1926-06-09

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Canada
House of Commons Debates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 9, 1926.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate the fuel supply of Canada, as follows:
Your committee recommend to the House that they be given leave to sit while the House is in session.
He said:	By unanimous consent of the
House I beg to.move:
That the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate the fuel supply of Canada presented this day be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: On behalf of the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) I beg to present the third report of the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.


EXCISE ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of
Customs and Excise) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 188 to amend the Excise Act.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Explain.


Mr. BOIVIN:: At the present time there are customs bonded warehouses at many seaports where there are no excise warehouses. Imported tobacco, cigars and cigarettes are supplied as ships' stores from these customs warehouses, and no excise warehouses being available at these points, American goods are sold where CanaJdian goods cannot be sold. The Canadian manufacturers have complained of this discrimination, and the proposed bill is merely to provide that tobacco and cigars may be removed from excise warehouses to customs bonded warehouses, in order to place our Canadian manufacturers in the same position as the American manufacturer. There is a second clause in the bill providing that on all' cigars the rate of excise shall be $3 per thousand. At present the rate is $3 on all 14011-269
cigars except those put up in very small packages of ten or less, and for some unexplained reason the latter have paid the higher rate of $4, although the cost of packing must be considerably more. The object of the bill is to do away with the discrimination. There are no other clauses.
Motion agreed to and 'bill read the first time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall the bill be
read a second time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
On motion of Mr. Boivin the bill was read the second time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the bill distributed?


Georges Henri Boivin: I d'o not insist on proceeding at the present time. It can stand until tomorrow.


Hewitt Bostock: Next sitting of the House in committee of the Whole.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 173 (from the Senate), respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Rail-was Company.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville).	.
Bill No. 175 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Victoria McGibbon.-Mr. Mc-
Clenaghan.
Bill No. 176 (from the Senate), for the relief of Samuel Paveling.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 177 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Jones.-Mr. McCIenaghan.
Bill No. 178 (from the Senate), for the relief of Benamin Rapp.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Paik).
Bill No. 179 (from the Sente), for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.

Mr. Baker.
Bill No. ISO (from the Senate), for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 181 (from the Senate), for the relief of Dasie Hawkey.-Mr. Speakman.
[Stage Direction]


Questions
Bill No. 182 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Sophia Gordonsmith.-Mr. Mc-Clenaghan.
Bill No. 183 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.-Mr. Mew-bum.
Bill No. 184 (from the Senate), for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).
Bill No. 185 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 186 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ethel Maud Hargraft.-Mr. Mc-Clenaghan.
Bill No. 187 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederic Vinet.

Mr. Geary.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York) moved the first reading of Bill No. 174 (from the Senate) to incorporate the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.	i
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not the bill before me, but my attention has just been directed to the fact that the stock having no par value the revenues of Canada will lose $10,000 by the incorporation of this company. The bill is presented quite regularly under the'rules, I think, but I bring this to the attention of the House so the rules may be amended. Otherwise, if this becomes a common custom, the treasury will suffer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say that I gave
instructions to our officers at the beginning of the session to adhere strictly to the rules laid down as regards fees and additional charges, but some time ago the House decided upon a motion made by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) to disregard them on account of the early meeting of parliament. Naturally, this may entail loss of money to the exchequer but our officers are not responsible.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BROWN:: 1.	What quarter sections or other parcels of land were sold to the Soldier Settlement Board through or by the firm of Kennedy and Kennedy, Winnipeg?
2.	Who in each case was the vendor?
3.	When and at what price was each parcel of land acquired by the vendor?
4.	When and at what price was each parcel sold to the board?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RADIO STATIONS
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	What has been the capital cost of the Canadian National Railways radio stations to date?
2.	What has been the cost of up-keep to date?
3.	What has 'been the cost of operation to date?
4.	What has been the .totad expenditure and indebtedness incurred in relation to this matter by the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$105,173.90.
2.	and 3. September, 1923, to December 31, 1925, $369,515.54.
4. $474,689.44.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ADVERTISING EXPENSES
Mr. DOUCET:: What amounts were paid out by the Canadian National Railways or by any one so authorized, to newspapers or other publishers lor advertisements, publicity and lor other printing matter whatsoever, during the years ending December 31, 1923, 1924 and 1925, respectively?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1923-$1,340,131.97; 1924-$1,718,415.82; 1925-$1,443,203.80.


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commis-siners any employees resident in the province of Alberta ?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	What are their names and addresses?
4.	What salary is paid to each employee?
5.	What is paid for expenses to each employee?
6.	What is the service rendered by each?
7.	Has the board any offices rented in the province of Alberta?
8.	If so, where and from whom rented?
9.	What rental is paid for each office?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	One.
3.	J. A. McColl, 715 Lancaster building, Calgary, Alta.
4.	$225 per month.	[DOT]
5.	Actual travelling expenses.
6.	Giving of information pertaining to and soliciting business for the port of Vancouver.
7.	Yes.
8.	Calgary-Canada Life Assurance Company, Calgaty.
9.	$30 per month.


YUKON TERRITORY-TELEGRAPH RATES
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	What is the charge to the public for sending a ten word message over the government telegraph lines and wireless system between the following points:
(a)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Dawson, Y.T.;
(b)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Mayo, Y.T.;
(c)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Edmonton, via Dawson and Mayo;
(d) Whitehorse, Y.T., to Vancouver, via Dawson, Mayo and Edmonton?
2.	What is the distance between the following points over the government telegraph lines and wireless:
(a)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Dawson, Y.T.;
(b)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Mayo, Y.T., via Dawson;
(c)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Edmonton, via Dawson and Mayo;
(d) Whitehorse, Y.T., to Vancouver, via Dawson, Maj'o and Edmonton ?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.
(a)	Land line, Whitehorse, Y.T. to
Dawson (government telegraph service)	$2 50
(b)	Land line, Whitehorse, Y.T. to Dawson (government telegraph
service)	 2 50
Wireless-Dawson to Mayo .. 1 50
Total	$4	00
(c)	Land line-WThitehorse, Y.T. to Dawson (government telegraph
service)	$2	50Wireless-Dawson to Edmonton-via Mayo	
2	50Total	$5	00(d)	Land line-Whitehorse, Y.T. to Dawson (government telegraphservice)	$2	50Wireless-Dawson to Edmonton-via Mayo	
2	50Canadian National telegraph service-Edmonton to Vancouver, B.C	
75Total	$5 75
Questions

2.	(a) 460 miles.
(b)	Whitehorse, Y.T. to Dawson, Y.T.,
.(government telegraph service).
Dawson Y.T., to Mayo, Y.T., Airline 115 miles (approximately).
(c)	Whitehorse, Y.T., to Dawson, Y.T.
(government telegraph service).
Dawson, Y.T., to Edmonton, Alta.- Airline 1,100 miles (approximately).
(d)	Canadian National telegraph service
(No information as to distance beyond Dawson).
PORT OF AMHERjSTBURG


Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How much money was spent Iby the Canadian government in channel construction at the port of Aimherstburg, Ontario, during the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925?
2.	Under whose supervision was the work carried on?
3.	When was the work completed?
4.	What dredges or tugs were used in connection with the work ?
5.	Were any reports made that the work was not properly completed?
6.	If so, toy whom?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1 to 6. The dredging of a channel in front of Amherstburg, Ontario, was done by the United States government and no contribution thereto was made by the Canadian government.


POSTMASTER E. L. PARK
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Are men holding government positions permitted to take part in political contests in any department under the present administration?
2.	Were there any complaints regarding postmasters taking part in the federal election of 1925, in any town in South Essex?
3.	Were there any reports made to the department either before or after the last general elections to the effect that Postmaster E. L. Park, of Essex, Ontario, took part in the election of October 29th last?
4.	If so, what complaints were lodged, and by whom?
5.	What action has been taken by the department?
6.	What action would be taken by the department if it could be thoroughly established that a postmaster who as the servant of the people, took part in discussions, debates, or frequented assembly places designed as political quarters?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Civil servants engaged in partisanship work are liable to dismissal. (See Section 32, Civil Service Act, 1918).
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by 2 and 3.
5.	None.
6.	See answer to No. 1.


HON. DUNCAN MARSHALL-RAILWAY PASS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has transportation been issued by the Department of Railways to Hon. Duncan Marshall?
2.	If so, what number pass has been issued to him?
3.	On what line, and in what section of Canada is pass honoured ?
4.	On what ground is transportation issued?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1, 2, 3 and 4. No free railway transportation has been issued by the Department of Railways and Canals to the Hon. Duncan Marshall.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY-HIGHEST PAID OFFICIALS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who are the 25 highest paid officials of the Canadian National Railways in Canada?
2.	What salary is drawn by each one?
3.	Have any of them an expense account? If so, which ones, and how much per year are they entitled to?
4.	Who are the 10 highest paid officials of the Canadian (National Railways resident outside of Canada?
5.	What salary is paid to each one?
6. Is there any expense account in connection with any of their positions? If so, how much per year?


Charles Avery Dunning: The management
of Canadian National Railways does not consider it in the public interests to divulge information of this character.


LEAMINGTON ONION WAREHOUSE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How much has been expended up to date by the government through the erection of an onion warehouse in the town of Leamington, Ontario?
2.	Under whose direction is the work being, or has been, carried on?
3.	What salary or wages have been paid on construction, and to whom?
4.	What rate of wages and the total drawn by each employee ?
5.	How does the government punpose to operate [DOT]the warehouse?
6.	Under whose supervision will it be placed?
7.	What salary will be paid, and what jurisdiction will the caretaker be empowered with?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	$16,246.90.
2.	The work is being supervised for the Public Works department by Mr. R. Winter, district resident architect for Ontario.
3 and 4. No information as work is being done by contract.
5,	6, and 7. The matter is at present under consideration.


R. P. CLERK
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	Is R. P. Clerk still inspector of customs, Montreal?
2.	Does the said R. P. Clerk make recommendations to the Civil Service Commission for the promotion of members of the Civil Sendee in the Customs department at the port of Montreal ?

Montreal Harbour Commission
3.	Has the said R. P. Clerk recommended any one for promotion during the months of February, March, April May, of this year?
4.	Is this the same R. P. Clerk who sent liquor to members of the Civil Service Commission (since resigned), and, if so, does the government consider it proper to permit him to make further recommendations for promotion?


Hon. Mr. BOIVIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, but efficiency and fitness ratings are made by both collector and inspector.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	The government has made no change in position occupied by Mr. Clerk pending report of special committee investigating administration of Department of Customs and Excise.


COAL TRANSPORTATION VOTE
Mr. SPENCER:: Referring to amount of $200,000 voted on July 16th, 1924, to meet expenses of coal transportation in Canada :
1.	How much of this amount was spent?
2.	What province or provinces benefited from the money so voted?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1. Vote No. 483, 1924-25 $(200,000).
Paid Canadian Pacific Railway
Company	$	657 63
Paid Canadian National Railways	 10,393 44
Total expenditure	$11,051 07
2. All the coal to which the amounts expended applied was mined in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all but _ a small part being furnished by Nova Scotia, and was sold in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, the greater part going to the province of Quebec. (The subvention was paid direct to the railway companies transporting the coal as was provided for by parliament).


HALIFAX GRAIN ELEVATOR
Mr. QUINN:: 1.	What has been the total cost of the new grain elevator at Halifax, Nova Scotia.
2.	What is the capacity of said elevator?
3.	What is the amount of grain passed through said elevator via the railway since its completion to the present date?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	$650,549.57 to March 31st, 1926.
2.	1,000,000 bushels storage capacity.
3	Bushels
Wheat	 832,980
Oats	 1,518
Barley	 36,118
Total	 870,616


MONTREAL, HARBOUR COMMISSION LOAN OF $12,000,000 FOR TERMINAL FACILITIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal in an amount not exceeding $12 000,000, to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the Governor in Council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures of the corporation to cover said loan.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Mr. CANTLEY:: We have not heard all of what was said. Will the minister speak out so we may know what this resolution is?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I will read the
resolution.


Thomas Cantley: Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not speak any too loudly.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I speak loud
enough.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This is new usage;
these explanations have never been given before.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It may not
have been done before, but I understood we were trying to shorten the work of the session, and if we know what we are expected to loan this $12,000,000 for, it will hasten things along.


Ernest Lapointe: I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that when an explanation is made on notice being given we have to give the same explanation when the resolution comes up the following day. This has never been done before; it is a new practice inaugurated this year to give explanations when we give notice of resolutions.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not insisting if my hon. friend does not want to rive the explanation; I cannot insist, but I im suggesting that it would save time.


Mr. CARDIN:: I have no objection at
all-


Hewitt Bostock: Louder.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no objection to
saying a word in regard to this resolution. This is simply a notice that to-morrow I pro-
4236	.	COMMONS
Vancouver Harbour Commission
pose to move that it is expedient that a loan be m,ade to the harbour commission of Montreal of an amount not exceeding $12,000,000. The loan is made under the same conditions as previous loans have been made to this harbour commission; there is no change at all. The contention is that additional works are required to meet the developments of the port of Montreal, and we propose to make a loan on which they will have to pay interest, as they have paid interest on the money advanced previously.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I thank my hon. friend for the information, but he has not added to our knowledge of the subject at all. I merely express the hope that when he brings on his motion to-morrow we may have full particulars of what this money is to be spent for.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly,.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Some weeks ago I placed a question on the order paper regarding the leasing of No. 1 elevator in Vancouver. The answer I received conveyed the idea that nothing was under direct consideration. I desire to bring the matter again to 'the attention of the government and must do so with some considerable force because of a distinct conflict of information emanating from government sources. To make my point clear I would like to read an editorial appearing in the Morning Star of Vancouver, under date of June 4:
According to an Ottawa despatch the conference in progress over the proposal that the wheat pool lease No. 1 elevator here have ended in a "settlement agreeable to both sides". If the terms of the settlement are those contained in the telegram there need be no doubt that they are satisfactory to the wheat pool. "The elevator", it is stated, "will continue to be operated this summer by the harbour commissioners, but it is agreed that by the end of October the commission will notify the pool whether or not the elevator will then be leased to it. If it is to be retained under the harbour commission the pool will then be free to go ahead and provide such facilities of its own as are required."
This is simply so much camouflage. Beneath the smooth phraseology which implies that the disposition of the elevator is still an open question may be discerned the intention to hand it over to the wheat pool next fall. The commissioners will continue to operate during the siunmer-when the elevator is doing little or no business-but before the end of October the pool is either to step in or "be free to go ahead and provide such facilities of its own as are required". The pool, however, as everybody knows, is perfectly free to go ahead at once and provide its 
own facilities in Vancouver. Moreover, it cannot wait until October before it makes its arrangements for handling the new crop through this port. It follows that it would not delay beginning building operations a single day were it not very sure that the government would provide it with facilities by surrendering No. 1 elevator through the harbour board.
There can be no reasonable doubt, if the despatch is authoritative, that when Colonel Kirkpatrick returns to Vancouver he will have a very clear idea of the decision the harbour board is to render four months hence-when protest will be futile in the face of the accomplished fact.
I wish most respectfully but urgently to request a clear, definite statement from the government on this important matter, and I also wish to direct attention to the fact that every large representative business group, the board of trade, the shipping interests, the merchants' exchange and others in Vancouver are deeply concerned and interested in this question. I am not expressing an opinion; I merely draw these facts to the attention of the government and in justice to those interests I think before a decision is finally arrived at a definite statement should be given by the government officially. If the government are not prepared to make this statement to-day I would ask that a statement be given as soon as possible, and that the agreements or correspondence be laid on the table of the House in order that we may know exactly what is in the mind of the government and what proposals are under consideration.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For the present I may say
that a request has been made by the people to whom my hon. friend referred to the harbour commissioners to lease No. 1 elevator, and representations have also been made to the department. A meeting was held in Ottawa between representatives of the pool and the president of the harbour commission of Vancouver, and it was agreed between the parties that everything would be maintained for the present as it is now; no change is to be made. It is understood that by the end of October a decision will be reached one way or the other, and the harbour commission will give a definite answer then. This proposal has been accepted by the representatives of the pool, who have agreed to wait until the end of October for a definite answer from the harbour commission. So for the present the position is absolutely unchanged, and if any change is made a definite answer will be given in October next.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One further question, if
I may be permitted. Is there any understanding between the government and the pool that the harbour commissioners are to give a decision granting the lease?

Civil Service Salaries


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, there is no understanding.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the harbour commissioners be at liberty to make the decision they think best at that date, namely, October 31?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


REPORTED STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN SHAW
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I would
like to ask the government a question based on an article appearing in the Edmonton Journal of June 2. This is a despatch from High Prairie, dated June 2, headed:
Alberta neexls Liberal government to get favours, says Captain Shaw.
It quotes some other remarks made by Captain Shaw at this meeting, and says in part:
He spoke on long term credits, educational and health matters but doubted if a Liberal government at Ottawa would sponsor any legislation promoted by an Alberta government other than Liberal.
I would like to ask the government if the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta is correctly interpreting the attitude of this government, and if he has received any authority from this government or any member thereof for making such a statement.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I would not like to be drawn into participation in the general election which is taking place in Alberta at the present time. I would say to my hon. friend, however, that so far as co-operation by this government is concerned I do not imagine any legislation would be prejudiced by coming from a Liberal government anywhere; but I would also say that this government is ready to co-operate with any of the provincial governments irrespective of party affiliations in measures which are for the general good of Canada.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I have a telegram here, Which I imagine has been sent to a number of the members, in regard to civil service salaries. It is from the amalgamated civil servants at the head of the lakes, who wire:
General meeting of Amalgamated civil servants demands the immediate completion of personnel of Civil Service Commission, also a satisfactory revision of the civil service salaries before the end of the present parliamentary session, with increases made retroactive to April 1, 1924.
Perhaps the Prime Minister would care to make a Statement in regard to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only statement I
would have to make in regard to that particular telegfam if it reads as I think I heard it, that certain- persons demand that certain things be done, is that the government is not inclined to respond to requests preferred in that way.


Robert James Manion: That is a matter between the Prime Minister and the amalgamated civil servants. I was simply asked to bring the telegram to the attention of t'he government.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to a telegram received by me from the civil servants in the city of Edmonton, expressing dissatisfaction that the salary revision of the civil servants has not been effected, and asking whether anything will be done this session, and that the increases be made retroactive. I would like to know if -the Prime Minister can make any statement in that regard.


John Warwick King: All I can say is that this matter is receiving consideration. The government has had numerous representations from civil servants as to the position of their salaries, and we are as anxious as any hon. member to have the matter adjusted as speedily as possible, but the government does not wish 'to have a large bill for increased salaries run up without the matter being carefully inquired into, and we will have to use due caution in that regard.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention to 'hold the matter up until the personnel of the Civil Service Commission has -been completed?


John Warwick King: Not necessarily.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert James Manion: Some time ago I put a question on the order paper dealing with the erection of a building at the corner of King and Yonge streets, Toronto, and asked if any new arrangement had been come to in regard to that proposed structure. I-received the answer no. I do not doubt the word of the government, but even before then I h'ad received word, rather authoritatively, that an arrangement had been entered into. I should like to ask now-it is some weeks

Kingsville Harbour Master
since I put the question 'before-if the government has any further statement to make dealing with the erection of a building at the comer of King and, Yonge streets, Toronto.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The statement made previously is still true in every particular.


Robert James Manion: No arrangement has been come to?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN DEBT AND TAXATION On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. IV. E. TUMMON (South Hastings): I should like to ask the government, more particularly perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) when I may expect replies to questions put on the order paper on February 4, and appearing on the order "a^er previous to March 15 last, as question number 108, and passed on March 15 as an order of the House for a return. I have made repeated inquiries about the matter, but am told the information has not yet been brought down.


Ernest Lapointe: Would my hon. friend state what was the subject matter of that order?


Mr. TUMMON:: The question had reference to the total net debt of the Dominion, the amount of the debt said to be attributable to the war, the total amount collected through the income tax, sales tax, and so forth.


James Alexander Robb: My recollection is that the return was tabled some days ago, but I will have the matter looked into.
STRAWBERRY IMPORTATIONS On the Orders of the Day:


Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria):: I would like to ask the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) if the government has taken any action or proposes to take any action in connection with the report presented to the House yesterday by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) relating to the flooding of the Canadian market by American strawberries.
Hon. GEORGE H. BOIVIN (Minister of Customs and Excise): I am very sorry that owing to an engagement with an official from a friendly country I was unable to be in my seat in the House yesterday at two o'clock.

I am glad to say that the government has taken action. A representative of the Department of Customs has been sent to the country of production to ascertain on the ground the home market value of the fruit in question, and in the meantime instructions have been given to all of our collectors in western Canada to accept entry only subject to amendment and correction.


KINGSVILLE HARBOUR MASTER
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: In Hansard of M,ay 26, at page 3729, the following question appears:
Has Mr. J. A. Donaldson of the town of Kingsville, Ontario, who acted as returning officer for the south riding of Essex in the federal ejections of 1925, been appointed to the position of harbour master at the port of Kingsville, Ontario?
Several other questions followed. The answer to the first question was no, and the other answers were just as empty.
On June 7, the following appeared in Hansard:
1.	Who was the harbour master at the port of Kingsville, Ontario, in 1925?
2.	Who occupies the position, of harbour master at port of Kingsville, Ontario, now?
and several other questions. To that the answer was:
1. There was no harbour master at the port of Kingsville, Ontario in 1925.
And the other answers were just as empty.
I would ask the government, or the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) if this is an evasion, or if the questions are unanswered simply because of a technicality, because the word "harbour master" was used in place of "wharfinger."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The answer which has been given to my hon. friend was given according to the information handed to me by the officers of the department. I am bound to say that I think the information given is absolutely correct. I can understand that certain questions might not have been answered specifically, but by a reference to the answer to a previous question, such as "Answered by No. 1." Of course, if no harbour master has been appointed, it is unnecessary to give any particulars about him. At all events, I shall make inquiries, and if there is any technicality in regard to which my hon. friend thinks he is entitled to complain, I shall see that he is given the information.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Railways anid Canals-Hudson Bay railway-construction and betterments, $3,000,000.
Mr. CAHAN:: I realize, Mr. Chairman,
that a member representing one of the Montreal constituencies, when he rises to discuss before this committee the question of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, cannot expect a very sympathetic hearing from a certain section of the House representing those western constituencies which undoubtedly regard the completion of this railway as a matter of supreme importance to them and to the grain trade of the constituencies which they represent. I wish to state, however, at the outset, that I am personally not conscious of any prejudice against those who represent the constituencies of the middle west, and I came to this House actuated with a sincere desire to ascertain the views of those gentlemen upon all the important public questions of the day, and with the desire to assist, so far as I could, in what I believed to be the national interest in carrying their views to a successful application and issue. One who represents an eastern constituency, however frequently he may pass through from the eastern ports to the western ports of the continent, staying over a few days here and there in the cities and towns of the middle west, coming in contact only with acquaintances who reside in those towns, with an occasional automobile ride into the country to see the progress of the wheat crop for the time, does not, I am sure, become completely acquainted with the views of the more rural sections of those districts, and, therefore, I have found the House of Commons something of a training school in the five months or more which I have passed here. Contact with the very able and intelligent representation of the middle west in this House has certainly modified my own views to a considerable extent, and therefore I trust the gentlemen who compose it will give me a patient hearing for the short time in which I consider the question before the committee.
The city of Montreal has no jealousy whatever with respect to development of other ports as grain ports of this Dominion. When it was ascertained, after the completion of the Panama canal, that the grain trade could successfully be assisted and its interests promoted by the shipment of grain from Alberta to Vancouver, and then by sea through the Panama canal to the ports of Europe, I believe the leading commercial men of the city of Montreal were as gratified by the fact that that venture was proving successful as if it had meant an increase of the grain trade through the port of Montreal itself. And with respect to the possibility of developing a grain trade through Port Nelson or Fort Churchill through Hudson bay and Hudson strait to Europe, I feel assured that if the interests of the middle west could be promoted by the development of this proposed route, the amount of trade to be done through either port would not to any appreciable extent affect the interests of the port of Montreal, and that the successful carrying out of that project would be received with almost unanimous approval in that city. The fact is, however, that with regard to the development of the route in question the people of the east wish to know, wish to be informed in some reliable and satisfactory way, that it is a commercial project that can be carried on upon ordinary business lines, and that the results in giving a lower grain freight from the middle west to Europe will be such as to justify not only the expenditures made in the past but the expenditures which must be contemplated in view of the completion of the railway-the provision of terminals, the provision of ships and the possibility of those ships operating for such a time and under such conditions as to lower the grain freight rates from the middle west to Liverpool below existing rates over the present routes.
In that connection there is a feeling that we should not, at the present time, enter upon projects involving large capital expenditures and increases of the obligations of the country unless and until Canada as a whole is quite fully persuaded that the projects contemplated are not only feasible but likely to prove profitable. I do not wish to enter upon any side issue but the fact remains, and every elector of the eastern provinces is conscious of it, that the railway obligations of the Canadian National Railways have increased from approximately $103,000000 to $2,120,000,000 since 1911. That is an increase in the long term obligations of the people with respect to railways of nearly $2,000,000,000. We know, of course, as stated by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) last evening, that the net national debt of this country represents $2,442,000,000, and that in addition to that there are outstanding securities of the National Railways which are now the obligation of the Canadian people, to the amount of $931,000,000 odd additional, increasing the net national debt-if we include the National Railway obligations, which are owing to the public, in the general debt


Charles Avery Dunning: What publication is the
hon. member referring to?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a return made to an
order of the House of April 14, 1924, I do not think many hon. members are aware of the existence of this return.


Mr. HANNESSON:: Is it not the same
return that was quoted in the House yesterday?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I cannot tell you whether it is or not, but I am going to refer to it. The report is addressed to W. A. Bowden, chief engineer Department of- Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Qnt, and reads:
Many a time during the past four years I have been on tlhe verge of coming out in absolute condemnation of the undertaking on which I am engaged, but so long as I thought there was a chance of the Hudson Bay railway ever proving of value for any national purpose-


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps it will help my
hon. friend if I tell him the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) placed that report on Hansard yesterday.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not find it.


Charles Avery Dunning: It appears at page 4208.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
quoted it is usually two cen/ts in excess of tihe liner rate and less than seven cents lias hardly ever been quoted, so that even if the Port Nelson route could get as good insurance as Montreal the best that can be offered would only equal the Montreal rate to tramps. On account of trans-shipping difficulties it is 'hardily (possible to conceive of liners running to Port Nelson or package freight being handled in large quantities.
In the figures given I have assumed that it will always cost twice as much to furnish the labour to handle a cargo at Port Nelson as it will cost (to furnish (the labour to 'handle a cargo in Fort William or Montreal, and I also assume that the operating cost iper ton mile on the Hudson Bay railway will be 40 per cent higher than a railway between Saskatoon and Fort William, both on account of the increased price of fuel and the shortness of the season, which I consider must synchronize with navigation, from Port Nelson to Europe. I can prove that I aim within the mark in many ways. If a man is brought here for two months' work as .much will be paid out for transportation wages and tune as there is for work done, provided no higher rate is paid than in Fort William and there is in addition the cost of assembling and disbanding the organization. Though transportation on these works has amounted to 28 -per cent of the payroll, yet there is also a large amount of overhead Charges carried by other accounts in the nature of waiting for the season and other things. The construction season 'here has been nearly three times as long as the operating season will be and one of the embarrassments of the .future construction work will be the absence of work in April and May. The very thought of bringing together an organization to operate a port for two months with no other diversion but the loading of irregular ships and then disbanding again as abruptly, fa, of itself, a moot difficult task and its cost will be very nearly the cost of a similar organization elsewhere if operated for their season. The stafaonman on the Hudson Bay railway makes $10 per day for ninety days and docs nothing the rest of the year. Our men here do nothing outside from November to April, and so it will be for all time.
If you have any doubite re this matter, think of our experience with the stevedore. Time in, time out; transportation In, transportation out; and ten hours when there are no ships,
I have no longer any hesitation-
And remember that is the resident engineer on whose advice the government were depending.
I have no longer any hesitation; the Hudson Bay railway is doomed to certain failure. There may be fish in Hudson bay, but there is no fishing season. There may be minerals on the east coast, but they are as accessible from Halifax as from Port Nelson.
There is nothing for the Hudson bay north of the Huronian rock out-crops south of Split lake, so long as the St. Lawrence river route fa available and as for agricultural possibilities north of the same point, there are none.
Yours very truly,
D. W. McLachlan.
In the face of that report anyone who is concerned about the increasing burden of debt
	.
and taxation which the people of this country must bear, but who nevertheless is anxious to see every consideration given to the furtherance of the interests of the various sections of Canada including the middle west, in order to give them the cheapest possible rates from their producing centres to the markets of Europe, must hesitate, if he is a man accustomed to dealing with facts and figures, before voting large expenditures upon the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, with the main purpose in view of providing cheaper grain rates from the middle west through Hudson bay and the the straits to Liverpool and other European ports. I will pass over the other reports dealing with the difficulties of constructing terminals; of overcoming the ice obstacle; of the fact that ships can come only in special weather within 20 or 22 miles of the proposed whairves and docks at Hudson bay; of the fact that there is ice filling up a large part of the estuary and preventing ships" having access to the harbour works from November 15 until' the following April and May.
But in passing I should like to refer to a further report. We all know that in 1920 the Senate formed a special committee to report, not on the feasibility of constructing and operating the railway, not on the cost or future value of the terminal works at Port Nelson, but to confine itself solely to the navigability of the straits and the bay during the various seasons of the year. That committee met. With regard to the evidence placed before that committee, and as to the report the committee made, I do not think any practical man who has had very much experience in the construction of large engineering works, would, on that evidence and on that report, authorize on behalf of any company an expenditure of $500,000 at the least. I happen to have had, during some seven or eight years of my life, experience as the local executive head of a company that carried out one of the great undertakings of the world, employing for seven or eight years some 15,000 to 20,000 men, and having at least 300 competent engineers from every part of the world to consult with, in making a railway through mountains which, if not inaccessible, were accessible with great difficulty, in building the largest dam in the world until it was surpassed by the Gatun dam of the Panama canal, and in building an enormous reservoir which wiped

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
out two or three considerable towns, and which developed a waterfall eight times the height of Niagara. Connected with that enterprise, which cost many millions of dollars and has proved one of the most successful of its kind in the world, one attains certain habits of mind in dealing with such a project, having always in view, as you must have, the necessity of keeping down expenditures so that the works may be created at a cost which will ensure the possibility of the project becoming a commercial' success. With that habit of mind, acquired during those years and other years, I read the report of the Senate with the utmost dissatisfaction, and it gave me no confidence whatever in the feasibility and practicability of the navigation of the Hudson straits for more than two or two and a half months during each year, nor in the feasibility and practicability of the railway itself and the terminal works which were partly completed there and which are still contemplated.


Mr. MURPHY:: Would the hon. member
permit a question?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would prefer it being put later on if the bon. member has no objection. At the moment my mind is on a particular subject. Mr. McLachlan, in his evidence before the committee gave an account of himself which I should like to iput on record. He said:
I am engineer in charge of the work at Port Nelson on Hudson bay. I have been in charge from August 6, 1913. Nelson at that time had been selected as the terminal. The minister went up in 1912, the year before I went up that was the confirmation of the former selection. I left Halifax on July 4, Sydney on July 8, and arrived at Nelson on August 6. We were stuck in the ice, we were stuck about a week in the Strait about half way through the strait, then we got away from there and I think we got over to 140 miles from Nelson on about the last day of July and we were stuck there until the 4th.
Remember, that is 140 miles from the estuary out in Hudson bay itself.
We got loose from that ice on the evening of the 4th, and we arrived at Nelson on the 5th and went in on the 6th.
So they were stuck by ice one day's steam from the estuary. *
It was heavy ice, enough to stop one of those Newfoundland sealers. I was in the Bonaventure, which is just as good an ice-breaker as there is, she was a Newfoundland sealer. There was practically nothing done at the terminal when I got there. I ran it a year and four months the first time, but I have gone back each spring about April 1. I came out sometimes about December 1; sometimes I did not
come out until the middle of February. I always go and come overland by way of Le Pas. I have made only the one trip by water.
In dealing with his own experience as to the navigability of the bay and the estuary of the Nelson river, he says:
Regarding the navigation season from the Atlantic to Port Nelson, my opinion is that in the early part of the season the ice conditions immediately off Nelson will govern-
So that it is not entirely a question as to the navigability of the straits, but the ice conditions immediately off the Nelson estuary govern for a certain time of the year.
-and that at the end of the season the ice conditions at the head of Mansell island will govern. The latest ice at the mouth of the Nelson estuary occurred in the season of 1917. On August 13 of that year	the	ice appeared to stretch in a	continuous belt from the Nelson shoals towards cape Tatnamt and I consider a tramp steamer could not pass through. On August 29 in the same year I found the ice stretching in a great belt just off the outer bar.
That is, the outer bar of the Nelson river.
Beyond this seaward the surface area of the water seemed to be densely packed, though a tramp steamer might be	able	to worm her	way through at	considerable danger to herself. Anything in the nature of buoys in the	outer bar and	for many miles	insideit would	have	been carried	away had they	been
placed. During the next few succeeding days ice was seen floating about in the estuary at within eight miles of the island.
That is the island they were building in the estuary in connection with the particular terminal.
The experiences of this particular season are extreme. In the year 1915 a Newfoundland sealer arrived at Port Nelson on August 1, and the tramp steamer Sheba arrived in 1916 on August 8. They both met considerable ice. I do not think that any ship arriving at Port Nelson earlier than August 20 has done so, since I have been there, without encountering ice at some point or other on its voyage.
Proceeding further, he says:
The latest departure from Port Nelson was on October 22, 1915, when the tramp steamer Sheba and two sealers, Belleventure and Adventure, left. The only ice they encountered was a belt about twelve miles wide near the Jiead of Mansell island. The earliest difficulty with the ice during my stay at Port Nelson was when the tramp steamer Sinbad, which left Nelson on September 30, 1913, encountered ice in the vicinity of Mansell island% got frightened and came back to Nelson, but made a second attempt, leaving Nelson on October 13, and made the journey successfully. During that same season the tramp steamer Alette, which left Port Nelson on October 7, encountered ice near Mansell island and received a hole in her bow and returned to Nelson wrecking herself on the 16th.	. '
And so on. I do not regard evidence of :hat character as conclusive either with respect to the navigability of the straits and bay or

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
even of the estuary of the Nelson river for more than two months or at most two and a half months each year. But when this government came into office it was met with the fact that nothing had been done ini the construction of that railway and nothing had been done to keep it in operating condition since 1917 or 1918, and the government undertook an investigation asking for further reports on the condition of the railway at that time. I find a report made to the government by Mr. McLaehlan under date of February 7, 1923, which appears at page 36 of sessional paper No. 234A for 1924. The information which the government obtained at that time as a basis for future action reads in part as follows:
The Hudson Bay railway and the Port Nelson harbour works stand in the following positions:
(1)	Eighty pound steel rails are laid from The Pas to mile 333, which is the second crossing of the Nelson river.
(2)	The remainder from mile 333 to Port Nelson, mile 424, is graded but practically no bridges are built.
(3)	A steam-hauled train is operated from The Pas to mile 214 twice a month. On this section the ties are now nine to ten shears old, and they cannot hold up a steam locomotive any longer. Heavy expenditures on tie renewals are necessary.
(4)	The timber trestles all along the Hudson Bay railway to mile 333 have heaved badly, and the telegraph line is also in very bad shape.
(5)	Large quantities of train-hauled ballast would be required to put the 333 miles on which track is laid in shape to support heavy freight business, as the foundation grading is composed of vegetable material which shrinks when loaded.
(6)	In the 91 miles between the second crossing of the Nelson river, mile 333, and Port Nelson, there are two rivers to cross, viz., the Limestone and the Airhole. The bridge required in the latter case is quite expensive, and will require a viaduct one hundred feet high and nearly one thousand feet long.
(7)	Though the 91 miles between mile 333 and Port Nelson is said to be graded, there is only a mound of vegetable material in place and 80 per cent of the work of making a satisfactory road-bed is yet to be performed in this section.
(8)	At Port Nelson an excellent base for operations has been established, and the work done on the artificial island, and on the bridge which connects it with the north shore has stood the test of storms, ice action and tides splendidly.
(9)	It could reasonably be said that the harbour works at Port Nelson are advanced to the point where work could soon be begun on sinking the cribs for the deep water dock face, which is designed to lie along a sloping hardpan surface about 800 feet north of the present estuary channel, and three-quarters of a mile south of the north shore of the estuary.
(10)	Very little of the 5,500,000 cubic yards of dredging which is required has been done. Up to the time when the work was shut down in 1917, all the plant was used in dredging crib sites, and obtaining gravel and stone from the river bed for the filling of the cribwork, as it was sunk in place.
(11)	Careful surveys of the channels leading from the proposed docks to deep water in Hudson bay were made in 1918. These show that it will bo feasible

to provide for the accommodation of ships up to 26 feet draft, but no anchorage for such ships can be provided except at huge expense within 22 miles of the proposed docks.
(12)	The nature of the estuary and the foundation conditions in it did not permit anything in the nature of a shelter from storms to be provided in the design of the harbour works. It is hoped, however, that the 13 miles of shoal water between the docks and the relatively deep water of the bay will so break up the waves that ships will not suffer damage when lying against the wharves.
(13)	The strong tidal currents and the low distant shores will always prevent ships entering and leaving Port Nelson except during clear weather.
(14)	The chief difficulty and expense with the dredging at Port Nelson is the disposal of the material in a situation where it will not be subsequently dislodged or carried into the channel which it is proposed to use for navigation.
(15)	The navigation season for tramp ships entering and leaving Port Nelson will not be longer than from August 20 to October 20, and even in that period will not be entirely free from ice. In 1917. the estuary was blocked with ice on August 29, and in 1913, the Fox channel ice in Hudson straits blocked the tramp ship Allette and prevented her passing through on about the 10th of October.


D. W. McLACHLAN.
[Stage Direction]
In view of that report and others accompanying it I find a Clear inference that the government decided, so far as it came to a decision, not to proceed with the completion of that line, and apparently, at one time, almost decided to remove the rails from a part of that line and prepare for its operation as a light railway with light oibburning locomotives. As I read these reports I can find no evidence whatever that there is any prospective agricultural development north of The Pas which should induce the building of a road for the purpose of opening up that district. I have some acquaintance with the great Peace river district of British Columbia, and, if this road were to be built for agricultural purposes, I would vote to spend ten dollars to fopen up that Peace river district for every dollar I would spend to open up the district north of The Pas as an agricultural district.
Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend know the country north of The Pas from personal knowledge, as he says he knows the
Peace river country?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have never been there, but I am reading between the lines of these reports.


Charles Avery Dunning: Between the lines 1


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Between the lines as well as the 'lines themselves. I ask the hon. gentleman, who should know, if there is any agricultural district north of The Pas which

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
would pay for the expense of constructing and operating a colonization road to open it up.


Mr. MULLINS:: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some of my hon. friends are answering the question. It is not proposed to build this line solely for the purpose of developing the agricultural possibilities, but there are agricultural possibilities northeast of The Pas along the line of the Hudson Bay railway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not denying that, but I am saying that they are very limited in area, and I am saying further, from the best information I can obtain, that no one would ever suggest the construction of this line as a colonization road for the opening up of agricultural districts, such as they are, and limited as they are, north of The Pas.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not for that alone.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not for that alone; that is what I intended to say. Now I have evidence in these reports, and I have had the evidence of those who have been over that line, of one in particular-I am not going to give his name, because it was a confidential inquiry and a confidential answer-that from mile 214, at The Pas, north the entire distance to Port Nelson the line runs through what is largely muskeg.


Mr. BIRD:: It is not so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A considerable part of this road from mile 214 north is covered with 4 feet of moss on the average.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not now quoting any official report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am quoting from the information given me by an engineer who went over that road personally.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not from any official report.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will prove it pretty largely from Mr. McLachlan before I am through, if necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. McLachlan never had anything to do with the railway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He reported to a considerable extent, and the minister has brought down his estimates, as an engineer, as to the eort of terminals and all that sort of thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is misquoting me there. I produced at no time figures from Mr. McLachlan relating to the railway.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not saying you did. Therefore, do not accuse me of misquoting you.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope my hon. friend will read Hansard to-morrow morning on this point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will, and if I have made a slip, why I certainly take it back. But I am saying this, that your estimates with regard to the terminal and port are within a few thousand dollars of the estimates which were made by Mr. McLachlan several years ago, and which I find in this report. Therefore, I infer that those estimates which were given to the House yesterday with respect to the port terminals are in fact Mr. McLachlan's estimates, and being so, any man who is a competent engineer for the harbour works of the nature and extent contemplated at Port Nelson is quite competent to give evidence with regard to the construction of a railway line over the muskeg which extends for a very considerable distance at least from Port Nelson south.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: May I ask if engineer McLachlan reports muskeg on the line of the Hudson Bay railway?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will deal with that in a moment. I am saying now that in certain parts on which the line is laid over muskeg, I am told that the subsoil to that muskeg is continuously frozen until the muskeg and moss is removed, and that the embankment then built over that for a considerable section of the 92 miles to Port Nelson has by its own weight sunk down until you cannot see the line because it is engulfed by the mud which the sun has opened up beneath.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: May not the moss have gathered owing to the delay in construction?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no doubt that the moss has gathered during the one thousand years or perhaps one million years in which we were awaiting railway development there. , It undoubtedly did gather there in that time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend would permit a question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, if you will allow me-


Charles Avery Dunning: Just in fairness to Mr. McLachlan. My hon. friend does not intend to convey the impression that Mr. McLachlan is the engineering authority responsible for the statements just made by my hon. friend with regard to muskeg along the railway.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend, I have
noticed since he came into this House, has the habit, which he no doubt acquired when he was dealing with another body, of asking questions the implication of which is very unpleasant and unfortunate, and which is not in accordance with the fact on which his questions are based. There is no desire whatever on my part to mislead him, and I am not endeavouring to mislead the House either. The House knows and clearly understands, if it has not permeated the dull intellect of the hon. gentleman, that I was not attributing that statement to Mr. McLachlan. But I have Mr. McLachlan's own statement and his sworn evidence before the Senate committee of 1920 where he said:
I have thought a great deal about the difficulties of building a railway across barren land, and the only way that I can see would be by the construction of a continuous pile threstle or a continuous timber platform. The Hudson Bay railway through out almost its entire length is not built of solid material, sudh as clear sand and gravel, but is constructed out of the vegetable material of the country. This creates an embankment which is compressible and has a tremendous shrinkage, and would require a large amount of ballast continuously applied for a great many years.
That is Mr. McLachlan's evidence upon it, and I think it quite fully supports the private report which 1 obtained in making personal inquiries of gentlemen who have been over that line.
Mr. McLachlan, in another report which I have at hand, has dealt with the comparative costs of shipping grain from the middle west to Europe via Port Nelson and other routes. At page 39 of this report, No. 234A, he deals with the cost of building at Port Nelson elevators, and compares the cost with the cost of building similar elevators at the city of Montreal or at Fort William. He says:
The cost of constructing the elevators at Port Nelson may be taken as 50 per cent advance on Montreal and lake port costs.
The annual operating cost for labour, material and repairs at the Port Nelson elevators can be taken at 90 per cent of that at Montreal or at the lake ports.
, The operating cost per ton mile, north of The Pas on the Hudson Bay railway, may be taken at 80 percent advance on the rates used in other parts of Canada.
The general rail rates should be taken at sufficient to pay interest on equipment and out of pocket costs, which is probably about 60 cents per 100-ton mile, except on the Hudson Bay railway.
The grain facilities at Port Nelson and other ports may be taken for estimate purposes, at 2 elevators of 3,500,000 bushels capacity each with 4,000 lineal feet of deep water berthing space in front of them.
The stay in port of each ship may be taken at five days in ocean ports and four days in lake ports.

The cost of docks and dredging in Port Nelson may be taken at double that in Montreal and four times that at the head and foot of the lakes, where pile construction can be used.
And then he gives a tabulated statement- dealing solely with the cost of elevators and their operation-showing that the cost of transfer per bushel at Port Nelson would be 8.9 cents, at Montreal 1.27 cents, and at the head and foot of the Great Lakes 1.13 cents, showing a very considerable difference in tbe expense of operating the proposed elevators at Port Nelson.
Then at page 40 he gives a table showing the transport costs from Humboldt-which he selects as a typical point-to Liverpool via various, routes. I will not give the entire statement, I will simply state the results of his findings. He finds that via the Hudson Bay railway and Port Nelson the minimum cost per long ton of grain freight will be $12,63. He finds that the present rate, via the lakes and rail to Montreal, is $12.17; and he finds that via the St. Lawrence, upon the completion of the Welland canal, the rate will show a reduction to $10.96. In the face of that report I ask hon. gentlemen to believe at least that the practical business men of Montreal are not jealous of, and are not opposed to the opening of, a rival port so-called when the cost of operating from a point like Humboldt in the middle west to Liverpool will be at least $1.67 per long ton more via Port Nelson than via Montreal.
I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House but the position as I see it is this. I have spent a very considerable time in reading the official reports included in the records of the House, which reports, some printed and' some not, are available to members and which are at the disposal of any hon. member who will call at room . 108 where he will find every courtesy extended to him if he wishes to explore these papers. I find it difficult to conceive how any experienced practical business man can assume that even if the line is completed, even if the terminal Works are carried out on the scale suggested by the Minister of Railways-but which he has not pledged himself to carry out, as I understand it-you can carry grain from the middle west via-
(Mr. Speakman, member for Red Deer, having entered the House after an absence of several weeks owing to illness.)


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I may be allowed, I wish on behalf of hon. members on this side, and I am sure also on behalf of hon. members

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
in other quarters of the chamber, to say how deeply gratified we are to find that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is able to return and associate with us once more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But to proceed-


Mr. MILLAR:: May I ask the hon. member a question at this moment?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not know enough about the subject to answer questions with any greater degree of accuracy than I am doing.


John Millar: Can the hon. member give me, from Mr. McLachlan's report or from any other source, any good reason why the cost of handling grain over this railroad and at the elevators should be doubled, trebled, and in some cases quadrupled, as compared with any other route?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: All I can say is that I ask
the hon. gentleman to give the same earnest attention to these reports that I have given myself, and I am accepting them as the best information available to me. The information set forth in detail there-in greater detail than is possible for me to quote-appeared to me at least to throw the gravest possible doubt upon the practicability of sending grain from the middle west via Port Nelson to European ports at less cost than it can be sent now via the Montreal route.


John Millar: You just have to swallow
the bald statement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I do not swallow the
bald statement. I am studying the engineers' reports with such intelligence as I possess and with such experience as I have had. I am giving a certain credence to them and I have learned nothing anywhere that disputes the information therein contained. That is as far as I am going.
Even if you carry the grain to Port Nelson there is then the difficulty of finding ships. The other night when, on another motion, I was carrying on a discussion with the Minister of Railways and urging him to use his influence with the officials of the Canadian National Railways to transport grain over that system to the ports of Halifax and St. John, I pointed out to him that, after the close of water navigation on the St. Lawrence, the grain rates from Fort William and from lake ports to Halifax and St. John were exactly the same as those to Portland, and exactly the
same as those to New York, Baltimore and Norfolk, Virginia, and I argued with some vigour that, in view of the fact that the grain rates were the same, a certain part of the grain transportation of the Dominion during winter months should be given to the ports of Halifax and St. John. We all know that Halifax is open every hour of the year. We know that exactly the same can be said of the port of St. John. We all know there are lines of steamers each week from St. John to Liverpool, and that there are lines of steamers connecting with European ports which regularly call at Halifax. We know as well that these are ports which are open to secure tramp steamers on very favourable terms. We also know that the rate of insurance, even in winter, is not high from St. John or Halifax. And yet hon. gentlemen opposite-and if I am not mistaken, the hon. Minister of Railways, but I would not like to misquote him-suggested that the reason why grain xould not readily be sent via St. John and Halifax was the alleged fact that ships were not available there for carrying grain.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I did not say that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well I was certainly confronted with that statement by some hon. member opposite. I had suggested that we could provide the ships at St. John and Halifax in such numbers and of such capacity that there was no reason why St. John and Halifax should not participate in that grain trade transportation. Think of those ports open the year round, with certain liners coming week by week, with tramp steamers calling there almost week by week throughout the year; and yet it is claimed that they do not come in sufficient numbers to facilitate the export of grain. Compare that with Port Nelson, open for the grain train two and a half months in the year at the most, closed in the estuaries till late in the season, so that if ships could even enter the straits and find their way through the fields of ice which are sometimes found in the Hudson Bay, they would be waiting for days for openings in the ice to get into Port Nelson and to the wharf. How are you going to procure the availability at Port Nelson of ten ships Which are necessary even to begin the transportation of wheat from that port? How are you going to obtain ships of a construction, a class and a quality capable of performing that service, in view of the fact that they have to encounter the field ice at the most critical time during every month of the summer. Those



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
ships are not in existence to-day and must be specially constructed, and I may say that that will not faze hon. members opposite, because they always want ships, and in their specifications always arrange to provide ships which must be specially constructed, and of a class not to be found in active business in any part of the world, as for instance in the Jamaica and West India service.
But what will be the cost of constructing these ships of 5,000 to 7,000 tons for the grain trade, and of sufficient strength to meet the ice fields that will be encountered? Have we any estimates of the cost? The estimates are an important part of the proposition. If we are to deal with the feasibility of the route, the capital' expenditure necessary for the completion of these ships is a relevant and salient fact which should be placed before the House. Are you going to construct these ships as a part of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine service, or are you going to subsidize them, and if you have to subsidize them, have you obtained any estimate of the cost, by way of subsidy, of securing the services of these ships during those two months and a half? That is information which the minister can obtain any time within thirty or sixty days from the shipbuilders in England, or if he wishes, from shipbuilders in Germany, who I believe furnish ships now-a-days at a little less cost. What is the capital cost? Are we going to enter upon the work of completing the Hudson Bay railway, the Hudson bay ports, and the Hudson bay services overseas without the slightest idea of what it will cost to provide the ships? The information can be obtained any time in a general way within sixty days. What is to be the cost of insurance on freight and ship from Port Nelson overseas? That enters into the cost of the carriage of grain or other freight. Have you sought information from the great marine insurance companies? Certainly the insurance rate will be higher during those two months than the rate of insurance to any 4 p.m. other Canadian port from Liverpool or any European port. That excess adds to the cost. In other words, Mr. Chairman, this House, as a body of intelligent business men, should know, and should know now before we enter upon the completion of that line to Port Nelson, what would be the cost of providing the ships, and of providing facilities in the bay, including light houses and attendants and including the radio stations and telegraph stations, and all the paraphernalia necessary to open up that strait, bay
(Mr. Cahan.]
and estuary, so as to make it a feasible commercial proposition for steamers to enter there.
Hon. members say the Hudson's Bay Company has been operating in the Hudson bay for some hundred or more years, but I have read something of the history of the Hudson's Bay Company, and I db not believe that until this year, or last year at the earliest, the Hudson's Bay Company ever placed a steamship in their ocean service to the Hudson bay. Their ships were sailing vessels similar to those used years ago to trade out of Newfoundland and Maritime province ports up into the Hudson bay. Time was of no consequence in their voyages. They fitted out for the north and for the Hudson bay, and it was quite immaterial to them whether they returned that year or the following year. They provided themselves with sufficient supplies to enable them to remain there the whole winter. If they were caught in the ice they stayed there, and when the spring freshets came and the water of Hudson bay or the estuary warmed up and' the ice melted, they took up their hawsers and started out. That sort of navigation of the Hudson bay offers no precedent whatever for the commercial operation of ships on a business and profitable basis, for the purpose of placing the grain trade of the middle west on a more economic and profitable basis than it is at present.
Therefore I say that we require more information. No body of business men who sit on the board of any company entering upon a large construction sudh as that would authorize an expenditure of $500,000 or $50,000 and rely on the feasibility of the project on such information as is available to this House at present. We are told that we may open up in that district a mineral belt, and that as a colonization road it may prove profitable. A private member of this chamber has difficulty in getting information. Even if I asked some of the engineers in the employ of the Department of Railways, they do not like it to be known that they are giving information to a member of the opposition, whether he sits on the front bench or a rear bench, but sometimes one can obtain some information from the outside. I have no doubt from the reports I have that there is mineral wealth in that country. Why then should we not have from some department of the government a complete return of all information available regarding the mineral resources of the district? That would help members on this side of the House to a

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
material extent in the consideration of the partial appropriation which is now before us. I am told that the entire mineral wealth out there is south of mile 214. My information is that no minerals have been discovered north of that point. The mineral belt lies considerably nearer The Pas than even mile 214 to which the road is now operated twice a month and affords ample facilities for the transport of all minerals produced in that district, and I therefore suggest to the minister that this present expenditure be confined to improving the road as a branch line, or, to use what is really a synonymous term, a colonization road-not a standard main line-up to mile 214. The road is now tumbling down and is unsafe for locomotives. As a matter of fact the railwaymen are fearful when setting out from The Pas as to whether they will ever bring the locomotive back. Why should we not put into working condition the existing road which passes through the mineral belt, and have a complete report presented to the House as to what further extensions are necessary to open up every prospective mine wit'hin a considerable distance of the line? Because this line, as I view the map, runs right through the mineral belt, although the minerals are to be made available only by extensions in an eastern and western direction from the line. We could vote this three million dollars on such an understanding. Why should not the minister undertake to spend $2,000,000 in putting into proper operating order the line as far as mile 214? Why not encourage likely prospectors to come in and ascertain what can be done in opening up that mineral country? Why not submit to the House every bit of information available with regard to the possibilities of the district? The government, it seems to me, might well study the views advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) last night in his address, many suggestions in which I must say I heartily approve of. We can have definite information on the subject whether from engineering or other experts. I am sure it is possible to collect all the facts and all the information which is to be found in a hundred and one reports, and which may be supplemented by calling upon those who have already reported upon the subject to give more definite information. All that we can, I have no doubt, easily procure and embody in concrete form so that in voting further appropriations for the Hudson Bay railway we may
at least have the satisfaction of knowing that there is some practical, substantial ground for our expenditures.
Those of us who have come into this House for the first time do not feel bound in the slightest degree by the political game which was played between the two parties to secure popular support in the northwest in 1911. Nor do we feel bound by the proposition made on the one hand by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to secure a large vote from Saskatchewan in the last election, any more than we consider ourselves committed, on the other hand, to any of the counter propositions, as reported in the press, made by some of the leading Conservatives to obtain the same support. We wish to exercise intelligent, conscientious judgment. If the road, by any reasonable expenditure within our means, can be made a profitable enterprise capable of serving the interests of that western district, we are anxious to do everything in our power to promote to that extent the national welfare of Canada. But we do not want to be seduced, by mere camouflage or by mere dreams, into making further appropriations of money which is so necessary for development in other parts of the country, and wasting it on a project upon Which $20,000,000 has already been expended without any results up to the present day.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Are all the brains of the country centred in Montreal? Have we no intelligence in western Canada?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I quite conceive that we in the east in ^ome matters are mere children intellectually as compared with some hon. gentlemen from the west, but we have interests to represent, and therefore we want all the information available to our dull brains so that we may satisfy our conscientious judgments in considering such a question as this. And I ask for no more than such information. If this appropriation is restricted simply to putting the existing road into shape with a view to saving what money has already been spent-spent, in my opinion, recklessly- if it is to recondition the road up to mile 214. which I understand is as far as it goes now, opening up all the timber resources now waiting to be developed, then I am prepared to stand up to-night or to-morrow or at any other time and vote in favour of it. But I do not feel disposed to vote in favour of a readjustment of the line, so as to place it in operating state, if such a vote is to be regarded as a promise and a pledge on the part of this

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
parliament that it will embark upon further extensions of the railway to the bay, involving additional equipment and possibly an added! expenditure of $20,000,000, and providing ten specially equipped steamers to do the service of the grain trade for two or three months of the year through Hudson bay and the straits. And that is the predicament in which we find ourselves to-day. We members from the east, so far as I know, are sincerely desirous, yea, we are anxious to associate ourselves with the people of the west in the development of their country by every reasonable project. But we do not wish to be deceived into supporting, a partial appropriation such as this, knowing that the fact that we vote for it will be alleged by hon. gentlemen opposite, and construed by the country, as implying on our part a promise to vote for the completion of the road through the last ninety-two miles of bog and moss to reach Port Nelson and to provide for the steamship equipment necessary to carry grain during two months of the year.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall put on record in
Hansard some other documents from the reports from which my hon. friend (Mr. Cahan) has been reading, and I will treat him with more courtesy than he extended to me, although I confess I feel rather more comfortable since his admission that the dulness of intelligence is not altogether confined to myself.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I place myself far below
the minister's limit.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have listened to a
very excellently prepared address embodying all the facts which could be marshalled and all the inferences which could be drawn in order to prove that this enterprise is complete and utter folly. I must congratulate my hon. friend on having done the job thoroughly as a special pleader against the route. My hon. friend based most of his remarks, in so far as they were based upon official documents, upon the 1917 report of Mr. McLachlan, and that is the report I want to refer to particularly. It must be remembered that Mr. McLachlan is a very excellent engineer who specializes in port and hydraulic work generally. To listen to my hon. friend, one would think that Mr. McLachlan was an economist, a financier, an expert in shipping, an expert in railroading -indeed an expert in anything connected with the operation of a transportation system. Mr. McLachlan himself would be the last

man to claim special knowledge along those lines. It is true Mr. McLachlan made a report in 1917. He has made other reports since, but the latter are never quoted by those who desire to use Mr. McLachlan in the manner in which my hon. friend used him. The only fault I have to find with Mr. McLachlan is that in his 1917 report he went entirely outside his professional sphere in many respects. The government of the day recognized that and referred his report, in so far as it related to factors outside his special professional knowledge, to a man who might be expected to have some professional knowledge and training with respect to those factors.
If hon. members will look at the return to an order of the House of April 14, 1924, to which reference was made by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, they will there find at the bottom of page 63 a letter from Mr. R. A. C. Henry, to whom I referred yesterday-addressed to the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals. Following that on page 64 they will find Mr. Henry's detailed analysis of the factors which fell within his purview with regard to the Hudson Bay route and its possibilities. I should like to dispense with reading both those documents, but if I am not permitted to place them on Hansard I shall be very glad to read them, because as a commentary on the address of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George they are illuminating indeed. I prefer to let them speak for themselves.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put them on Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is a very able lawyer, but frankly, I would not go to him if I wanted advice with respect to an aching tooth or a contagious disease.


An hon. MEMBER:: You might.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not with respect to
any disease.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am an expert on teeth,
not on contagious diseases.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would not go to a railway man if I wanted advice on shipping. I would not go to the economist, Mr. Henry, if I wanted advice regarding those technical engineering matters with which Mr. McLachlan is familiar by reason of his special training. But when Mr. McLachlan, I admit in a period of some discouragement with regard

Supply[DOT]-Hudson Bay Railway
to the particular work he had in hand, makes a report entirely outside his professional sphere, my hon. friend exclaims, "This is just what I want! True, this man is not an expert along the line he is now reporting on, but his report suits me, and I ignore the report made by Mr. Henry, whose special line of work is to analyze these particular matters." The interruption which so angered my hon. friend I made only in justice to Mr. McLachlan. Following my hon. friend's remarks, he passed from Mr. McLachlan's statements to those made by some engineer, whom he did not name, and back again to Mr. McLachlan, and I only wanted to make sure in justice to Mr. McLachlan-for whom I have a high regard-that my hon. friend was not attributing to him statements made by the anonymous engineer. That was all. There was no need for my hon. friend to be angered or to impute to me discourtesy. I had no such intention. It is now clear, however, that my hon. friend did not attribute to Mr. McLachlan statements with regard to the construction and the condition of the railroad other than those which he read from Mr. McLachlan's own reports.
That is all I have to say. I know other members desire to speak on this subject. I merely want to put on Hansard the report of Mr. Henry.
(Following are Mr. R. A. C. Henry's letter and report referred to by Mr. Dunning):
Department of Railways and Canals
Room 306, Continental Life Building, Toronto, Ont., March 14, 1918.
W. A. Bowden, Esq., Chief Engineer,
Department of Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ont. [DOT] Dear Sir,-I am enclosing herewith, in duplicate, memorandum prepared in connection with the Hudson Bay railway and Port Nelson route which may be of assistance to you.
You will notice that I have indicated or rather I have estimated the minimum tonnage to be handled over the railroad to meet not only ordinary operating expenses but also fixed charges. I also assumed that all that this route would be required to do would be to land wheat or grain in Liverpool at the same total transportation cost as obtained via the Georgian Bay-Montreal route.
I am also returning Mr. McLachlan's memorandum which you handed to me for comment.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) R. A. C. Henry.
Department of Railways and Canals, Canada W. A. Bowden,
Chief Engineer.
Office of the Chief Engineer, Ottawa, Ont., March 14, 1918.
Memo, for Mr. Bowden Re Hudson Bay Route An analysis of the traffic possibilities of the Hudson Bay route on a pre-war basis appears to indicate as follows:
1.	That about 5,000,000 bushels of wheat or wheat equivalent in other grain must be handled to meet operating expenses.
2.	That about 10,000,000 bushels of wheat or wheat equivalent in other grain must be handled to meet operating expenses and pay 3 per cent on estimated cost of the development now under construction.
3.	That there is sufficient grain now grown in the territory tributary to the Hudson Bay railway to warrant the belief that with equivalent rates to Liverpool the quantity of grain last mentioned would go via the Hudson Bay route.
4.	That there could be developed a sufficient inbound tonnage from Europe to place Port Nelson on the same footing with respect to the load factor as say Montreal.
5.	That the possibilities of the safe navigation of this route have not yet been sufficiently demonstrated to warrant any private company undertaking the placing of a sufficient number of vessels in this service to carry the quantities of grain above-mentioned without assistance from the government is certain. Hence it seems evident that the government must purchase or charter sufficient vessels to handle this traffic and operate the route until such time as its commercial feasibility has been demonstrated.
These vessels, if chartered, could be chartered only for the period of navigation and, if purchased, could be used during the period of closed navigation on the Hudson Bay route, for traffic between the Atlantic and Pacific or distributed on several trade routes.
6.	That it would be necessary by some means to hold sufficient grain over from one year's crop to provide cargoes for vessels arriving before the new crop was ready to move.
It has been suggested that the season of navigation on the Hudson Bay route is so short that the cost of doing every item of work in the handling and transporting of merchandise is going to be so great that the route is not going to be able to compete with the lake route to Georgian bay and rail to Montreal, and that the necessity of creating an organization for such a short period is a very serious factor.
That the season of navigation from Hudson bay is limited to two and one-half months there does not now appear to be much doubt. It is and must be frankly admitted that such a condition would be expected to involve a larger expenditure per unit of traffic than would be the case if navigation were possible during the whole year and the load factor favourable and constant. Unfortunately, however, the load factor in the Canadian internal freight traffic is neither favourable nor reasonably constant. For example, an examination of the shipping records on the Great Lakes will disclose the fact that on the average since 1909, over 40 per cent of total quantity of wheat, in fact of all grain, passing through Fort William and Port Arthur eastbound goes forward in two months, namely, in October and November immediately following the harvesting of the crop. The peak load in the grain traffic east is from two to three times the average load, so that during this period from two to three times the average number of cars train employees, elevator employees, and lake vessels, which would be required to handle this traffic if it flowed uniformly throughout the season of navigation, must be diverted from other channels or called into action from idleness. Conditions on the Hudson Bay route would vary from those obtaining on the lake route only in degree and probably not to as great an extent as might at first thought be supposed, especially now that the government controls the Canadian Northern system with its many branches into the heart of the grain belt. The difficulty of bringing a separate organization into exist-

Total annual charges	 $1,900,000
Gross receipts would be as follows:
10,000,000 bushels wheat at	14 cents..	..	$1,400 000150,000	tons freight inbound at	$3..	..	450,000Total	
$1,850,000
It seems evident therefore that at least 5,000,000 bushels of wheat must be handled annually to clear operating expenses and at least 10 000,000 bushels to meet both operating expenses and fixed charges at 3 per cent on money invested.
The first of the new crop would not reach Port Nelson until about September 10th to 15th, so that shipments made prior to that date would have to be from the previous year's crop.
The handling of ten million bushels of wheat in such a short period would require a large number of vessels, from 20 to 50 dependent upon tonnage, as each vessel could probably make only two trips in one season. Berthing accommodation for four or five vessels would appear necessary, and an elevator of 2,000,000 bushels storage capacity to prevent congestion and insure a steady flow of grain at all times during the short season. Almost 7,000,000 bushels of wheat passed through the government elevator at Saskatoon during the (period from September 1, 1915 to August 31, 1916, so that no difficulty should ibe experienced in securing 10,000,000 bushels of grain, or wheat equivalent, for the Hudson Bay route from the district tributary to Saskatoon.
Attached hereto is a statement giving description of land tributary to certain Canadian Northern lines which might be considered as partly tributary to the Hudson Bay railway, also giving by car loads grain originating on each. This statement would appear to indicate that there is now at least 10,000,000 bushels within easy reach of the Hudson Bay railway.
With regard to inbound tonnage, the initial trip of the season might either be from the Atlantic coast of America, or from Europe; the second trip would of course have to be from Europe. Coal would appear to be a likely cargo inbound. Thirty-five thousand tons of bituminous coal would be -required annually for the operation of the railway and terminals to handle the traffic outlined above. This coal might either be obtained at Sydney or from England and could be landed at Port Nelson at a cost of about $5 per ton. There is no possibility however of bituminous coal imported by way of the Hudson Bay route competing with the western product from the mines in the Yellowhead or in the vicinity as the attached tables will show.
Anthracite Coal:-In the case of anthracite coal, however, the prospects are much better. The pre-war price of anthracite coal at Saskatoon was around $13.50 per ton retail. This comes from the Pennsylvania district. I am advised that good quality Welsh anthracite compares very favourably with good quality

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Pennsylvania anthracite, but the characteristics of each are sufficiently different to demand somewhat different grates and arrangements for draught. The Welsh anthracites are on the whole somewhat softer, contain less ash, and volatile matter, burn more freely and give slightly more heat than the Pennsylvania anthracites. Welsh anthracite is not used to any extent in Eastern Canada partly because of the proximity of the Pennsylvania fields and partly because generally speaking furnaces have been designed to use the Pennsylvania product. In the middle west, however, circumstances have forced design of furnaces which would burn bituminous as well as anthracite coal, for this reason it would appear that good quality Welsh anthracite might be expected to compete with the Pennsylvania product in the portions of the prairie provinces tributary to the Hudson Bay route under favourable conditions as to price. It would seem on the basis of pre-war prices that Welsh anthracite could be landed at such points as Moose Jaw, Regina and Saskatoon at from 65 cents to $2 per ton less than Pennsylvania anthracite could be landed at the same points. During the years 1912 to 1915 inclusive the imports of anthracite coal through the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur has been fairly constant and has averaged approximately 490,000 tons (2,000 pounds) annually; during the same period the imports of anthracite through the Dakota and Minnesota gateways has averaged
15,000	tons annually, making the total imports of this commodity from the Pennsylvania fields into the middle west about 500,000 tons annually. The exact distribution of this coal is not certain but it is estimated as follows:
Port Arthur, Fort William and
points east of	Winnipeg .. .. 130,000	tonsCity	of	Winnipeg	
200,000	tonsCity	of	Moose Jaw	
10,000	tonsCity of Saskatoon	[DOT][DOT]	10,000 tonsCity	of	Regina	
15,000	tonsPoints in Manitoba and Saskatchewan west of Winnipeg .. ..	135,000 tonsTotal	
500,000 tons
It would seem reasonable to expect a traffic in Welsh anthracite coal to the extent of from 50,000 to
75,000	tons per annum with conditions so favourable as to price, and there is no doubt that with a decrease in price of from 65 cents to $2 ton the consumption of anthracite would be increased largely especially in parts of the country where there is no wood available for fuel.
There is also the possibility of some traffic in structural steel to certain portions of the west in competition with steel from the Pittsburg district, and a good deal of structural material will be required in the next few years of development in western Canada.
During the years 1911-12, 1912-13 and 1913-14 the customs returns show that about $15,000,000 worth of goods consisting of cottons, woollens, iron and steel products, china and earthenware, glass and glass products, cocoa, paper and paper products, linens, gloves, linoleum and other general merchandise was imported direct from Europe annually to such points in the middle west as Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary and Lethbridge. In addition to this there is also a large volume of general merchandise imported from Europe annually which is handled through jobbing houses in Montreal and Toronto, and eventually finds its way to the prairie provinces. There is no doubt whatever that
with the opening up of the Hudson Bay route, even with the short navigation season, that a substantial portion of this traffic would take the Hudson Bay route since there would be a considerable saving in distance over the route via Montreal or Halifax.
The middle west has been developing rapidly during the last few years and has shown a very substantial increase in population. A very substantial portion of this increase is from the British Isles and these settlers are certain to purchase a considerable quantity of general merchandise in Great Britain if there is a substantial decrease in the long rail haul from Montreal. They will naturally time their purchases so as to come within the period of navigation on Hudson bay.
The foregoing memorandum has been made on the basis of pre-war conditions and it is only fair to remark in this connection that conditions may be largely changed for a considerable period following the war, in what respect and to what extent is of course difficult to forecast. The following tables are attached:
1.	Table showing shipments by lake of wheat and all grain from Fort William and Port Arthur by months, 1909-1912.
2.	Table showing Exports of Canadian wheat and all grains from various Canadian ports, 1910-1915 inclusive.
3.	Table showing quantity of grain exported from Montreal.
4.	Table giving the estimated transportation expenses, Hudson Bay railway in handling 10,000,000 bushels of wheat outbound and 150,000 tons inbound in 75 days.
5.	Table showing population of principal western prairie cities, towns and provinces, 1916.
6.	Table showing value of goods imported from the United States to Canada through the Dakota gateways during years 1912-1915 inclusive.
7.	Table showing imports of coal through ports of Fort William and Port Arthur during fiscal years ending 31st March, 1912, 1913, 1914 and 1915.
8.	Table showing probable freight charges on rolled steel shapes from Pittsburg and England and various points in western Canada.
9.	Table showing probable relative costs of anthracite coal to western points from Pennsylvania and Wales, 1913 prices.
10.	Table showing cost of fuel purchased by Canadian Northern railway during the year ended June 30, 1916.
11.	Table showing probable relative cost of bituminous coal from Yellowhead, Pennsylvania and Sydney, 1913, at various points in western Canada.
12.	Table of distances.
13.	Table showing value of goods imported through the principal ports in the middle west during fiscal years ended March 31, 1912, 1913, and 1914.
14.	Table showing quantity of United States anthra-cate coal used 1916-17 in various western cities and towns with prices, from report by Commission of Conservation, 1917.
15.	Table showing cars of grain handled 1913-1916 inclusive on various Canadian Northern lines tributary to Hudson Bay Railway.
(Sgd.) R. A. C. Henry.
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


TABLE SHOWING SHIPMENTS BY LAKE OF WHEAT AND ALL GRAIN FROM FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR BY MONTHS
[Stage Direction]
Month	Sept. 1, 1909	Aug. 31, 1910	Sept. 1, 1910	Aug. 31, 1911Wheat	All grain	Wheat	All grainSept	5.157.000 14.912.000 15.524.000 7.692.000 5.788.000 5.412.000 3.267.000 2.281.000 3.025.000	Oct	18,068,000 21,608,000 10,980,000 8,000,000 9.389.000 5.905.000	<), ZdU, UlHJNov	21,280,000 2.140.000 5.859.000 11,951,000 4.924.000 6.948.000Dec	April	May	June	July	August	3,861,000	
Total		-63,146,000	88,918,000		85,234,000
				
Sept. 1, 1912	Aug. 31, 1913	Sept. 1, 1913	Aug. 31, 1914Wheat	All grain	Wheat	All grainSept	2.534.000 12.308.000 28.826.000 11.774.000 1.569.000 16.364.000 5.914.000 7.438.000 2.643.000	Oct	48.640.000 43.442.000 32.565.000 4,610,000 22.414.000 10.932.000Nov	39.869.000 17.006.000 2,381,000 27.026.000	Dec	April	May	June	July	15,732,000 7,822,000	August	1,914,000	3,289,000
-96,124,000	148,953,000		185,535,000
				
Sept. 1 1911
Wheat
4.136.000
14.534.000
1.616.000
2.806.000 89,000
18,481,000
9.368.000
5.101.000
4.642.000
Aug. 31, 1912
All grain
87,142,000
Sept. 1, 1914
Wheat
12,218,000
17.196.000
16.249.000
2.893.000
8.708.000
7.463.000
3.024.000
2.613.000
1.931.000
72,293,000
5.176.000
16.403.000
27.864.000
4.392.000 147,000
25.532.000
13.464.000
8.345.000
7.764.000
114,906,000
Aug. 31, 1915
All grain
14.204.000
23.562.000
21.518.000
3.877.000
9.702.000
10.514.000
4.523.000
4.199.000
2.923.000
95,022,000

[Stage Direction]
Wheat
Year	Montreal	St. John	Halifax	Total
1910					23,516,000
1911	 					
1912	 					31,601,000
1913	 					
1914	 					
1915	 		jOOO|uUu			OOf 1 l*£j uuu
				
All Geain
1911.
1912.
1913.
1914.
1915.
20.653.000
21.065.000
29.066.000
39.630.000
37.660.000
29.636.000
7.610.000
7.088.000
8.821.000
9.140.000
7.300.000 10,250,000
409.000
526.000
407.000
806.000 1,502,000
935,000
28.672.000
28.679.000
38.294.000
49.576.000
46.462.000
40.821.000
EMr. Dunning.]

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

[Stage Direction]
Year	United States Grain	Canadian Grain	TotalWheat	All grain	Wheat	All grain	1907	5,373,000 10,908,000	10,201,000 10,613,000	1908	19,553,000	21,536,000	32,149,0001909	12,762,000	13,207,000	14,300,000	15,678,000	28,885,0001910	3,883,000	6,756,000	16,537,000	20,653,000	27,409,0001911	1,623,000	7,064,000	15,306,000	21,065,000	28,129,0001912	7,335,000	9,568,000	23,191,000	29,066,000	38,634,0001913	6,052,000	6,742,000	27,442,000	39,630,000	46,372,0001914	32,873,000	36,862,000	27,888,000	37,660,000	74,522,0001915	10,525,000	10,785,000	22,713,000	29,638,000	40,421,000

[Stage Direction]
Coalone-tenth of ton per locomotive mile:	21,000 tons at $5	$	105,000Coal for switching locomotives, etc	
6,000	"	5	
30,000
Locomotive Rental-
40 locomotives at $15 per day for 75 days	 45,00q
Car Rental-
7,500 cars required to move 10,000,000 bushels wheat assume eight days per round trip or 60,000
car days, at 50 cts	 30,000
Train Crews-
30 train crews, including switching crews consisting of:-
Locomotive engineer	$	6 00 per dayLocomotive fireman	
4 50	"Train conductor	
5 00	"Two brakemen	[DOT]	
8 00	"$ 23 50 per day for 75 days or	53,000
Employees at Divisional Points-
20 men at each-80 men at $4.50 per day for 75 days or	 27,000
Oil and waste-say $1 per locomotive day	 3,000
Superintendence-say	 10,000
Contingencies 5%	 15,000
Total	$	318,000

[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg	 250,000
Brandon	 18,000
Regina	 45,000
Moose Jaw	 25,000
Saskatoon	  20,000
Prince Albert	 7,000
Battleford	 3,500
Ed mon ton	 75,000
Red Deer	 3,500
Calgary	 80,000
Lethbridge	 11,000

[Stage Direction]
Manitoba	 456,000
Saskatchewan	 492,000
Alberta	 375,000
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

[Stage Direction]
Year	Value of all Imports	Quantity of Anthracite Coal1912 	$ 27,000,000 30.000.	000 38.000.	000 25.000.	000	12.000	tons 12.000	"1913	1914	26,000 "1915	10,000 "

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, October 19, 1917.
Statement showing the imports of coal through the Ports of Fort William and Port Arthur during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1912,1913,1914 and 1915.
-	Bituminous slack	Bituminous round	Anthracite	Port Arthur	Tons	Value	Tons	Value	Tons	Value1912	1,988	$ 3,734	1,281,382	$ 2,937,661	152,589	$ 763,6751913	6,226	15,613	1,042,624	2,292,488	167,705	893,1201914	16,111	36,833	1,291,828	3,028,936	205,380	1,078,4501915	28,017	49,113	721,761	1,262,396	146,207	763,400Fort William	1912	56,616	68,745	1,774,733	3,851,774	311,323	1,528,6751913	45,801	75,089	1,801,646	3,756,991	294,162	1,556,1061914	91,758	158,549	2,363,556	5,295,306	376,835	1,954,4411915	191,551	287,104	681,403	1,418,980	316,744	1,662,665

[Stage Direction]
Fbom Pittsburg
Pittsburg-Lake Erie, 150 miles at -4c ton mile. Lake Erie-Port Arthur.
'-Winnipeg				
Brandon	
560	"	*cRegina	
770	"	Moose Jaw	
820	Saskatoon	
900	It	Edmonton	
1,225	U	Calgary	
1,250	Lethbridge	
1,170	£c
From England
England-Port Nelson... Port Nelson-Winnipeg.. "	Brandon...
Regina	
Moose Jaw Saskatoon. Edmonton. "	Calgary....
910	miles at	ton mile845	<<	a850	"	890	a	"750	tt	he	1,075	tt	ho	1,150	tt	0	60	ton0	75	ii2	12	it2	80	"3	75	tt4	10	tt4	50	tt6	10	tt6	25	it5	85	it2	00	ton4	55	<«4	20	a4	25	it4	45	it3	75	it5	35	a5	55	tt
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

[Stage Direction]
From Pennsylvania
Coal at mine Scranton	$ 5 25 ton
Transportation to Buffalo, 300 miles at -4c. ton mile	 1 30 "
Buffalo-Fort William	 0 75 "
Cost at Fort William	$ 7 30 ton
Cost at Winnipeg, ,5c ton mile	$ 9 45
"	Brandon, ,5c ton mile	
10	10"	Regina, .5c ton mile	
11	15"	Moose jaw, .5c ton mile	
11	40"	Saskatoon, .5c ton mile	
11	80
From Wales
Coal on board steamer Wales	$ 4 25
Transportation to Port Nelson	 2 00
Cost at Port Nelson	$ 6 25
Cost at Saskatoon	5c ton mile for 750 miles
Brandon	«<	850Regina	if	850Moose Jaw	890Winnipeg	5c	u	900
[Stage Direction]
[Mr. CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM
"Show the cost of fuel purchased during the year ending June 30,1916. Have the statement show (a) the purchasing price; (b) the freight charges; (c) the cost of handling; (d) other expenses, if any, also the total cost of fuel placed on locomotives and the average cost per ton. State d	the principal sources of supply and points of delivery to the Company's Lines.
Source of Supply	Point of Delivery to Company's Lines	Tonnage	(a) Purchase Price per Ton	At	(b) Freight Charges Paid other Lines	(c) Cost of Handling	(d) Other Expenses	Total per Ton on Company's Lines	Total Cost of Fuel$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Pitts, No. 8 District, 	Key Harbour	31,487	1 17	Mine	1 10	0 25	0 62	3 14	98,869 18Pitts. No. 8 District, 8|"	Key Harbour	3,125	1 40	tt	1 30	0 25	0 63	3 58	11,187 50Pitts. No. 8 District, 8f'	Quebec	52,056	1 17	ft	1 57	0 24	0 68	3 66	190,524 96Pitts. No. 8 District, 81*	Quebec	370	1 30	tt	1 57	0 24	0 69	3 80	-1,406 00Pitts. No. 8 District, 85-'	Quebec	13,269	1 40	tt	2 36i	0 24	0 70	4 70J	62'497 47Pitts. No. 8 District, Slack	Quebec	366	0 85	"	2 36J	0 24	0 26	3 711	- l'358 77Pitts. No. 8 District, £ Lump	Montreal	18,132	1 17	tt	1 57	0 20	0 62	3 56	64'549 92Shawmut District, £ Lump	Ottawa	11,002	1 20	tt	2 05	0 10	0 62	3 97	43'677 94Shawmut District, £ Lump	Ottawa	9,233	1 25	tt	2 05	0 10	0 62	4 02	37,116 66Shawmut District, £ Lump	Ottawa	7,063	1 35	tt	2 05	0 10	0 63	4 13	29,170 19Shawmut District, £ Lump	Ottawa	3,029	1 30	"	2 05	0 10	0 63	4 08	12'358 32Shawmut District, Mine Run	Ottawa	6,936	1 10	it	2 05	0 10	0 61	3 86	26'772 96Shawmut District, Mine Run	Ottawa	6,196	1 15	tt	2 05	0 10	0 62	3 92	24j 288 32Shawmut District, Mine Run	Ottawa	1,910	1 25	tt	2 05	0 10	0 62	4 02	7,678 20Shawmut District, Slack	Ottawa	235	1 15	"	2 05	0 10	0 23	3 53	829 55Shawmut District, Slack	Ottawa	261	1 00	"	2 05	0 10	0 22	3 37	879 57Shawmut District, | Lump	Joliette	510	1 20	tt	2 05	0 10	0 62	3 97	2,024 70B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	Cobourg	123	1 40	"	1 70	0 10	0 64	3 84	-472 32B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	Toronto	18,195	1 20	ft	1 70	0 10	0 62	3 62	65,865 90B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	T oronto	2,349	1 25	tt	1 70	0 10	0 62	3 67	8,620 83B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	Toronto	10,180	1 30	tt	1 70	0 10	0 63	3 73	37,971 40B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	T oronto	8,196	1 35	1 70	0 10	0 63	3 78	30,980 88B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	Toronto	19,277	1 53	"	1 70	0 10	0 65	3 98	76,722 46B.R. & P. District, £ Lump	Toronto	58	1 60	"	1 70	0 10	0 65	4 05	234 90B.R. & P. District, J Lump	Toronto	2,530	1 44	1 70	0 10	0 64	3 88	9,816 40B.R. & P. District, Smokeless	T oronto	220	1 50	tt	1 70	0 10	0 63	3 93	864 60B.R. & P. District, Smokeless	Toronto	359	1 75	"	1 70	0 10	0 65	4 20	1,507 80B.R. & P. District, Smokeless	Toronto	344	1 70	"	1 70	0 10	0 65	4 15	1,427 60B.R. & P. District, Mine Run	Toronto	8,296	1 10	"	1 70	0 10	0 62	3 52	29,201 92B.R. & P. District, Mine Run	Toronto	668	1 15	"	1 70	0 10	0 62	3 57	2,384 76B.R. & P. District, Mine Run	Toronto	189	1 25	tt	1 70	0 10	0 63	3 68	695 52W. Virg. Pocahontas, Mine Run	T oronto	1,639	1 50	"	2 45	0 10	0 64	4 69	7,686 91B.R. & P. District, Slack	Toronto	562	1 00	"	1 70	0 10	0 21	3 01	1,691 62B.R. & P. District, Slack	Toronto	240	1 13	tt	1 70	0 10	0 22	3 15	756 00B.R. & P. District, Slack	Toronto	861	1 15	"	1 70	0 10	0 22	3 17	2,729 37B.R. & P. District, Slack	Toronto	187	1 60	tt	1 70	0 10	0 26	3 66	684 42B.R. & P. District, Smithing	Toronto	56	1 60	tt	2 26	0 10	0 65	4 61	258 16
o
o
g
g
[Stage Direction]
a
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
B.R. & P. District, Smithing
[Stage Direction]
Shawmut District, Mine Run	
Shawmut District, Mine Run	
Pitts. No. 8 District, J"	
Nova Scotia	
Youghiogheny, 1"	
Pitts. No. 8 District, 8J"	
Youghiogheny,	
West. Virg. Pocahontas	
Youghiogheny, f'	
W. Virg. New River, Smokeless..
Pitts. No. 8 District, 8|"	
West. Virg. Pocahontas	
West Virg. Fairmount Gas	
W. Virg., New River, Smokeless
Alberta	
Saskatchewan	
British Columbia	
Toronto Duluth Duluth Duluth Halifax Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur Port Arthur
Union Bay
134	1 87	tt	2 26	0 10	0 66	4 89	. 655 2624,784	1 37	it	1 13	0 35	2 85	70,634 4016,857	1 47	it	1 18	0 35	3 00	50,571 1012,289	1 42	it	1 13	0 35	2 90	35,638 0026,043	2 81	a	1 01	0 11	3 93	102,348 99103,216-6	1 52	it	1 13	0 35	0 64	3 64	375,706 2499,641-0	1 17	a	1 10	0 35	0 63	3 25	323,833 25246,958-3	1 37	it	1 13	0 35	0 63	3 48	859,413 845,363	1 20	a	1 47	0 35	0 62	3 64	19,521 3229,159-9	1 27	a	1 13	0 35	0 63	3 38	98,557 427,193-4	1 23	a	1 47	0 35	0 62	3 67	26,398 31208,848-4	1 40	it	1 10	0 35	0 63	3 48	726,791 042,784	1 30	tt	1 47	0 35	0 63	3 75	10,440 004,576-9	1 07	tt	1 20	0 35	0 63	3 25	14,872 004,739-5	1 28	tt	1 47	0 35	0 63	3 73	17,676 473 no	tt	3 09	1,076,098 689 9.5	tt	2 25	3,885 858,185	3 60	tt	0 45	0 15	4 20	34,377 001,390,463	4,743,183 15
Average cost per ton of fuel, $3.41.
Note.-The Railway company is allowed $1.00 per net ton from Nordegg to Warden on Braxeau coal, of which 295,108 tons are included in Alberta coal.	Total Tonnage
1,157,532
Total Cost of Fuel Placed on Locomotives and the Average Cost per Ton
Total Cost	Average Cost
per ton
$4,310,914 78	$3.72
%
[Stage Direction]
to
to
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

[Stage Direction]
Cost at mine, Yellowhead	$	3 00
Cost at Saskatoon, S cts. ton mile for 500 miles	 2 50
[Stage Direction]
$	5 50
Cost at mine, Fernie	$	3 00
Cost at Regina, 5 cts. ton mile for 500 miles	 2 50
[Stage Direction]
*	5 50
Cost at Brandon, 5 cts. ton mile for 725 miles	 6 75
Cost at Winnipeg, 5 cts. ton mile-for 860 miles	 7 30
Cost at mine, Pennsylvania	$	1 50
Transportation to Buffalo 300 miles at 4 cts. ton mile	 1 30
Transportation Buffalo-Fort William	 75
Cost at Fort William	$	355
Cost at Winnipeg, 5 cts. ton mile for 426 miles	 5 70
Cost at Brandon, 5 cts. ton mile for 560 miles	 6 35
Cost at mine, Sydney	$	2 25
Transportation Port Nelson	 2 00
Cost at Port Nelson	$	4 25Cost at Saskatoon, 5 cts. ton mile for 750 miles	
8	00Cost at Winnipeg, 5 cts. ton mile for 900 miles	
8	75Cost at Brandon, 5 cts. ton mile for 845 miles	
8	50

[Stage Direction]
To Western Points
Winnipeg	
Portage la Prairie
Brandon	
Regina	
Moo'se Jaw	
Saskatoon	
Prince Albert...
Distance in Miles
Port Nelson	Pas	Fort William	Montreal912	482	426	1,415847	427	481	1,470845	425	559	1,540850	450	777	1,770890	470	820	1,810750	330	900	1,890670	250

[Stage Direction]
Dutiable Goods
1911-12	1912-13	1913-14	United States	Other Countries	United States	Other Countries	United States	Other CountriesBrandon	8 1,249,123 20,991,940 5,076,961 2,163,067 1,583,554 2,001,519 3,381,481 2,940,084	J 191,846 9,767,295 1,477,104 651,165 177,399 166,168 211,116 268,714	$ 1,322,447 30,261,847 7,867,881 4,546,981 1,656,761 3,676,737 4,121,053 5,069,999	$ 204,847 12,183,478 1,971,330 1,129,502 344,551 274,526 369,789 465,034	$ 1,025,459 22,033,354 5,711,718 4,657,268 1,144,208 1,525,637 3,406,910 2,825,676	$ 177,437 11,889,279 1,978,782 1,592,295 176,765 250,768 467,844 538,677Winnipeg	
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Free Goods
1911-12	1912-13	1913-14	United States	Other Countries	United States	Other Countries	United States	Other CountriesBrandon	$ 544,291	$ 90,749	$ 458,486	$ 96,694	$ 613,630	$ 77,656Winnipeg	4,221,773	1,640,011	5,438,356	3,045,148	4,348,906	3,143,303Calgary	1,143,053	309,573	1,345,075	308,591	1,173,727	340,992Edmonton	534,356	97,387	1,059,194	102,425	930,670	199,484Lethbridge	500,179	7,956	566,158	26,455	396,202	28,154556,684	22,548	787,495	29,460	810,981	41,321Regina	344,363	88,426	570,667	123,814	576,503	67,447Saskatoon	518,436	87,575	913,428	94,110	1,030,978	124,085
List of Principal Articles Imported from Countries other than United States
Dutiable:-Cottons, woollens, iron and steel manufactures, spirits, silks, fruits and nuts, china and-earthenware, glass and manufactures of, cocoa, etc., hats, paper and manufactures of, linens, gloves, sugar and confectionery, linoleum, leather and shoes, electrical apparatus, fish, tobacco, ribbons, ammunition, rubber clothing, drugs.
jrree;-	Horses, books, drugs, jute cloth, iron and steel manufactures, coffee, settlers effects, tea, tin.
Department of Customs, Ottawa,
January 29th, 1918.

[Stage Direction]
City	United States Anthracite used in 1916-17	Price of United States Anthracite per ton F.O.B. cars at points namedTons 200,000 4,000 1,050 9,200 2,280 1,836 1,012 43,300 3,845	$9 50 to $10 00 10 00 " 10 50 10 65 " 11 15 10 60 " 10 85 10	80 " 12 15 11	00 " 12 25 11 50 " 11 75 11 60 " 12 25 11 45 " 12 35
Statement showing number of cars of grain originating on some of Canadian National Railway lines tributary to Hudson Bay Railway, 1913 to 1916 inclusive.
Swan river to Preeceville-distance 72 miles This line is through an open prairie country with occasional wooded bluffs and admirably adapted for either grain growing or mixed farming.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of	cars .. ..	1,270	625	2,118	1,683
Candora to Sturgis-distance 22 miles This line runs through open prairie country suitable for grain growing.
Statement of Grain handled off the above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars	
800	488
Note: Line put in operation in 1915.
Dauphin to Prince Albert-Distance 160 Miles
This line leaves the main line of the Canadian Northern three miles north of Dauphin. For the first 120 miles north and westbound from the junction with the main line, the country as open and wooded in some sections, well adapted for mixed farming; in addition to grain production a considerable amount of live stock is shipped. From male 120 to Tisdale, mile 272, the line runs largely through a timber country producing quantities of lumber and other forest products, which aTe shipped east and west. The principal mills are on Red Deer lake, about male 160 and at Crooked river, mile 259. This section of land has produced large quantities of ties and piling timber used for maintenance purposes for other sections of the sjrstem. At Tisdale, mile 272, the line enters the open country well adapted for grain growing and mixed farming. This class of country, with the exception of occasional bluffs, extends to Prince Albert, mileage 360. At Prince Albert, with a population of
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
[Stage Direction]
about 6,500, considerable traffic is secured (from (the Prince Albert Lumber Company in lumber shipments destined to various points on the system.
Statement of Grain and Lumber handled off the above line
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Cars of grain	, .. 1,969	1,069	3,202	2.568Cars of lumber.. ..	.. 3,900	3,337	2,405	2,851
Hudson Bay Junction to The Pas-Distance 87 Miles This line is through timber country. While eventually there may be some farming done, it cannot be classed as desirable from an agricultural standpoint. All material for the construction of the Hudson Bay [DOT]railway is handled by this line, in fact it is the only line having connection with the government line under construction to Port Nelson.
Statement of Fish, Lumber and Copper Ore handled
from The Pas
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Fish	
29	49	33	54Ore from March to November 1917, inclusive, 81 cars. Lumber	
143	612	559	731
Welford to St. Brieux-Distance 21 Miles This line is through an open prairie country well suited for grain growing or mixed farming.
Statement of Grain handled off above line
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars	
306	163	570	299
Regina to Prince Albert-Distance 249 Miles
Acquired in 1906 by purchase from the Regina, Long Lake	and	Qu'Appelle Railway. The	principal	citiesare Regina, population say 30,000; Saskatoon, population 24.000 and Prince Albert, population 6,500. The line from Regina to Saskatoon, 160 miles, as through an open prairie country, ranging from flat plains to 'rolling country and well adapted for grain growing. The	only	important stream crossed	is the	South
Saskatchewan river at Saskatoon.
From Saskatoon to Prince Albert, a distance of 89 miles,	the	country for the first 60	miles is	openprairie, generally level and grain producing (throughout. From Roddick to Prince Albert, a distance of 29 miles,	the	line is through partly wooded country,
adapted for cattle raising and mixed farming.
This line crosses the main line of the company at Warrnan.
totatement of Grain handled off Regina to Prince Albert line
Years
Regina to Saskatoon	
Saskatoon to Prince Albert.
Total	
1913	1914	1915	1916Cars	Cars	Cars	Cars4,884	3,430	7,445	5,1201,071	681	1,028	9315,955	4,111	8,473	6,051
Saskatoon-Calgary Line-Distance 400 Miles From Saskatoon to Munsen, a distance of 302 miles, the line is through an open prairie country, slightly rolling, well adapted for grain growing and well settled, with villages or towns located at intervals of about seven .miles. While the country ds only partly under cultivation the yield has been satisfactory as the statement shown below will show. From Munsen to Calgary, a distance of 98 miles, it can be classed as a good mixed farming country, shipping a considerable amount of grain and cattle. From Saskatoon to Hanna, a distance of 262 miles, the company handled 59.3 cars of grain per mile of track for the crop of 1915.

For mileage 312 to 324 and along the Red Deer river is located what is commonly called the Drumheller coalfields-fourteen mines are in operation and have produced up to 136 cars per day. The mine owners blaim that this can be increased at any time to 178 cars per day, or approximately 5,500 tons, providing sufficient cars are supplied. Provision must be made, commencing September next, for daily loading of approximately 7,000 tons, all of which must be handled by the Canadian Northern railway.
Statement of Grain shipped off the Saskatoon-CaJgary line
1913	1914	1915	1916From:	Miles	Cars	Cars	Cars	CarsSaskatoon to	Kindersley..	126	3,605	1,863	7,587	4,693Kindersley to	Hanna..	..	136	1,605	901	7,924	5,655Hanna to Calgary..	..	138	438	390	1,901	1,965Total	400 5,648 3,154 17,412 12,313Statement of Coal handled from Drumheller, Alberta Years	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916	1917
Number of cars.. 287 1,117 4,148 6,236 10,986 20,379 Delisle to Dunblane-Distance 59 Miles This line is through an open prairie district, ranging 'from level plains to rolling country, well adapted for 'grain growing, for mixed farming. From the crop of 1915, the Canadian Northern railway moved 3,317 cars grain, say at 66,000 pounds, carrying a rate of 23 cents per 100 pounds to Port Arthur-$151.80 per car or total *revenue of $503,530.60, equivalent to $505 per mile of track 'from the originating point to Port Arthur, a distance of 997 miles.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars.. ..	1,579	725	3,317	2,362
Elrose Junction to Eston-distance 85 miles This line is through open prairie country, slightly rolling and well adapted for grain growing. Some of the company's lands are located along this line, which is likely to be extended westward to a connection with the Saskatoon-Calgary line. From the 1915 crop there was shipped 4,056 cars from this line, or 48 cars per mile of track, the revenue from which was approximately $626,927, the rates to Port Arthur from stations on this line being 23 and 24 cents per 100 pounds, and basing the figures on 66,000 pounds to the car. The above amount provided revenue of $589.77 for every mile of track from a point midway on this branch to Port Arthur, i.e., 1,063 miles.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars.. ..	844	258	4,056	3,703
Note.-The 1914 was a poor crop. In 1915 the mileage extended from 50 to 85.
Dalmeny to Carleton-distance 36 miles This branch is open prairie, generally level country and suitable for grain growing.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars.. ..	805	553	942	872
Prince Albert to Denho'lm-length 117 miles From Prince Albert westerly for the first 15 miles can be classed as a cattle country, but producing considerable cord wood, which is shipped to Prince Albert and to points south including Saskatoon. From mileage, 15 to Denholm, with one or two small exceptions, the country is open prairie, well suited for grain growing or mixed farming.

Supply*-Hudson Bay Railway
Statement of Grain handled off Prince Albert-Denholm line
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars.. .. 1,946	1,587	2,206	2,287
Shellbrook to Big River-distance 56 miles
This line is through part open country suitable for mixed farming and partly through timber. The Prince Albert Lumber Company have logging operations tributary to this line and deliver cars loaded with logs at sidings on this branch which are then handled by the Canadian Northern to Prince Albert. At Big river, the terminus of this line, there is also a sawmill, the product of which is shipped over this line.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of	cars..	..	25	31	435	373Statement of Logs handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of cars.. .. 2,473	2,076	1,767	1,144Statement of Lumber handled from Big River Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of	cars..	..	531	254	898	1,370
North Battleford to Turtleford-distance 56 miles This line leaves the main line at North Battleford and runs through a good farming country all the way to Turtleford. The company have under construction a line extending from near Edmonton easterly and when completed will connect with this branch, giving the settlers on the north side of the Saskatchewan river transportation facilities. At present some of these settlers have upwards of 60 miles haul to reach the nearest railway which is the Canadian Northern main line. Under these conditions the settlers are confining their efforts to livestock which can be driven to market.
Statement of Grain handled off the Battleford-Turtleford line
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of	cars..	..	642	406	1,497	1,100
Battleford Junction to Battleford-distance 8 miles This branch was constructed to give the old town of Battleford connection with the main line. The principal traffic is shipments to and from the town of Battleford.
Statement of Grain handled off above line Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Number of	cars....	39	36	65	58
Summary
Years	1913	1914	1915	1916Total Cars	..	16,144	9,288	37,648	29,037Bushels..	..	18,000,000	10,000,000	41,000,000	32,000,000
Thomas William Bird: Mr. Chairman-


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Mr. Chairman, I should like-


The CHAIRMAN:: The member for Selkirk (Mr. Hannesson) has the floor.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Chairman, I had the floor
and gave way to the Minister of Railways.


William Duff: It is quite true the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) had the floor on that occasion, but about an hour ago the
hon. member for Selkirk sent me a note saying he would like to follow the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) and I promised to recognize him.


Thomas William Bird: Is it in order for an hon. member to pre-empt the floor of the House?


William Duff: If the hon. member for Nelson wants the floor he has the right to it; he rose first. I leave it entirely to his judgment.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, I rise-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Nelson
established the precedent of pre-emption.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Mr. Chairman, I might explain that I deferred rising in my place because the hon. Minister of Railways had intimated to me that he wished to speak next.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think the Chairman is perfectly straight and honest in his rulings, but I do think on this occasion he kept his head too close to the papers in front of him, for the simple reason that I have watched him time after time when members in this end of the chamber have risen first and have noticed that some other member to the Chairman's left has caught his eye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: I am not attributing anything unfavourable to the Chairman's conduct. I think he is perfectly honest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Forke: -but it seems to me he should look along the chamber sometimes, when he would probably see other hon. members trying to catch his eye besides those to his left.


Thomas William Bird: Mr. Chairman, I did not understand that in committee it was customary to make arrangements as to the order in which members are to speak. It seems to me unfair when a member sits here throughout a debate that his chance to speak should be lost simply because another member, who may not have been in the House during the debate, has arranged with the Chairman and pre-empted his turn.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: I have been in my seat the whole afternoon.


Thomas William Bird: However, I am quite willing to give way to my hon. friend because I realize we are both fighting in the same cause. I simply protest against the procedure.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


William Duff: I might say to the hon. leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) that of course while in the chair I have no particular sympathy with any party or any member. I need not go further than that so far as he is concerned. About an hour ago the hon. member for Selkirk sent me a note saying he would I ke to follow the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. I wrote him in reply that the arrangement was quite satisfactory to me. Shortly after the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) also sent me a similar note, and I told him where he would come in. Then the Minister of Railways asked that he might follow the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and to this the hon. members for Selkirk and North Battle-ford agreed. The hon. member for Nelson rose in his place first, and if he desires to exercise his right he is entitled to the floor, but I think under the circumstances that, as he has just admitted, both the hon. member for Selkirk and he are fighting for the same cause in this debate the incident is satisfactorily settled.


Robert Forke: Mr. Chairman, I think we
ought to have this matter definitely settled. It is just a point of order. I have always understood that when the Speaker was in the chair during a regular debate it was arranged between the whips in what order hon. members should speak, and the Speaker was furnished with a copy of that list, but this is the first time I ever knew that the chairman of the committee of the Whole kept such a list with no arrangement whatever being made.


William Duff: I might also say to
the hon. member for Brandon that the practice is quite usual, whether in committee or in the House and if persons send their names to the Chairman he is perfectly justified in following that list.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: When the motion to adjourn the debate was made last night I had not intended speaking because I felt the House to be so favourable to this item that it would be useless to take up any more time. But I have a deep interest in this subject, and the remarks of to-day and last night compel me to say a few words. When in 1886 the famous telegram to which the minister referred was sent saying "Hurrah; the rails are shipped", the projected route of the Hudson Bay railway was through the constituency of Selkirk, and to-day the dump from which the rails were removed is still to be seen at Warren, Manitoba. The descendants of the original Selkirk settlers are also to be found in that constituency, people who came in by way of Hudson bay, and the descendants of most of 
the Hudson bay factors find their homes there. These people have all had to do with the Hudson bay and the north country, and they have not only a sincere belief in the feasibility of the route but a conviction that it can be made to pay and that the completion of the road is inevitable. If I thought for one moment there was any danger that this item might not pass, I would not be doing my duty if I did not say something. But I belieye something should be done to controvert what I can only characterize as propaganda against that railway which I regret to say has come almost altogether from this side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Winnipeg 'North Centre j(Mr. Woods-worth) .


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I would just like
to say that I resent having my speech characterized as propaganda against the railway; in my remarks I stated that I would vote in favour of the estimate. I prefer to make my statements in my own way, without having them characterized by the hon. member opposite.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: My hon. friend's remarks will speak for themselves, and I am sure he will again have occasion to do some explaining in this connection. Last night I was very much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean). He pointed out that the destiny of Canada would be realized in the north, and I am a firm believer that if we are to realize our destiny we must look northward. Every movement in that direction has been successful, and has worked to the good of Canada.
Every argument I have heard in this House and elsewhere against the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway has been almost identical with the arguments advanced against practically every effort that has been made to extend our civilization and settlement northward. I can also say that during the years I have heard the Hudson bay route discussed -and they are many-the same kind of talk has gone on as we have heard in this House with regard to the feasibility of the route. It is a remarkable thing that although the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) had apparently spent a good deal of time gathering data and material to demonstrate that the route was not feasible and would not pay, he was unable in support to quote a single witness with the exception of Mr. McLachlan, a man uninformed in many things, however well he may be informed in others. It is all very well for hon. members to say that the north is a frozen country

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
fit for nothing and that Hudson strait is not navigable, but when they are asked for proof they point to a report made in 1917 by an engineer who was there when nothing was doing and made but one trip by water. This same man gave evidence before the Senate committee in 1920, among other witnesses, and we all know the report made by the Senate.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said last night he would like to have an expert commission investigate the matter; he wanted expert evidence. Is not that exactly the kind of propaganda which has been delaying the construction of the Hudson Bay railway all along? Whom would that commission be composed of? He suggested it should include engineers, shipping men, grain men and others.
May I point out the nature of the evidence given before the Senate committee, upon which the report was based? They took the evidence of a sergeant of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who had been in that country for many years; Mr. F. C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce; Mr. J. G. Desbarats, Deputy Minister of Naval Service; Captain Frederick Anderson of the Hydrographic branch, Naval Service; D. W. Mc-Lachlan; VilhjaJlmer Stefansson, the Arctic explorer; Captain Norman E. Freakley, who had been in the Hudson's Bay service since 1898, sailing the bay; Captain Bernier, the Arctic explorer, sent specially to Hudson bay by the government; W. P. Anderson, of the Marine Department; Lance Corporal White, of the mounted police; Edward E. Prince, Dominion Commissioner of Fisheries; Mr. John L. Payne, statistician, Department of Railways and Canals; Hon. Frank Cochrane, who went to Hudson bay himself; W. G. Walton, a missionary; J. B. Tyrrell, a mining engineer; J. W. Tyrrell, a civil engineer; Mr. E. E. Clawson, Department of Marine and Fisheries, and others. All these men had been at the bay personally and were as well qualified in their own branches as anyone who could be selected by this government. Yet my hon. friend says there is not sufficient data and information. After hearing the evidence of these men the Senate made a report which fully justified the government in going ahead. It must also be remembered that in 1912, when it was decided to go ahead With this matter, the then Minister of Railways personally went to Hudson bay. For several centuries men have been doing business there. There are records dating back to 1740 showing the nature of the country, the feasibility of the route and all that is required.
14011-271^
Before I go into some of the objections which have been made I would just like to say that I was very grateful to the minister for the information he gave, but that information was disappointing to me as it will be to a great many other people. In the first place I think this House is entitled to know the exact condition of the system from someone who has made a personal examination. It is hard to believe after the appropriations that have been voted almost every year by this House, running up to $300,000 in some years, that the system should be so badly run down that it requires 13,000,000 to put it into shape. Mind you, I am not finding fault with the principle of first repairing the existing track. I think that is only sound business, and that it will decrease the expense in connection with further construction. But when we are asked to vote an amount of $3,000,000 I think this House is entitled to know that it is not an estimate made by some person sitting at a desk here in Ottawa or in the Department of Railways and Canals. I think the House is entitled to that information. I asked for it yesterday, and it seems to me that it should be made available. But that is not the only disappointment. I am not going to go over all the promises of construction that have been made, but during the last year both parties made specific promises to the people of the west. The promise of the Liberal party was as specific as it could be-"immediate construction of the Hudson Bay railway to Port Nelson." That promise was reiterated here in the House in the Speech from the Throne; it was made again in the Prince Albert by-election. Again, when the leader of the government in the Senate said that the vote was only for repairs, that statement was afterwards denied in this House. The people of western Canada expect that there will be no more dilly-dallying about this thing. They do not want to be put off further, and if $3,000,000 is not enough-and remember, the construction of the 92 miles could be proceeded with concurrently with the repairs-we expected that the amount required would be voted this session. I say that this House should go on record as definitely committing the government of Canada to the construction of the road right to the bay. That is all that I suggest they should do. I quite realize that if the road is constructed to the bay, the further question of the construction of harbour works and improvements will come up subsequently. But by the time that does come up, we shall expect the government to have sufficient in-
Supply*-Hudson Bay Railway


Thomas William Bird: It had not been my intention to speak at all until I listened to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I notice, by the way, that that hon. gentleman is in the habit of delivering himself and getting out of the chamber as quickly as possible; he has everything to teach and nothing to learn evidently. I listened very carefully to the hon. member's speech throughout, and I must say that it was a very clever piece of special pleading. His procedure amounted to this: All he did was to magnify the McLachlan report and belittle the Senate report. It is a very easy form of arguing when you can take two documents and carefully select all that is palatable in the one and all that is unpalatable in the other. I do not mind the hon. gentleman belittling the Senate on ordinary occasions ii

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
he can do it. Nor do I mind him glorifying Mr. McLachlan on the proper occasion. But let us deal for a moment with the notorious McLachlan report. Personally I do not want to detract from the ability of this engineer. I think it is conceded that as an engineer he is foremost in his profession; but I want to remind the House that not a word in this report comes from Mr. McLachlan in his capacity as engineer. I would point out that this famous letter deals with phases of the problem which lie entirely outside his capacity as a port engineer; and if you will read all that Mr. McLachlan has ever said about Port Nelson you will find that on no occasion has he ever attempted to detract from that port. So far as Mr. McLachlan is concerned, the problem is not an engineering one at all, because Mr. McLachlan will be the first man in this country to admit that the engineering problems have been solved, and I think he would be prepared to admit that they have been solved by a very clever engineer. Of course I give due weight to the opinions of Mr. McLachlan as expressed here on the problems of navigation. I suppose he has as much right to an opinion as anybody in this House on navigation; and also we must attach some weight to his opinion given on matters of transport. This letter is composed of two sets of opinions; one based upon his view of the navigation difficulties, and the other on his view of the transport problem. He speaks in the first instance as a navigator and in the second instance as a freight expert, but not as an engineer because if he had spoken as such he would have described Port Nelson as one of the best ports of its kind on the face of the globe, as it surely is. The beginning of this letter always strikes me with a certain amount of amusement:
Many a time during the past four years X have been on the verge of coming out in absolute condemnation of the undertaking.
I think it sheds a ray of light, if I may say so, on the temperament of Mr. McLachlan. It seems that he had his ups and downs. At times he felt that the enterprise was going to be a success. At other times he was down in the dumps, so to speak, and he felt sure, almost to the verge of admitting it, that it would not be a success. I am afraid that Mr. McLachlan, although he is an expert engineer who has carried a great work to the point of success, is in his disposition somewhat a little bilious and a little inclined to waver. Let me point out that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George has built up the edifice of his argument on this somewhat strange, outlandish document of Mr. 
McLachlan. The hon. member mentioned what Mr. McLachlan said in the following paragraph:
Port Nelson was this year blocked with ice on August 29.
Now all newspapers opposed to the Hudson Bay railway have based leading articles on that one paragraph which stated that in midsummer Port Nelson was blocked with ice. Our friend from St. Lawrence-St. George emphasized that. I have the report before me, and if hon. members wil turn to page 19 they will find that Mr. McLachlan wrote a letter dated August 30, the day after the port was supposed to be blocked with ice, in which he says:
As I write this letter, the ice is still in clear view in the vicinity of the Alette. Yesterday as it was a very fine day, I seized the opportunity and went out in a gasoline boat to a point about five miles beyond the Cearense.
He went fifteen miles down the estuary in a gasoline boat the day he reported the port was blocked with ice. I think this periodical appearance in the Nelson estuary of floating ice in summer is just as understandable as the appearance of floating ice in the estuary of the St. Lawrence. These phenomena arise precisely from the same cause. Mr. McLachlan admitted that it was an extraordinary year. It may occur in midsummer of any year that there may be a field of floating ice going as far south as the estuary of the Nelson just as it gets as far south as the north Atlantic shipping route in certain years. That goes without saying, but it is another matter to base on that an argument against the feasibility of the route. Mr. McLachlan's report is based solely, not upon his experience as an engineer, because his experience as an engineer relieves the Hudson bay route entirely from any doubt.
I say that Mr. McLachlan would be the first man to admit that Port Nelson at the present time, up to the point he left off working on it, was a real success, and that nature and human ingenuity had come together and had made a feasible port in that estuary. Too much importance can be attached to these point blank statements we have listened to this afternoon. If you look at any project from the beginning, it is easy to conjure up imaginary difficulties which, in
5 p.m. the popular view, will condemn it. Suppose such a process had been followed for instance in regard to the port of Montreal, or in regard to any great world ports, that would be sufficient to condemn it in the minds of some people. I have

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
before me some excerpts from a pamphlet entitled:
Notes from report on British and continental ports with a view to the development of the port of Montreal and Canadian transportation.
It states here:
Although Great Britain's sea power during Elizabethan times achieved a position that has since preserved her commercial integrity, Liverpool's maritime commerce was then being carried by 15 ships with an aggregate burthen of 268 tons. The sand dunes sloping to the river were undisturbed by artificial construction, and no shelter for ships existed. Nature has, however, been overcome by the courage, persistence and skill of determined men who, in the words of a former dock chairman, have made of Liverpool "a purse out of a sow's ear."
They had made a port out of the level sand dunes. I have another interesting extract here.
The length of the channel from the Nore Light to London Bridge is 47J miles, with a width varying from 1,000 feet to 200 feet, and a depth varying from 26 feet to 14 feet at low water.
And the narrowest width of the channel at Port Nelson is over 1,000 feet. Now let me give a further extract. This relates to Montreal:
In the year 1773 Glasgow was an important town, having less than 30.000 inhabitants. There was no harbour, the river Clyde being in places from 15 to 18 inches deep, and with only a "sensible" tide opposite the town. As far down as 12 miles below Glasgow the river was fordable. The river Clyde is now one of the great navigable highways of the world, 22 feet deep at low tide and 33 at high tide-
Almost exactly what the channel at Nelson is now.
-and its construction is considered a triumph of engineering skill. The creation of this inland waterway, with the resulting commercial and (manufacturing establishments, is certainly a most notable achievement. It was the success of the improvements on the Clyde which prompted the improvement of the river St. Lawrence ship channel to Montreal, which now, as regards size and navigability, so far surposses its model.
I quote this just to show that from the point of view of engineering the proposition at Port Nelson is one of the best this world affords, one of the shortest, deepest and cleanest channels you can mention off hand. As to ice conditions, it is possible to magnify ice to almost any dimensions, if you want to belittle this proposition, but I want to say that some of the busiest trade channels in the world have conditions which are just as black to the outside observer as anything pointed out by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. Let me now quote from Lloyd's calendar for 1924; concerning ice in the Baltic:
The obstruction by ice varies considerably in different years.
Just as it does in the Hudson bay.
The winter marks are laid out in November and December, and removed in March and April. In the northern (part of the gulf of Bothnia, navigation is not generally open to sailing vessels until the middle of May. In the gulf of Finland navigation is usually Closed about the end of November and opens late in February. The entrances to the gulf of Riga are *usually closed in a few weeks, but the middle of the *gulf rarely freezes completely. The river Dwina is kept open by ice-breakers. The earliest recorded date of the closing of Kronstadt is 12th November and latest 20th January, and the earliest opening 9th April and latest 24th May, Petrograd being a little earlier and later.
It goes on to show the ice conditions in a good many other important ports of northern Europe, and none of the conditions portrayed are any more favourable than the conditions portrayed by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. It is beyond refutation that in relation to this route there is no engineering problem whatsoever. The whole problem with regard to the Hudson bay route boils itself down to the navigation of the straits. Every reasonable man must concede that. There is no problem anywhere else.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: What about
money?


Thomas William Bird: That problem depends upon
one's point of view and the object aimed at. I can quite understand that it looms larger in the mind of the hon. gentleman than it does in mine. That is explained by a difference in geography. The problem of the Hudson bay route, I repeat, is precisely that of the navigation of the straits. And we must narrow it down still further, for I do not think there is a man in this House who will deny that the Hudson -straits are navigable during some part of the year. Everybody knows that; everybody is aware that in certain months during the summer the straits are as navigable as the Mediterranean sea. It is therefore not a question of navigability. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) last night, and I was surprised to hear him suggest that this was all a matter of sentiment. You will have observed as I did that he was the only man who had indulged in any sentiment so far as the debate had then proceeded. In fact, his speech was all sentiment. I have read it again and I have yet to discern a single fact in it. He declared that he had gone through the straits and had got scared, notwithstanding the fact that he had gone in an icebreaker. He went through the straits and was so scared that no money would ever per-
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

suade him to repeat the trip. He is the only man bearing an Anglo-Saxon name I ever heard of who was scared in going through the straits. *


Mr. PRICE:: I do not think the hon. member is quoting the member for Hants-Kings correctly. I do not think he made use of that language at all.


Thomas William Bird: Of course he did not. I
could not repeat offhand the exact language he used, but the substance of it was that having gone through the straits he was in a superior position to give an opinion on the question. If therefore he was possessed of the information he should have cited a few instances in proof of his assertions so that he might have been checked up. As it is we cannot cheek him up.
This is more than a matter of sentiment. So far as the navigability of the straits is concerned, - no reasonable man here or elsewhere will deny that the whole question is the length of the season of navigation. I want-the committee to keep that in mind because it is the kernel of the whole question. Do not let us be led aside by any talk of muskegs along the Hudson Bay railway or by any suggestion of difficulties in engineering, because such difficulties do not exist. The whole problem, I say, consists in the length of season in which the straits may be navigated. Now that problem certainly is not a matter of sentiment, nor is it a matter of mere guesswork. It has been investigated at least three times through money voted by this House. In 1885-86 an expedition was sent out to the bay at the instance of parliament to look into the question, and again in 1896 another and better equipped and a more costly expedition was dispatched to make investigations. And that expedition had the benefit of the findings of its predecessor. Again, in the years 1910, 1911, 1912, 1913 and 1914, at the expense of the country, a more thoroughly equipped and a scientific expedition was sent out for the sole purpose of discovering how long the straits were open for navigation in the course of the summer. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George never mentioned that expedition. He never referred to it, for the simple reason that^ it was not just favourable to the trend of his speech. That expedition was instructed to enter the straits at the earliest practicable moment and to leave them at the last moment it thought advisable, and it reported in favour of the Hudson Bay route, giving the length of the navigation season at four months as a minimum, with a possibility of extending it at each end. I have before 
me the report submitted by that expedition and I find in it this statement:
The period during which vessels could enter Hudson strait with comparative safety may be taken to extend from July 15 until November 15, with an extension of a week at either end according to the season.
That was no hasty conclusion; it was the deliberate finding of a careful, well equipped and scientific expedition. So that the question as to the earliest moment at which vessels may enter the straits and the time at which they may safely depart has been settled. It has been known for a good many years that the middle of July may be regarded as the average date at which commerce may enter these straits with any degree of safety. There is no question about that; we do not need to send any more expeditions to discover the fact. It has been settled for all time to come. It is as firmly established in the realm of realities as is the clock tower on this building. We do not need to spend any more money whatever to find it out. It does not matter what documents may be brought forward, those who follow the researches that have been made are bound to come to the conclusion that July 15 marks the beginning of commerce in the straits. The only question therefore which we have to decide is the length of time during which shipping can go on.
Now the hydrographic surveys carried out in the years I have mentioned afford the only instance of any earnest effort having been made to determine the date at which navigation in the Hudson straits closes. The Anderson expedition, sent out particularly with the idea of ascertaining the closing date of navigation, without very much effort found that navigation could go on for at least another month beyond the date set by Wakeham. I believe any reasonable person who reads the story of the Anjlerson expedition will come to the conclusion that the hydrographic surveys, although they went further than any other expedition along those lines, did not go as far as they might have gone; and it is my belief that in many years the period of navigation will extend over a much longer period than that which the Anderson expedition gave as their conservative report.
The member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) and other hon. gentlemen who have spoken against this proposition have advocated a new expedition. Now, I wonder what more that expedition could find out than has already been found out. How would it help this problem to take in coal and dump it in the Nelson river? I do not know very much about navigation problems-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Thomas Cantley: Agreed.


Thomas William Bird: I know perhaps as little as
the hon. gentleman who interrupts.


Thomas Cantley: Very likely.


Thomas William Bird: But I know the problem is
simple-in fact at one end of the period there is no problem at all, and at the other end it is so simple that it does not need a special expedition to find out just when the period of navigation closes, because I feel convinced that all the documentary evidence exists whereby any reasonable person can form a fair conclusion as to the conditions of navigation in November and December. Supposing this expedition, advocated by the enemies of this scheme in order to win delay and profit by the accidents that might happen, went there in a very unfavourable year, ran into a pack of ice in the middle of August and was stuck there, unintentionally, just as I was told by my hon. friend from Marquette a short while ago the Welshman, a tramp steamer, ran into a pack of ice in the St. Lawrence river in the month of May about two years ago; supposing that happened, would it not be a triumph for our hon. friends? That is precisely what they want. Supposing on the other hand it happened to be a very favourable year, something like the year 1912 when ordinary steamers could have gone in the middle of June and sailed out in the first week in January, because it is on record that in certain years there the straits are clear of ice for seven months, during which commerce could safely traverse those straits; what would our friends say if that happened to be the sort of year in which this expedition was sent out? I am afraid they would not accept the results, and all the money would have been spent for nothing. The futility of a proposition of that kind is beyond words to anybody who knows anything about the documentary evidence.


Robert James Manion: Did the expedition to
which my hon. friend refers make one trip or a number of trips?
iMr. BIRD:	They made a number of trips
in the one year. Their official instructions were to enter the straits at the earliest moment, and to leave at the latest moment, they did considerable cruising around the straits in between the trips.
Now let me refer to the colonization phase of this subject. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George made a big pretense of building up a solid structure of argument against this proposition. It is only necessary
to point out one or two things in addition to those I have already brought to the attention /of the committee, to demonstrate that his argument from beginning to end was just a form of special pleading, not very much better than the servile articles that have now and again appeared in the newspapers of Montreal -not very much better, not much more solid; a little more pretentious, that is all, but in some cases actually based upon those potboiling articles. For instance, imagine the hon. gentleman standing up and seriously telling us that the Hudson Bay railway runs through a country of muskeg! We thought that bogey had been dissipated a good many years ago. We thought when that wilderness had been penetrated by actual construction work that all the talk about frozen tundra and frozen soil would be forever shattered. You know, in the childhood of the race people always conjured up all kinds of chimeras just beyond the horizon where the unexplored land lay. It was always very easy for the childish mind of humanity to conjure up all sorts of mysteries in that region where human beings could not penetrate and find out for themselves. Similar chimeras were conjured up about the Hudson bay country before construction of the line began. I had not intended to mention the fact, but I myself two or three years ago went over the entire length of the Hudson Bay line as far as steel is laid and then went down the Nelson river to [DOT]the port itself. I want to say, in contradiction to what the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said this afternoon, that there is no such thing as muskeg between The Pas and Port Nelson. Why, the original reports of Mr. Armstrong are enough to prove that. Under a Liberal government 'he was [DOT]sent to investigate condlitions for railway construction in the direction of Port Nelson, and here is an excerpt from his report:
The route selected towards Port Nelson follows the Churchill route for some 150 miles, or thereabouts, the description of which 'has been given. Unlike the Churchill mute, the Nelson route does not resolve [DOT]itself into natural divisions, each presenting different characteristics peculiar to itself, but throughout maintains a generally uniform appearance, so that the description given for the first division of the Churchill route may !be applied in a general way to the whole of the Nelson route. It is not expected that the rock work will amount to very much, the major portion of the grading being in clay loam with smaller percentages of sand, gravel and swamp. The tundra is not encountered on this route, the whole line being through timber not appreciably different from that described on the first 200 miles of the Churchill route. It may be mentioned here that sand and gravel has been found sufficiently often to justify our belief that ballast may be had without unduly long hauls, except on the northern 70 or 80 miles of the Churchill route.
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Having been over the entire length of the road I can fully confirm everything said there. Here and there the line naturally passes through a small piece of swamp land as it would in any part of Canada, but speaking generally I believe there is no length of railway in this country so easily maintained and operated as will be this portion. The hon. gentleman said the line had actually gone out of sight in the bog. I travelled very inch of that line, and as far as I remember we kept on top all the time; I do not remember any time that the train or gasoline car had to be portaged. In a great many cases the line passes over rock and sand and gravel and clay, just as Mr. Armstrong says.
The hon. gentleman was quoting, I think, from a pamphlet written by a Mr. Payne, who is a paid propagandist for the Canadian Pacific Railway. The hon. member was trying to belittle the natural resources along that route. The Department of Agriculture of this government a year or two ago was asked to establish experimental stations along the line of this railway, in that well known clay belt discovered by Mr. Tyrrell many years ago, amounting to over 10,000 square miles. It was well known that gardens were kept successfully in that clay for many years, but until last year it was not known how agricultural products generally could be raised. I have the report of the mile 137 station,-


Mr. DICKIE:: How far is that north of The Pas?


Thomas William Bird: There is one at mile 185 and one at mile 137, and the station at mile 137 had the following results:
Bushels
Wheat-	per acre
Garnet	 64.3
Bishop	 64.3
Marquis	 62.8
Ruby	 53.5
Early Triumph	 47.8
Prel-ude	 46.3
Oats-
Legacy	125.2
Victory	118.2
Banner	117.0
Gold Rain	 90.5
Daubeney	 79.4
Alaska	 68.5
Barley-
O.A.C. No.	21	106.4
Chinese	102.2
Early Chevalier	98.9
Ch a rlo tie town	 95.4
Duckbill	 87.5
Albert	 28.5
Anyone who knows that northern country is quite well aware that the section described by Mr. Tyrrell is an agricultural district of great potentiality. That part of the country

far away from the line may not be developed for many years, but as soon as the line is constructed and a regular service guaranteed surely settlers of all kinds will be attracted.
I need not go into the mineral situation, but everyone knows perfectly well that for the first hundred miles this railway passes through the great pre-Cambrian field which has made Canada so famous in regard to minerals. That great pre-Cambrian area almost entirely surrounds Hudson bay, and the Hudson Bay railway passes right through the centre of it. This mineral area is in two lobes, almost like a human lung; the one lobe is the great northern Quebec district, while the other is the district running to the Mackenzie basin and the Arctic circle. The Hudson Bay railway, almost as though by design, strikes this great district in its very centre and runs through it for the first hundred miles or so. It is a matter of history that in recent times great deposits of copper and gold have been discovered in close proximity to the first hundred miles of this railway.
I need not enlarge upon the agricultural prospects of the next two hundred miles, but besides agriculture in that district there are immense possibilities in the way of timber and fish. This is the lake district of Canada; the most wonderful lake district in the world exists in my constituency about half way up the railway, and that district is noted for its beauty as well as for its wealth of fish. I believe no lakes on this continent excel in beauty some of those to be found near the Hudson Bay railway. Someone has said we cannot run this railway on sentiment alone. We do not have to; we have learned within the last two or three years that even natural beauty is an economic asset. But with fish and timber and agricultural possibilities I believe the central part of the Hudson Bay railway is destined to attract a great amount of settlement.
I do not want to prolong my remarks, but in closing let me refer to the last despised hundred miles of this railway, which has been referred to by former speakers. They have said that the last hundred miles is barren of prospects there. To my mind that is the most attractive portion of the whole line, because in the first thirty miles of that part there are some of the most wonderful water power resources to be found anywhere in Canada. The railway actually runs within a mile or two of and parallel to the river for this distance, contiguous to some of the finest water power sites in the world, with the last power site sixty miles from Nelson, at Limestone rapids. Within that thirty mile stretch

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
there are two million units of horse power at minimum flow and oyer three million at maximum, and to my mind' that is the most promising and' most attra-otive part of the railway.
I need not enlarge upon the possibilities of the bay itself. Mr. McLadhlan, who in his time has played many parts, tried to become a fish expert as well as a transportation expert; he said there were fish in Hudson bay but that there was no fishing season. I would take the word of a resident of the constituency of my friend from Selkirk, where the people are born, fishermen and know fishing prospects when they see them, rather than the word of Mr. McLachlan or anyone else in the engineering line. I will read this interesting paragraph taken from The Pas Herald of August 1, 1924:
Captain Baldwin Anderson, of Gimli, Manitoba, who has been in charge of fishing operations at Man ito Rapids for the Armstrong Independent Fisheries Co., returned to The Pas last Saturday .
Before returning here Captain Anderson made a trip to Port Nelson in the interests of the fishermen of Lake Manitoba, who have been wanting to get some knowledge of the fishing possibilities of Hudson Bay. The Captain spent some time at the Bay and made a thorough investigation.
He was very pleased with the results and says there are great possibilities for the fishing industry in the northern waters. At the mouth of the river, tullibee, herring and trout are very abundant, while white whale and seals are also in large numbers. The white whale, Mr. Anderson states, produces the finest quantity of oil, and the flesh, when cured as it is in Iceland, is also good to eat. Further up the river sturgeon are abundant, Mr. Anderson taking out $1,200 worth in 10 days.
Fishing boats, he states, could go up the river for 60 miles. The 'banks of the Nelson River would form an ideal location for fishermen's homes. The banks are high and the ground rich. Farming could be carried on at the same time, and the fishermen could have their boats tied up right at their door.
That is from a practical, an experienced fisherman, and that was precisely the impression that the party which I was with took of the situation. I have been up lake Winnipeg and have seen the conditions under which lake Winnipeg fishermen make their living, and I know perfectly well that if ever that class of men, who run their fishing with their farming, get an opportunity to settle at the end of the railway at Hudson bay, that is where they will be, for that is the kind of living they wish to have. I think I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, to show the fallaciousness of the ponderous argument put forward by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
Any Canadian with only a little amount of imagination who looks at a map of Canada will surely see that when the Hudson Bay
railway is completed we are going to get immediate access both summer and winter to that immense continent which we call ours, but which in actuality we have never yet claimed and never laid hold of. When this railway is completed, we will find ourselves immediately in touch with every coast and shore along the Hudson bay. in touch with those great islands to the north, and with those great rivers which flow into Hudson bay and which are navigable, some of them, for two or three hundred miles from the Bay.
I should like to quote, in closing, words which I think are most worthy of the subject, and which were uttered by the right hon. leader of the opposition at Regina, on October 13th last, when he said:
Canada is too vigorous, too virile and too proud to see the Hudson Bay railway carried to within seventy or eighty iper cent of completion, and leave it there a spectacle ito the world.
Those are sentiments with which every full-blooded Canadian can sympathize. After all, it is not so much a matter of local sentiment. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George went back a few years, in order to gain a point, and said that both the traditional parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives had demeaned themselves in order to respond to this fatuous appeal from the west. That is an attitude which no hon. gentleman can take who knows anything about the history of the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: He did not use those words.


Thomas William Bird: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then why did
you use them?


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member will not
deny that that was the essence of what he said.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I deny it.


Thomas William Bird: I think the hon. gentleman
would deny anything that was unpalatable. I know it is an unpalatable thing for any party to have any of its members detracting from the traditions of the party in that way. I think it is unjust because anybody who understands the history of the Hudson Bay railway knows that no great party in this country could have escaped declaring themselves on this question, because it was not the aspiration of any small section of Canada, it was the aspiration of the whole of Canada. At that time it was the whole of Canada that was ambitious for the development of the west, and the great parties and their leaders, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Robert Borden, and men of almost equal standing, all of them alike caught this spirit which was possessing Canada at that time, this desire to see that western country developed to its utmost. I do not think it is fair, I do not think it is advisable to detract from the history of our parties more than is necessary, and the parties certainly were not deserving of that criticism at that time, because I believe with all my heart that they responded inevitably to what was a national aspiration and a national demand at that time.
As usual, Mr. Chairman, when a person speaks without preparation he tends to run to length.


Mr. FOSTER:: What rivers does the hon.
member refer to that are navigable for two hundred miles from Hudson bay?


Thomas William Bird: The Thelon river, for one.
Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows the geography well enough to know where that is.


George Eulas Foster: Will you tell the House
where it is?


Thomas William Bird: The Thelon river is on the
eastern side of the watershed which divides the eastern side of the Northwest Territories from the west. The Mackenzie basin is on the one side, and the basin of the Thelon is on the other. The Thelon river is admittedly one of the greatest rivers in Canada. Anyone who wants to find out about the river only need to apply for a pamphlet issued by this parliament, and written by Mr. Tyrrell, who himself was one of the most recent explorers, in fact, the only Canadian explorer of that country. It was explored many years ago by Samuel Heme and men like that, British explorers, but Mr. Tyrrell was the first Canadian, I think, who ever took an accurate survey of the great [DOT] Thelon river, and as soon as the port is established at Nelson, the Thelon river will be within a day or so of Port Nelson, and surely it will bring business to the road because that is one of the finest fur-bearing countries in the world. Its mineral wealth is great; in fact, it has been noted for centuries as a place where the mineral possibilities were almost mythical in magnitude. In regard to copper, there is a district up there called the Copper Mine country. Anyone who exercises his imagination only a little must realize what immense possibilities lie in opening up even a river basin like that, which is navigable for three or four hundred miles from its mouth even by ocean-going steamers, not to speak of the reaches beyond which would be open to

smaller craft, to canoes and the like. That territory has sometimes been called barren, but that is a sad misnomer for that important part of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: Where does that river
open into the bay?


Thomas William Bird: About two hundred miles
north of the Churchill river.


George Eulas Foster: It is frozen all the year
round.


Thomas William Bird: I beg to differ from the hon.
gentleman. That very river was the channel which the ancient seekers after the northwest passage navigated. The river was so mighty that they thought they had found the passage; they thought it was a branch of the sea leading to China, and those noble men of old sailing in there in their little cockleshells went down the river for hundreds of miles until they tasted the water and found that it was getting fresh, and they turned back home. My hon. friend says it is frozen all the year round. That is a little more of his sentiment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
made a reference to Mr. Tyrrell, the engineer. Did he report in favour of the Hudson Bay railway or against it?


Thomas William Bird: I do not think that Mr. Tyrrell ever made a pronouncement on the Hudson Bay railway.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has written
articles on it.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, and perhaps the hon. gentleman has something in his mind-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas William Bird: I meant something specific.
However, I will venture this statement: If all the members in this House to-day were animated by the same spirit that animated Mr. Tyrrell there would be no question about the Hudson Bay railway. To him and his brother, I think, Canada owes more with regard to our existing great unexplored territories than any other men that went up into them, not excluding the type of explorer sent cut by Great Britain. The Tyrrell brothers were scientific geologists who traversed the country not only because it was their business to do so but because they loved it with a great love. Those men were enthusiasts, and I really think that if we had to depend upon the statements of the Tyrell brothers there would not be much doubt as to the Hudson Bay railway becoming an actuality.

Supply-Hudson Bay Raihvay


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and some other hon. members, have implied that the party on this side was completely opposing the expenditure now proposed on the Hudson Bay railway.
I admit that a number of speeches have been delivered on this side questioning the advisability of spending such an amount of money, and the advisability particularly of spending the vast amount that will ultimately be necessary to build up elevators, lighthouses, and so forth, to investigate the feasibility of the Hudson bay route. At the same time I point out that the best speeches, to my mind, which have been made in favour of this vote have been made by members of the Conservative party from the western provinces, in particular the members for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers), Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), and others. I say that in justice to these gentlemen, because it is true that in this party there are differences of opinion.
I have sat in this House for a number of years, and for the last four or five years I have heard this question discussed. But this is the first time I have ever said a word on the subject, and while I represent the city of Fort William, which would probably be injured more by the building of the Hudson Bay railway and the utilization of that route, if it were a success, for the shipment of grain, than perhaps any other city in the country, I am not opposing the vote this afternoon in any way. I have the good fortune to represent a very fine constituency. I represent a constituency where the people are broadminded enough to think in Canadian terms; and in saying that I do not desire to make any reflection upon anybody who may differ from me in Tegard to this railway. I believe we should look upon all questions of this kind as Canadian questions. Personally I am of the belief that we cannot carry on the government of this country successfully and well if we take too much of a sectional view in regard to any of these questions. I am quite open myself to conviction upon this matter. At the same time I point out-and with all due respect, to the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat and who has been a little severe, too severe perhaps, towards those who do not agree with him and who hold that the grounds upon which this undertaking is based should be looked into-that those *entertaining a contrary opinion have as much right to their views as the men who support the building of the Hudson Bay railway. They have looked into the project, they have read the reports made with respect to it,
they have read the editorials in the press, they have heard speeches upon it; and certainly you can find from these different sources as good an argument one way as the other-perhaps I should say a better argument against than for. Take for example what we read in the newspapers of this city. If I mistake not, the two papers published here, one Liberal and the other Conservative, are both opposed to this expenditure upon the Hudson bay route. That is my recollection; I am open to correction if I am wrong, but I think I am not. The same is true of other sections of the country; many newspapers, both Liberal and Conservative, have been opposing the expenditure upon this route. At the same time I believe the real basis for that opinion is that the people feel they do not want to embark upon the expenditure of another twenty-five or fifty million dollars without being certain they are going to get something in return. This is the feeling which prevails throughout the country. And may I right here suggest something my hon. friend (Mr. Bird) has sneered at but which I think, has never been done, although necessary, that is to have a proper investigation made of Hudson Strait and Hudson bay before expending further large amounts of money. I am not discussing the vote of $3,000,000 which is proposed by the Minister of Railways at the present moment. I have no objection to that expenditure because it has been promised, I think, by the leaders of both political parties, who I believe made promises in the west that an amount of money would be spent for this purpose. Personally I have no criticism to offer of that expenditure, but to make the route feasible, to make it possible for ships to carry wheat by this route to tlhe European ports, which would mean the building of elevators, tlhe dredging of the Nelson river, and the building of docks and lighthouses, the Minister of Railways himself admits would require an expenditure of $26,000,000; and anybody who is familiar with the administrative matters knows that a minister will always admit a very much less amount than the actual expenditure will be. Probably the right figure would be half that much again, if not double the amount of the minister's present estimate. Now, I do not believe that even my hon. friends from the prairie provinces, who are heartily supporting the project, would be very desirous of spending unnecessarily, from twenty-five to fifty million dollars of the money of the people of this country. I cannot understand why they should take the attitude of desiring such an amount of money to be spent unless there will be some return for it. May I suggest that while this expenditure of
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

$3,000,000 is being made to convert the Hudson Bay railway into a colonization route or a development route-and when I use the word "development", I use it in the sense of developing the minerals and other resources in that region of which hon. gentlemen have spoken -why could not a proper investigation be made into the complete enterprise? Such an investigation could be carried on at comparatively little cost to the people of this country, for a period of two or three years. I have discussed the matter with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black), and I asked him this afternoon what the cost would be of making use of one of tihe vessels of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. He told me that to put one of those vessels on the service for three years between Halifax and Port Nelson would cost not much over $100,000. I am not allowing for depreciation, insurance, or anything of that sort. Up to the present time we have not got very much value out of these ships, in fact a number of them have been sold for a figure as low as $40,000. Why not make use of one of these vessels in connection with an investigation of this kind? It could for a period of four or five months each year of the investigating period, conduct complete surveys and give a good return for its trip. As a result a report could be made to the people of Canada fairly and honestly with the desire to bring out nothing but the actual facts as to whether this is a feasible route or not.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend permit me a question? Is he not aware that continuous voyages of the kind he refers to were made during the period of work at the port by vessels chartered by the Department of Railways and under its control?


Robert James Manion: Not voyages of the kind I have proposed; I do not think anything of the kind I have proposed has been made.
I admit there have been many trips into Hudson bay but they have been isolated in a sense, whereas the whole season should be investigated. Such an investigation could be conducted at a small amount of cost com- . pared with an outlay of from twenty-five to fifty million dollars upon this route which may turn out to be a failure. I do not think our western friends desire to spend any such amount of money upon a scheme the outcome of which is doubtful. Let us investigate firsit and spend whatever money may be necessary afterwards. Speaking personally, if the reports of that steamer showed that the route was a favourable one for the shipment of grain I am one of those who would un-
hesitatingly vote for it. For the sake of national unity, if for no other reason, I would vote for it, because we want. national unity in this country and the people of the west demand that this route be developed.
Now, why do I say it is questionable? We have heard reports read time and again in regard to the feasibility of this proposition, and we have heard reports read this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George. These reports are absolutely contradictory as to the feasibility and practicability of this route. I have listened to the reading of the Senate report, and I have also heard the MoLachlan report. The Senate report rather supports the scheme and the MoLachlan report opposes it. I have in my hand a statement by C. B. Watts, of the Dominion Millers' Association, from which I will read a few sentences. He has looked into the matter from the standard of the shipping of grain. He says it is not feasible and he reports against it. He says:
What are the essentials necessary to move grain in large volume over any route.
1.	Low freight and low insurance rates.
2.	Large volume o<f shipping available.
3.	Frequent sailings to various destinations.
4.	That boats sail on schedule time.
And he points out that these are not obtainable on that route. I have something else which I wish to read, and really my reason for rising, rather than any other, was to read this letter. I ran across an Anglican clergyman who had spent thirty-two years in the Hudson bay territory as an Anglican missionary, a man not interested in the political affairs of the country so far as I know. He gave me permission to use his name. I wrote him a letter asking his opinion on the feasibility of the Hudson bay route as a grain shipping or cattle shipping route. I think the letter is worth placing on Hansard.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where was he
stationed?


Robert James Manion: 
Mr. SANDERSON:: The letter my hon.
friend read referred to the port of Churchill, not Nelson.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I understand Churchill is a very much better port than Nelson.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is not my hon.
friend's opinion.


Robert James Manion: I have not offered my own opinion. I have not said anything about it
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

personally, but I say, in view of the information we have received from reports from engineers and others and from the newspapers, neither my hon. friend nor myself can have any absolute conviction as to what the most feasible route would be.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. McINTOSH:: As the representative of a riding which may be described as being in the backyard of the Hudson bay territory, and as a western member of this national assembly, I feel it my duty to take part in the debate to which we have been listening for the last two days. The speeches on the other side of the House remind me of a story in which the element of doubt is the most conspicuous feature. There was a good-natured, well developed and exceedingly corpulent coloured gentleman named Cy Stoutin who, after a life in which spirituous refreshments played a prominent part and in which he had as good a time as possible, finally lost control of himself and passed off the stage. Upon his death a lady friend of the family called upon his widow to offer her condolences. This good soul, who happened to be a spiritualist, said that in a vision the night before she had seen Cy in the company of spirits. The widow said this could not possibly be; there must be some doubt, for Cy had been of such a nature and had lived such a life that he certainly could not have left any spirits behind him. In this debate, although there is an element of doubt as to where some hon. gentlemen stand, the western contingent in this House are deeply pleased to observe that this question has taken a hold on many members in the party to the left of the Speaker. With that support, and with the solid support of Liberals, Independents, Progressives and members of the Labour party, we need have no misgivings as to what will be the outcome if this matter is pressed to a vote.
The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) before the committee rose at six o'clock, said that the best speeches that had been made on the subject had come from the party on the left of the Speaker. Well, so far as this side is concerned, I may inform the hon. gentleman that there is no necessity for Liberals from any of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta to put themselves on record as being in favour of the Hudson Bay railway, inasmuch as we as a party have for years advooated the project.
fMr. Manion.]
Personally I have supported it in the newspapers I control in my own riding, and I have espoused it as well from time to time on the platform. Last night the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) suggested that the government in asking for a vote of $3,000,000 to complete the first lap of the road was not going as far as it should. In his opinion the government should ask parliament for $6,000,000. Now we know what would have happened if the government had come down with such a request. We know that sections of the eastern press-our western press is wholeheartedly in favour of this project-daily and weekly would have said to the country: Six million1 dollars is too big a sum of money to vote, $3,000,000 will be sufficient, for we ought to put the road first in shape, we ought to recondition it and lay the foundation well, and then next year complete the road by putting through another estimate for $3,000,000. I think the government has taken the right stand in asking for a vote of $3,000,000, which will demonstrate to the people that they mean business. I believe this is the common sense way of approaching the problem. I do not believe it would be good business to ask for a vote of $6,000,000 and rush the road through to the bay, instead of making a complete job of it as we go along. The people of western Canada from Winnipeg to the mountains, and beyond the mountains to the Pacific, are thoroughly satisfied with this estimate of $3,000,000, and they are daily putting themselves on record to the effect that the Liberal party is standing back of its pledges to see this road completed.
The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) asserted last night that before we tell the Dominion we are going forward with the completion of this road we ought to secure all the facts through investigation after investigation, and if we fall short of one fact we should not proceed. He said:
We must -have all (the facts before we could prove to the world and prove to the Dominion that the navigation of the straits would be a commercial proposition.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you could have investigation after investigation from year to year, from decade to decade, but even after securing all the facts available it is quite probable that many members would not be satisfied and would still make this a controversial proposition. I claim we have sufficient information to prove that this will be a successful road, and I say this government is doing the correct thing by submitting this estimate of $3,000,000 and telling the country:

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
We are going to get down to business and make a start on this all-important project.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) asserted last night that if he cast in his lot with the majority of this House for this estimate his vote would be based very largely on sentiment. There are three factors in the life of any individual,-and what con-ce-rns the individual concerns the nation, because the nation is simply the individual writ large-they are intellect, which gives vision; sentiment, which adds fire; will power, which manifests itself in action. And by action we capture objective after objective in life. So I say to the hon. member that he is not basing his vote on a broad enough foundation. I should like to see him go further and say that so far as his vision and his sentiment and his will power are concerned, he intends to put them together and tell the people of the west that he is wholeheartedly back of this proposition, and by his vote will do his best to put it through the Commons.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was good enough to tell the House that the representation from western Canada was an important representation, that we try to take a wide view of things, that we honestly stand back of what we think should be done for Canada. I thank the hon. gentleman for those sentiments, but I would remind him that as representatives from western Canada we are simply carrying out the desires of our electorates in the stand we take on this important question, because there is no doubt about it throughout Manitoba, throughout Saskatchewan and throughout Alberta, the people want the government to go forward and complete the Hudson Bay railway without further waste of time. The people of the west expect us to cease talking and to show our faith in a greater Canada by moving northward-because our destiny is in that direction as well as in the east and in the west-and tap that great area, thus proving to the world that we are ready to overcome the difficulties that lie before us. That is the only way an individual or a nation can be successful. You know the saying, "He who doubts is damned already." If we are going to have doubts regarding great national projects of this nature, then I say we are not going to make history as our fathers did in days gone by.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said that the completion of this road would add to the obligations of Canada, and on that argument he based his advice that we should pay off all our debts before we proceed further with this undertaking. But, HOll-272
Mr. Chairman, that is not the way we do business. A business man pays his debts as he goes along, and he reaches outward and beyond his present area of activity continually. It is men of this type who are successful in their own undertakings or in the management of great corporations. Therefore I do not think the hon. gentleman's advice should be accepted either by the government or by the country, for it would entail (Jelay and ultimately stagnation. Let us go forward and meet our obligations as they mature just as we have met them in the past.
The hon. gentleman also said he would like to see a further investigation made of this project. We talk about commissions and committees of investigation, until we are gradually getting into the condition of losing faith in the power of our own initiative. We must rely upon the individual and collective enterprise of our people. Without wasting further time in talk, let us go ahead as quickly as possible with this undertaking.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I notice the same hon. gentleman mentioned the agricultural and fishing possibilities of the Hudson bay country. As to the former, I can assure him that the experimental farm branch of the Department of Agriculture carried on investigation work during 1925 throughout the area along the Hudson Bay line. We find tests were made with several varieties of wheat, oats, barley, peas, mangels, turnips, beets, carrots, sweet clover, alsike, red clover, brome grass, timothy and western rye grass. The seed was sent forward early in May, together with directions for its use.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. How many settlers are along that road from The Pas to rail end, aproximately?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I never took a census of those settlers, so I could not say definitely. But it is not the settlers there now about whom we should concern ourselves; we are concerned about those who will be there ten, fifteen or twenty years from now.


Charles Herbert Dickie: These settlers have had railway facilities for three or four years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The railway facilities have not amounted to anything for years. This $3,000,000 is going to give them some real railway service. But to return to the investigations of which I was speaking. These were carried on at Hudson Bay Junction, mile 137 and mile 1S5, and the results were wonderful. I would like to place them on


*COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Hansard, because I think the country will want to know exactly what can be grown at points along that line up to mile 185. Results were obtained at mile 185 and mile 137 of the three points cultivated.
At mile 185, where the soil is a medium silt clay loam with a fairly large proportion of fine sand, which could be improved by manuring or ploughing down a green crop, four*varieties of wheat, sown May 23 and harvested August 29 to September 15, gave the following results: Garnet, 40.05 bushels per acre, grade No. 4; Marquis, 35 bushels per acre, grade No. 6 (immature and frozen kernels); Prelude, 32 bushels per acre, grade No. 1; Ruby, 29.6 bushels per acre, grade No. 3.
Banner oats yielded 73.5 bushels per acre; Daubeney, 70.8 bushels; Gold Rain, 66.1 bushels and Alaska, 54.7 bushels. With the exception of Banner, all varieties were fully matured and should make good seed if screened to remove small grains.
With barleys, Alberta yielded 30.8 bushels per acre, and O.A.C. No. 21, 39.7 bushels, the grain being well matured and would make good seed.
That is one place where tests were made. Two varieties of clover and two of grass were sown with excellent results. Peas did exceptionally well, as did potatoes, but the results from turnips and carrots were rather poor.
At mile 137, where the soil is similar to that at mile 185, six varieties of wheat were sown May 22 and harvested between August 28 and September 15. Ruby yielded 53.5 bushels per acre, grading No. 4; Marquis 62.8 bushels, grading No. 6; Garnet 64.3 bushels, grading No. 3; Bishop 64.3 bushels, a white wheat, difficult to grade according to western standards; Prelude, 46.3 bushels, grading No. 1, and Early Triumph, 47.8 bushels, grading lower than No. 6. The Prelude wheat harvested at this point furnished the best sample of all those grown in the whole project. All the other varieties received a low grade on account of excessive starch.
Of the six varieties of oats, Daubeney yielded 79.4 bushels, Alaska, 68.5 bushels, Legacy, 125.2 bushels, Gold Rain, 90.5 bushels, Victory 118.2 bushels, and Banner, 117.0 bushels. As with the wheats, oat yields were phenomenally high, but some varieties were held a little too long before being harvested and some slight shelling had started.
With barley Alberta yielded 28.5 bushels per acre, Chinese 102.2 bushels, O.A.C. No. 21, 106.4 bushels, Duckbill 87.5 bushels,

Early Chevalier 98.9 bushels, and Charlottetown 95.4 bushels.
With grasses, clovers and roots, practically the same results were secured as at mile 185.
At Hudson Bay Junction, no definite results were obtained, as the plot on which
the crops were sown was flooded during excessive June rains.
Mr. DAVIS:: Would the hon. member kindly inform the House what acreage these crops were grown on?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They were just small' plots. I am not sure of the size, but they were calculated on the basis of the acre. A person can sow 25 square feet of land and get a product which can be measured in terms of the acre, if he is any kind of a scholar, it only takes a little arithmetic.
Before taking my seat I would like to give some reasons for an expenditure of S3,000,000 this year for going forward to the bay and an expenditure of $3,000,000 next year to land us at the bay. That wilL complete the road and help make that route one of the international highways of commerce. I have not the slightest doubt what the results will be; from what I have read on this question I am more of a believer now than when I began to consider it years ago. I believe that in ten years the men standing up in this House and decrying the Hudson Bay railway will be ashamed of their statements.
The first reason is that this road will increase the flow of immigration from the United States, the United Kingdom and the northern areas of other countries from which Canada should hope to draw population if the unit of our people in the years to come is to be racially, mentally, morally and in initiative what we hope it will be. Another reason is that it will most certainly contribute to the development of western Canada between Winnipeg and the mountains and even beyond that bulwark of rock, timber, minerals, and precious stones, dividing the prairies from the great province of British Columbia. It will also, by becoming a part of the Canadian National system, make better and fuller use of its equipment thereby energizing the road as a whole and acting as a by no means inconsiderable factor in paying the operating expenses. It will help -wonderfully in placing the people's railway on a more solid and enduring basis. And1 it will tell the world and this continent of which we are a conspicuous part that our future as a nation is not only eastward and westward but northward

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
as well, thereby at least making a small attempt to make good the appellation bestowed upon us by Grant Balfour when he wrote:
Dominion of the north, how vast! -
Unequalled in the distant .past By proud, imperial Roane.
That is a great name, and we should do our best to merit it. Further, the completion of this railway will prove to mankind now and hereafter that the evidence some hon. members of this House profess such a great desire to have in their possession-scientific and engineering data enough of which we already have to go resolutely on with the project-is objectified before them. How? By the lands to be developed, the mines to be opened, the fisheries to be tapped, the water powers to be harnessed and the gas and; oil possibilities to be discovered, apart from the geographical quotient of the entire problem which when worked out will constitute all the factors required of the business and commercial equation compatible with the reason and faith which should characterize us as a people. And it will be a fitting testimony to the genius and vision of Canadians, because it will be a visible sign to all nations that we intend to prosecute a vigorous and forward policy in the settlement and development of our northern heritage. By the very process of development of our natural resources it will gradually increase our .exports, thereby aiding in obtaining a more favourable balance of trade. This is something for which Conservatives and Liberals alike have been proclaiming the need from the housetops since confederation. It will internationally make Canada a more popular trading ground1-a very important thing. It will make way for a great tourist traffic, which is bound to arise when we prove to the continent and the world at large that we have tapped that great country and are ready to receive from all parts of this continent and from all parts of the world tourists who can spend weeks in that territory not only enjoying themselves but in contributing to their health as well. Lastly, it will add immensely to the principle of national unity in the Dominion, something which is devoutly desired by the adherents of all political parties in this country.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I am back of this project, and I intend to vote for it, if it comes to a vote, as I believe every member of the Liberal party from western Canada, without finding it necessary to speak on this subject, is back of it, and will do his best to support it and thus help make the project one of the most successful in the histoiy of Canada.
14011-272i


Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, the
Hudson Bay railway has been under discussion for two days. That is a very brief period when we consider the fact that this same railway and the Hudson bay have been under discussion in this parliament and in the country for the last forty years. The views that are held are most conflicting, first, as to the commercial feasibility of the route, and secondly, even if it is commercially feasible, whether the project is commercially sound and of advantage to the country. I am satisfied that all members of this House and the people of the country are prepared to examine a subject such as this in a fair and broadminded way, but I believe also that it is equally important for the members and the people to be satisfied that this is a sound, sane and prudent project.
The first thing to consider, I believe, is what is the proposal of the Minister of Railways. He proposes now that a grant of $3,000,000 be made to restore the portion of the line on which the steel has already been laid to the standard of a branch line. He further proposes that the balance of the road, which is graded, but on which the steel has not been laid, should be completed up to a similar standard. That woidd make in all an expenditure of $6,150,000. He also gives us estimates for terminal facilities and equipment, amounting to $20,000,000. I notice that in those estimates there is no reference to the steamers, I presume of special construction, which will be needed to carry on the trade. Nor do the estimates contain a reference to a dry dock. I doubt very much if the grain trade could go on from the Hudson bay, so far away from all other ports, unless a dry dock is provided. The minister says that when this expenditure of something over $6,000,000, and the expenditure of a certain portion of the $20,000,000 has been made and the equipment provided, he proposes to test out that route. Evidently the minister has some doubt in his own mind, because he says: We will go only so far as this point, and then we will make the test,
If the test proves the route to be feasible, it will be necessary then to do two things. It will be necessary to re-lay the whole road to bring it up to first-class standard, for otherwise it would be impossible to do an intensified grain traffic over that route, and secondly, he will need to build his terminal facilities, adding considerably to his estimates that are now before the House. But I will consider this question on the basis of his present estimates. I suppose in every case where large construction has gone on, the original estimates have been exceeded three or four times. I do not think I would be
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

making a wild guess if I were to say that $100,000,000 will be needed to complete this project if it is carried on to finality. Now if the minister's test is successful, he will require to re-rail the route and provide further facilities. If it is not feasible, then we have spent a large sum of money almost to no purpose.
I believe that the minister in his proposal is starting at the wrong time and from the wrong end. I would submit to the House that the time to make the test, which he proposes to make after the construction, is before the construction; in other words, that the time to make the test is now. Surely we will all agree to that. He also, I submit, begins from the wrong end. The wrong end is to make the test beginning from the Hudson bay outwards. I submit that the proper end at which to begin is from the Atlantic inwards.
Now what might be done? I would advise that several ships-not one ship, as was suggested here to-day, because that would be no test; it would not be fair that the whole project should depend on the success of one ship, because something might go wrong with it-proceed to the Hudson bay at intervals of a week or thereabouts during the period in which the bay and the straits are supposed to be open. I believe in that way we would get evidence that we have not got at the present time which would give our people, if it succeeds, some assurance. Let me say to the committee that a large section of the people of this country regard this project as an obsession and as a chimera. They are not satisfied that the project has been sufficiently supported by evidence. I submit that we should take means not only to satisfy the people but to satisfy ourselves by getting the evidence in connection with a project such as this which has been postponed now for so long, by testing out the route, by sending in the ships that we now have through the straits and the bay. By testing out the route in that way we will be prepared, if the evidence is favourable, to support .he project, but at the present time and on the present proposal I feel that I shall be compelled to oppose it.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am one of those in the House who have been from the outset a supporter of the Hudson Bay railway. I well remember the initial steps in connection with this route. I well remember the Right Hon. George P. Graham, then Minister of Railways, turning the first sod of the railway. I think at that time we were all impressed with the importance of the proposal, and perhaps some of us were somewhat too optimistic. I am

inclined to class myself even now as one of the supporters of the proposal. But if my confidence has been somewhat shaken by the reports which have been developed over a period of the last ten or twelve years, I think an equal lack of confidence is felt not only on this side of the House but by very many hon. members who sit on the other side. I judge that from the remarks which have been made directly to myself, from items which we read from day to day in the daily press, and from reports which have come to hand over a period of ten or twelve years, and I for one feel now that we are either taking the first step in a tremendous outlay, or else we are merely completing a line of railway which ought to be completed and the expenditure on which can be kept within reasonable bounds.
I should like the minister, for my own sake and I think for the sake of a good many hon. members of this House, to make a little more clear his declaration of the policiy of the government with respect to this undertaking. I listened to the remarks of the minister yesterday with great attention, I have read his remarks again to-day from the columns of Hansard, and so far as he has given the committee any indication of the policy of the government in regard to this proposal it is all contained in very few words, capable I think of more than one meaning. I refer to his language as reported at page 4192 of Hansard, where he says:
Now, dn connection with these figures I want it distinctly understood that I am not committing the government to this expenditure.
That was the expenditure in regard to the Port Nelson harbour. Then further on the minister said:
It is the policy of the government rto complete this route as economically as possible, in order to enable a fair trial o-f it to be made.
To complete what? Is this the route to Europe, or is it only the route to Port Nelson? Later on he says:
When I spoke of a fair trial being made I meant a fair trial of the sea route to Europe from a Hudson bay port.
To my mind it is evident that the policy of the government is really the extended plan, the ultimate object of the government being to establish a sea route from Port Nelson to Europe as a commercial undertaking of this country. It is a proposal which according to all experts, whether they be the experts of the government or otherwise, is going to involve an expenditure in regard to the sea route and harbour improvements of from twenty millions-the figure announced by the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
minister, although he said he was not committed to it-up to the estimate of forty millions, placed upon the undertaking by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who gave figures in this connection last night. For my part I should like to have some plain declaration by the minister before I am called upon to decide this question, either by vote or by silent assent without a vote.
I am in favour, as I think every member of the House is, of the completion of this line of railway, a railway upon which this country has now expended-I think this is a reasonable statement of the fact-$20,000,000. To have that railway lying there practically worthless after such an expenditure is an absurd situation. We have gone so far that we must go farther; and if it requires $3,000000 to put that road in running shape as a branch line railway I do not think anyone would hesitate to vote the money. If it requires another three millions to continue the road to Port Nelson I for one would not hesitate to grant that money. But there I stop, because from the evidence which has come to me, and from what I have heard and read, I do not think we have sufficient information to justify the larger expenditure from Port Nelson to Europe.
I think there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) said a few moments ago. Why not try out the feasibility of this water route before we go further? Why delay the matter? Surely it is not an impossible thing in the course of a season to find out just what the possibilities of the route are-if a ship could not be bought for the purpose, surely one could be chartered [DOT]-before we launch the substantial expenditure which .is proposed. I think that in the minds of the most sanguine there is doubt as to the feasibility of the route. I believe there is doubt in the mind of the minister; I know there is doubt in the minds of some of his colleagues. This is not a new question; it has been discussed, considered and' turned over time and again during the last five or six years. Deputations have come down from the west in regard to it. The matter cannot be made free from doulbt unless some money is spent in actual experiments, in making a fair trial. Then I appeal to the minister: Why not have that trial made now? It could be done from the eastern end, it could be done from the ocean approach. Let us see from actual experience what could be done in the way of navigation of Hudson strait, what could be done in the way of navigation of Hudson bay, what could be done at present
with regard to Port Nelson without further expenditure. Go ahead if you will with this $3,000,000 expenditure, but let it be understood that it is only for the purpose of rehabilitating that portion of the road upon which the steel is laid. I think we will all agree to that. If the minister would give the committee a declaration that the policy of the government is not to plunge this country into a larger expenditure, that the outlay is merely to be confined

in the meantime at least, until further experiment is made-t.o the rehabilitation of the road, avoiding any commitments in regard to the larger issue, I do not think there will be very much difference of opinion in regard to the question in this committee.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Coming as I do from British (Columbia I may be pardoned if I do not display the same enthusiasm for this "On to the Bay" project as some gentlemen do who are greatly interested in it. I have sat here patiently listening and hoping for some information that would convince me that I was probably a little wrong in the impression I had formed with respect to this route. I expected to receive from hon. gentlemen opposite, from the ministers or from the gentlemen sitting behind them, some information with respect to the project. We have heard nothing of the kind except from the Minister of Railways. Surely the members from Quebec have something to say with respect to the proposed expenditure of such an immense amount of money. Surely these gentlemen have met with hardly voyageurs who have been up in that country and who know something about the Hudson Bay route, much more than those of us who belong to British Columbia. I would have welcomed any information from hon. gentlemen opposite. We have received none, nevertheless we have the assurance that these hon. members are going to vote solidly for this large expenditure. I am a little disappointed in that respect. I should like to have heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). He spoke last year with reference to this subject and I should like to quote a few of his remarks. In the House of Commons on April 7, 1925, the Minister of Agriculture said:
I do not know why we are not now going to Churchill instead of going ,to Nelson, and I am going to read and puit on Hansard some of the authorities whose (testimony makes that question still more puzzling. Again I ask, in view of what these authorities say, why did they go to Nelson? I do not know. Some of our western friends are impatient on this subject, and I do not blame them because they have really been thwarted on this matter so long. I do not blame the late government for suspending work

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
in 1917 and 1918. I recognize that I run the risk of being misunderstood in casting doubt on the practicability of Nelson as a proper harbour. I have come to the conclusion that there has been a big blunder made in going to Nelson. Why did they do rit?
That- is from the Minister of Agriculture. Why does he not give us some information to-night with respect to the matter? I remember that he made a very excellent speech with respect to the resources of that route alongside the railway. He told us of the grain that could be raised there at the experimental farm. He also spoke very dramatically about the great possibilities up in that country. He said he saw an apple growing there. There was just one small little apple, but it was an apple. He spoke twice with respect to it, and I could not help feeling pity in my heart for that little lonely apple in that Laurentian country, waiting for the railway to be built. Then the thought occurred to me that perhaps some pre-nCambriaini iserpent had (beguiled the Minister of Agriculture and he "did eat" the apple. He said nothing more about it. Perhaps he spoke allegorically, I do not know. I know he spoke very glowingly with reference to the agricultural possibilities alongside that road. I will go further and quote some further remarks that estimable hon. member made. He said:
Well, I am going to quote what was stated in an annual report of the Department of the Interior in 1884:
"The Nelson, in the last thirty miles of its course expands like a funnel, from half a mile ito many miles in width at its mouth so that it offers no natural advantages or facilities for a harbour, but rather the reverse."	,
Then he quotes an extract from the report by Lieutenant Gordon in 1886, where he said:
I consider the estuary of the Ndlson river is one of the most dangerous places in the world for [DOT]shipping to go.
He also quoted Captain Bernier, and we all know the reputation of that intrepid mariner. He knows this district very well indeed. The quotation reads:
In the Hudson bay, as ifar as my experience has gone, there are two ports-Port Nelson, which will never be a port, because the river gives so much sediment and every spring when there is a heavy thaw there is a wush-out which changes the channel of the previous year. Therefore, a vessel coming in would need to have full knowledge of the present spring before she could enter, and she might be obliged to discharge outside. I consider that Canada is too ipoor to maintain a iport like Nelson.
How in face of this information are we from British Columbia, who are relying on facts and figures as to whether this is going to be a proper project in which to embark many millions, going to decide? I have listened to

many arguments on the floor of the House in favour of the project. Hon. members spent more time in criticizing the efforts of those who could not see eye to eye with them than in adducing argument in favour of the project.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: What has that to do
with the question?


Charles Herbert Dickie: It has everything to do with it. I quote a few more words from the Minister of Agriculutre in connection with this matter:
Here is Nelson, exposed to the sea, an uncertain channel, better, it is true, than we thought it was a few years ago. The season opens up a little earlier at Nelson, but there are low tides, great mud flats, with a channel away off from dry land, with half a mile of steel trestling to get to it, quite a considerable quantity of dump to get to the steel .trestling, and an artificial .island at the end of that. Imagine that! Just a row like these desks for half a mile of steel thestles to go across a mud flat to the channel which is constantly changing at Nelson. Then you have to build a great island on which to erect elevators like those at Montreal. The man who built on sand was, it seems to me, a wise man in comparison with this one. Why did they go there? There has been spent on that harbour up to date about six million dollars, and it is believed that Churchill could be established at a port for one-half of what it would take to complete the harbour at Nelson. Those of you who know what dredging means will realize how slow a government dredge can be, especially if you have ever gone down the St. Lawrence and looked at some of the locks there: the lock-keepers have to put up a picket to see whether the dredges are moving or not. As to dredging Nelson haibour, you would have to wait *fro.m now till the crack of doom to get results.
That is the idea of the minister with respect to this project. Wha/t are we to expect? How are we to be guided if we have to rely on such expressions of opinion as that?
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George quoted Mr- McLachlan at length; there are however some things he overlooked to which I would like to direct attention. In Mr. McLachlan's report of September 17, 1917, I find the following:
Port Nelson was tills year blocked with ice on August 29, and 'there was still ice around the harbour entrance on September 6, .proof of which I enclose.
Now we have the hon. member for Nelson this afternoon telling us there were no difficulties, apart from those in the straits, in navigating the Hudson bay. They were the principal difficulties, but I consider the greatest difficulty is at the mouth of the Nelson river.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: In dealing with the navigation, would my hon. friend quote from Captain Bernier or Mr. McLachlan, specifying the qualifications of each?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Charles Herbert Dickie: Yes. It is hardly necessary for me to dilate on the qualifications of Captain Bernier, the man whio has made many trips into the Hudson bay and is more familiar with it, perhaps, than any other navigator in the world.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Did he give evidence of that?


Charles Herbert Dickie: The evidence he gave I have quoted.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: But with reference to the navigation of the Hudson bay?


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am saying nothing of the navigation of Hudson bay or the straits. Possibly they are navigable for several months of the year, but I do not think Port Nelson is accessible for ships for more than sixty days at most in the average year. On the 15th, Mr. McLachlan wrote:
On Monday succeeded witdi difficulty in reaching Nelson Shoal with Yates. Ice very heavy and densely packed. A twelve and a half foot tide completely covers Nelson shoal.
That is not the paragraph I intended to read.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The hon. member
should be very careful when he quotes.


Charles Herbert Dickie: What is wrong with that quotation? I think the trouble is with your imagination.


Mr. CAHILL:: Both hon. members might speak a little bit louder.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Referring to the railway, Mr. McLachlan, the engineer in charge of the works up there, said:
In -the 91 miles betwsen the second crossing of the Nelson river, mile 333, and Port Nelson, there are two rivers to cross, namely, the Limestone and the Airhole. The bridge required in the latter case is quite expensive, and will require a viaduct 100 feet high and nearly one thousand feet long.
Though the 91 miles between mile 333 and Port Nelson is said to be graded, there is only a mound of vegetable material in place and 80 per cent of the work of making a satisfactory road-bed is yet to be performed in this section.
There we have 92.5 miles with just a little amount of vegetable matter, and still we have an estimate of the cost of completing that grade of over $20,000. That is $210 a mile for grading that 92.5 miles. Any man familiar with contracting work would laugh at that estimate. There is no man who is at a'li familiar with railroads who will not laugh at that estimate. It is absurd to imagine that we can complete, on an expenditure of $210 a mile, a grade of railway in territory where there is now only a mound of vegetable matter. It is simply impossible.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not admit that the grade is merely a mound of vegetable matter.


Charles Herbert Dickie: We have to be guided by the reports, and I have gathered from several engineers with whom I have conversed on this subject that the reports, so far as this is concerned, are quite correct. I do not think the minister would suggest for a moment that that grade could be completed at $210 a mile. I say it is absolutely ridiculous and if the other estimates are on a par with this we can see what we may expect. Mr. McLachlan says:
The nature of the estuary and the foundation conditions in it did not permit any tiling in the nature of a shelter from storms to be provided in the design of the 'harbour works. It is hoped, however, that the thirteen miles of shoal water between the docks and the relatively deep water of the bay will so break up the waves that ships will not suffer damage when lying against the wharves. The strong tidal currents, and the low distant shores will always prevent ships entering and leaving Port Nelson except during clear weather.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has referred to the tramp ships. To any man who is even slightly familiar with navigation, one of the most serious obstacles in the way of this project is indicated in another report by Mr. McLachlan:
The tidal and channel conditions of this estuary, even after improvement, will require a ship to wait outside the entering channels in Hudson bay until high tide, and then when the tide is high, it must come in quickly with the tide and tie up to the wharf before it has (fallen materially. It also contemplates that a ship, when loaded, must arrange to leave the wharves a little before high tide, so as to traverse the distance from the wharves to deep water in Hudson bay, a distance of about twenty-two miles, before the tide has fallen more than a few feet.
Do hon. gentlemen realize what that means? Any ship coming in in a fog, in a snowstorm, or in a wind storm would find it impossible to keep to the channel, even if it were dredged ten feet. This twenty-two miles of shallow water before reaching the river proper is one of the greatest objections to the scheme, and it seems to me we are embarKmg upon something the success of which we are not assured of. While at the outset it was considered a feasible route for the shipment of grain and cattle from the northwest, overseas, it is obvious that there are now very grave doubts as to the possibility of its success in view of the reports of Mr. McLachlan. And I have not heard anyone challenge Mr. McLaehlan's engineering ability. Everyone knows that he occupies a high position because of that ability; I do not think anyone would suggest for a moment that Mr. McLachlan would submit any report which he did not sincerely believe to be true. He
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

spent four or five years studying that country, under inclement conditions and after investigating the whole subject thoroughly he gave it as his opinion that the project was not feasible.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is it not fair to say that the reports of the Tyrrell brothers are quite the opposite of those of Mr. McLachlan?


Charles Herbert Dickie: The Tyrrell brothers do not recommend Port Nelson as the harbour.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: The hon. member
heard the minister's statement regarding Mr. MeLachlani's qualifications as an, engineer, but did he not hear what was said of his qualifications as a seaman?


Charles Herbert Dickie: It is a waste of time talking to anyone who is as biased as my hon. friend. I am trying to get the faots of the matter. I do not say that I am opposing this undertaking. Certainly I am in favour of reconditioning the road to mile 214, or to the point at which Split lake is tributary to the railway. But I do want to have all the facts fairly submitted to the House, and I can assure my hon. friend that I am discussing the subject with an unbiased mind. Hon. gentlemen who are so enthusiastic over this matter cannot see any facts that are not favourable to the completion of the Hudson bay. But we know that any loiterer by the wayside will notice a flat tire on a limousine sooner than the occupants of the car will. I am afraid hon. gentlemen who are so stoutly supporting this project are very much in the position of the occupants of a car so disabled.
I listened with careful attention last night to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and while it is seldom I find myself in agreement with that hon. gentleman I must admit that he made a very practical, a sensible and a forceful speech on this subject. The hon. gentleman has peculiar ideas in some respects but I consider him a brave man who can stand up and say clearly and fearlessly just what he thinks on a question of this kind, as the hon. member did last night, when he Knows that the views to which he is giving expression are not regarded with favour in the city from which he comes. He is entitled to a great deal of credit for the stand he takes. But so far as other hon. gentlemen are concerned, those gentlemen who are waving their hands and arguing strenuously in support of the undertaking without advancing good reasons, they will not convince anyone who is really anxious to get at the facts and to view the whole question from an impartial standpoint.

A good many reports on the Hudson Bay railway are available from various sources, both from the engineers and from private persons who have been on the ground, and these reports cannot be ignored. I should like to think that the project could be made successful, and I say this as a resident of British Columbia, knowing quite well that the greater the success of the Hudson bay route the greater probably would be our loss out there. We have nothing to gain by it. But I am trying to look at the matter from a broader standpoint. In days gone by ws in British Columbia have -borne without murmur our -share of Canada's burden. I have sat in this House and seen an appropriation asked for which will lead to some $10,000,000 in order to develop trade with the West' Indies, and I observe that there is foreshadowed a loan of $12,000,000 to Montreal. We in British Columbia contribute in taxation per capita as heavily as does any industrial part of Canada, and we are willing to do alt we can for the general good of Canada. But I do not believe that the Hudson Bay grain route is feasible, and in my opinion the only means of settling the question beyond doubt is to send up a couple of our own ships to cruise back and forward there for about a year. Although I have no doubt that if this were done the verdict would confirm the finding which has already been made. Some years it might be possible to get into Port Nelson during two or two and a half months, but of what use is the month of August for taking grain from Port Nelson? And with a 4,000,000 bushel elevator, how could we expect to haul enough grain to make the thing pay? An hon. member said last night that they would be storing grain between -the close and the opening of navigation. What nonsense! Imagine hauling grain in there in the winter time and letting it lie in the elevator until the- following August. The thing is absurd. In my opinion the whole project is an hallucination.


John Millar: Do they not haul grain to
Fort William in the winter?


Charles Herbert Dickie: But they do not wait until August 20 of the next year to take that grain out. And they can take it by rail any time they want to. Port Nelson, on the other hand, is absolutely sequestered. My hon.. friend knows that without my telling him.
Now, as I say, I do not know just exactly what to do with reference to this question. I do not believe in voting the $3,000,000. I believe in voting enough money to recondition the road up to the point so graphically described this afternoon by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird). Beyond that, to talk of

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
the mineral possibilities is simply speculation. When you get beyond the Flin Flon and Mandy mines, north of The Pas, where is there one mining property of value in that whole country northward to the bay? There is no ore coming out of there. The formation being pre-Cambrian, we are in the habit of saying that we have the greatest potential gold region in the world in the north, but those gold deposits are not contiguous, they are sometimes hundreds of miles apart. The Hudson Bay railway might be completed, and yet a branch line running off a hundred miles from the main line might have to be built to tap the mining region which we hope may be discovered, and even that might be tapped easier from The Pas.


John Millar: There are millions of bushels of grain in the country elevators in March and April. Would it be foolish to take that grain in April to Port Nelson to be shipped out in July?


Charles Herbert Dickie: There is no record of the port being open in July.


John Millar: Oh, yes.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Mr. McLachlan in his report states that in the middle of August, 1917, the port was not open.' That may have been an exceptional year, but the consensus of opinion is that two months navigation is all you can depend on from August 20 in each year. We know the intense desire on the part of the people of the west for that route, they are willing to stake their all that it will be a success. But how are we to judge? As I say, we are loiterers by the wayside trying to deal with the question from the point of view of the best interests of the whole Dominion. Suppose the route is a success to the point that you can send grain just as cheaply from Port Nelson as from Fort William and down the St. Lawrence, how will Canada benefit? What about our great ports of Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax in the east, and our two great ports on the Pacific?


John Millar: There will be plenty of grain for all of them.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Why spend money on the
hypothesis that we are going to have a port up there that will bring transportation relief? It is absolutely money thrown away.


Mr. HAY:: Mr. Chairman, personally I am supporting the vote, and I am doing so for the very good reason that I have an abiding faith in the possibilities of the Hudson bay route. I am in rather a unique position in my faith in this route. Three generations of my ancestors came into Canada through Hudson bay
as pioneers, my great grandfather almost a century and a half ago. In conversation with men who were actively engaged in the early days in transporting goods from Port Nelson I have secured information that confirms my faith and convinces me that the route is practicable and feasible and will ultimately become one of the highways of the North American continent to Europe.
A number of hon. gentlemen are opposed to this expenditure. I can understand some of the opposition coming from eastern Canada, whose representatives fear that perhaps the completion of the Hudson bay route will interfere with the trade which is now going through the port of Montreal and other eastern ports; but like many others who have had some experience of the west and its possibilities agriculturally, I believe that every avenue of transportation will be necessary to handle the grain and other produce of the west when it becomes fully settled, or even when another 500,000 farmers are located on the western plains. Consequently I do not think there is any reason for eastern Canada to fear the effects of any competition from the Hudson bay route; I think there will be ample traffic for all our ports when the west is properly developed.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the greatest factor in the development of western Canada will be the completion of the Hudson bay route. The Hudson's Bay Company have realized the possibilities of this route for over two hundred years. This summer it will be 258 years since their first vessel sailed from England 'to the bay, and ever since their ships have each year safely navigated the straits to Port Nelson with goods for that northern region. Recently I noticed in the press what seems to me to be a significant item. It is dated Winnipeg, January 21:
The board of directors of the Hudson's Bay Company announced that a large steel icebreaker will be put into service in the Hudson bay next summer.
That is, the present summer.
The icebreaker is now under construction in England, and it is expected will be completed by July.
Then I notice another significant press despatch, dated London, March 9:
Colonel J. Obed Smith, former director oi European emigration for the Canadian .government, has been retained as special adviser by the Hudson's Bay Company Overseas Settlement, Limited, the newly formed unit of the Hudson's Bay Company, which will carry out the company's own migration scheme in Canada.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, those two articles are somewhat significant, particularly in view of the intention of the government to complete the line to Port Nelson at the earliest possible moment. The minister has assured us of that.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
*and personally I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I am naturally a little disappointed that an effort is not being made bo complete the road to the bay during the present summer. I think it would have been possible to do that had an amount of $6,000,000 been included to complete that line. In view of the fact that the harbour commission of Montreal is asking this government for a loan of some 412,000,000, and in view of the fact that the Welland canal appropriation for the present summer amounts to $14,000,000 I do not think it would have been out of the way if $6,000,000 had been asked for the completion of this road this summer.
A number of members of this House speak .of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway as a concession to the west. I disagree with and resent that statement, because that is not so. We do not look upon the completion of this railway as a concession to western Canada; it is a right which belongs [DOT]to us, a right which the western people have bought and which their lands have paid for. .Consequently it is wrong to speak of it as a .concession.
A good deal has been said, Mr. Chairman, -with respect to the feasibility and navigability .of the route to the Old Country by way of Port Nelson. Some of our friends say we have not sufficient information to warrant .such expenditures, while others say we should satisfy the people of the country before spending more money. The governments of this country have been trying to satisfy the people for a number of years with respect to the navigability of the route. As far back as 1884, during the regime of the late Sir John A. Mac-donlad, a committee was appointed to investigate and gather information with respect to the feasibility of this route, and I am going to .quote some of the evidence placed before the government by that committee. I may say that they gathered information from all reliable sources and presented a report to the .government, and a part of that report was to the effect that the government would be well advised to send an expedition to Hudson bay to find out whether the straits and bay were navigable and whether the route was feasible. In 1885 the year following the report, something like forty years ago, an expedition was sent to Hudson bay. The vessel arrived there in June, I believe, and cruised around the bay and straits until the following October. Observatory stations were established at different points, and I would like to give some of the information gathered. I think this will be of interest, because we of the west are vitally interested in this proposition

and believe that it is necessary to the future development of western Canada. So we cannot allow such statements as were made in the House yesterday and to-night to go unchallenged.
I want to quote first of all from Dr. Robert Bell, who was senior assistant director of the Geological Survey of Canada, and who was examined at length by this committee:
He had, -in the course of his professional duties, visited the immediate shores of Hudson bay, or the country surrounding it, each of the six years from 1875 to 1881, both inclusive, and was therefore in a position to give much valuable information to the committee. Besides, he had passed through Hudson strait, and had been to considerable trouble an collecting information from others concerning the navigability of those waters.
Having travelled much over the country, he gave it as his opinion, based on an extensive knowledge of engineering, that there were no great obstacles in the way of the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to Hudson bay. He further stated that the bay and strait were open long enough each year to be utilized for ordinary commerce, or to the extent of four and a half months, and .possibly longer.
The doctor's own language was:
We know them both to be open for four and a half months at least, say from the middle, and certainly from the end, of June until the middle of November.
He also gave a full account of the resources of that country. I want to quote further, and I think the information I intend putting on Hansard should convince at least some hon. gentlemen who are opposed to this route that the contentions of the hon. member for St. Lawrenoe-St. George (Mr. Cahan) particularly, together with those of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicho'lson) and one or two others, are not borne out by the facts gathered by this commission. The information I am now giving with respect to navigation and ice conditions in Hudson bay was gathered by this committee from the most reliable iinformation, the log books of the Hudson's Bay Company ships which had been plying these straits for a number of years. The information covers a period of something like thirteen years, from 1871 to 1883, or eighteen trips in all. I will just give some of the outward bound trips together with the conditions which prevailed in these years. On August 16, 1870,, the ship Prince Rupert passed through the straits and met some ice; in 1871 the same vessel passed through the bay and straits and met with no detention. The same conditions were met in 1871, 1872, and 1873. The Ocean Nymph entered Hudson bay and passed through the straits on August 10, meeting with heavy ice, and the following year the same ship also met with ice. The Lady Head, another Hudson's Bay Com-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
pany vessel, passed through the straits in 1876 and met no ice, and the same conditions prevailed from 1876 to 1880, a period of six years; there was no detention at all from ice and in some cases no ice was sighted. In 1881 the Prince of Wales passed through the bay and straits and was not detained, while in the following two years this ship met with some ice.	Of the eighteen trips outward
bound on only five occasions were the ships detained by ice, or ice was sighted only five times. Consequently you will see, Mr. Chairman, that the navigation of the straits is feasible at that time of the year at any rate, and for a much longer period, I believe.
I want to quote now from the log books of the Hudson's Bay Company vessels-and this evidence was also given before the committee :
There is no record in any of these logs-
That is, logs of the Hudson's Bay Company's vessels:
-as to the date of the closing of the strait. The latest given of passing out was October 27, 1883, having sailed from Moose Factory October 7 th. No loose ice was seen in the bay or strait; only a few icebergs in the strait.
In other words, almost until November 1 mo ice was seen with the exception of an Iceberg in the straits. It goes on:
It will be seen from the evidence submitted to the 'Committee, that there was a difference of opinion as to the duration of navigation in Hudson strait. Mr. McElhinney, with the log-books of the Hudson's Bay [DOT]Company's ships, covering thirteen years from 1870, to guide him, said that "three months' navigation is all" that can be counted upon; while Dr. Bell, from personal experience, to a certain extent, felt sure that four and a half months, at least, could be relied [DOT]on.
The title of this book is Our Northland, and it was written by Charles R. Tuttle, who was employed as observer with the expedition by the Dominion government. This is how fee sums up the whole thing:
Ice, in certain seasons of the year, will always be an obstacle to Itihe navigation of Hudson strait; but I hold the opinion that having acquired a full knowledge of the character and movements of the ice, and being furnished with steam vessels suited to those waters, the mariner will have but little difficulty in making expeditious voyages from the west shore of Hudson bay to the ports of Europe, during at least eight months in each year.
That is the evidence of a man who was employed for the special purpose of observing conditions in the Hudson bay and straits during the time the Dominion government expedition was cruising in those waters. That is the opinion I also personally hold, after speaking with men who have been through those waters, and have lived in that territory for a great many years.
I do not wish to take up any more time, Mr. Chairman. I simply wished to place on record these facts, which may be helpful in showing that the Hudson bay and straits are practicable for navigation during a large portion of the year. The hon. minister can count on my support in any attempt he makes to complete the road, not only to the bay, but so far as the ocean part of the route is concerned as well.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Permit me, Mr. Chairman, for a very brief time to occupy the attention of this House on this very important item of expenditure. I remember for the last three or four years that every report, written or verbal, ever made on this subject has been given to this House. I also am acquainted with the history of this question, and know that there are three periods especially in Canadian history which have brought a revival of this question before the people of Canada. But first let me say that if the minister would rise in his place now and take the responsibility for the statements just quoted by the last speaker to the effect that this is a navigable route for eight months of the year, I will sit down at once and say not another word. But I know he will not, nor will any other person who is acquainted with this subject assume that responsibility or take that position.
Those three periods in Canadian history to which I have referred are, first, the period when a charter was given to the Hudson's Bay Company to trade in this part of North America. There was no other route by which that company could reach the tract of land chartered to them; consequently they had to use that route, and they brought to this country settlers of whom we are all very proud, and of whom the last speaker is a very worthy example.
The second period in our history which brought a revival of this route was in that strenuous contest between two nations of Eurqpe for the possession of this part of the continent-the contest between Great Britain and France. The British had no route by which to reach their part of the Dominion except by means of the Hudson bay and straits, and it was therefore absolutely necessary for them to use that route.
The third period was when the traffic began to flow freely, too freely, from the north west through St. Paul, Minneapolis and Chicago, owing to the very expensive rates through our own Canadian ports.
These three periods in history have practically passed, Mr. Chairman, and therefore the great urgency for that route has passed,

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
except for this reason-and I am surprised that those in favour of the route have not brought this forward as an argument for the completion of the road-that it will give us another British route by way of the Hudson bay and. straits, one of importance to our empire for military purposes and tactical reasons. I am very much surprised, I say, that that argument has not been used by those who advocate this route.
Coming to the statement of the Minister of Railways, he has placed upon , Hansard and before the people of this country the facts on this question that have been available for a, great many years. Complete data have been available for many years he said, for the decision of this matter, and in view of those statements I am very much surprised at the position that has been assumed by this government during the last three or four years. I would like to examine and review the position of this government and of their followers during that period.
Let me begin first with the statements made during the late compaign by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs while touring the west. The Minister of Customs, as reported in the press, said:
Had there been fourteen or fifteen Liberals from Saskatchewan to urge the necessity of the Hudson Bay railway, the railway would now have been ibuilt. It had been discussed in one or two caucuses-
I would like our friends to the left to listen to this:
-and Mr. Motherwell was always in favour of it, but he had no support. There was no one to heflp him out.
The Prime Minister made use of these words:
Do you wonder that the Hudson Bay railway was not completed when there was no one to speak for it?
Let us see. From 1921, Mr. Knox, who occupied a seat in this House, was a persistent advocate of the railway, and how much assistance did he get from the Minister of Agriculture? Mr. Knox moved a resolution as follows:
That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that more effective consideration and recognition be given to the resolution adopted by parliament on March 12, 1923, recognizing tlhe priority of the Hudson Bay railway with reference to the transportation projects started subsequently.
Now let us consider the statements by Mr. Knox as to the party which is now expected to put the Hudson Bay railway through/ In the first place Mr. Knox expressed himself as follows:
A party like the Liberal party which has made no further advances during the four years in which it has held office in the carrying into effect of its platform

and policy published will certainly not be received with oipen arms by the thinking portion of the electorate, especially in that part of Canada lying west of the Great Lakes.
Here we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs saying that they received no support during their four years term of office for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and on the other hand an expression of opinion by Mr. Knox that they did nothing. But additional interest will be found in the remarks of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) who has so consistently and strongly voted confidence in the government this session. The hon. gentleman's remarks will be found to be of great interest in view of the statement of the Prime Minister and his colleague, when they went west, that they had received no support in connection with this project. Mr. Bird said:
Where does the Liberal party stand in regard to the Hudson Bay railway? Who knows? Who can tell?
Answer, nobody. He said further:
There is such paralyzing influence within the ranks of the Liberal party which makes it impossible to proceed with this venture-
Mr. Knox also made a reference in this House to the party that were supposed when they went west to be strong supporters of this railway. With respect to the Minister of Agriculture he said:
I have often wondered why the hon. minister could not see his way to give us his influential support.
Who is right, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs who went west and said that Mr. Motherwell was the only one who was pushing forward the Hudson Bay railway and got no support from the Progressives, or Mr. Knox who wondered why the minister could not give his support? Mr. Knox continued :
In 1925 after the Minister of Agriculture had made a trip to Kettle Rapids he became an out and out believer in the scheme.
Listen to further remarks of Mr. Knox:
We are almost forced to the conclusion that the minister had his line of action already decided upon before he started for Kettle Rapids. Such a statement coming at the present time to me looks somewhat fishy -too much of the red herring variety-a further excuse for further delay.
The foregoing is the opinion expressed by Mr. Knox of a member of the government who was supposed to be the only member pressing for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Now the hon. member for Nelson remarked with respect to Mr. Motherwell in 1925:
The minister is one of those gentlemen, and there are a great many of them, who form their opinions first and collect their evidence afterwards.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
This with reference to the man who was the only supporter of the Hudson Bay railway. Now listen to this as showing the strong sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture for the Hudson Bay railway:
lie quoted evidence that Port Nelson was not a port. To-day after having investigated the matter further he quotes other evidence which proves exactly the opposite. Two devils were at work, the big devil Mr. MeMaster and the little devil Hon. Mr. Motherwell, against this project.
We are assured that Mr. Motherwell assumed a dangerous attitude, especially for a minister of the crown. However, the minister went to Kettle Rapids, where he consulted trappers who gave him his opinion that Port Nelson would never make a suitable terminal for this railway. We would like to hear from other hon. gentlemen opposite, who now seem to be anxious for the completion of this railroad, why they have changed their views expressed during the past three or four years. I notice the Chairman of the committee has just gone out. I should like him to have an opportunity of showing whether or not he was a supporter of this railway. The hon. member recommended two proposals-first, a special committee to consider the matter; and second, a committee of business men to go into the bay themselves and see the feasibility of the project. I have failed to hear the hon. gentleman expressing one word in regard to the attitude the government has assumed to-day.
Then there was the Minister of Agriculture with his suggestion. He wanted to load one or two Atlantic liners, or boats as large, to go up the Labrador coast to Fort Churchill before coming to a conclusion in regard to the matter.


Mr. BENNETT:: It might be a valuable route for shipping Saskatchewan and Alberta horses purchased by the minister for European customers.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not know as to that. This is the opinion he gave here. This strong advocate of the Hudson Bay railway who could not get any support for the scheme, was going to have these tests made before he could come to a conclusion and advise as to one route or the other. In any event he was quite satisfied that Port Nelson was not suitable.
The Hon. Mr. Graham, former Minister of Railways, was not going to be driven into a corner on this question by hon. gentlemen to the left. Consequently he did nothing except what I am going to state later. Then we come to one hon. gentleman very prominent in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite, one who aspires to be Minister of Railways-
I refer to Mr. Euler. He made the statement I am going to quote as far back as 1921, but we fail to hear him and others giving expression to their sentiments this session. Why such secrecy? What is the matter? Is there any explanation for the silence they are maintaining to-night? Listen to these words from Mr. Euler. The proposition had been made to discontinue the grant for further work on this railway, and then the hon. member for North Waterloo says:
I may say at the outset that if the Minister of Railways had stated to the House that the government had definitely decided not to continue the construction of that railway at any time, I believe he would have met the wishes of a large majority of the people of Canada.
In view of this strong stand taken by very important members of the party opposite in the last few years, how can hon. gentlemen on this side who have doubts upon the question be expected to support this item unless these gentlemen explain why they have changed their minds, or if they have not changed their minds that they will not support the item? Is it fair to expect that we on this side, after such strong statements have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, should support this vote? The same hon. gentleman, speaking of a member of the Progressive party who had brought forward the motion to go on with the project, said that he quite expected the grandchildren of that gentleman would be heard in the House expressing a wish for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


William Daum Euler: I said I hoped they would, I did not say I expected they would.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is not very
much difference between a hope and an expectation. One step has been taken in that direction by not sending back to parliament this particular gentleman to advocate the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
Now let us go further. What has been the attitude of the government towards this question? In 1923 Mr. Knox brought forward his annual motion, and this government placed in the estimates $350,000 for the same purpose that the present Minister of Railways would lead us . to believe the item now under consideration is inserted in the estimates, namely, to put upon a solid basis the road as it is. Yet what was their strong enthusiasm, and what did it amount to? After getting this vote of $350,000 they spent $60,(X)0 on the railway. And what was that to do? Partly to replace the rails and the ties that they had taken away from it for the benefit of the Canadian National. If the government got a
Supply

Hudson Bay Railway

vote of $350,000 from the House and only-spent $60,000, how much heart had they in the proposition or why this change of attitude towards this scheme?
I was glad to hear the hon, member for Saskatchewan say he was sick of committees and commissions, but his heart was not strong when the measure came up, because even in his time in this House he has already seen two commissions appointed, a tariff board and a commission on Maritime rights. I have no doubt he is getting very sick of it and not willing that any other commission be appointed to investigate this matter.
Having dealt with what this government has done and what it has not done, and what it has promised to do and has not done, I would like in a word to express my own attitude towards this proposition. I am not so bigoted or biased, if sufficient reasons were shown that there was anything to be gained by this expenditure, that I would not vote for it. I am Canadian first, last and all the time, and I do not care where the expenditure is; if it will benefit Canada I am ready to vote for it. But when a vote is given which the government has jockeyed with for three or four years, and now comes along and makes up its mind to an indefinite programme, I have my doubts as to whether I should support it or not.
I am going to take up two arguments presented in favour of this road. First, it is said that it is a colonization road. If this is the best place we can build a colonization road, I would discontinue the construction of any further colonization roads. With so many extra districts in Canada which are superior to the country here concerned-and I know those parts of the country, where roads would bring colonists, while, and this proposed road will not-I am going to oppose the Hudson Bay road as a colonization project. Further than that, if we should, by some good fortune, get colonists along that road, would it be a favourable place for them? Not at all. In the first place, supplies can only go to this district for a certain part of the year, and for the remainder of the year the expense of bringing supplies to them would be too great to make it an advantageous place for any colonization work. Secondly, it is claimed that it would be a grain route-because I do not think any person in advocating the road has separated it from a sea route via Hudson bay and the straits. Therefore the
10 p.m. second factor in the advocacy of the road is that it is a grain route. Speaking of it as a grain route, I am going to place before the House what I think are the 
conditions. I am expressing my views; they may not be the views of other hon. members and may not be sound, but I think .1 know something about grain routes. Even the St. Lawrence as a grain route has one disadvantage so far as routing from ports south is concerned, and that is the insurance. The higher insurance is a factor against the St. Lawrence route, and what will it be on a route like the Hudson bay and straits? I have heard hon. members argue that there are no icebergs. That is quite true, but I do not think an iceberg is as dangerous as a field of ice. Navigators can circumvent an iceberg, but not fields of ice. So that the insurance rates on this route will be greater than on the St. Lawrence; therefore it is not so feasible as a grain route. The third point is the uncertainty of the arrival of vessels. I am not going to discuss the feasibility of the route and will not say whether it is navigable or not navigable, but there is an uncertainty as to the arrival and the clearing of vessels. Now that is a very important point with grain dealers and certainly it would be a great disadvantage to the Hudson bay and Hudson straits route. The fourth point is the uncertainty of getting a cargo. We know the disadvantage of the lake route, as far as it affects us as Canadians. We could contend easily with the Americans if we had a certainty of a return cargo to points such as Fort William and the north or the head of the lakes, and undoubtedly this route will be under a greater disadvantage in the uncertainty of cargoes inward.
My attitude is this: the government have not given us any idea of their complete programme in this matter. We are all agreed that perhaps it would be a good thing to complete what is of use of that road. Further than that, we are in the dark so far as this government is concerned. In spite of the many promises of the government, the minister will not stand up and say. "We propose to build this road, to put the terminal there, and to make a complete route to Hudson bay". All speakers in the past number of years have stated that the completion of the route to Hudson bay would be of very little use without a complete arrangement for the routing through the Hudson bay to Europe, and I find therefore that I cannot go much further than did the Hon. Mr. Crerar in 1921, when he said:
I believe this route will ultimately become a great highway, and if the financial situation of the country warranted -the expenditure I would be disposed to support the motion, but on account of the considerations I have mentioned I think it is well to postpone further expenditure for the present.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
I think that would be the platform upon which a great many members of the House would stand if they expressed their opinion. We have had under the present government in the last four years expenditures that are staggering, and I think we can quite well say, "We will go no further on account of the financial situation of the country."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both parties have in times past been in favour of the construction of the railway to Hudson bay. I do not regard the vote now before the House as in any sense committing me to the construction of a single foot of railway in addition to what has already been laid. It is true that the minister has declared it as the policy of the government to construct the line to the bay, but the fact is that the vote under consideration will not carry the road a single foot beyond where it now is. The money he now asks us to vote is for the purpose of reconditioning and rehabilitating the line already constructed. I am not opposed to that being done, but lest it should be thought that by acceding to this grant I am agreeing in principle to the completion of the line to Hudson bay, I desire to make a few observations.
We have at the moment some $20.000,000 odd invested in the road. If the records are correctly read, about $14,000,000 of that money came out of the sale of preemptions in western Canada. As a matter of business in an ordinary transaction most men would consider an expenditure of $3,000,000 somewhat large for the purpose of saving an investment of $20,000,000 amounting as it does to 15 per cent of the whole. I do not think it will be necessary to spend $3,000,000 for that purpose; less money than that will recondition the road and restore it to proper working condition. That is my view after hearing the estimate of the work that has to be done to put the road into shape. The kinked rails, decayed ties, ruined road-bed, the light steel-all these are matters that can be looked after by an expenditure of less than $3,000,000. I therefore support the vote as it is proposed by the government. But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel. I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson. I say that because I have not adequate information that would convince me that the expenditure of the money necessary, some $29,000,000 or $30,000,000, would be in the public interest. We have no such data as would warrant a board of directors, in the case of private corporation, speaking for
intelligent, sober minded shareholders, in arriving at the conclusion that the expenditure now proposed was justifiable. And as I have frequently observed, we in this parliament in relation to railway matters are in the capacity of shareholders. We are shareholders of the Hudson Bay railway. Speaking from that point of view I should not be prepared, upon the information which has been submitted to us, to vote if I were asked to,-I am not as a matter of fact called upon to vote, at the moment-in favour of an extension of the Hudson Bay railway to the bay.
My miind is open; I have no preconceived notions, no prejudices and no bias with respect to this question. On the evidence as I have read it-I have read all the evidence that ha3 been available-there seems to be a marked conflict of opinion. These points are apparent: first, that since the opening of the Panama canal and the movement of wheat from as far East as Maple Creek, and perhaps a little further, to the Pacific slope there is no longer that urgent demand for the movement of grain west of that point to the Hudson bay or Fort William. Rather the desire is to move it to Vancouver. In the second place it must be remembered that the population of the country is not expanding as we should like, and that any movement that takes place of grain toward Hudson bay must necessarily involve a corresponding diminution in traffic on the two roads that now operate. And the Canadian National Railway system cannot afford at this juncture to lose any traffic. It is now costing the people over $40,000,000 a year, notwithstanding the claim which is occasionally made that the figure is as low as $7,000,000. The fact is that last year it cost us over $71,000,000 in interest, of which, as has been said, but $33,000,000 was earned. So that when we realize that we are paying every year the substantial sum of $40,000,000 or thereabouts in interest for the maintenance of the Canadian national system, we can readily understand that any thoughtful man must view with apprehension loss of traffic, whether it be diverted in the direction of Hudson bay or be incurred in any other way.
I do suggest to the minister that inasmuch as-if he is permitted to remain in his office, as I trust he will not be-he proposes to submit to parliament some day a vote for the construction of the road to Hudson bay, he take steps immediately to demonstrate beyond any peradventure the feasibility of navigation in the straits. The minister has indicated, although not in so many definite terms, that he will at some future day ask parliament to support such a vote. We are not asked to do
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

so to-night, but before that moment comes may I suggest to the minister that he take a few of our Canadian merchant marine vessels and send them to Hudson bay to make a practical investigation of the question. Some of these vessels we sold last year at 140,000 each, and it is not too much to ask that four or five of them be specially equipped and strengthened in proper docks and shipyards and dispatched to the straits to ascertain under capable supervision what may be expected in the way of navigation in the straits and in the bay. That would be the path of reason. I do know that large private organizations desiring to carry on trade in the orient send out skilled men to study the conditions of the market, and I know also that the railways in days gone by, desiring to extend their lines, have engaged men to explore new territory, to examine the conditions and to estimate the traffic possibilities, all this being done with a view to ascertaining /whether or not the undertaking contemplated would be warranted.
No one in this House can say authoritatively that from the evidence we have before us it is an economic certainty that the Hudson Bay railway if constructed to the bay would successfully, efficiently, or economically serve the purposes in mind. That, it seems to me, can be ascertained only by a thorough examination on the part of those competent to make such an examination, not on the land but on the sea. Let us remember that the sea traffic is what is of importance in this case; it is the dangers by sea that have to be considered. The dangers incident to navigation in the straits and in the bay must be carefully analysed When therefore we have ships of our own for which we have paid large sums of money and some of which, as I have already remarked, we sold last year for $40,000, might it not be possible to equip four or five or half a dozen of these vessels, strengthening them especially for the purpose, and have them systematically study the conditions in Hudson bay and straits from the standpoint not only of climate but of navigability, so that we might decide with certainty, aefore asking the people to expend further sums of money, whether or not the completion of the road would be justifiable? Let properly qualified and thoroughly competent men investigate the question, not on the ground but on the sea. Let them look carefully into the conditions incident to the safety of navigation at Port Nelson and in the straits. Have a careful investigation made of all the circumstances-the nature of the port and the channel; the shifting character of the sand bars; the possibility of erecting proper docks; the availability of material for 
the construction of such docks; the cost of elevators; the time required in the movement of grain from Port Nelson to Liverpool; the dangers that would be encountered in transportation, so that the insurance rate might be determined; and other allied questions. All these questions could be studied at firsthand by men specially deputed to carry out the investigation.
This, I submit, is not an unreasonable suggestion to make at this time. I will concede that the minister is as desirous as any other hon. member to avoid any unnecessary expenditures. I believe my friends who support so strenuously this route are just as anxious as I am that public money should not be wasted, are just as desirous as any person could be that this route, if established, should be a success. But I do ask them to support the representations to the minister that we should not rush into this enterprise without having that measure of information, that extensive knowledge which private business men as directors of a well-defined body of shareholders would be required to have before they would recommend to their shareholders the expenditure of these sums of money. I do this to-night because, fortunately, it is not that vote which is being considered by the committee. That vote will come, perhaps at another session, but in the meantime I do implore the minister to ascertain whether or not the commitment of this country to the expenditure suggested, namely, some $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, would be warranted from the dangers incident to navigation, from the conditions that prevail, and from the availability of the route measured by every test that would be imposed by a competent and skilful navigator in determining whether or not he would be warranted in taking his ship and cargo into and out of this port in the season of the year when the straits and bay would be open. That is all I suggest. We have ships that we are now triying to sell; they are no longer valuable from the standpoint of trade and commerce-and my friend from Kingston suggests to me that the cabinet might take a trip in one of those ships for the purpose of ascertaining the conditions of navigation.


Charles Avery Dunning: We might take the board of strategy along also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure my friend the
minister that if he takes the board of strategy along they will then be the government.


Charles A. Stewart: They have
not made much success in that direction so far.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are evidences not
wanting of the measure of success that one might expect, namely, the consciousness of having clone one's duty to his country regardless of attempts to secure support by means that might easily be questioned; and there are not lacking very striking evidences, in fact they have been apparent during the last few hours, that we have achieved some success at least in the effort to protect the industrial life of Canada from destruction. But I can readily understand my friend the Minister of the Interior, who sounded "the death knell of protection" a few years ago, making such an observation.
But let me proceed. I doubt not there are gentlemen within sound of my voice who would gladly take a trip in one of these ships for their own edification. I say that in no jocular sense. I do know there are members of this House with whom I have discussed the matter who have very strong personal opinions, based not on personal knowledge but on conviction arrived at from what they have read and from what they have been told. I think the minister and the government would be well advised to afford us an opportunity to have firsthand information derived from competent sources as to the availability of this harbour and of this bay for navigation for the purposes we all have in mind, namely, to afford us the cheapest possible route for the transportation of the commodities of western Canada to the markets of the world. If I believed that were possible I would support the proposal regardless of governments or parties. Because I have no such evidence as I would require if I had to consider it as a judge in an impartial way, I believe the whole matter is impracticable. And because of that fact I suggest we should utilize the means we now have at our disposal for the purpose of thoroughly testing this port, for the purpose of thoroughly testing this route, and for the purpose of enabling the government, as a board of directors, to recommend to their shareholders-the taxpayers of this country-a scheme, based not upon the land observations of people who do not know, but upon practical observations and experiments conducted by men who have sailed the seas and know whereof they speak.
That, however, as I said when I first rose to address the committee, is a matter which must be considered at some future time. The vote now before the committee is to rehabilitate the line as it now stands; it does not add a single mile to the Hudson Bay railway, but it saves the investment we have already made of upwards of $20,000,000. For that reason, and that reason only, I shall 14011-273
support this vote. But as to any further expenditure, I reserve to myself the right to have before me better evidence than I have yet seen introduced to justify it, believing that the country in its present economic condition, with the demands that are made upon the taxpayers by reason of the deficits that have to be met yearly on our National Railway system, believing, as I say, that we are not in such a position as warrants an additional dollar beyond the amount of this vote being spent on the route until we have evidence to convince our shareholders that such expenditure is warranted in the light', not of sentiment but of economic principles and of economic reasons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate just as keenly as any member on either side of this chamber that the committee has listened very patiently to the long debate on this question, and I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House to any extent. I would not now have risen to speak but for the fact that the member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh)-with the best intentions in the world I have no doubt, and being himself assured of the truth of what he said *-told the committee that the whole of the west was solidly behind this proposition, and he specifically mentioned the province of Alberta. Now, I cannot let that statement go unchallenged, because there is at least one member-and indeed the House has heard another in the person of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett)-who does not believe in the project, of the Hudson Bay route as a grain route. I cannot concede 'that it will be an economic grain route. Apart altogether from positive evidence either for or against that proposition, there is the undoubted fact that at the present moment the reports dealing with this aspect of the project are contradictory, that reports even from the same authorities are contradictory, and that the statements and sentiments of the ministers and the members behind the government who are supporting it are contradictory and inconsistent. If there was nothing else, that of itself would be sufficient ground for members on this side of the House who have no personal knowledge of the matter to pause before they could give support to the proposition as a grain route.
I have personal and specific reasons why I do not believe in the project as a grain route, but I am not going to trouble the House with them because, as the member for West Calgary stated, that question is not now before



Sup-ply-Hudson Bay Railway
us. I do want to say, however, in respect to this project that even as a colonization road I am not altogether in sympathy with it. The member for North Rattleford has assured the committee that as a colonization road the project is justified, not because of the settlers who are there now but because of the settlers who will come after the road is completed. May I remind the House that there are great extensive tracts of this country, tracts the most fertile, the most promising, that are waiting to-day for railway outlets and cannot get them; tracts that have been colonized for ten, fifteen and twenty years and even longer, tracts from which the settlers have for years been going away because of lack of an outlet for the .produce of their farms. So long as the Peace river country, the Grande Prairie country, and the High Prairie and Spirit river country are settled with colonists of the very best class, possessing lands which cannot be beaten and in few cases can be paralleled anywhere else in Canada, who are without railway outlet, I for one think it is wasteful to spend money on a colonization road with no settlers. That is my sentiment. I do not know that it will even meet with the approval of some of the -hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party who represent Alberta or the other western provinces, but I want to make it perfectly clear that, either as a grain-carrying route or as .a colonization road, I do not believe it is warranted or that the money to be spent is justified in view of the fact that there are other settled portions of the country crying out for railway facilities. I am not going to oppose this vote, but I could not let it pass after the statement of the hon member for North Battleford without letting the House know where I stand as a member from Alberta. I congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) upon his perspicacity when he said that that province always adopts and maintains a strictly judicial attitude on this question.


Charles Murphy: I had not intended to speak during this debate at all, when there was a prospect of this vote, which I am going to support, carrying. But when I hear hon. gentlemen, especially those of the legal fraternity, arguing so strenuously against certain aspects of the matter, with regard to the completion of the road and the route in general, I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on this question. When the matter came up on Friday only a few were on this side of the House. I was fortunate enough to be one of them and I took a certain stand upon that occasion. I regret to say that an injustice [Mr. Bury.l
was done by the press to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). He was reported as being absent on that occasion and as not looking after his parliamentary duties while to my personal knowledge he was sitting just across the aisle from me.
We have some objections raised to this route, in the first place with regard to the railway itself. These objections have centred mainly in the suggestion that this railway must be put into first class main line shape before it is ever used; that was one argument advanced last night. Are all railways first class when they are built Are they not sometimes built very shakily at first and later developed into main line condition? That has been the history of almost every railway in Canada, but of course the Hudson Bay railway must be in first class main line condition; nothing else wall suit these gentlemen. Then the next point was that Port Nelson is not suitable; some hon. gentlemen think there should be further investigation with regard to the respective merits of Nelson and Churchill. The fact that they have been investigated and reported upon several times, and decided upon, counts for nothing; these gentlemen must be individually convinced, and the port must be selected to suit them. In this connection I would like to read from a report made by the Minister of Railways of the Borden government, Hon. Frank Cochrane. He looked over the ground personally and inspected the proposed terminals, Nelson and Churchill. On his return he spoke enthusiastically of the project. He said:
I have every faith in the scheme, and I will push the Hudson Bay road for all it is worth. We intend to make this a good road. We have four-tenths grade. We are using eighty pound rails. I believe that the Hudson Bay route will mean much <to the west in the way of lower freight rates. It will be a leveller, east and west. Just consider how much cheaper iron, steel and coal, for instance, from Sydney, could be shipped to the prairies. It will be of 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 was 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.
Now hon, gentlemen who have never been over the route either by land or sea must be convinced; even the evidence given by the Minister of Railways under whose direction most of the work was done is not acceptable. In all seriousness I ask what kind of evidence could be adduced to satisfy men of that type.
Certain other gentlemen in speaking to-day against Port Nelson have used the name of the engineer in charge there, Mr. D. W.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
McLachlan and I am going to read something which has not been read so far. These men pose as unbiased; they are adopting the judicial frame of mind. They are going to listen only to the evidence, and then they get up. and argue-at least one hon. member argued-for a period of nearly three hours. During that three hour talk he did not bring forward one single bit of evidence, in support of the project, but read everything against it. He simply adopted the lawyer-like attitude of arguing before a judge, bringing out everything in favour of his client. And he was adopting the judicial attitude! Here is what Mr. McLachlan, the engineer, at Port Nelson, said in his evidence before the Senate committee, among other things:
La-st winter we knew tihat t'he chart which was prepared and published was not right, and we went back and thoroughly surveyed the entrance to Port Nelson all over again, with the result that we got the channel in a different place from the one shown on the chartt. The result is that we effected a great improvement in the entrance to Port Nelson.
We have a channel there that has 20 feet of water at low tide. That means that when you have the height of the least tide to be expected you get a channel that is 33.7 feet deep. You can come into Port Nelson at any time. The new channel is a natural channel without any dredging. The depth as 20 feet at low tide, 33.7 at high tide and about 40 feet at spring tide. The great advantage of the new channel is that at first it leads towards one shore and then towards the other shore and finally up the centre of the estuary.
These extracts do not occur in sequence in the Senate report, but they will all be found there. This is the gentleman who has been quoted most copiously to-day as absolutely damning the whole project.
There has been opposition to the railway; there is opposition to the port and' now the navigability of the straits is questioned. I would also like to put on Hansard a few extracts with regard to the navigability of Hudson straits. Here is the evidence of Commander A. R. Gordon, who made several trips there in the Neptune:
The ice has been supposed hitherto to be the most formidable barrier to the navigation of the Straits, but its terrors disappeared to a great extent under investigation. We met no icebergs in Hudson bay nor did we hear of any being seen there; in the straits a good many were seen. The icebergs seen in Hudson straits in August and September would form no great barrier to navigation, nor do those met with off the straits otf Belle Isle, nor were they more numerous in Hudson straits than they frequently are off Belle Isle.
Commander William Wakeham said:
Steam has no-w 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 hopless.
	The nature and consistency of the ice in
Hudson straits are such that, with an efficient steamer, 14011-273}
the passage should be accomplished with very little delay or difficulty .... I absolutely agree with Captain Gordon in fixing the date for the opening of navigation in Hudson straits for commercial purposes by suitable vessels at from July 1 to 10. I consider that navigation should close from October 15th to 20th.
Here is the evidence of Doctor Bell:
It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating the
straits, for they are upon tide water	Why,
navigation through the straits should be particularly easy, because, while there may at times be floating ice, there are no rocks and no islands upon which to go ashore.
Here is the evidence of Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, who has gone through the straits several times:
The straits can, in my opinion, be reilied upon for unobstructed navigation if ram Juiy 15.th to November 1st, with a possible extension of two weeks at either end.
Captain Bernier says:
The Hudson bay and straits are open to navigation the year Tound, but as far as the strait is concerned icebergs block the way in pieces according where the current into or out of the bay drives them. Witli wireless stations established so that ships 'could foe directed in their course the Hudson bay ports would rank amongst the most important on the continent, owing to the very appreciable difference in distance to Europe compared with that of other ports.
There is evidence in regard: to the navigability of the straits; yet hon. gentlemen have said that there is no evidence in the record which they can accept as to the navigability of the straits or of the bay. Here we have the evidence of men who have gone in there, not once or twice, but many times.
We have heard during this debate that before we can test out the route and decide whether it is a feasible proposition, it must be put in ideal shape; everything must be finished; the road 'be made a first-class main line, the port fully established, with special ships constructed, and everything put beyond the possibility of a doubt. Conditions must be ideal. I would say to hon. members that if that had been the spirit which actuated our forebears, Canada to-day would be a wilderness. I would like to know how many farms would have been opened up in Canada if before the pioneers of this country started in to farm they must have a barn, thirty-five to forty feet wide and a hundred feet long, a two-storey brick house, furnished with the finest furniture, equipped with electric light and water works, and the farm with so many acres broken; with so many thousands of dollars worth -of machinery and stock, and an automobile to run around in. Imagine having to take all these things into consideration and to have them on hand be-


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior), moved the second reading of Bill No. 171, to amend The Railway Belt Water Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What does the main act do?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may say that I have gone over this bill pretty carefully. It is not very long and it appears to me to be perfectly all right. As I understand its purpose, it brings the Dominion legislation into harmony with the recent revision of the British Columbia statutes in connectoin with this particular matter, namely, the water rights in the railway belt. Also certain acts passed in the legislature of British Columbia affecting the manner of dealing with water rights, subsequent to the Dominion act of 1913, have possibly been made applicable by order in council, and the present legislation will validate these actions. I think that is really the substance of the bill, with one addition, namely, that hitherto the provincial government have submitted applications to the minister, and that is now made obligatory. Would the minister kindly make an explanation?


Charles A. Stewart: The hon. gentleman has stated the objects of the bill fairly thoroughly. It is retroactive only in so far as it will validate the time that may have elapsed between the passing of the order in council and the passing of the legislation. There are one or two additions beyond what the law officers of the provincial government have suggested, making it compulsory on their part to furnish us with the details of applications in order that we may judge whether or not they are going to affect residents on crown lands.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is really the purpose of the original act?


Charles A. Stewart: Prior to
1910 there was some doubt as to who controlled the water rights in the railway belt. That was settled in 1912, and an act was passed by this parliament empowering the provincial government to supervise the granting of these rights. Concurrently the leasing under license of any of those water rights was made to apply to both crown lands and provincial lands, and the difficulty arises owing to the fact that there are crown lands in the railway belt as well as provincially owned lands that have passed into private ownership. This is simply to harmonize and make effective the legislation of British Columbia for the whole period dealing with water rights.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is confined
to power and irrigation purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: Irrigation
particularly.


Mr. ERASER:: Heretofore, under the legislation of 1913, the exclusive right of administering these lands was in the province of British Columbia. Now you are taking that exclusive right away from them and asking for a dual administration. Is that the idea?
Railway Belt Water Act


Charles A. Stewart: No, we are not doing that. We are not making any change in the administration. That was decided in 1912. The decision by the Privy Council is that the federal government have the control. The federal government in turn passed the control to the provincial governments by the act of 1912, amended again in 1913. There were several amendments during the years up to 1924, when the British Columbia government consolidated their act and made it necessary to bring our act into conformity with theirs. That is all we are doing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Administration under British Columbia Water Acts.
Mr. FRASER:: I want the minister to be sure he is quite right in connection with that. In section 3 you are cutting out the words "exclusive control," referring to the province of British Columbia, and putting in the words:
Under the control of the authorities of the province of British Columbia.
That does not say "exclusive control." It appears to me that that brings in a dual responsibility for every water record issued in the railway belt.


Charles A. Stewart: No. All we are doing is asking that the British Columbia govelmment furnish us with the details of every permit that is issued, in order that we may ascertain whether or not it will adversely affect residents or lessees on crown lands. We are not interfering in any way. The Britisii Columbia Water Act prevails, and the administration is in the hands of the British Columbia government-not exclusively of course, because we are asking them to perform these services which formerly they had been performing voluntarily, but under the agreement in the old act. Objection has been raised by some of the residents on crown lands. The delay is the difficulty at the moment-. There are 100 odd applications held up pending this regulation, and the Attorney General of British Columbia drafted these sectaons, with the exception of section 3 and the additions to sect on 5 of subsections 11 and 12, which are merely putting in the legislation what was formerly being done by them voluntarily, in order that we may have a definite record here for the protection of the people on crown lands.


John Anderson Fraser: The reason I am so anxious to see that the legislation is correct, and that no mistake is made, is this: you might as well give a man nothing at a IP as give him a piece of land in that country without the 
water. The water is absolutely essential to the ownership of the land, and if in any way you provide a dual control of that water you make it that much more difficult for the licensee of water to get control of it. If a man makes an application to the British Columbia government for a grant of water, it has to be submitted first to the officials of the provincial government. If they decide to grant the application, it
11 p.m. will have to go through the same process at Ottawa, and the matter will be complicated. As I am anxious to see the people there obtain their water as easily as possible, I must say my suspicions were aroused in regard to the elimination of the word "exclusive". Formerly the British Columbia government had the right to make the grant, and when you took out the word " exclusive " it looked as if you had dual control, making it that much harder for the people to secure their water.


Charles A. Stewart: Only to the extent that they furnish us with full particulars of the application. In certain cases it is referred to the board, which is a board of the British Columbia government. Lessees of crown lands are affected, and all we are doing is to provide that we shall be furnished, as we have been furnished in the past, with all the records. Previously it was not compulsory, but now it will be. There will be no dual control. -We are not concerned unless objection taken to the application and the issue of the license by some resident on crown lands who feels that he is being injured. Then and then only will we interfere.


John Anderson Fraser: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Commencement and publication of orders in council.
John Anderson Fraser: In regard to those orders in council, do I understand that this act is made necessary by reason of the fact that certain regulations which were called for in the former act by order in council had not been completely complied with? Here you are providing for the same practice exactly; you still require these 'orders in Icouncil. Could the act not be so amended as to make the procedure a little simpler, so that it would not be necessary that the order in council should be published in the Canada Gazette for a specified time? That is what has given rise to the trouble.

Excise Act Amendment


Charles A. Stewart: We cover
that completely. If it is discovered, in the case of certain permits now in existence, that after the issuing of the license, delay occurred by reason of the fact that we had not brought our act into conformity with the legislation of British Columbia, the retroactive provision of this bill will validate those permits. As regards the necessity for legislation in the future, the hon. gentleman will see, if he studies the bill closely, that we are providing against such a contingency. We cannot forego the right to pass orders in council, because after all the authority still remains with the federal government. If there should be a short delay between the issuing of the permit and the passing of the order in council, no action will be taken against the lessee.


John Anderson Fraser: You have eliminated the necessity for repeating that legislation, like a recurring decimal, every four or five years?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to. '
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Thursday, June 10, 1926.