we have been twenty-five or thirty years investigating it already. Surely that is going slow enough. The idea of taking two years more to investigate I have no sympathy with, although it
is a very good scheme for chloroforming the whole project. I see no need for any further investigation except of one particular point, and that is which is the better port, Fort Churchill or Port Nelson. That could be ascertained in a very few months, and I think it should be done as quickly as possible.
I shall not dwell upon the wisdom of spending a few more millions after 821,000,000 has already been spent on this project as that has already been touched upon. I pass on.
I have something that is a little bit new. It may be a little bit prosy because I shall have to read it. Some years ago Earl Grey made a trip to this northern country in order to investigate, and he was accompanied by a correspondent of the London Times. This correspondent on his return gave an address in the city of Toronto, from which I wish to give a few extracts. Objections have been taken to this project at times by "men who are opposed to it because of selfish interests, and by men who living nearby are perhaps biassed, but surely that cannot be said of a correspondent of one of the world's greatest dailies and a man living in Great Britain. I think his evidence and opinion should be taken as worth something. He says:
Now. I might, perhaps, begin by reminding you that the Hudson bay route is not ft new experiment; for very nearly a century that was the predominant trade route to the west of the continent. You may remember that there was a period, lasting very nearly fifty years, of the acutest commercial rivalry between the Hudson's Bay Company and the North West Fur Company, with headquarters at Montreal. During that long struggle the Hudson's Bay Company enjoyed the advantage of being able to get goods to the interior about a month earlier than their rivals.
Further on he says:
Franklin went by that route on his great exploration trips, and the description he left applies admirably to what we saw on our trip down there the other day. It was by that route that the British troops-infantry, artillery and sappers-were sent in 1846 to help the Hudson's Bay Company guard the great frontier country of Manitoba against the possibility of American aggression.
Again he says:
I believe from my observations that the present Far Northwest of Canada can be reached from Liverpool by the Hudson bay route quicker than from New York.
Hudson bay affords a back door to this continent, which might be easily used by the British in case of imminent need, and possibly mean, again, the saving of the Northwest to Canada; and that route, which has been so important in the past, may, therefore, not be unimportant in the future.
Again he says:
Still, I do not think we can say the question of the Hudson bay route is, as it has been regarded, of supreme importance to the prairie provinces alone. I maintain that if the route is opened up it will be of great national interest to Canada-to the whole of Canada-and of great imperial interest as well.

Hudson Bay Railway

Further on he states:
Owing to the shape of the Globe, the distance from Liverpool to the western shores of Hudson bay is practically the same as the distance from Liverpool to Montreal, just under 3,000 nautical miles.
One or two more extracts and I am through. He states further:
A ship ought to leave Churchill or Nelson the first week in November to get out the same year. As far as I can make out, the navigation of Hudson bay and straits is just as safe as navigation of the St. Lawrence.
At another point in his address he said:
This practically means that a ship could leave England before the middle of July, and with proper facilities for handling the traffic at Churchill or Nelson, could make three complete trips before the close of the season.	*
Again he states:
One other point in favour of this route might be mentioned here:
Now this is something entirely new, and hon. members can take it for what it is worth:
When the demand for harvest hands is at its height, instead of draining Ontario, they could be brought out from the Old Country in July by this route, work through the harvest, and return to England in the same season by the same route.
I now wish to read two or three extracts from a report containing the result of the-explorations of Mr. Frank J. P. Crean, C.E., of the Railway Lands branch, Ottawa. After exploring 22,000,000 acres of country in northern Saskatchewan, Mr. Crean says:
It has been found that there are 3,000,000 acres of water, 5,000,000 of land suitable for settlement and 12,000,000 of wet land. The latter can all be drained and made good for settlement.
Further on in the booklet, which embodies his report, he says:
Many spendid gardens were seen and barley and oats grew to early maturity as far north as Lac La Loche, which is nearly 200 miles north of Prince Albert.
From another part of the booklet I cull the following:
There is an abundance of good hay land along the Sandy river. There is fertile land along the Buffalo lake and at La Loche lake the soil is very rich, being a heavy loam from 18 inches to greater depths. West of the height of land at Portage La Loche there is good soil and a large territory of good country.
I have one more extract to read and then I am through. There is this further statement in Mr. Crean's booklet:
The climate over the whole district is most favourable, the winters being no more severe than in the settled portions of Saskatchewan. The frost which damaged the grain in Saskatchewan in 1908 did not affect the grain and garden stuff in the north country at all. At- Portage La Loche, the most northerly point reached by Mr. Crean, he saw potatoes on September 17 that had not been touched by the frost. He was struck by the variety of garden stuff that was grown

in great profusion and with great success at all of the mission stations and the Hudson bay posts. The lakes began to freeze over on October 20, but this was followed by a warm spell and they were navigable for two weeks longer.
Mention has already been made of the necessity of encouraging those who are tilling the soil in the western country, and I think the fact that there is a shortage of money has also been referred to. Let me say that I cannot accept that as an excuse for not going ahead with the Hudson Bay railway. Neither can I accept it as an excuse for not building the branch lines. In view of the lavishness with which we have been voting money during the last few days hon. members opposite can hardly expect us to accept shortage of money as an excuse for not doing anything. Money is available in plenty to complete this line and in view of the fact that a great many of the appropriations which have passed in the last few days have been for public works in the eastern provinces I think we can well claim some consideration now for the provinces in the West-not as a matter of gift but as a right. I hope that hon. members generally will see the matter in that light and that they will not vote to further postpone the project under the plea of investigating it for another two or three years. Such a proposition is worth absolutely nothing. What we want is a hurried investigation of the relative merits of the two ports, and then a speedy completion of the line so that the twenty-one millions of expenditure already made will soon be earning money. I notice that when Sir Henry Thornton was travelling through the West he more than once took the view, in cases where money had already been expended on railway work in grading and so on, that it only seemed good business to make further expenditures in order to earn dividends on money that had already been laid out. That idea appeals to us as good business, and I hope it will be generally supported by the House.


Charles Wallace Stewart: I do not believe any policy would appeal so strongly to men of the intelligence of hon. members of this House unless there was merit back of it.
And so I think that is really a premise upon which we can build our argument at the present time if such a premise is required.
Now then coming to the present time, I am not going to attempt to express the opinion of any hon. member of this House who is capable of expressing his own opinion, and I presume every member is capable of doing that. I am very pleased to find so many expressing themselves as favourable to this movement. There has been a suspicion in the minds of a great many people in western Canada who are interested in the project that some of the members, perhaps not of the present government so much as of the government which dropped the work, were losing1 their interest, or perhaps had changed their minds with regard to the feasibility of this project. I have in my hand a letter published in a local newspaper in western Canada, the Melfort Journal, which purports to have been received by a resident of that town of Melfort from the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I wish to quote a paragraph or two of this letter from the leader of the Opposition. The letter reads:
The present government has involved the country in large sums much less justifiable than would be immediate completion of this outlet. I am opposed, and the Conservative party is opposed to the indefinite postponement of the execution of this work. Had it not been for the war we would have completed it long ago.
That letter is signed by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I just offer that statement for what it is worth as I offered the quotations, from other hon. gentlemens utterances of years ago. We will wait with very great interest for members of the government to express their attitude regarding this question.
Now the question naturally arises from the statement of the leader of the Opposition, who was at the time the work was discontinued, the leader of the government, as to why that work was discontinued. I have heard many rumours, of course, as I suppose every member from western Canada has, and probably members from every other part of Canada, regarding the reasons why the construction of that road was discontinued. I referred to Hansard for the years just preceding discontinuance of this work to see if I could find any good cause for abandoning the project at that particular time. In 1916 I find one of the earliest intimations regarding the possibility of not going ahead with the work, when the hon. member for Rich-IMr. C. W. Stewart.]
mond (Mr. Kyte) urged the government to discontinue work on the Hudson Bay road, to relieve the Finance Minister of further expenditure in that direction under the existing circumstances, the existing circumstances, of course, being the war that was then going on. Further, after perusing his speech at that particular time, I find that he based it largely upon a report that has been referred to very often during the debate this afternoon and evening, of Captain Anderson, that the project was not feasible. Then I think it was the year following that the report was handed to the government by a commission that was appointed to consider a number of subjects, and among others, that commission reported on this matter. I refer to the Drayton-Acworth Commission. Among other things it briefly summed up this matter as follows:
We recommend that future expenditures on the Hudson bay railroad be reduced to the lowest possible amount.
This was made the basis of a further attack upon the project. I am not going to quote at length the remarks of hon. gentlemen, but one of them who is a member of the House at the present time, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), making an attack on the project based on that report, and criticizing the government of the day, said:
Hon. gentlemen are not honest with the people of this country when, after imposing taxation for the purposes of the war, they divert the money to building unnecessary works like the Hudson bay railroad.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the facts that have been presented in the debate this afternoon as to the provision made for funds for the construction of this road, that that was not a fair criticism. Other attacks were made upon the project in that year, 1917, not going as far as the hon. member for Pictou went, but affirming that owing to the existing conditions, or words to that effect, it was inadvisable to expend more money on the Hudson Bay railway at that time. So apparently-for I can find no other reason- the government accepted the advice that was offered. Whether or not the conditions really did warrant such action, I am not prepared to state now. But if such conditions existed during the war, if the state of the public treasury was such that it was inadvisable to go ahead with the project, those conditions do not exist now. In the light of all the facts as they have been presented to the House during the last two sessions I feel that the people of western Canada are making a reasonable statement when they say that the time has now come to proceed with the completion

Hudson Bay Railway
of this road and to make a sufficient expenditure on the harbour and docks at least to give the plan a fair trial, or to enable the experiment, as it has been called, to be made of shipping via that route. I am not one who would advise unlimited expenditure at this time on the harbour or on the railway; indeed, unlimited expenditure is not necessary on the railway, and I do not believe it is necessary on the harbour. A very small additional expenditure will make it possible to establish the value of that route as soon as suitable ships can be brought in to accept, cargoes there.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the feasibility of the project. The ground was so well covered this afternoon that I shall cut out much of what I had in my notes on that phase of the subject, but there are just one or two points to which I wish to direct attention. The railroad is so nearly completed that it is not necessary to argue as to its feasibility. It is not so very many years since the question was raised in this House as to the practicability of building a railroad to Hudson bay. Nor is it much more than half a century since members of the Canadian parliament stated that it was not possible to lay steel across the continent in the construction of a transcontinental railway and make the undertaking a success. I ask you, then, to consider the arguments that are submitted as to the feasibility of this route.
As to the conditions in the bay, I am not a sea-going man; I am not a mariner, and consequently cannot make statements based on my own observations. I have never, I regret to say, visited the bay, but I have read reports made by men of long experience in those * waters. I would like to quote from a report to which reference has already been made, that of J. A. J. McKenna, submitted to the Department of the Interior. One paragraph will suffice to sum up his opinion of the feasibility of the bay and straits route. It says:
In the course - of a century and three-quarters, 750 vessels ranging from 70-ton ships to 10-ton pinnaces, crossed the ocean, passed through the straits, and sailed the bay in the service of the company.
That is, the Hudson's Bay Company.
Only two were lost-a marvellous record when it is remembered that all the craft were sailers and. most of them small and of rude construction, and that the bay and strait afforded them none of the modern accessories to navigation in the way of coast aids.
I had occasion, Sir, to speak to a resolution similar to this last year, and at that time I expressed the conviction that Port Nelson was perhaps, not the proper port for the terminal of this road. But in the year that has elapsed I have searched the available records much
further and I now believe that we make no mistake in urging that the road be built into Port Nelson. Should the time ever come when Port Nelson could not accommodate all the traffic that offered, there would still be the other port, which some hold to be a better natural port-Fort Churchill. The building of a few more miles of railroad would then make two ports available instead of one. But as the rails are now directed toward Port Nelson and a great deal of money has been expended there, I think the road should be built to that port as soon as possible. Port Nelson was chosen after great deliberation. In 1913, after a conference between Captain Bernier, Captain Bartlett-who has been mentioned as an authority in this matter- and the then Minister of Railways, the Hon. Frank Cochrane, Port Nelson was decided upon as the terminal. These gentlemen all had not only a theoretical knowledge of but practical experience in connection with the conditions there. The minister had visited the bay; the other two were sea-going captains who had had many years of Arctic experience. Port Nelson was regarded as the more desirable of the two ports, not only by reason of its more southerly location, but also because of its more favourable approaches from a navigation standpoint.
I have a few statements regarding Port Nelson which I would like to place before the House. A search of the records regarding the surveys of that port and the soundings made there shows that there is a deep water channel at least one-third of a mile wide up the middle of the estuary and separated from the shore by wide tidal flats over which the water is from one to three feet deep at low tide. The channel is 15 miles to deep water in the bay proper. The Hon. Mr. Hazen, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, stated in answer to a question that without dredging at high water vessels drawing from 20 to 25 feet could safely go into Port Nelson. I will offer further testimony along that line in a moment. Later the Hon. Mr. Reid stated:	*
The channel is quite safe with a depth of never less than 19 feet and from one-half mile widening to 15 miles at the mouth, and there is a rise of 15 feet with the tide.
I call your attention, Sir, to the fact that these statements were made before any dredging had been done in the channel. It is further established, I believe, that with the exception of a few bare across the channel, a much greater depth of water is there naturally than the 19 feet mentioned, and that by dredging out these few bars-which are clay bars not sand bars-the channel can be made to'
Hudson Bay Railway

accommodate an ordinary ocean-going steamer. Here are two illustrations showing what has been possible in the past in the navigation of that channel. The steamer Minto with a draught of 20 feet was twice into the place where the harbour works are now being carried on, previous to any dredging work having been done at all. At the time this steamer entered the channel there were no buoys to mark the course, and yet no trouble was experienced. Again, in 1914, two coal ships from England, each of 22 feet draught, entered the port, or approximately to the point where the harbour is now located. These facts bear out the statements that already have been made as to the existence of a natural channel through that estuary. I should like to refer to one other point, bearing not so much on the port as on the navigability of the straits and the bay. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) made a statement which showed that he was not altogether acquainted with the facts. At any rate, the statements I have are entirely contradictory of what he said this afternoon. The hon. member stated that fogs were a great detriment to navigation in the bay and straits. A statement made by Captain J. Hackland would seem to contradict the hon. member's assertion. Captain Hackland stated that navigation in Hudson bay and the straits is not dangerous. There are, he says, no shoals and there are very few fogs. Let me quote what he says:
During sixteen years of navigation of the bay-
Observe, he makes this statement after sixteen years' experience of actual navigation in the bay.
-we were never impeded by fogs.
As to icebergs, I will simply give two quotations from the report which the hon. member had in his hand, that is, Captain Anderson's report. The report states:
Many icebergs were seen and dense fogs prevailed off the Labrador coast.
I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that these same icebergs, and fogs of similar origin, are encountered by all ships that take the north Atlantic course, while no icebergs are encountered in the bay. This statement would seem to bear out the contention that fogs are not encountered in the bay either. In the same report we find this statement:
After passing the strait the weather was clear and very few fogs were encountered.
Now, to turn to the other aspect of the question, which I have placed second in order but which I by no means regard as being of secondary importance, namely, the develop-

ment of the resources of the country lying adjacent to the route traversed by the railroad. I want to quote from an hon. member of this House who on one occasion gave expression to sentiments in which I heartily concur. The member for Saskatoon, Mr. George McCraney in the year 1907, stated that he believed, altogether apart from the benefits of transportation which the Hudson Bay road would give us, the opening up of that country would be sufficient remuneration for anything we might spend in that connection. I think that if we make a search, not of theories or suppositions, but of the actual records available in the various departments of government here after surveys and exploring expeditions have been made, we shall be convinced of the truth of this statement. I want, first of all, to refer to the fisheries of the bay itself. I think I can briefly sum up what I believe to be the truth regarding the fisheries of the bay in short extracts from three reports that were made in the year 1914. In that year three expeditions were sent to Hudson bay to investigate the fisheries. One took the western shore and the waters adjacent thereto, another the eastern shore and the waters adjacent, and the third James bay and its Waters. In the report of the first, Mr. C. D. Melville, officer in charge of the survey work, in his summary states:
1. The question of railroads is of paramount importance.
May I, Sir, read that over as having a direct bearing on the present discussion. In the first statement in his summary of his investigations Mr. Melville states that the question of railroads is of paramount importance. To proceed:
With transportation provided for there can be little doubt that the white fish fishery will prove to be one of the greatest in Canada and with its development the other fisheries will become of immense value.
In a footnote he states that it had proved profitable to send fish to Winnipeg, Chicago, and other points in central Canada and the United States from Prince Rupert, the headquarters of the northern Pacific fisheries, which is 1,745 miles from Winnipeg. And by actual mileage, Port Nelson would not be over one-half of that distance from these centres. I might further point out that if the Ontario government goes ahead with the project it has in view at this time, of connecting the south of James bay with a direct railway to Toronto, it would place these fisheries practically at the doors of the greater cities of eastern Canada. The second expedition- the Burleigh expedition-which investigated the western shore, reports as follows through the officer in charge:

Hudson Bay Railway
As will be seen the season was an abnormally late one which left me a very short time for work. I regret this very much as I am sure that the south eastern shore would have proved to be of greater value in fisheries than the western portion although the latter is very promising. It would take one full season to investigate this properly.
In regard to the third expedition further south into the bay, I take one paragraph from the summary by Mr. A. R. M. Lower, who states:
It is not too much to predict that some time in the future the supply of fish that comes from the salt water of the north will be as constant and plentiful as that which at present is yielded by our great inland lakes.
His qualification as to "some time in the future" was apparently, in his mind, based upon the necessity for quick transportation. Water transportation is not expeditious enough to bring fish fresh to the inland markets; it requires fast train service. The fisheries I claim are of vast importance and are worth developing; and the railroad, I believe, would be justified if for no other reason than that it would develop this industry. But we have had pointed out to us already the vast water-powers that are available on the Hudson bay slope; and the minerals have been referred to. The argument has been advanced that the expense of developing these water powers at the sites located on the Nelson river would make the undertaking prohibitive. I think there would be a great demand for the power that could be developed there; and with that point in view, and because of certain inquiries I have had regarding the available power, not of course amounting to thousands or-millions of horsepower, I went to the department to secure the results of a survey made on a tributary to the Nelson and which parallels the railroad for many miles. I want to place before the House the results of a survey made in 1917 Of that particular tributary, the Grass river, and the power available thereon. The Grass river runs almost parallel with the present line of the Hudson Bay railway, and at no point are the sites where power could be developed on the Grass river more than , 20 miles from railway stations or sidings. There were five sites surveyed, none of them tremendous, but all large enough to be of commercial value, especially to those requiring power that could be developed cheaply. The first site is sixteen miles from the railway, and the power estimated, at 80 per cent efficiency, is 1,640 horse-power. The second site is twenty miles from the railway and the estimated power, on the same percentage basis, is 2,450 horse power. The third site is seven miles from the railway, and the
power that can be developed on the 80 per cent efficiency basis is given at 2,180 horsepower. The fourth site, seven miles from the railroad, is capable of a development, on the same basis of efficiency, of 4,860 horse-power, and the fifth site, ten miles from the railroad, has power possibilities of 4,250 horse-power.
I stated that I had asked for. the result of the surveys because of a certain letter that I had received from an improvement and production supply company asking for figures as to the power available and the possibilities of securing a charter to develop power to run a flour mill there to mill grain and ship the flour and other products to the European market.	[DOT]


Mr. WALLACE:: Do those figures represent the minimum flow?


Charles Wallace Stewart: I think so. One further point. In regard to agricultural land, I have an illustration to offer to the House as to the possibilties of agricultural land in that particular vicinity. I am not going to make any statement in regard to those lands that are already available as soon as transportation is provided to the district. But it has been stated, I think by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), that there were at least 12,000,000 acres of land that could be drained and made available for agriculture. I believe, Sir, that those are among the best agricultural lands that we have in western Canada once they are properly drained. That may seem to be looking into the future, but it is not looking so very far ahead. I went to the Reclamation branch of the Department of the Interior and secured certain figures in this connection. They have made surveys and have a project before them at the present time which taps
10 p.m. this very district. It is an area known as the Moose range and Carrot river triangle. The apex of this triangle points right to The Pas, the town where the railroad starts. In this territory there are 125,000 square miles of land which at the present time is not suitable for agricultural purposes because of lack of drainage. The reports of the surveys which have been very carefully carried out show that this land can be reclaimed and will make the very richest agricultural soil. I do not need to emphasize to western members at least that the Carrot river lands are the very best in all western Canada, in fact I do not think that anywhere in Canada or probably in the world is there such a deep black loam as in the Carrot river country. This triangle of 125,000 square miles can, according to the figures of our own Reclamation branch, be reclaimed
Hudson Bay Railway

and made fit for agricultural purposes at a cost of approximately $2.50 per acre.


Mr. CAHILL:: Does the Hudson Bay railway run through this land?


Charles Wallace Stewart: It touches it at The Pas.


Frank S. Cahill: Is not this triangle west of the Hudson Bay railway?


Charles Wallace Stewart: Yes. I was not referring to this as land that the Hudson Bay railway would particularly serve; I was simply citing it as an illustration. Farther north there is land siniilar to this, referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Millar), containing about 12,000,000 acres, which require drainage. I was offering this as something not theoretical but regarding which we have definite data. It is so definite, Sir, that although the Department of the Interior after securing those figures did not deem it advisable to go ahead with the work, the province of Saskatchewan accepted the figures and have, I believe, reached an agreement with the department to proceed, either this year or at no distant date, on their surveys and drain at least a part of that Carrot river triangle in order to make it suitable for farming operations.
I think, then, it will be readily admitted from the statement which I read, and which I heartily concur in, that the natural resources themselves justify the building of this road. If they justified the building of this road many years ago when it was undertaken and $20,000,000 expended, certainly they justify a further expendture now of another $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 to complete that road and so make profitable the capital investment.
I hinted some few moments ago that there were suspicions in the minds of a great many people in the West as to the reasons why this road was not being completed, I have in my hand a letter which appeared in the correspondence columns of the Saskatoon Daily Star of February 21st, in which the writer airs his suspicions that sectional or political interests are holding up and delaying the completion of this road. Now, Sir, I do not endorse the statements made by this correspondent, but I wish to bring it particularly to the attention of the government that these suspicions do exist and that it is necessary for the satisfaction of the people of western Canada that they should be dispelled. I am delighted with the sentiments that have been expressed in this debate, and I am sure that when the speeches are read by the people of western Canada those suspicions will in a very large measure be dispelled. But to show

how this particular correspondent feels in regard to this matter let me quote a passage from his letter. He says:
We know the East is against the completion of the Hudson bay road.
I am very glad that certain eastern members have expressed themselves plainly and emphatically to the contrary but I should like to add a word to the point emphasized by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) when he spoke of the psychological effect of the completion of this road to the bay. The people of western Canada feel that its completion is their due. They are not so provincial as not to watch with careful eyes the voting of public moneys in the present session as well as in past sessions, and they are aware that in the past week, for example, we have voted estimates running into millions of dollars to provide transportation ways and means for farming communities located along our lakes and rivers in eastern Canada. We in this section of the House, Sir, could not very well try to hinder the placing of harbours, wharves, breakwaters and other necessary accommodation for the farming people of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island because we realize that such accommodation is indeed essential, and I think it was very noticeable that the members of this group did not raise any serious objection to these votes. But I would remind the government that the people of western Canada, as I said a moment ago, fully realize that these means of transportation are being provided year by year, and that next year other requirements of a similar nature will probably have to be provided for, and therefore they feel that they too should have absolutely necessary w'harves and harbours supplied to them.
I was amazed, Sir, when I turned to the appropriations for Manitoba for harbours and rivers not to see its greatest port mentioned -Port Nelson. I thought possibly that a special vote might be found somewhere in the estimates, but I could not find anything for that important harbour. Such omissions are not having a good effect upon the people of western Canada.
I have based my arguments very, very' largely upon statements that have already been made in this House, but I doubt, Sir, if sounder statements can be found anywhere on this subject, and I want to make one further quotation to sum up my attitude. It is contained in a speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when criticism was advanced early in the history of this project. He stated
The future of Canada is too great for any one part of its territory to be hurt by the development of the routes of commerce of any other part.

Hudson Bay Railway
We need to rise to that viewpoint at this present time and realize that we are not hurting any other part of Canada, but only giving its just due to that part which possesses this great outlet. I think it is a significant fact of history that the man, Sir Henry Hudson, who gave his name to the great bay on which the port of Nelson lies also gave his name to the river in the republic to the eouth of us, which has the second greatest city in the world and one of the greatest ports of the world, and 1, Sir, am one of those like the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Warner) who preceded me in this debate, who having read our great explorer Stefansson have become enthused with some of his sentiments, and I endorse his statement that the trend of Empire is northward, and if already a great city and a great port is on the river bearing the name of Hudson, there also will be, and I hope in my time and your time, Mr. Speaker, a great city and a great port on the bay which also bears his name.


George Perry Graham: have the Canadian National Railways Board charged with them.
I think that the debate to-day has covered more territory and has been as instructive, to put it mildly, as any previous debate we have ever had on this subject. The members who have spoken have shown that they have read a good deal. They have been in the Library quite frequently, I can see that. They have done their utmost to secure the data which would assist them in placing the case as they saw it before this House.
I am not going to argue with any person, but I would like to make a reference to the Welland canal as that has been mentioned by one or two members. I plead guilty to several things, if guilt there be attached, and one of these is the beginning of the surveys for the enlarging of the Welland canal. I did so not for eastern Canada but for western Canada and at the request and after urgent petitions and deputations of men engaged on the plains in grain growing that we should enlarge the Welland canal so as to reduce if possible the rate of transportation from the head of the Great Lakes to the seaboard. The Welland canal is not for the East; it is not for the West; it is for all Canada, and that is the way I think hon. gentlemen ought to accept that expenditure. Had it not been for our great West, what would we have had to induce us to enlarge the Welland canal? It was the wheat, the product of the western prairies, that first impelled the government to begin the enlargement of the Welland canal, and when that is finished I believe that it will afford some relief even if the St. Lawrence be not deepened for some little time, by allowing the larger cargoes to go many miles further east before being trans-shipped to smaller vessels and canalized to the city of Montreal.
It has been said that lands were appropriated for the Hudson Bay railway. I always ^esitate to deal with a statute, not being of the legal brotherhood myself, but I want to present this to the House as I see it, so that we shall be clear as to what took place. In the statute of 1906 the following appears as subsection C of section 6:
Make a free grant of land, not exceeding in extent six thousand four hundred acres for each mile of railway within Manitoba, and not exceeding m extent twelve thousand eight hundred acres for each mile beyond the limits of Manitoba, in aid of the construction of a railway from some point on the Canadian Pacific railway to Hudson bay;


Arthur Meighen: Would the minister read the first part of the section?


George Perry Graham: Oh, yes.
1 Mr. Graham.]
The Governor in Council may make a free grant of land, etc.
That covers the point which I think I wish to make. It provides in this statute that the Governor in Council can make a free grant of land for the construction of the Hudson bay project from a point on the Canadian Pacific railway. That was in 1906. So it is very manifest that the Governor in Council, in 1906, was given power, at least, to appropriate large areas of land for the construction of a railway from somewhere on the Canadian Pacific to Hudson bay. Now if we look at the statute passed in 1908-known as the Dominion Lands Act-we find that under section 27 the right was given for a homesteader to purchase a pre-emption, and while nothing is said about the Hudson Bay railway, or any portion of it, the debates in the House would indicate that the government had in mind at that time the idea of selling these pre-emptions and taking the money-or a portion of it at least- for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, rather than granting such a company, or any company a free grant of land for that purpose. Consequently this act of 1908, as I understand it, repeals the act of 1906 so far as the Hudson Bay railway is concerned.
One hon. gentleman opposite-referring to the remarks of Mr. Oliver, who was in 1908 a member of the government-I think I need not repeat those remarks-has made it clear in the discussion of the matter by, Mr. Oliver that it was the intention of the government first to allow the Governor in Council to make a land grant in 1906 to any company to build a railway to Hudson bay; but that in 1908 that act was repealed, in so far as it referred to the land grant, and provided for the sale of pre-emptions, with the explanation of Mr. Oliver particularly, as reported in Hansard, that the money from those pre-emptions might well be taken for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Now Sir, I think there could be no question that there was in the mind of parliament-at least the idea was expressed as fairly as it could be without putting the words in the statute-that certain lands might be sold and the money received from those lands as pre-emptions used to construct the Hudson Bay railway.
I am not going at all into the question of the feasibility of the navigation of the straits, or the question of the proper port, except to say this, that during the time that I had the honour of being a member of the Laurier administration I thought we had that question fairly well investigated; and I have yet to find an engineer who will accept the responsibility

Hudson Bay Railway
of saying to the government or to .the department, or at least has said, that Churchill is preferable to Nelson. I think the government that followed us found the same situation and selected Nelson, largely on the data I had procured and the reports made to me when I was Minister of Railways. In addition to that, other investigations took place. I think my successor, the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, went to Hudson bay himself and was firmly convinced that Nelson was the proper port, and for this reason: If a great amount of traffic were to be developed, Nelson provides greater facilities and greater opportunity for the development of a large harbour than does Churchill. As I am informed, Churchill at the present time might provide a harbour for small traffic, but could not be developed without very great expense into a larger harbour. But Nelson provides all the opportunities for developing a harbour-I would not say to an unlimited extent but to a much greater degree than Churchill.
Now it has been argued, and I will just dwell a moment on this point, that deep water could not be obtained at Nelson. There is deep water at Nelson a few yards from shore and, under the plans that were adopted by the government, an artificial island has been under construction having connection with the shore. This will provide for the construction of a dock that, with the carrying out of a comparatvely small amount of dredging, will permit vessels drawing 26 feet of water to come alongside.
As to the railway itself the history of- the whole project is fresh in the minds of most hon. members. Just here I may say that when I was at home yesterday I came across a relic that reminded me that I had turned the first sod for the Hudson bay project-that is beyond The Pas; I found the spade in my library with which I had done it,. It is many years since the Hudson bay project was first mooted.


Arthur Meighen: Before the minister gets to the history of the railway will he mind answering this if he can-I would like the information: If the road were completed now to Port Nelson could tests be made of the feasibility of the route without a very large expenditure being first made in the harbour? That is to say, is the harbour in such a condition now that a small amount of traffic could take place, if boats could be found to take care of shipments at Port Nelson?


George Perry Graham: I do not think it would be feasible for grain, for example, without quite a large expenditure. I am of the opinion
it would take quite a large expenditure before any real test could be made-I mean in the harbour at the wharf.


Arthur Meighen: How much?


George Perry Graham: I have not made an estimate of that. It would take about nine millions and some odd dollars more to complete the harbour without the elevator according to the plan; but as ships come in-and ships have come and gone-possibly a test may be made with less expenditure than that. The sum mentioned would be for complete facilities, excepting the elevator which, of course, is necessary for the shipping of grain. Now to return to the point upon which I had entered, I think it is Hugh Sutherland's name that I find first connected with the Hudson Bay railway. Later a line was built from Hudson bay junction to Pas Mission, and was extended towards the Saskatchewan river. The first thing to be done on the line was to build a bridge across the Saskatchewan river. I think it was in 1911 that the contract was let for the first 187 miles. Now, as in the case of the Welland canal, I must plead guilty, if guilt there be, to having signed that contract. Up to date there have been constructed 332 miles. The line to mile 214 has been operated during the past year. Prom mile 214 to mile 332 has not been operated for some time. At mile 355 at Split lake we come to the point where the route either to Nelson or to Churchill could be established. In the surveys as made that was the point of divergence taken and the difference in distance from The Pas to Churchill and from The Pas to Nelson was some 60 miles, if I remember correctly. Now the addition qf that 60 miles was estimated by the engineers to cost $4,000,000. In addition to the construction would be the continuous operation and upkeep of that extra 60 miles. But it has been stated recently that the line running down towards Port Nelson might be used, and then branch off . and go to Churchill, instead of making the divergence at Split lake. As to that I am not in a position to say. All the estimates made by the engineers dealt with the line from mile 355. The line has been constructed to Nelson river. A bridge has been constructed across what is known as, I think, Kettle river. Further on there is no ste,el. About 30 miles down is the head of navigation on the Nelson river. Some have suggested that the road might be constructed down the 30 miles, so that the benefits of navigation up and down the Nelson might be obtained first. That suggestion is worthy of investigation.
Hudson Bay Railway

The present situation is this: The government has no idea of abandoning the Hudson Bay railway, but we have to go slowly-perhaps I should not use that word after the addresses we have heard to-night-but we have to go carefully and with- caution. The position of the second 118 miles at the present time is almost as if it had never been constructed. I believe-and I propose to make this recommendation-that we ought to proceed to put that second 118 miles in such shape that it could be operated, and to rescue some million dollars worth of material -I do not mean to take it out, but to rescue it-and put into workable shape, that 118 miles of line. Now you will ask why we wanted to take the rails out. Well there was a report made by the board prior to the coming of Sir Henry Thornton suggesting that these 80 pound rails might be taken out for the present and used for branch lines that were being hardly pressed for, but on his arrival Sir Henry Thornton made the suggestion that we had better have more investigation before we removed that material, because, to begin with, in order to get the line in condition to move that material over it, a good many thousand dollars would have to be expended; so that at the present time Sir Henry Thornton's advice is-and I have discussed it with him-that we proceed to expend an amount of money to begin the work of putting that 118 miles, which is now practically out of ^ business, into respectable operating condition to-day. To put it in first class condition would take a great deal of money, but I am going to ask my colleagues to allow me to bring down an item for the purpose of beginning the work at least of putting that 118 miles in conditiont so that, along the line where there are poles, nuts, ties and fish-plates and all that kind of thing, we can save all this material, level [DOT] up and re-align the rails, and straighten up the trestles and bridges that have become warped for lack of care for the last three or four years. Of course that will take some time and some money, but when that is done we will be in position to discuss what is the next step to take.


William Findlay Maclean: How many miles would that give of continuous line?


George Perry Graham: If it were all in operation it would make 332 miles. I think the first duty of the government to the country is to place that 118 miles in repair again. When that is completed we can decide what the next step will be.
In the meantime I assure the House that so far as the government is concerned^ they

have never' suggested, so far as I have any knowledge, the abandonment of the Hudson Bay project.


Milton Neil Campbell: In discussing the question before the House it should not be necessary at all to deal with the feasibility of the Hudson bay route as that was established long ago to the satisfaction of two different governments and of two different political parties. However, because certain influences seem to be at work to discredit the scheme and sow suspicion in the minds of the people of the country, I crave the indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I deal with some of the reasons which persuaded the Laurier government in 1907 to undertake the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and the reasons which convinced the Borden government, in 1912, to continue the work started by their predecessors in office. The saving in distance from Saskatoon to Liverpool by Hudson bay over the Montreal route would be no less than 1,218 miles. It would place the western prairies as near tide water as their competitors the Argentine, Australia and southern Russia. A few days ago this House voted a sum of five million dollars to increase the grain facilities at Vancouver. Let me point out that from Edmonton to Vancouver the distance is 770 miles, Edmonton to Port Nelson is 1,057. With higher freight rates for the mountain it would cost about the same rate to Vancouver as to Nelson. The distance from Nelson to Liverpool is 2,966 miles, from Vancouver to Liverpool it is 8,530. This means a saving by the Hudson bay of 5,564 miles. In addition, there are the canal tolls to pay via the Panama route, and I believe the danger to the grain from excessive heat is at least equal to the danger from navigation difficulties on the northern route.
I would not have my hon. friends from British Columbia think that I am in any way opposing that route; on the contrary I am delighted to see it opened and I feel that we need every available channel to get our grain out in proper time. I do not look on the Hudson bay as a competitor to existing routes. Indeed, I believe the day would come when it would be a valuable feeder to existing transportation systems. During the navigable season of 1921 85,000,000 bushels of our grain passed out through the United States. During the past season, 1922, no less than 129,000,000 bushels of Canadian wheat went to Europe through the United States ports. This is sufficient to prove that the present routes are not able to handle our crop. There is another reason why we are anxious that as little as possible of our wheat

Hudson Bay Railway
should go out through American channels. We are afraid, indeed we are very suspicious, that in transit through the United States our wheat is being mixed and its high quality lost and we are, therefore, anxious to preserve the identity of our Canadian wheat on account of its undoubted high quality.
Furthermore, I believe that by developing every available Canadian route, we can in the future not only prevent our Canadian wheat going to Europe through American ports, but we can secure for our Canadian ports a very considerable quantity of American wheat. It is nearly twenty years ago that J. J. Hill told a delegation of North Dakota farmers that the day might come when their wheat would go to Europe through Hudson bay, and in examining the mileage it looks quite probable. The distance from Grand Forks to Liverpool via New York is 4,802 miles; from Grand Forks to Liverpool via Hudson bay, 3,632 miles, a saving of 1,170 miles. From Havre, Montana to Liverpool via New York the distance is 5,418 miles; from Havre, Montana to Liverpool via Hudson bay 4,268 miles, a saving of 1,150 miles. Port Nelson is 58 miles nearer Liverpool than New York. One of the arguments used against the northern route is the lack of return cargo. The western states import a large amount of goods from Europe and I believe if this northern route were developed, a considerable quantity of these goods would come in via Hudson bay.
The British embargo against cattle has recently been removed, but transportation costs are so high that the British market Is of no use to us. The opening of the Hudson bay route, which would be available during the very season that our cattle are being marketed, would be a great boost to the cattle industry. From the point of view of the cattle industry alone it would pay to develop this route, even if no grain were shipped by it. At present the cattle industry is-well, I was going to say, in a deplorable state, but it is worse than that-non est, so far as western Canada is concerned. Whether or not we shall be able to build up in that country a cattle industry depends on whether we can get an outlet to Hudson bay. Cattle and grain can be very conveniently combined in one cargo and thus can be handled very cheaply.
Those who are opposing the completion of the Hudson Bay railway are largely in the same class with those who said that the Canadian Pacific Railway would never earn its axle grease; with those who thirty or forty years ago said that wheat could never be successfully raised on the prairies; with those whcf thought that the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway was doomed to failure-a railway which opened up one of the richest and most productive mining districts on the continent, if not in the world; with those who only two years ago said that the Vancouver route could never be a success. Men of vision, however, have long believed in it. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a speech delivered at Niagara Falls in September, 1908, said:
We have undertaken the construction of another railway. The Hudson Bay railway concerns more the people of the West, but I say to you, gentlemen of Ontario, and you will agree with me, that what concerns one portion of the community concerns any part of the community.
A few days ago, Sir, we passed a vote in this House for 825,000 for the erection of a monument to the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It seems to me that one of the most fitting monuments to the memory of that great departed statesman would be the fulfilment of one of his own promises. The government could contribute a great deal by carrying out what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had in mind at that time.	'
Mr. Turgeon, speaking in this House in 1916 said:
I have always favoured the construction of the Hudson bay railway.
Perhaps it is superfluous to quote the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Graham), but I see he is on record in 1916 as saying:
I have not varied for a moment in my belief that the Hudson bay project will be a success, notwithstanding the difficulties that have arisen. For my part, I have faith in the western country to believe that it will be large enough and productive enough to give business for all the routes in the years to come. I believe it will pay to build that railway, even if we have no imports by way of Hudson bay.
The Hon. Frank Cochrane, after he had made a trip to Nelson by land and home by water, said:
I have every faith in the scheme, and I will push the Hudson bay road for all it is worth.
Lately some doubts appear to have arisen in the public mind regarding tlie suitability of the port of Nelson. No doubt Churchill is a better harbour in many respects, but the longer distance by rail and the limited size of the port were reasons that actuated both governments in deciding on Nelson. The latter port, as appears from the reports I have gone through, is apparently quite safe. It can accommodate any amount of shipping; it is open longer and experiences less severe cold than does Churchill. In respect to one of the arguments made in commenting on Nelson, I give this in answer to the hon. member for

Hudson Bay Railway
Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) the main channel is only about half a mile wide at the docks, and several of the engineers state that outside the channel on the flats the water is so shallow that the waves do not rise higher than three feet, and that there would be very little interference with the ships lying at anchor off the docks. The channel never freezes to any extent, on account of the swift current and the heavy rise and fall of the tide. Engineer, R. 13. Fry, -who was sent in there by the Laurigr government in 1905, stated that with a light ice-breaker Nelson could easily be kept open all winter. The port of Archangel in northern Russia has handled a large trade for several hundred years, though it is situated 400 miles further north than Nelson and the most northerly point in the track of the ships to and from that port is over 200 miles north of Hudson strait; yet it has been demonstrated that with the assistance of ice-breakers the Archangel route can be kept open practically all winter.
The bay is open all year, and notwithstanding some of the statements we have heard here I am convinced that the straits are open most of the year. There are no difficulties in the way of navigation in the bay itself; in the straits it is evidently the ice flows that interfere with navigation in the fall and the early spring. All navigators whose reports I have gone into agree that with wireless stations and planes to advise vessels regarding the location of ice, the period of navigation can be greatly extended and much delay saved at all times.
An engineer, Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, was sent up there by the government to make observations. He occupied a position in the rocks from which he could view the straits; there he spent the whole winter. He stated that there was no time during the whole winter that the ice was not constantly on the move, and that there were open spaces through which a vessel could pass in all except two months of the year. January and February. In 1903 Mr. A. P. Low was sent into the bay in charge of the steamship Neptune. He wintered inside the straits and came out in the spring. After observing the ice conditions for the season he stated in his report:
There is little doubt that a specially constructed ship for ice navigation might pass through Hudson strait at any season, but the voyage would be long and the difficulties and dangers would be great.
I do not suggest that it would be advisable to try to make a winter route of the Hudson bay, but there is some ground for believing that that is within the bounds of possibility. Sir George Foster, speaking in the House of Commons in 1913 said:

We know from personal observation that we have found greater obstacles in the straits of Belle Isle and north of Belle Isle than we found going through the Hudson straits on our trip last year; and from which I gained a most favourable opinion as to the feasibility of that route.
Captain Bernier gave testimony before the Senate committee of 1920-and I would commend this report to the hon. member for Lunenburg, because I do not think there is an hon. gentleman in this House who will question the words of Captain Bernier. He is an old navigator; he has spent months around those northern waters and should be in a better position to speak on the subject than almost anyone else. He said:
The average season is four months, with wireless I would say four and a half. Aeroplanes would be an immense advantage to get a bird's eye view and report location of ice.
The Senate report of 1907 stated:
All witnesses agree that under ordinary circumstances the minimum period of navigation would be four months and the maximum would not likely exceed five.
This report also states:
The consensus of opinion of witnesses is that Hudson bay remains open all year, strait also open all or nearly all year and would be open all the time except for drift ice from the channel. Aids to navigation would greatly facilitate and extend length of season.
But, Sir, I am one of those who believe that the Hudson Bay railway will eventually develop local traffic sufficient to make it profitable, and the development of the resources of that great north country would mean added trade for the industries of eastern Canada as well. The country surrounding the bay is, on the whole, not heavily timbered, but according to reports this is due largely to frequent heavy fires, very often set by the Indians. These fires have kept the forests depleted. Along the - Nelson, the Churchill, and other northern rivers there are large forests of spruce and various other woods, and over large tracts of land south and west of the bay there is an immense quantity of wood suitable for pulp. Pulp manufacturing is an industry that should have a great future in that country. Some hon. gentlemen have already dealt with the water-power resources. Along both the Churchill, the Nelson and several other northern streams there is a vast amount of water-power waiting to be developed. Mr. Mclnnes, an explorer who spent some time in this territory in 1896 and again in 1905 and 1906, stated that along the Nelson were some of the most magnificent power sites in the world capable, he said, of untold development. The country adjacent to the Hudson Bay railway is not usually considered in connection with agriculture. There is kittle doubt, how-

Hudson Bay Railway
ever, that at some future time it will support a large farming and ranching population as well as fishing and mining. Mr. Mclnnes states in his official report published in 1900:
Much of the land is well adapted for agriculture. I saw fine gardens and crops at Nelson house. Wheat ripens well at Norway house. This district contains abundance of timber and grass and has unlimited waterpower. Split lake country which is about 250 miles north of Le Pas, to Churchill especially suitable for agriculture. Immense forest belt west of Nelson river. Vegetation is almost tropical.
Mr. Mclnnes estimated the amount of arable land in the district to be 10,000 square miles fit for settlement, and he described it as being very much in the nature of the Dauphin district. He kept a record of the temperature from the time he arrived at Split lake on the 19th of June, to the 29th of September, and he states that there was no frost to affect the tenderest vegetation. He was convinced that the country was quite suitable for agriculture. In comparing abstracts of summer temperatures with those at Minne-dosa, Stoney Mountain and Brandon, he concluded that the country along the proposed railway is conspicuously warmer during the summer months than 400 miles further south. Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, mining engineer, confirms this in his report and states that 42 degrees below was the coldest he experienced it during a winter's stay at the bay. He had found it colder at Winnipeg.
Mr. J. A. J. McKenna, in his report on the Hudson Bay road states:
The cold at Nelson house is no more intense than that of a winter in northern Manitoba, partly on account of the much lower altitude, and vegetables of all kinds are raised in abundance, growth almost tropical. This is attributed to the long periods of sunlight and the streams of living water everywhere.
Coal is found in abundance in Melville island as well as in several other islands in the northern part of the bay.
Mr. Stefansson reported seeing coal on nearly every island in the north and his party coaled their ships at Melville island.	The coal was
similar to Ladysmith coal.	Capt. Bernier
has also mined this coal and reported it as good as Sydney coal.
As this mining can be carried on all winter, I predict that when the railway is completed to James bay the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be no longer dependent upon the tender mercies of the United States fuel controller. At present we are spending from 850,000,000 to $125,000,000 per year in the United States for coal, most of which will be saved to Canada when the northern railway is completed. In 1920, we bought from the United States, 11,552,000 tons of coal, and in
1921, 15,407,000 tons, and we would have purchased much more had we been allowed to get it.
The finest of beautiful building stone is found along the Hudson Bay line; also immense quantities of commercial limestone. Marble of high grade is found on Marble island. The islands and shores of the bay are rich in gold, copper, iron and many other minerals, and with cheap power and easy transportation this will eventually provide much of the material for our manufacturing industries.
The rivers and lakes draining into the bay and the bay itself teem with fish and valuable marine animals, and the opening of the road will mean the establishing of a lucrative industry in this line. It must not be forgotten that cold water fish are of a very superior quality to those caught in warmer waters. The American fishermen and whalers are at the present time doing a large trade in the bay and I am credibly informed that a large part of their product would be loaded at Nelson and shipped by rail to central markets in the United States.
As an indication of what this would mean to the Canadian National Railways I may quote the following figures from the port of Prince Rupert: In 1921, there were 1,351 American vessel loads of fish totalling 18,642,721 pounds unloaded at that port and shipped in bond over the Canadian National railway to central points in the United States. In 1922, there were 1,274 American vessel loads, totalling 17,183,163 pounds of fish, and I understand that scores of these American vessels were unable to unload there on account of the shortage of refrigerator cars on the Canadian National railways. They were therefore compelled to continue down the coast and take the fish to Seattle. This would have meant a very large amount of traffic for the Canadian National railways. The ivory alone that is being secured yearly by these Americans is an industry in itself and is worth a great deal of money.
Mr. Stefansson, the distinguished explorer, giving evidence before the Senate committee in 1920, stated that the so-called "barren lands" of the north adjoining the bay, on its western shore, were capable of supporting fifty million reindeer and ten million musk ox and the cost of handling these animals would be slight in comparison with the profit to be made. He states the musk ox is the most valuable animal in the world. If domesticated he needs no hay and no bams; he cannot be killed by blizzard and hardly by wolves. He produces three times as much meat as the domestic sheep and three times as much wool. The musk ox will produce about fifty pounds
Hudson Bay Railway

of wool each year of an exceptionally high grade.
The Dominion Lands Act of 1882 provided for the building of this road by private enterprise, the cost to be defrayed by land grants. In 1908 an amendment to the Lands Act provided for a grant of 6,800 acres per mile to the Saskatchewan river and 12,800 acres per mile for the balance of 2,523,008 acres were given to the Winnipeg, and Great Northern railway for construction work to the river.
Some time ago I put a question on the order paper regarding this and the answer appeared in Hansard of February 15. It is as follows:
Mr. Campbell:
1.	What is the total number of acres of land sold as authorized by statute of 1908 for the purpose of Hudson bay railway construction?
2.	What is the total amount for which this land has been sold?
3.	How many acres of land are still held in western Canada on account of the above legislation?
Hon. Mr. Stewart:
1.	There was no specific authority under the Dominion Lands Act, 1908, for the sale of land for the purpose of Hudson bay railway construction, but preemptions and purchased homesteads were sold under the provisions of the said act as follows:-
2.	Total acreage of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads sold under the statute of 1908,-8,050,720 acres approximate. Total amount for which pre-emptions and purchased homesteads have been sold $24,152,160, approximate.
The minister was quite right in stating that the act itself does not specifically provide for the sale of land for the purpose of the Hudson Bay railway construction. But I submit that this was the distinct and specific object in the passing of this act. If hon. gentlemen have doubts about the matter I would refer them to Hansard of June 23, 1908. I will not weary the House with long quotations, but at page 1153 they will find the following from a speech of the Hon. Mr. Frank Oliver.
We propose to allow the purchase by actual settlers, on settlement conditions, of say 5,000,000 acres of land, realizing thereby, out of a fixed and moderate price per acre, sufficient money to meet the requirements of the government in respect of the railway.
I note on that particular occasion the Hon. R. L. Borden made the following observations :
Even if we do not sell an acre of that land, or no matter how much we sell within the next four or five years, the Hudson bay railway project stands by itself endorsed and approved by this House.
Further on he said:
I trust and am led to believe that the Hudson bay railway project will still go on in the meantime and without delay.


Arthur Meighen: What year was that?


Milton Neil Campbell: In 1908, June 23rd.
Now, Sir, in view of the fact that the rail-

way will have to be paid for out of the sale of these lands and by the grain and cattle to be produced by the men who purchased these lands, I want to say that we are not here to-day as humble suppliants asking this parliament for favours; we are here demanding our right. This railway is ours, and I maintain lhat no other part of the Dominion has contributed anything towards its building. The grading has all been done, the bridges are all in, and only 92 miles of steel remain to be laid to complete this road. The then Minister of Railways when asked the question in the year 1920 as to the estimated cost of laying this steel gave the figure of 81,750,000. But as material and labour costs have decreased since that time, I presume the work could now be done for.less. I understand of course that a great deal of the road already built has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and that a considerable amount of money will be required to put it again into proper shape, but the least we can expect is that this railway should be completed to the bay and put in running shape and local traffic allowed to develop-the traffic from fishing, mining and lumbering industries. In that way we would get a very fair chance to try out the project and convince those who are still doubtful that it is quite feasible.
I should like to observe that the townsite at Fort Churchill has unfortunately been allowed to pass into private hands. The town-site at Port Nelson is still in the possession of the government, and I trust that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will see that it is retained until such time as it is needed for actual use instead of being allowed to pass into the hands of speculators.
The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked one hon. member on this side of the House what would become of the Canadian National Railways if the Hudson Bay railway were completed and in operation. Now, Sir, that question carried with it the implication that the scheme was feasible, and I was almost pleased to hear the hon. gentleman make the inquiry. It appears to me that those opposing this project are divided into two classes: those who think it is feasible and oppose it because it is feasible-I do not imply of course that the hon. member for Bonaventure is opposing the resolution; he did not say so-and those who, perhaps honestly, think the project is not feasible.
In going over the estimates that we have been dealing with recently perhaps I may be allowed to observe, without appearing sectional in any way, that after carefully elim-

Hudson Bay Railway
mating all the items that could in any way be considered national, and dealing only with those that I could class as gifts or bonuses or subsidies to the provinces, I find the figures are as follows:
Ontario and Quebec	 $2,775,000
British Columbia	 2,295,000
Maritime provinces	 1,921,000
Of this amount I might observe that Prince Edward Island gets only the small portion of $33,700 and the prairie provinces-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-only $305,377, the total being $7,298,062.
To this total I might add the steamship subsidies, because in looking over them I do not find any of really national benefit. They serve the small ports, and therefore are only of provincial account. The large trans-Atlantic steamship systems that handle our grain and other products are made to pay their way by the freight charges they collect from our grain and cattle. These steamship subsidies amount to $1,128,275, giving us a total of $8,426,337. In looking at those items one may perhaps be pardoned for observing that the prairie provinces with approximately 25 per cent of the population of the Dominion receive only about 3i per cent of that total. This is a further reason why the government should give favourable consideration to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
In conclusion, I might refer to the fact that we are approaching a by-election in the constituency of Moose Jaw. I predict that the Liberal candidate will be promising the people that if he is elected the government will complete the Hudson Bay railroad. Therefore I hope the government will express themselves a litttle more frankly on this project, because it is certainly going to be an issue in the Moose Jaw election, and I do not want to see the Liberal candidate making any pledges unless he has the government behind him.
As for the criticisms and the doubts levelled at this project, we are quite prepared to meet them. In fact we have been meeting them for the last forty years. Doubtless there are and always will be such scoffers and doubters, and had it not been that men of vision overruled the skeptics the great country west of the Lakes would still be a fur preserve, the Canadian Pacific railway would never have been built. Indeed, we may go back a few hundred years and say that America would never have been discovered. And as we now criticise those who opposed or supported in their day, these other great projects so posterity will judge us for our decisions here to-day.


Arthur Meighen: Before the vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, I wish to declare my position on this resolution. The resolution has not the definiteness and meaningfulness that one would like. Its firet demand is that the government consider a report of a Senate committee for the purpose of saving an investment in the Hudson Bay railway.
11 p.m. It would be a strange government in the Hudson Bay railway, solution to that extent. There is no commitment involved; the government accepting it is just where it was before.	.
The second part of the resolution has more meaning. It calls upon the government to recognize the priority of the undertaking with reference to other transportation projects started subsequent to the Hudson Bay railway. The meaning of that as well could stand further explanation. It may go beyond what the ordinary man would interpret it as conveying. I take it to mean that the completion of the Hudson Bay railway should be a charge upon this country prior to the prosecution of other transportation projects of a similar or larger character. That is to say, the road should be completed before we put through any similar project whether in the .East or West; but not that its completion should be held to be a charge prior to the completion of minor, local, auxiliary and subsidiary projects of a transportation character, many of which are under way or should be in various parts of the Dominion.
Now assuming that I have not misinterpreted the resolution, I will make very clear where I stand myself. I hope in that regard I shall have more success than did the Acting-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in his address a short time ago. I will try to imitate his brevity, but I will try very seriously to excel his clearness and finality.
In the first place I favour the Hudson Bay railway. It goes without saying that this would be my position. I do not purpose to canvass the merits of the undertaking, as one would be compelled to do if the whole project were in the future. I do not propose to discuss at all the feasibilty of the route. I know there are many still who doubt that feasibility. I know there are some who doubt it whose opinions from a practical standpoint would be better than mine. On that phase I only say this: The matter has been debated acd investigated, investigated and debated, not for a few years but for many years, for a whole generation. For forty years it has been the subject of dispute, and in that forty years, four decades, this country has come to

Hudson Bay Railway

the conclusion in so far as a country can express a conclusion, and come to it more than once and at the hands of both great parties.
The Senate of Canada has rendered a special service in this connection. Committees of that body have deliberated, listened to evidence, listened to professional opinion, have delved to the very heart of the question on more occasions than one. I think the most thorough -inquiry was at the hands of the Senate committee of 1920. There were those of the Upper House who viewed most pessimistically the feasibility of the navigation of the Hudson straits and who doubtless sought to bring before that committee the weightiest evidence that could be adduced against the practicability of that transportation route. Notwithstanding this, notwithstanding every effort, after very patient and prolonged inquiry the Senate committee reported favourably, and so far as the report shows, it was unanimous.
The Senate committee may be wrong. I know it is impossible lightly to pass aside much that is now brought forward arid has been all through these years tending to establish very considerable peril and to lay in the mind doubt as to whether, after all, there may not possibly be failure. Consequently, I would not base my support wholly on the certainty with which any person or any bodies can arrive at a decision on that phase of the question. I think the weight of evidence,_ the weight of the verdicts that have been given by competent bodies, is in favour of the route.
Then what else is there to be said? On the question of the utility of the road, outside of its utility as an export and import transportation means, there is testimony of a convincing character. I do not say that if it totally fails as a transcontinental means of transport, if it totally fails in its primary purpose, its usefulness for these other purposes would justify its construction were we at the point of determining whether we would undertake it or not but its usefulness for these auxiliary purposes is a real factor and is established beyond all question. The mineral development has been great. The mineral development has so far exceeded all reasonable expectations. That it will increase, there can be no question. In gold, in copper, in ivory, in many lines of minerals there is undoubtedly going to be great production in that region. As well there is prospect, indeed there is certainty, of substantial agricultural development, though by no means is that prospect as bright as it is for mineral development. There is also the exploration of the whole fishery resources of Hudson bay. That
[Mr. MeighenJ
these will amount to something there can be no reasonable question. What it will amount to is problematical as yet. As well for the transport of western coal into the heart of Ontario, there is sound reason, not fantastical at all, to hope that a feasible and a practicable route will be found along the Hudson bay. The extension of the Ontario government road up to Moose Factory will form a means of connection by which there can be transport from Nelson to Moose Factory by water over Hudson bay, and over these government roads by land, very much shorter and undoubtedly cheaper than in any * present means of transport. Of course there will be ice difficulties there, but by no means of the character or moment of similar difficulties to the north through the straits.
On account of these other services that the road renders, a second very powerful argument can be adduced in support of the project. But I do not rest on these two arguments at all. Indeed, I can quite understand the mind that resting on these two alone would feel that at this time we should not undertake such a venture. I base my position upon other ground upon which I place more importance than on anything I have said so far. We are not at the commencement of the venture. We are well on toward the conclusion of the venture. This country is committed to the project. This country has been committed to the project for at least fifteen years. This country has made a contract with many citizens that the road will be built, and it is a matter of good faith with a large portion of our population that the covenant of the Dominion be kept.
The history of the undertaking is long; the history of the subject is very long, but passing over the early period when perhaps it was the sport of political adventurers, and coming up to 1908, the Conservative party at that time became committed to putting through the Hudson Bay railway. The Liberal party about the same time-I am not certain about the priority of dates, but I know that both parties made it a portion of their platforms about that year. I know that prior to the election of 1911 the government of the day made a contract with a firm for the construction of a large section of the mileage, I think 187 miles. I do not think any practical work was done. I think the hon. gentleman who just sat down did them credit overmuch in this respect. I fancy that if the Minister of Railways turned the first sod, he turned about the last sod too under Liberal administration, but upon the change of government the contract was for the time being suspended in

Hudsort Bay Railway
order that the matter might be looked into from a practical standpoint, with a .view to determining chiefly what the best port was, and with a view to ascertaining the merits of the contract in every way. That done the contract was gone on with. That done the covenant of the Conservative party was implemented, and that mileage, and as well a further considerable mileage, was constructed, I think, totaling 332 miles. As well the grade was laid for the balance, or for almost all the balance; I believe I am right in saying that the entire balance of mileage was constructed, as far as the laying down and the grade was concerned.
Then the war came, and by unanimous consent-for I do not think there was any objection; I believe western Canada knowing, or believing, at least, that it was serious for that part of the countrj'-, quite acquiesced-* it was determined that the project could not be gone on with at all during the continuance of the struggle. The war lasted until the close of 1918. But the burden of the conflict was heavier financially when the war was over than during its continuance. The burdens incident to taking care of the returned men, and all the other problems .that followed in the wake of the war, made it impossible to pursue the project further for some time.
During the period that succeeded the war, pressure was brought to bear upon the government of that time to devote moneys to the construction of the road. The government did not see its way to accede to such pressure. Parenthetically let me say that the determination of the building or the taking up of rails and all else is a matter for this government and this parliament. It is a matter solely for our decision; it is not a matter for the decision of the directors of the National Railways at all. It has been a government project frtim the beginning, it is a capital undertaking, consequently it is an undertaking for which this government and this parliament are responsible, and in respect of which neither can shelter itself behind the Board of Directors of the National Railways.
I said that the late government did not feel that it could justify acceding to the pressure to continue the building of the road during its term of office. We were subjected to considerable abuse for taking that course. The then member for Nelson (Mr. J. A. Campbell), I recall was most insistent-and not only most insistent but I am sure hon. members who have spoken in a totally different vein in this debate will agree most unreasonable-in his attitude toward the late administration on this subject. During those years, because of the fact that we had to rehabilitate
the Canadian National system, we had to overtake years and years of deferred betterments and years and years of deferred equipment, we had to build branch lines without the completion of which almost indescribable hardship would have existed-during those periods when money by the hundreds of millions had to be applied to make our railway system that we now own the system that it is to-day, a, system that we are proud of, pressure was determined and unrelenting upon the late government, at the same time, to complete the Hudson Bay railway. The situation is rather different to-day. I am not saying that even yet the time has come-I observe this resolution does not say that even yet the time has come-when the capital moneys necessary to immediately complete this railway, should be provided.' The situation is however wholly different to what it was some three years ago. Now the moneys that are necessary for our Canadian National Railways-because of the position they have been brought to, because of the patronage they are receiving on account of the service they are able to give-those moneys are much less-less by scores of millions than they were in those other times; and now this House is evidently of the opinion, if this resolution is to express its view, that the time is even not yet at hand when further capital should be expended on extending this route.
I have given a history of the subject up to the present time. We find ourselves now within about eighty miles of the completion of the laying down of the rails to Port Nelson. We find ourselves fairly well agreed that the right port has been selected as the terminus at Hudson bay. Very much doubt existed as to that, but I fancy from the tone of this debate, that it is generally conceded that Nelson is the correct port. We find, as well, that even though the money necessary-some four or five millions-to finish the construction and complete the terminals at Hudson bay has been expended, even after that is done, to put the harbour in shape as originally contemplated will take some nine millions more. That totals about fourteen or fifteen million dollars, and in addition the building oi a terminal elevator will be essential in order to provide facilities for the export of wheat. These are not small figures; they are large.
And here let me make this observation: It would seem to me, and it has seemed to me for some time, that it ought to be possible with completion of the railway mileage to provide-perhaps not on the scale originally contemplated but on some less pretentious
Hudson Bay Railway

scale, perhaps some less permanent scale-* facilities by which the route can be 'tested, the feasibility of the navigation of the straits as a commercial venture can be tested, and all these obstacles be tried out. There should be some way by which-with a less expenditure, on a less extensive, possibly, let me say, a less permanent scale,-the whole plant could be put to trial.
Now, assuming so much let me say that it should have priority in my judgment, over other national ventures of a major kind. I do not think good faith will be kept with western Canada unless that is recognized by this House. Men have gone in there, families have gone in, settlers have gone in, on the faith of the determination of this parliament that the road would be built. Whatever may be the average judgment of a member here to-day, there is no disputing the fact at all that the three prairie provinces of the West are a unit, virtually a unit-behind the feasibility of this scheme. They to-day look to the Hudson Bay railway with the same enthusiasm, with the same confidence, that they displayed at the time they were able to persuade this parliament to undertake the venture. Settlers have gone in; large sections are to-day more populated than they would have been had the word of parliament not been given in this regard. Not only have settlers gone in but those already there- farmers of western Canada-relying upon the policy to which parliament was committed have extended their operations, have made investments and commitments on the face of the project. Of that there can be no question at all. This is the case over a large area of land; it applies to many tens and hundreds of thousands of our population. When we get that far we have not the option of turning back. It is the duty of this parliament to go on with the project and complete it, and parliament cannot say "We will do so in the long distant future, we will do so when we feel good and ready at some indefinite time." Such a course would not be keeping faith with western Canada. Parliament, of course, is justified in saying "We cannot do this now. We cannot commit ourselves to similar ventures now; the state of our finances will not permit." Such was the attitude assumed by the late administration. Such an attitude on the part of this government is less defensible because at the present time our railway commitments are by no means what they were, more time has elapsed and longer delay has occurred. While it may be defensible for a while, it would not do for this government and parliament to say
[Mr. Meighen.l
"We leave ourselves free to launch on hny venture whatsoever; we leave ourselves free to assume large national undertakings of a transportation kind, and let the Hudson Bay railway, to which we have been committed for 20 years, stand indefinitely in abeyance." I do not think such a course would be justified, and I think a negative to this resolution would virtually be a statement by this House that it left itself open to adopt such a course. Consequently, it does not seem to me a negative should be given. With the reservation, that I stated at first, that the completion of branch lines or local undertakings, proved essential in any part of Canada, is not necessarily affected by the passing of the resolution-with that reservation, I support the affirmative.
I believe, aside from all I have said, that every portion of our country is entitled, just as soon as the financial strength of the country justifies it, to the shortest, the best, the cheapest, let me say in one word, the most efficient lines for the transport of its surplus that can be procured, subject only to this qualification, that transport through Canadian ports west, north or east, should always have priority over transport through the ports of another country. With that reservation, I say the farihers of the far West have a right to reasonable facilities for the best transportation of their produce, namely, through the Pacific. Farmers through the central part of the West have the right to the best transport on the shortest line that can be provided for them. Canada has determined that this route furnishes that requirement for at least a considerable section of the country. Consequently Canada must comply with her undertaking in this respect. The same thing applies to eastern Canada. That is the general principle which is followed. In pursuance of this principle, relying mainly on the engagement this country has entered into, relying on the fact that we must keep faith, or respect for parliament will be lost, I support the resolution.
Let me express my regret that the minister has gone no further than to state that the government is not purposing to abandon the route. If I fully understood his remarks, he did not go beyond that assertion. I do not think such an assertion on the part of the government is sufficient. I think the House has a right to expect something more definite from the administration. Does the administration accede to the resolution or does it not? As far as I am concerned, there can be no mistaking where I stand, and it is not too

Hudson Bay Railway
much to ask members of the government to tell us where they stand.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: I very much regret that engagements elsewhere prevented my having the pleasure of being present this afternoon, and consequently I have not heard the debate. I have no doubt it was very instructive and interesting. But with very much that the right lion, leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said I cordially agree. I think it is too late to discuss the merits of the scheme. I am not so enthusiastic in my belief as to its value as a grain carrying route as some others, but this matter has been threshed out in years gone by, and rightly or wrongly this House, under various governments, has consented to the building of the Hudson Bay railway and the government of which I was a member began the construction of the railway. I think if one looks at the map of western Canada it is not difficult to find a reason why the western country should seek an outlet to the nearest and most attractive tidewater. If I lived in the West I should feel that we should have access to that route. Both parties have accepted the responsibility of it, and have done something in the way of building it, and both parties should see to it that it is one of the things we must undertake and in a reasonable time complete. I would hesitate to vote against it, because there is the danger that if one should vote against the resolution it would seem to imply a denial of the commitment of the past. I do not wish to be put in that position. In the resolution a clause has been inserted about priority over other projects. I am not sure what are the other engagements over which this is to have priority, but there are really commitments all over the Dominion, and it is the duty of the government to consider them all. I am anxious that the Hudson Bay railway should be undertaken but my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) made some reservation, and I should like to make a reservation. We must have some regard to the financial condition of the country, and I ask the House to keep that reservation in mind. .1 am going to support the resolution, because to vote against it would seem to me to be an indication that we were denying responsibility for the Hudson Bay railway. I do not want to deny it. I want to accept it, and the only reservation I make is that which applies to all large enterprises in Canada, namely that you must have regard to the financial situation of the country.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):: Since the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has
made a few remarks, I feel much better than I did before. I was about to rise to remark that there would not be very many people in the West who would throw their hats in the air when they read the remarks of the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). Hon. members representing the northern part of the western provinces have .addressed the House and laid the facts well before the House; in fact there has been considerable repetition, but I do not rise for the purpose of repeating any facts which have been presented to show the feasibility of the route. I firmly believe in it. It has been a part of my teaching in the West. I believe in it and see the need of it. But speaking as one who comes from near the international boundary, I might state that we in the West, know no party politics. Politics have no connection with the question; neither is it Progressive, Conservative, or Liberal. Each and all believe in the feasibility and propriety of the route. I have before me a resolution passed by the Estevan Board of Trade, that being the largest commercial centre in the electoral district of Assmiboia. I wish to read a few notes from a letter from the secretary of the Board of Trade, which accompanied the resolution. He says:
We feel strongly that this is a matter that should have the hearty support of every western member, and trust that some action may be taken by the government to ensure the completion of this project at an early date.
That is a sentiment we have had in common for a long time. I believe in the immediate completion of that road. I believe in the immediate completion of the facilities whereby at least a real good test of that route may be had. Further than that I am not going to ask the government to commit themselves tonight, but it seems to me that the 118 miles that it is proposed by the Acting Minister of Railways to have repaired does not go far enough to satisfy the needs of the country or the wishes of the people there, or to fulfil the promises that have been given to the people in the past. Now, I must protest to-night that it is not a fair thing to the people in that western country. They have a right to expect and do expect more, and I do hope the government may see in their wisdom ways and means whereby they can make provision for the road to Port Nelson this year. As I said before the ground has been well covered, and no arguments, I think, have been adduced to counter those which have been advanced in favour of the project.


Andrew Knox: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the
Hudson Bay Railway

House much longer on this question. The debate, I think, has covered the ground very fully, and in fact has been illuminating in many - regards. I believe some benefit has been derived from this discussion and although I have made some notes in regard to some remarks that have been made I will be very brief in dealing with them.
Practically the only opposition to the motion was offered by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). He assured us that he was with us on the tariff. Well, I must say that sympathy on the tariff is of very little use unless something else goes with it. He gave us to understand that he was opposed to us on the question of the Hudson bay project; possibly his opposition there will be about the same as his sympathy on the other question. Speaking of the tariff, it does seem too bad if we are restricted both in our buying and in our selling; because I am convinced that the restriction in our selling is brought about by the restriction in our buying. And along with these two restrictions, we shall suffer a further handicap if we are restricted in our outlets.
The hon. member for Lunenburg made reference to Captain Anderson's report on his trip in 1914, and emphasized the difficulty Captain Anderson had experienced in connection with getting stuck in the ice. Well that does not establish the impossibility of navigating Hudson straits. We know that many sea captains have got stuck in ice on the Atlantic. I am not a seafaring man, but I have had a little experience in that regard myself; I was on a vessel which was stuck two days and two nights in ice and fog on the Atlantic.
I might go further into this report, but I think it would be better to close the debate. I was disappointed that the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) did not go further than he did. We were to glad to know that the government had no intention of abandoning the project and that the 332 miles would be brought up to standard. But when we get that far we are no further ahead than we were in 1918, and I would like to see some indication that something further is to be done in that regard.


George Perry Graham: You will be a good deal
further ahead than you are now-118 miles ahead that otherwise would be gone.


Andrew Knox: There will be some delegations down here shortly from the West asking for something more than what is embodied in the minister's statement, and I hope the government will accede to their request.

In looking over this resolution I cannot see anything in it that the government cannot accept, having in mind the remarks made by the Acting Minister of Railways as well as by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I do not think, therefore, that it is too much to ask that the resolution be adopted.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is the House ready for the
question?


Mr. MARLER:: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may not speak at this stage without the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Motion (Mr. Knox) agreed to, on division.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Tuesday, March 13, 1923