1926-06-08

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Department of Health, in French, for the year ended March 31, 1925. -Hon. Mr. Elliott.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the rumour is correct that Lord Willingdon has been appointed our next Governor General.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: I have received an official communication stating that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve of the appointment of Viscount Willingdon, G.C.S.I., G.G.I.E., G.B.E., to be Governor General in Canada in succession to General Lord Byng of Vimy, G.C.B., M.V.O., whose term of office will shortly expire.



OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the statement to the effect that the Hon. Vincent Massey has been appointed our representative at Washington correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not seen any
statement to that effect. If such a statement has appeared it is premature to say the least.



PENSION ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to ask the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment if it is the intention of the government to bring down any amendments to the Pension Act. The minister stated at one time that amendments wore to be brought down and there are suggestions now that perhaps there are not. I would like to have the statement of the government on that because a number of organizations are very much interested in the matter.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):: My hon.
friend is under a misapprehension if he thinks I stated there were amendments to be brought down.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I asked the question.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; and I told my hon. friend at the time, as I recollect, that there would be no substantial amendments this session. It is not the intention to introduce any amendments this session.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The minister says that
there will be no substantial amendments.


John Campbell Elliott: I say that it is not th.e intention to introduce any amendments this session.



IMPORTATION OF SECOND HAND PIANOS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: I am
sorry the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) is not in his seat. I have in my hand a list of second-hand pianos offered for sale in Canada at prices varying from fifty dollars down to ten dollars. I am informed that for some time these pianos have been dumped into Canada at a very special rate. On more than one occasion I have brought this matter to the attention of the Customs department. Is the government taking any action to stop this dumping of second-hand pianos into Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a question I shall have to ask my colleague the Minister of Customs and Excise to reply to, but I will direct his attention to it.



STRAWBERRY IMPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo):: Has the
Minister of Agriculture received any request from the strawberry growers of Vancouver island for relief? I have a telegram which reads:
American strawberries from Missouri absolutely flooding prairie market. If situation continues British Columbia growers ruined. Have wired Ottawa stating immediate action necessary if strawberry interests are to be protected.
It seems that they have had a wonderful crop of strawberries in Missouri and they are simply sending their surplus into British Columbia and the prairie country as well. This means ruination to a large community of fruit growers and I am sure our friends from the west, for the sake of a cent or two a pound will not-
.	COMMONS
Canada-West Indies Agreement


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman, I understand, has asked his question. Now it is for the government to reply.


Charles Herbert Dickie: I will put the question definitely to the minister: Has he had any request from the fruit growers and particularly the strawberry growers, and, if so, is it his intention to take steps to put the dumping clause into force or to adopt such other means as will save these people from ruin?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I had a telegram yesterday or the day before, I forget which, from the strawberry growers of my hon. friend's riding to the effect that the fruit growers of Missouri and other southern states were shipping large quantities of strawberries into Canada and flooding the prairie markets with fresh fruit. I have taken the matter up with the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and requested him to look into it to ascertain whether there is any abuse in the direction of selling in this country, either on the prairies or elsewhere, fruit at lower prices than obtain in the country of origin. I have not yet had any report from him but I understand he is investigating the matter.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Health) moved the third reading of Bill No. 152, to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, 1923.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 15, respecting trade relations with British West Indies, Bermuda, British Guiana, and British Honduras.
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Before the bill is given its third reading, I again wish to place before the House, and especially before the Minister of Finance, my suggestion that there should be some undertaking on behalf of the government, respecting the carrying out of the provisions of this agreement with the British West Indies, that the cost to this country should not exceed a limited amount, say, $500,000 per annum. It is most important that we should have a complete and definite assurance from the government regarding the anticipated cost of the proposed steamship service.

Members on both sides of the House are, I am aware, anxious to make concessions to the West Indies, but many hon. gentlemen on either side are under an entire misapprehension as to the conditions that obtain in those islands. In conversation with gentlemen on the other side of the House as well as on this side I gather that there is an impression among them that the residents of the West Indies are in very poor circumstances, the majority of them being half-clad coloured men, whose plight is such that out of mere commiseration and pity Canada, as a part of the British Empire, should make some concession to this struggling and poverty stricken section of the empire. As a matter of fact, on the contrary, every island in the British West Indies contains to my knowledge a group of highly educated and well trained business men who control the commerce of the colony, and who are as keen, efficient and modern in every way as the average Canadian merchant, with a keener vision than the ordinary merchant in Canada with respect to the commercial necessities of those islands. It is entirely safe to say that on the average the financial and economic condition as well as the education of the white population in the British West Indies is higher than those of the average Canadian citizen. They are therefore well able to look after themselves, and in making this present agreement they have shown an intelligent appreciation of the facts such as is entirely wanting on the part of those who represented this government in negotiating the treaty. The agreement with the British West Indies was negotiated, so far as this Dominion was concerned, by a body of gentlemen who, though highly respectable, have not had, any one of them, any practical experience of the trade, either existing or prospective, between this country and the West Indies.
The boards of trade of Halifax and of St. John, composed of trained business men who have been engaged in the West Indian business for years, sought to have their views presented to the gentlemen who were representing Canada on that commission. Representative Liberals in addition to well-known Conservatives of Halifax, endeavoured to secure a hearing. There were for example, such men as Mr. A. Hanfield Whitman, Mr. A. E. Jones, and Mr. G. McGregor Mitchell, well known Liberals of Halifax and supporters of this government. They were not allowed to present their case to the gentlemen who were negotiating the agreement on behalf of Canada. On the other hand, there was available one gentleman who, representing

Canada-West Indies Agreement
the Royal Mail Steam Packet service, was possessed of a knowledge of the trade with the West Indies superior to that of almost any other person who might have placed himself at the disposal of the government's representatives. But he, too, was given no opportunity of discussing the matter. I therefore, take this occasion to put myself on record as being of the opinion that the treaty with the British West Indies was negotiated on behalf of the Dominion by gentlemen who, however intelligent and estimable they may be did not understand either the nature or the necessities of the trade.
Further, in making the agreement, especially with relation to Jamaica, the Canadian commissioners, if I may use that term, provided for a service which is larger and1 more expensive than the trade of that colony with us can possibly require for many years to come. With regard to that service I am informed that no reputable independent British company could be found who would tender for the fulfilment of it on any terms whatever in the way of subsidies. I am informed further, and I do not think it will be denied, that the only tender for that service was made by the Canadian merchant marine, and it is suggested that they asked only for a subsidy of a few hundred thousand dollars a year. But the Canadian Government Merchant Marine cannot carry out that service without coming before parliament and asking for an appropriation of at least $5,000,000 for the construction of ships for the Jamaica service. As to the actual capital expenditure for that service, we have been denied all information. It is publicly known, and I believe it is no doubt true, that, the Canadian Government Merchant Marine did request from Vickers an estimate of the cost of constructing the ships necessary for that service. As to what the estimate was I do not know. I do know of course that Vickers have had some experience in constructing ships for the West India service equipped with cold storage and other suitable accommodation. But the fact is uncontroverted that at the present time there are no ships sailing the sea that can be purchased which would satisfy the demand of the contract with the West Indies with respect to the Jamaica service. It is obvious and is well known, and cannot be contradicted, that the ships for the service in order to carry out the terms of this contract must be especially built. Therefore as that information is before the government, and as they know the terms of the negotiations between the Canadian Government Merchant Marine and Vickers with regard to the cost of constructing those
ships, I say it is not frank and fair to this House that we should be called upon to pledge ourselves by giving a vote entirely in the dark, without any knowledge as to the cost, because the suggestion made by the hon. Minister of Finance that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, or whoever was this tenderer-which I know to the the Canadian Government Merchant Marine-could carry out the service with a subsidy of a few hundred thousand dollars per year is, I contend, far below the actual cost, and it leaves entirely out of account a .capital expenditure of $5,000,000 or thereabouts necessary to provide ships for the Jamaica service alone.
We are willing to make concessions to the West Indies, but-and I am speaking for myself-I think the concessions should be placed upon an entirely different basis. A reduction in the duty on sugar was made, whereas in order to give the preference to the British West Indies the general duty on sugar, in my opinion, should have been increased and a reduction made in favour of the West Indies in such a way as to preserve under the British West India preference the present rate of duty on imported sugar. By making the reduction there has been a loss of $300,000 or $400,000 at least in our sugar revenue, which will be extended to a loss of at least $700,000 or $800,000 in a few years as our consumption of sugar under this arrangement increases-a loss in revenue which should not have been incurred except under stress of circumstances that do not exist here. For instance, if the government had increased the general tariff to $1.45 per 100 pounds, and kept the preference tariff at, say, 45 cents per 100 pounds, as it was previously, the preference of II promised in the new agreement could have been put into effect and the duty on the British West Indies sugar would have been unchanged. But now by reducing the duty to 28.712 cents per 100 pounds, the government are losing something over 16 cents per 100 pounds, which on the imports of 1925 would amount to over $300,000, and! which will correspondingly increase as the sugar imports from those islands increase. On the other hand, in my opinion increasing the general duty would not have cost the Canadian consumer anything, because the fraction is too small to be figured in the cost as between the retailer and the consumer. Further, as a matter of fact, the greater part of the sugar imported is refined in Canada and exported to other countries, and the rebate protects the refiner entirely with respect to the sugar re-exported and does not affect the price to the Canadian consumer.

Canada-West Indies Agreement
It is well! known, that the brands of flour which this country produces control the West India market. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black) stated, so far as the fish trade is concerned, Canada controls the market now to as full an extent as is possible under this treaty-indeed that control will now be diminished because the proceedings show that the commissioners representing Canada agreed that every concession made in favour of Canadian fish products would be given also to the fish products of Newfoundland, and, as the hon. member stated, and as we all know, Newfoundland is in a peculiarly fortunate situation in this respect, being able to send her best fish direct to the Mediterranean and her cheap cu lla-go into the West Indies to compete with and supplant Canadian fish in that market. With regard to lumber, we know that every kind we produce available for that market now entirely controls it, and therefore there is no advantage for Canadian lumber under this treaty. As to manufactured goods of every description and kind which are placed on the lower tariff basis by this treaty, the manufactured products of Great Britain enter upon exactly the same low tariff. Everyone knows that in hats and caps, boots and shoes, and a great number of other articles of personal adornment and personal use, we cannot compete with the British products going in on exactly the same basis. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we have in certain respects gained a little freer access to that market, but to increase the market for our manufactured products we must drive out the British manufacturer and capture the market which he at present holds in the West Indies; we are not likely to be able to do it.
Therefore, while we are all willing to enter into a trade arrangement with these very clever and experienced men who control the trade of the British West Indies, I say this government has not made an adequate presentation of the cost of the services necessary to carry it out, and at the last moment I enter my protest against this contract being ratified * without the House being informed definitely as to the cost, so that we may know how much approximately in dollars and cents we have to pay for the minor tariff concessions which are -made in our favour by the British West Indies under this agreement. I simply wish to register my protest on the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third
time and passed IMr. Cahan.j
SUPPLY-EiGG GRADING
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I understood, Mr. Speaker, that I was to have precedence to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand the hon.
member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) intends moving an amendment. When this matter is disposed of the hon. member will have the floor.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: As an amendment to the motion to go into Supply I beg to move the following:
That all the words after "that" in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor: In the opinion of this House the system of egggrading instituted by the government pursuant to an order in council published in the Canada Gazette on the 26th day of Aipril 1924 imposes a grave injustice upon the farmers and other persons in Canada engaged in- the production of eggs for sale by retail, and the action of the government in this regard has resulted in unnecessary expense, great inconvenience and serious delay to the farmers and other producers, and that such system, in so far as it applies to sale by retail in local markets, should be discontinued.
The question I have embodied in this amendment had its inception in the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, which was passed by this House in 1923. The House passed an act under the same title in 1917, which act applied, only to cattle, sheep and swine. Under that act regulations were made by the Department of Agriculture to govern the sale of articles enumerated therein. In 1923 the present Minister of Agriculture introduced and passed through the House an act of far wider scope than the original act of 1917. It was passed as an amendment to the original act but is practically a new act and goes far beyond anything included in the act of 1917.
When the act of 1923 was introduced into the House very little discussion or debate took place; I fancy it was assumed by the House that it was only an act by way of amendment, and that no new or important principle was introduced. I submit it was the duty of the minister in bringing such an important measure into this House to point out exactly what was the application of the proposal which he made, because I am satisfied that, when the act of 1923 was passed no one in the Plouse had the remotest idea that under that act it would be possible to compel farmers to have their eggs graded for the local market.

Supply-Egg Grading
The act of 1923 included not only cattle, sheep and swine, but also enumerated poultry, eggs and1 wool, and in looking over the debate which took place in the House when this act was passed I find that not a single question was asked and not a word of discussion took place on the question of egg grading. In fact, in regard to the particular section of the act to which I will refer in a moment, hardly a sentence was uttered in the House. No explanation was given by the minister or by any member of the government; there was only a question by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke), who seemed to suggest that wool should not be included as one of the articles to be graded, on account of certain difficulties which would be presented. With such a slight discussion as that, with no word of explanation or warning from the minister, a new act was placed upon the statute books under which the minister has been able to issue a set of regulations, in the shape of an order in council having the full force of an act of parliament which have, I believe, caused more annoyance, more inconvenience and more trouble to the farmers and farmers' wives in Canada who are accustomed to sell eggs than any single measure ever passed by this House. Had the matter been explained when the act was introduced; had the minister informed the House that he proposed to pass regulations under this statute to compel farmers to grade their eggs in the local market, I am satisfied that the measure would never have passed the House as we now find it.
Section 9 is the important section of this act. It providas that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing, among other things, the manner in which live stock meat intended for export, poultry, eggs and wool shall be inspected, graded, branded or marked and1 the manner in which such live stock, poultry, eggs and wool graded in accordance with the regulations under this act shall be sold. It is a long section, but this is the important clause. From any discussion which took -place in this House, or from a casual reading of the whole act, one would infer that this referred only to the export or import trade or at most to the wholesale trade in these commodities. No one had the remotest idea that it applied to the basket of eggs which the farmer's wife brings on Saturday to the local market; no one had any idea that the act went so far. It was passed in 1923; then on April 26, 1924 it was proclaimed through the Canada Gazette and regulations were issued under which all eggs should be graded and sold.
I am going to refer for a moment to these regulations. They must have been drawn up by an artist; they are certainly all-embracing and are prepared with the greatest particularity, more so in fact than is the ordinary act passed by this House. In the first instance, wholesalers and retailers are defined. Under these regulations a retailer means any person or partnership offering or selling direct to a consumer. That practically embraces everybody who has eggs to sell, every person who sells directly to the consumer.. Then they go on to specify the grades and it would take an expert, and a real expert, to make anything of this classification. In the markets of this country people have been buying and selling eggs quite openly for the last half century, or perhaps the last full century, and no great difficulty has ensued from the open manner of buying and selling eggs on the local market. But the result of the operation of these regulations is that a buyer does not know what he is getting, and a seller does not know what he is selling. Just listen to the classification of these eggs for grading purposes.
There is a class known , as class 1, and it is headed, "Fresh eggs." Now fresh eggs are fresh eggs. We know what they are; the buyer knows and the seller knows what they are. But that is not enough for these departmental regulations. They go further and say that fresh eggs shall be classified as follows :
Grade (a) Specials.
Grade (b) Extras.
Suib-Grade (1) Pullet Extras.
Grade (c) Firsts.
Grade (d) Seconds.
There are five grades of fresh eggs, without going into the question of storage eggs at all. Now what does the ordinary purchaser find as a result of purchasing eggs under these gradings? I have the actual experience of a man who went to market and bought a basket of No. 1 eggs. He got "firsts," and he was proud of it. But that man did not bring home "firsts" at all; he brought home third-class eggs. The "specials" are the "firsts," the ."extras" are the "seconds," the "firsts" are the "thirds," and the "seconds" are the "fourth." That is the grading which has been placed on the farmers product in the local markets of this country under these regulations.
Then when you come to another class of eggs, storage eggs, which is class 2, you find there another lot of grades, as follows:
Class (2a) Preserved.
Grade (a) Extras.
Grade (b) Firsts.
Grade (c) Seconds.
Grade (d) Craeked and dirty.
Supply-Egg Grading

These regulations, I think, were prepared for the purpose of mixing up both the producer and the vendor of eggs on the local market. I realize this, that for the purposes of the wholesale trade this grading is necessary, and is proper. I realize that for the purposes of the export and import of eggs, this grading system is a proper system; but I think it is going entirely too far when you ask the farmer on his local market to have his eggs graded under these regulations, and to pay two cents a dozen for the privilege of having it done. Now what is the actual experience? On Saturday after Saturday on the markets of western Ontario you will find a long line of farmers-it is not so bad in summer, but in cold weather it is very annoying. very troublesome, and inconvenient -standing in line for half or three-quarters of an hour, and it has been reported to me, in some cases, for over an hour, waiting for the privilege of passing a basket of eggs through to a grader, and paying two cents a dozen to have those eggs graded, and graded by a man who in the majority of cases knows nothing or little about the grading of eggs. Why, in the Guelph market they have tested these graders out. The wives of farmers, reputable women, have come to me and said that they have put the same basket through before three different graders, and in each instance they have obtained different grades. I have made inquiries of the ordinary consumers, citizens in my city, and I have failed to find one who is in favour of this system. It was reported to me that the local merchants were in favour of the system. I called up six of them on the telephone and inquired, and the whole six said: No, abolish the system. I have seen many, many farmers and many, many farmers' wives, and I find they are all agreed; they are all opposed to this system of egg grading on the local markets.
Why was the system ever put on, one may ask? It was as a result of the demand of the wholesale dealers. It helps them, I will grant you. They get a certain amount of immunity from it, but for the purchaser in the open market it is no protection, and for the farmer it is an inconvenience, an injustice, and an expense. That two cents a dozen that the farmer has to pay he never gets back. They say he adds it to the price, but the price of eggs to-day is lower than when the grading system was introduced. The farmer has not gained. I do not object to the man who goes through a township buying eggs and bringing them into some kind of a central warehouse, being compelled to grade his eggs but I do object, and the farmers 
object, to farmers' wives being obliged to submit to this imposition on the local market, with the cost that it entails.
Why maintain such a system? I have had a good many communications on the subject from a good many places in the province of Ontario. I am sorry my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is not in his place, because I know he is interested in this matter. He took it up with the Department of Agriculture and announced in a paper with which he is connected that the egg grading system did not apply to the local farmer on the local market. We thought for a while that we were going to be relieved, but it turned out that it does apply, and I am sorry to say that in the constituency I have the honour to represent there have been two prosecutions and two fines imposed on farmers who did not stand in line and have their little basket graded, paid for, and labelled by an inefficient egg grader.
Who appoints the egg graders, I do not know. I wonder if they are appointed by the Civil Service Commission? The reason I ask the question is this:	I received a notice the
other day that the Civil Service Commission was going to appoint a wool grader. There-xore, I assume that the egg graders are appointed in the same way. Well, in that case, all I can do is to ask the Civil Service Commission to go through western Ontario and take a good look over thedr egg graders there, because I am not satisfied that they are competent men for the work entrusted to them.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole system is wrong. Surely we can continue the open market system. If you are going to grade eggs, why not grade other produce? Why not grade butter, fruit, - potatoes and other vegetables that are brought on the market? Why compel the farmers to undergo this grading system only in regard to their eggs? I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is an imposition upon the farmers of this country, and more particularly it is an imposition on the wives of the farmers. No injustice has been done in the past under the old system. Both purchaser and vendor have been satisfied with the old open market system, where the good old doctrine of "Caveat emptor"- let the buyer beware-prevailed. Under that system the purchaser got the eggs he bargained for, and the vendor was satisfied with the manner in which his eggs were sold. But these regulations are carrying this paternal idea in government to an excess.
I have brought this matter up in the way I have, and under the resolution which has been read to the House, in order that the

responsibility for this outrageous system may be placed upon the proper shoulders. We never had this system until the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) occupied his present position. The government must take the full responsibility for this system. I have stated in the motion which 1 have moved that the action of the government has resulted in this loss, this injustice, and this inconvenience, and I ask by this motion that these regulations or this act be amended. It is the simplest thing in the world to change these regulations. In order to effect a change and relieve the agriculturists of the country from this burden and this oppression only a few words need be added to the definition of "retailers" excluding the farmer from that definition. We have excluded him in the case of other acts passed by this House. We specifically excluded him, I remember, in the case of the Bankruptcy Act and other acts which I could name. Just add a few words to your definition of" "retailer" providing that this shall not include a farmer who sells eggs, the product of his own farm,, direct to the consumer upon the open market, and you have achieved all he asks.
I am going to put on record a formal resolution which has been sent to me by the Women's Institute of South Wellington. It is signed by all the officers. In looking over the names I regret to say that some of them are not supporters of mine, but the resolution is brief and pointed and I am going to read it. It was passed by the Women's Institute of South Wellington on 13th of February last, and reads as follows:
Resolved that we the representatives of the South Wellington Women's Institute protest against the present egg grading system and wish to have it abolished.
I believe that resolution expresses the real wish of the whole agricultural population of this country engaged in the production _ of eggs. Even those men in our smaller cities, and in our towns and villages who have a small egg production for their own home consumption and who may at the end of the week have two or three dozen to sell or trade to their grocer, if they do not have those two or three dozen eggs graded, are subject to a horrible penalty, for the penalty under this act for infraction of the law includes a maximum fine of $500 and imprisonment up to three months, simply because the farmer who has for generations enjoyed a free open market now has to go before a government grader and pay two cents a dozen for the privilege of having his eggs graded or degraded as the case may be. I ask the House to consider this
Supply-Egg Grading
as a question strictly in the interests of the agricultural population of Canada, and particularly in the interest of the wives of Canadian farmers who, in the majority of circumstances, are the people who suffer the most, who suffer all the inconvenience, and let me tell you that in cold weather the inconvenience is not slight.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): I am interested in eggs and am therefore concerned with their grading. I do not expect, in anything I may say, to voice the opinion of all farm women. I know nothing about the conditions prevailing upon the open market, but after all most of the farmers of Canada do not sell their eggs in the open market-they ship them.
I want to tell hon. members what my experience has been and what I think about the grading of eggs. I think that ' specials " could quite well be stricken from commercial grades. There are almost no "specials," but there are "extras," "pullet extras" and so on, and these grades can soon be recognized by people who are accustomed to handling eggs. "Pullet extras" is a grade that all farmers are glad has been established, because pullets' eggs are smaller than the eggs of hens a year or two old; and these eggs that would be "extras" under any other form of grading would not be "extras" of there were not a grade provided for smaller eggs, which are called "pullet extras." I went to the Minister of Agriculture some time ago and protested against these designations, "extras," "pullet extras," and "Nos. 1 and 2" and wondered why they did not grade them as "1, 2, 3 and 4"; for that really represents the grades. I began then to see the point of view of the minister. People do not buy seconds, thirds and fourths, and I found that if these eggs are to be sold they must be sold in such a way as to indicate clearly to the buyers what they are buying.
I think this is the effect of grading eggs: In the first place, it raises the standard. The consumer is guaranteed that if he buys under the act he will get just the quality he wants.
anybody who goes into a store 3 p.m. and purchases "extras" or "pullet extras" will know exactly what he is getting. The standard has been raised and on account of the guarantee of quality the consumption of eggs has been increased. There has been an increased production of eggs in Ontario and I suppose that is true also of the rest of Canada. Since the grading of eggs came in we ship our eggs through the pool. The eggs are taken from the nest twice a day, not once a day, and the nests are kept perfectly clean. Eggs having the slightest crack
Supply-Egg Grading

are not shipped, that is if it is possible to detect the crack with the naked eye. While there may occasionally be a cracked egg still the shippers try not to put in eggs of that character but only eggs that will be acceptable to the pool, because it is only strictly fresh eggs, "extras" and "pullet extras" that can be pooled. Those who pool eggs in Ontario, and the number is increasing all the time, are very much in favour of the grading of eggs. Personally, I am in favour of the grading of products. The graders, of course, should know their work and possibly it is true that sometimes they do not. I remember the time when hog grading was introduced. There was a great outcry in regard to it and people did not want their hogs graded. That hostile sentiment is gradually disappearing. It may be possible that on the open market, where the eggs are absolutely fresh and where the buyer is only concerned about their freshness, it is not likely he will care whether the eggs are "extras," "pullet extras," or "firsts" or "seconds." There is a good deal in what the hon. member has said, but I want to repeat that many farmers in Ontario do not sell their eggs in the open market. The only market for the county from which I come is in Owen Sound. In that connection I remember a little experience I had last year. I was going through Owen Sound and I had a large case of eggs. I thought I would take them to Owen Sound to see what price could be realized for them. I took the eggs along and found that I could have sold them to better advantage at home in Flesherton than in Owen Sound. That illustrates what may happen in connection with an open market. I would advise the farmers to sell their eggs through the pool.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Addington):: I can readily understand and
appreciate the reason for grading eggs for export, or obliging the wholesalers to grade eggs; but the imposition of the grading system upon those who take a basket of eggs to the market at Kingston, London, Guelph, or any other centre in the .province, or in Canada, is nothing short of an absolute nuisance. I think the people of this country have sufficient intelligence to pick out a dozen of eggs. I do not think it is necessary for the government to place a guard over them, or send some person along to tell them what they should buy, or oblige the farmers to place a label in the basket and subject them to a fine if they do not conform to the grades which are specified in the regulations.

There are a number of grades mentioned in class 1. For example, grade (a) "specials" is thus defined:
Eggs of uniform size, weighing 25 ounces to the dozen and over, or 47 .pounds net to the 30-dozen case; clean and free from stain, strong-
Not in smell.
-and sound in shell; air cedi small, not over one-eighth of an inch in depth; wlhite of egg to be firm and dear and yolk dimly visible.
What machinery does the farmer, or his wife, have to have in order to be perfectly sure that he or she shall not come under the penalty of the law? Well, the farmer's wife will have to have weight scales duly tested by government inspectors, [ presume, in order to be sure that a dozen of eggs weigh 25 ounces. She may think that she is perfectly clear of any penalty under the law in that regard, but not so because the inspectors appointed by the government, desiring to show their authority and earn their salaries, come along and subject a few eggs out of the basket to candling. One of them takes a little rule out of his pocket and says: "Ah, you have these graded 'specials'. I want to point out to you that you have violated the law." "Why is that?" asks the woman. "Why, under that grade the air cell must not be more than one-eighth of an inch in depth. You can see for yourself if you look at this rule that the air cell in these eggs is three-sixteenths or nine-thirtyseconds of an inch." If that is so, she has violated the law. She is liable to a fine and imprisonment because, while the eggs may be all right in size and weight, the air cell is too deep. Her eyes may not be as good as his and she may make a mistake in estimating the one-eighth of an inch or thereabouts of the air cell, and so she comes within the law.
Supposing she is clear on that, then he points out to her again with the aid of a microscope or some other instrument he has at his disposal that while the eggs are correct as to weight and air cell, the white of the egg must be firm and clear and the yolk dimly visible. He says to the woman: "You can see for yourself that these eggs do not comply with the law; the yolk is not dimly visible; the line of demarcation between the yolk and the white is very clear and you have violated the law in that respect." So I might go through with the other different grades.
The whole thing is an absolute nuisance, a great inconvenience and an unnecessary expenditure on the part of the government. People who go to market might be trusted to select a basket of good eggs. Supposing

Supply-Egg Grading
some of them are smaller than, others, what difference does (that make? The farmer knows that in doing business with the general public on the open market he cannot expect to retain his customers unless he gives them what he says he gives them. He sells the eggs as fresh eggs and that is all there is to the matter. Supposing there are two farmers' wagons side by side each with a basket of eggs and the eggs of one farmer are a little smaller than those of the other while the price is the same. The customer uses his judgment, makes his own selection and buys accordingly. To oblige the farmer's wife who takes a few dozen eggs to market to candle them, weigh them and subject them to measurement as to depth of air cell and all that sort of thing, is a decided nuisance and inconvenience which does not protect the public because the public does not need any protection along that line.
Apply the system of grading if you will to eggs for export or sold to the wholesaler; but to put a person who goes on the open market offering for sale a basket of two, three, four or five dozen eggs to the inconvenience and trouble of candling every egg, and measuring as to air cell, visibility of yolk and all that sort of thing is utter nonsense. From conversations I have had week after week with people on the market at Kingston * I know this is regarded by them as an unnecessary inconvenience and nuisance and I see no object to be gained by subjecting those who sell in small quantities to this inconvenience. Remove it as regards the sale by the farmer on the open market in the cities and towns throughout the country and you will not do any harm to the trade, but on the contrary you will do away with what is regarded as a great nuisance and inconvenience. Numbers of farmers and farm women have spoken to me in regard to this matter, and they feel when they offer a basket of eggs on the market that it is up to them to guarantee that those eggs are fresh, but they regard the requirement to grade them into firsts, seconds, specials and extras as entirely unnecessary and I regard it in that light also.	.
There is a little too much of a tendency on the part of legislative bodies including this House of Commons to exercise paternal care over and to regard the general public as possessed of no common sense at all. Let the general public exercise the common sense which they have exercised all through the past years until this grading was put into force. I have not heard any great demand on the part of the people for this and I do not believe there is any great demand.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I
presume that this resolution, introduced as it is, is a vote of want of confidence in the government. In consequence of the neglect and failure of a certain department of this government to accord what I thought was the very barest and most common measure of justice to some constituents of mine, I had sworn by such political gods as I adhere to to vote against the government until that grievance was remedied. My action in this connection was much along the line referred to a few weeks ago by an hon. gentleman on the opposite side in regard to the man who would not stop talking until he got compensation for the widow's cow. I think there are occasions when that is undignified, but that was the only possible remedy. This is the opportunity for me to do that, but I cannot stultify my convictions in this particular instance and the interest of my constituents by voting against the government in this matter although I would like to do so.
According to the wording of the resolution the mover wants the egg grading regulation not to apply to sale by retail in the local markets. He modified that in his speech by saying that he did not want the system to apply to farmers selling eggs to a consumer. Do not all poultry farmers produce eggs for the retail trade? In that way the resolution would mean the vitiation of the whole system of egg grading. If you allow one portion of . the trade to be exempt you might as well throw up your hands and withdraw the whole egg grading system, because it would be impossible to enforce it properly.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said: Why pick on eggs? This is one of the products of agriculture and almost all agricultural products are graded. The hon. member mentioned butter. Does he not know that butter is graded? What about wheat? What about hogs? In New Zealand you are not allowed to ship a carcass of mutton to the Old Country unless it is graded.
Mr. SENN; When a farmer exposes a pound of butter on the market for sale has it to be graded?


Alan Webster Neill: I do not know, 'but if it is
not necessary that it be graded that is perhaps the reason why the quality of Canadian butter is not as high as it should be. It is for export at least. In New Zealand they are so jealous of their reputation in regard to certain classes of mutton that they will not allow any of this product to be shipped out without inspection. The whole history of agriculture is leading the farmers more and
Supply-Egg Grading

more to the conviction, notwithstanding their objections in the initial stages, that co-operation is the only means by which they will be aible to attain their greatest success. The fact that one uniform standardized product should be put upon the market is realized now to be the secret of their success.
The hon. member who introduces this amendment alluded to the fact that some of his constituents had to pay two cents a dozen for the grading of their eggs. Apparently the hon. gentleman's constituents have fallen upon rugged places, because it is done much cheaper out west although the cost of living is higher there. In the town of Courtenay, which is in the district I represent, there is an admirable system of co-operation which has worked out quite satisfactorily. It is true that originally the conditions indicated by the hon. member did obtain. A man brought his eggs to market and was unable to grade them himself, It was not convenient for him to do so, and it was equally inconvenient for the small grocer, to whom he sold his product, to do the grading. The result was that a haphazard system developed. To-day, on the other hand, all local eggs are taken to the creamery where they are graded by an expert. And it does not require any great amount of study, nor does it take very long for a man of ordinary intelligence to become expert in the grading of eggs. The eggs are graded and put into cartons or into other containers according to destination, this being done at the expense of the creamery; and if my memory does not serve me falsely-I do not think it does-the charge is half a cent a dozen. Under this system the public are sure of getting one standard grade of eggs. There is no trouble with dirty and inferior eggs to-day. The creamery after supplying the local demand ships out the surplus to the large markets in Vancouver and elsewhere. The same thing is done in the district represented by my hon. friend from Na'namio (Mr. Dickie). The result is a vast improvement upon the old-fashioned method of marketing eggs. I have personally seen eggs pour into the country grocer who .although he did not want them, could not refuse to take them. He would cut down the price, but that did not help matters. The consequence was that there was left on his hands a miscellaneous assortment of odds and ends of hen's produce, from first class samples to dirty eggs. The grocer made a feeble attempt, with his meagre knowledge, to classify and ship out the better ones, but in the long run there was nothing but dissatisfaction both to himself and to the farmers.

Eggs, I may observe, are now allowed to be shipped by the farmer ungraded if they are going to some wholesaler at a distance at whose warehouse they will be subject to inspection. There is always some objection to compulsory co-operation when it is first mooted. There will always be found persons who are ready to complain of any suggestion of restriction in any direction whatever. Men will say, "We want the right to do as we please. We want to have the freedom to sell our own produce as we see fit." Why, I have heard the argument for freedom of speech and freedom of action carried to absurd lengths, it is rather played out nowadays. I have even heard of the right to get drunk. On one occasion I came across an immigrant from some of the southern European countries who had a very serious grievance. It appeared that he had been arrested and put in jail because he had been discovered beating his wife, and he did not seem to see any reason for such a course. He explained to me that wife-beating was quite a common, and indeed almost an essential, part of the social system over there. Could a man not beat his own wife, he wanted to know. It is of course all in the point of view.
To-day the farmers are coming to see that no one should have the right to dispose of inferior produce in such a way as to injure the market for others. No producer should ship dirty eggs to the market and so spoil the chances of success of his brother farmers. It is in recognition of this principle that the regulations governing the shipment of eggs have been drawn up.
Some suggestion has been made that this was playing into the hands of the wholesalers. The reverse is the case. In 1922 I was present at a meeting held in the Chateau Laurier of representatives of the various egg dealers and producers in Canada. The wholesalers and other dealers outnumbered the producers, whose representatives were comparatively few. The object of the meeting was to study the situation with a view to adopting if possible some means of improving the quality of the product. The wholesalers opposed any suggestion looking to the grading of eggs. They declared that it would be disastrous to their business; they would have to go out of business if any system of egg grading were undertaken. Now, it happened that we had a Dominion act providing for inspection of eggs, but it applied only interprovincially. If a cargo of eggs left Vancouver for Victoria, no inspection was required; but in the case of a shipment from any point in British Columbia to Montreal, say federal inspection was enforced. I know of

Supply-Egg Grading
a car which was about to leave the province, but as the eggs did not come up to the grade required, the shipment was turned down with a resulting loss to the producers. That same dealer in Montreal went to the United1 States and bought a carload of eggs on which he made a good deal of money for the reason that he did not have to have them graded. He sold'them as just eggs, and, as I say, he made money on the transaction and he did not come back to British Columbia. At the time of which I speak there was no compulsory grading so far as trade within the province was concerned, nor was there any restriction on eggs coming into the country. An effort was made to secure legislation controlling the situation, but it was impossible to get the wholesalers and the producers to agree. At the meeting to which I have referred the wholesalers were more numerous and influential than the producers, so that no recommendation was made. The government, however, afterwards took the matter up and decided to provide grading regulations to apply to all eggs coming into Canada. This provision resulted in the immediate exclusion of all eggs coming from the orient as well as in a marked reduction in imports from the United States. The opposition of the wholesalers was based on the assumption that inasmuch as the Americans did not grade their eggs the Canadian business man would be at a disadvantage. But did it result in any loss to the farmers or in a restriction of the sale of eggs? Not at all. It resulted, as the records of the Department of Agriculture will show, in an enormous increase in the consumption of eggs per capita.
I am surprised that the hon. gentleman who has introduced this amendment should take this attitude in regard to the question now being considered, for if the grading of eggs means anything at all it means protection in a definite form and of a most desirable kind. It is the kind of protection we can all agree upon. I't protects the producer without adding any expense to the consumer. I am sorry that the debate has come on so unexpectedly, because I should have liked to have got all the data available to discuss the subject fully. I am safe in saying however that, as things have worked out, the consumption of eggs per capita in Canada since egg grading regulations have gone into effect has increased very materially. And this is readily understood. People in comfortable circumstances will buy eggs so long as they are assured of getting a sound article; but if they come across a bad egg now and then, they are apt to turn against the commodity for a
while. They are, however, prepared to pay the highest price for the finest article. So that the grading of eggs, assuring as it does a uniform and high standard, has resulted in a large increase in sales. The poultry dealer as well as the farmer, is therefore satisfied, and the consumer is pleased because he knows just what he is getting. If anyone likes to buy an inferior egg at a lower price he is at liberty to do so, but the important point is that the eggs are not all mixed together now as they were formerly.
I am sorry I cannot produce the resolutions to-day, but when speaking a few months ago on another subject I read to the House two if not three resolutions passed by egg producing associations in British Columbia. They all emphasized this one demand:	Please
ask the Dominion government not to monkey with the grading regulations. One resolution was to this effect:	It has been called to our
attention that an effort has been made, or is being made, or is going to be made by the wholesalers and egg dealers of Canada to modify these regulations. We hope and we beg the government not to give heed to them. I read two, if not three, of those resolutions, and they will be found on Hansard. Therefore I think this amendment is not justified. While I admit it would make it a little easier for the farmer to retail his eggs directly, any inconvenience he is now subjected to is a small matter in comparison with the greater benefit that will accrue to him and all of his class in having a better demand for eggs as a result of these regulations.
As regards British Columbia and Ontario, while Ontario probably produces more eggs on account of its greater size and population, I think per capita British Columbia is a far larger producer of eggs, because the poultry men there engage in specialized egg farming. It is not uncommon for a poultry farmer to have from 4,000 up to as high as 10,000 birds. In their associations the poul-trymen express their views, and I am quite free to state that not one of those associations, which are composed of the most advanced poultry farmers, has ever expressed a desire to go back on the egg regulations now in force.


John Wesley Edwards: Would my
hon. friend favour the application of this principle of grading to butter, so that farmers would be obliged to grade the butter that they offer on the local market?


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, I think I would go that
length in the interest of the farmer himself, because every man who sells a bad egg or
Supply-Egg Grading

a pound of bad butter thereby depreciates the value of the whole product and lessens the demand.


Mr. M. R. DUNCAN (North Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) did not come to Owen Sound with her eggs on a market day, for then I am sure she would have got more money for them. I am surprised to hear that the farmers of her constituency regard the egg-grading law as a good law, because in my constituency when the regulations came into force the farmers were very much annoyed and expressed their disapproval in strong terms. We have a market in Owen Sound on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, and private citizens go there to buy their* butter and eggs. But those eggs are not graded at all, there being no inspector present for the purpose. Therefore I do not think the law is any good at any time.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should not like to be found among those who are opposed to the proper protection of the people's interests so far as food is concerned. I think, though, that in an effort to make a good law it is just possible occasionally to go a little too far, and I am inclined to suspect that that is the case with the present egg-grading law. I am familiar with only one point with respect to this law, which happened to come specially to my notice in the city of Kitchener and the town of Waterloo. In those two centres eggs are offered on the market very freely by the farmers of the surrounding country, and I suppose we have there two of the largest farm produce markets in Ontario outside of the larger cities. Those markets open very early, that in Kitchener at seven o'clock in the morning, which necessitates the farmers starting off from their homes at five o'clock. Under the present grading regulations they are obliged to stand in line until such time as their eggs can be inspected by the inspector, and they are required to pay 2 cents a dozen for the inspection. This delay has caused a good deal of dissatisfaction and inconvenience. My hon. friend from British Columbia (Mr. Neill) says the inconvenience is not very great, and the corresponding benefits outweigh it. I am not quite so sure about that. Certainly it is a very great inconvenience to the farmers I have referred to. There is also the inconsistency mentioned by an hon. member that there is no grading of eggs required when the farmer sells them from house to house or delivers them to his 
customers. I do not see why the farmer should not have the same freedom on the market.


John Wesley Edwards: A block or two away.


William Daum Euler: Yes. I think in most cases those who buy their eggs on the market or at the door purchase them mostly from the same farmer; there is an established trade. When this matter came up with us about two months ago, the question was raised whether eggs had to be graded on the market. I took the opportunity of asking the Minister of Agriculture in regard to this, and he expressed the view that in quantities of less than fifteen dozen it was not necessary to grade eggs either on the market or when they were sold from house to house. I thought that was a pretty fair interpretation. However, it was found that the minister was mistaken and that under the law it was necessary to grade all eggs offered for sale on the market. I am not opposed out and out to the egg-grading law. I haw my doubts about it, because, as I said at the outset, I think we are prone to make too many laws. At the time the law was enacted I thought it was quite fair because it would protect the farmer trying to sell by retail as against the dealer.
I would suggest to the minister as strongly as I can that he might very well vary the law and allow farmers to sell on the public markets in the same way as they sell from house to house. I know it has been urged that people would very much sooner pay a little more for their eggs even on the market, provided they are assured of getting absolutely good eggs. That may be true. Probably every member of the House, myself included, would prefer to buy eggs of undoubted quality. I think the provision might still be retained of having eggs graded where farmers desired the inspector to do so, but not to make this compulsory on the market. Then if we desire to have graded eggs we will go to those farmers who are taking the precaution to have their eggs inspected and graded. Possibly it would result that after a time those selling ungraded eggs would find it to their interest to have their eggs graded. I hope the minister will make some provision whereby this nuisance of grading at the market may be abolished.


Mir. RYCKMAN:: Does the hon. gentleman think there should be grading with No.
1 first and then three grades superior to
No. 1?


William Daum Euler: I am quite prepared to admit that we have too many grades. I rather

Supply-Egg Grading
think there is room for improvement there, although that was not the point I rose to discuss.


Mr. S. G. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am strongly in favour of the standardizing and grading of all our products. We are a producing country, and therefore we must standardize the grades of the products we have to sell. Very much good has come to the live stock and other industries by grading. At one time it was thought not to pay or be worth while to try to sell a good thing because it was said it would be submerged by something of inferior quality and probably lower priced; but now with a proper system of grading we know the quality of the goods we are buying. I am already on record in this matter, for in the local legislature of Alberta I moved a resolution in March, 1925, asking that this act be amended in some respects. I am still of that opinion. I would like to read part of the resolution:
That this legislature urges upon the Dominion government the necessity of amending the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act so as to permit producers of eggs to sell to country stores in limited quantities without candling or grading, such eggs not to be for domestic consumption or for export until after they are candled or graded-
And so on. I was led to believe from certain circulars that these regulations were afterwards suspended; I think the retail associations sent out pamphlets stating that these regulations were suspended, and that was my understanding. I wish to say further that if the resolution before the House had been brought in under different circumstances and in a different way, I would have been inclined to support it. It could have been put on the order paper and brought up in the regular way, but instead we find it introduced as a want of confidence motion to prevent the government from going into supply, and I think the continuance of the government is much more important than this single matter. The government has a large programme of important legislation to put through, and I think it should be permitted to do so. But I do hope and believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) will make some amendments to these egg-grading regulations; I think the details are a little too many and too hard to understand. Away out in the country the farmers wish to sell a few eggs to the country store. The store itself is only a small place, possibly combined with a post office and the business would amount to only a few hundred dollars yearly. Under these conditions that man could not have a grader, or if he had one the grader would not know his business.
14*11-265
As I have already said I understood and still understand that these regulations were suspended, but I merely want to put myself properly on record in this connection, because I am already on record as being opposed to some of the provisions of this act. I want it understood that I cannot support this amendment, introduced as it is; it is a motion of want of confidence in the government which I am supporting, and as such I must vote against it.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I must admit that I do not know very much about the grading of eggs, but I do know that many people are greatly disappointed when they buy an egg and find that they have a chicken. That happened so often in the past that I have no doubt it was responsible for the desire on the part of the Department of Agriculture to institute some grading system for eggs. I regret that the rules of this House are so out of date that we must spend our time discussing this small matter while we have a committee on Agriculture which could deal very much better with this matter than can the full House. I am going to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture and to the mover of this amendment that they might agree to have this question referred to the committee on Agriculture, when the head of the Poultry division of this department might be called before the committee. In that way we might improve the regulations for the grading of eggs.
I sent to the library for the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, but now that I have it I find very little information about the grading of eggs; it is all covered by regulations made by the department. I am at a disadvantage in speaking on this subject, because I have not a copy of the regulations, and all I know about the different grades of eggs is what has been said to-day. From my limited knowledge of the subject I am inclined to believe, however, that our present grades are very misleading to the public. If that is the case it should be corrected, but I think the majority of the hon. members are in the same position; they are not very familiar with all the different grades of eggs enumerated in the regulations.
As I understand it the complaint to-day is that a farmer cannot take a few eggs to the market without having them graded; that at least is the complaint of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I have felt that there should be another grade of eggs included in the regulations, namely ungraded eggs. If anyone wants to sell his eggs on the local market or from house to house without grading them, and if the customers at the market or the people of the town want to' buy them that way, I do not see why that should not be

Supply-Egg Grading

permitted. This would not in any way interfere with the egg-grading system, because the buyer and seller both know the eggs are not graded and no harm would be done. I think we must have some grading system, but I believe that if my suggestion were adopted it would meet most of the objections raised today.
I do. hope this matter will be sent to the committee on Agriculture where we will have a better opportunity to discuss the question fully. Possibly the regulations could be amended in such a way as to meet the wishes of honourable members who have raised this question and still safeguard the system of egggrading in Canada.


William Richard Motherwell: I have to thank those who have contributed to this debate, Mr. Speaker. This is by no means a new theme; it has engaged the attention of the farmers, consumers and middlemen not only of Canada but of the United States, Great Britain, Ireland, and practically every other country where eggs are produced for export for many years. I would like to correct as gently as possible some of the erroneous views held by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) before starting to discuss this matter. He seems to want to throw the responsibility for this act, so far as eggs are concerned, on this government; he has brought it up on a motion to go into supply so that the responsibility will be placed squarely on the shoulders of the government. In other words we may have to bear the yoke, so to speak. Surely this is not a sufficiently serious question on which to defeat a government which has come safely through the trials and tribulations we have during the last four or five months. We deserve to live a while longer, and should not succumb to an attack of this nature. I assume that my hon. friend is not desirous of upsetting the government on this momentous question, but at the same time if he were more desirous of improving the situation I think he would have waited until my estimates came up, because the very first item has to do with live stock and this whole question could have been threshed out.
However, that is all by the way. The responsibility of introducing the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, as my hon. friend said, dates back to 1917; the original act was assented to on September 20 of that year. The moment 1917 is mentioned one's mind immediately goes back to the Union government, but do not place this at the door of the Union government, because I believe that government did not come into

existence until later on. The elections were not held until December; perhaps the Union government existed before that, but at all events it was before our time. I would like to know what article my hon. friend was reading when he said the act prior to 1923 contained no reference to eggs or wool.


Hugh Guthrie: In the statute.


William Richard Motherwell: We will have to get that reconciled in some way, perhaps before the agricultural committee, in regard to which the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) made a very good suggestion. Here is chapter 32, an act respecting Live Stock, assented to September 20, 1917. I am not wanting to repudiate responsibility in any way; I merely want to show that I am correct. The definition clause of this act of 1917 provides:
"Live stock products" means meat, poultry, eggs and wool.
I will pass this over to my hon. friend when I am through, if he will pass me over his authority. Then section 9 provides:
The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing,-
(a)	the manner in which stock yards are to be constructed, equipped, maintained and operated.
(b)	the manner in which compflaints against commission merchants and the operation, maintenance or management of stock yards shall 'be made and investigated ;
(c)	the manner in which live stock, -meat, poultry, eggs and wooi shall be graded and branded or marked, and what shall be the size of packages containing meat, eggs and poultry, the kind of package that may be used, and how such packages shall be branded, marked or labelled.
I am not wanting to put my hon. friend in a corner or anything like that, although I am afraid he was trying to put me in one, and he did not give all the information correctly. Were we in power in 1917? I remember that we had an election at that time, and that we did not get in. Here is the act of 1923, and it provides:
"Live stock products" means meats, poultry, eggs and wool, the word "eggs" where used to include frozen eggs, liquid eggs, desiccated eggs and eggs in the shell.
That is the only difference. I am not wanting to squirm out of anything at all, but my hon. friend has left the impression on the House that the consolidated act of 1923 was sort of smuggled through the House. Maybe the word "smuggled" is rather suggestive to him in view of what has been happening this session, and he thinks I am going into smuggling too. One of the reasons why there was very little discussion when this act was before the House was that there had been a very long discussion of it in the committee on

Supply-Egg Grading
Agriculture. I recall it well as this was the first act of any account that I had charge of, and it was so decimated, so mauled around in the committee of Agriculture, that we had to reprint the bill; it was given a thorough going over, not only on one day, but on several days. I remember the produce dealers from many parts of Canada were present; in fact, the room was as full as it has been in the last few days, when the Campbell bill was before the committee on Agriculture, and it was quite as interesting. The railways were represented there to look after their interests, as well as the produce dealers, and we had at least four or five sittings of the committee. Under those circumstances one would not expect any very extended remarks when the bill came back into the House. The House usually accepts, not without question, but in the main it generally accepts the reports of the committee on Agriculture on questions that are essentially agricultural, so that it is not to be wondered at that there was not much discussion in the House. I think my hon. friend understands the reason now. So much for that.
My hon. friend also complained that the grading was so badly done at the grading station at Guelph, or somewhere in the vicinity, that a basket of eggs that was passed through the station three times got as many different grades. Our egg inspectors report that tricks like that are sometimes put up on them, but can you imagine a basket of eggs going through a station three times without some of them being cracked, even with the most careful handling? Then, of course, they will be in a different condition at the third handling, and will have to be graded down, and a great ado is made if it is but one grade different. These stations are not put up by the government, but by the farmers or by the trade itself. The farmers can use them or not; it is optional with them. We will supply the farmers with the candling equipment without cost to them, and we are doing it when it is requested, and sometimes without a request, where we think it is required. We will send them the candling equipment, at no cost to themselves, everything except the light. So the question of the cost of the grading oan be eliminated. It is optional with the farmers whether they use the grading station or not, and as I said before, the grading station is put up frequently by the trade itself for the convenience of the farmers.
My hon. friend also referred to the egg graders being appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I wish someone would tell me 14011-2651
how to get an inspector appointed without having to go to the commission. I would try it, I think; as a matter of fact, I did try it at first, and I failed. I have not got very much fault to find with the Civil Service Commission as such, but they are governed by an abominable act which I never had any use for and never will have, and if there is anything wrong with the egg inspectors you can lay it right at the door, not so much of the commission, as of this act. We have nothing whatever to do with the selection of the egg inspectors. We have to accept the commission's appointments; that is the trouble.
My good friend indicates that the farmers' wives particularly are imposed upon by these regulations. I have taken particular interest in the attitude of the Ontario farm women in regard to this matter. As every member of the House knows the revenue from the eggs and poultry goes to the farm women.


Miss MACPHAIL:: And that is all.


William Richard Motherwell: I remember attending a meeting at Chatham the year after these regulations were framed and there was great excitement there. There was a great crowd of women on hand, and I saw a number of them in the drawing room of the hotel. I could not help wondering which side they were on, because I thought they were going to win; they looked as if they meant business. After we had sat around a while and began to make inquiries from the complainants- and incidentally, nearly all these agitations are started by someone who has had his fingers burned by a prosecution for violating the regulations; we have had a few such cases in Guelph-I asked two gentlemen what was the trouble. They said that the whole business was wrong, and they wanted the grading done by weight, and weight alone. That was the proper way to grade, they said. That is I may say the system in some countries. But inasmuch as an egg is only useful in proportion to its fitness for use, the size of an egg is of no advantage if, when you knock the top off, the egg does not suit; the more there is of it, the worse it is. They admitted then that weight should be only one of the factors in grading, and under the regulations it is a factor. Then one of the leaders of the ladies' party arose, and soon showed that she was on our side, fortunately. I do not remember her name, I am glad to say, because I might be tempted to use it. She said:
I do not see why these middlemen cannot play their part without interfering with one of the little good things the government ever has done for us. It is rarely that a government ever does anything that is
Supply-Egg Grading

worth much to the producer, but here is one act on the part of the government tJhat is really to the advantage of the .producer of eggs, and here these middlemen have to step in and try to muddle up the thing and not have the system accepted.
I felt like pluming myself when I heard that, because I was partially responsible for the act. I am not wholly responsible, because my predecessors were responsible for introducing the act first as applied to the wholesale and interprovincial trade. It was not until 1923 that it was extended to the retail trade.


Hugh Guthrie: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: We will come to
that. Of course we all have to recognize that my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) is a profound authority on these markets. There are some other matters he may know more about, but we admit that on this particular subject he is quite an authority. We have also to admit that his statement has been rational and reasonable to the extent of his knowledge of the question under discussion.
I was sorry to have had a misunderstanding with the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). I think nobody would quarrel with the hon. member unless such person were suffering from a delusion. However, we had a little misunderstanding. I never dreamt that he was asking me with respect to the grading of eggs on the local market. I told him that under section 10 of the regulations, the farmers were exempt from grading eggs that were put on the market in the usual way and were not retailed. I also indicated that if a farmer had a number of customers, and there are a great many such, in the cities and towns, and delivered eggs to them, no grading was required there. The hon. member for North Waterloo may say that the farmers are required to grade their eggs when they go on to the market and become retailers. We do not use the word "retailers," but that is what the farmers become when they go on the market and retail their own eggs. That is what my hon. friend was alluding to, I suppose, in his remarks to me-the case of the farmer who sells eggs by retail, in other words the farmer who is a producer in the first instance and a retailer in the second instance. If what is asked can be permitted without upsetting the whole applecart I will be glad to consider it. But the conditions under which eggs are soldi not on the market but on the market-place-I think that is what my hon. friend for South Wellington had in mind-should be remembered. Go down to the market-place in Ottawa and you will find others than farmers there selling [Mr Motherwell.]
eggs. You will find hucksters and peddlers, and dear only knows where these men get their eggs. They do not produce eggs-they are rarely egg producers but they get them in any old place where they can gather them up. There are really several classes of people that dispose of eggs on the local market-place. Now the request is made that we make an exception of farmers. I am willing to consider the request but it must be borne in mind that adequate safeguards must be provided in the interests of the consumer. Because eggs that were formerly sold on the market-place were not labelled at all. They may have been hen eggs, they may have been duck eggs, they may have 'been pigeon eggs, they even may have been nest-eggs. They were not graded, and you could not tell the quality until it was too late. I do not think I am exaggerating at all in making that statement. Now the proposition is to take a retrograde step and revert to the condition of affairs that prevailed ten or fifteen years ago when we are trying, in this progressive age, to build up a good market for the farmer and to insure that the eggs sold to the public shall be eggs of good quality.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister see any
objection to accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod-


William Richard Motherwell: Delighted.
Mr. EULER-that provision be made for the grading of eggs but that it be not compulsory and that eggs may be sold as ungraded?


William Richard Motherwell: I thought my hon.
friend was in favour of referring the whole matter again to the agricultural committee-


William Daum Euler: That is right.


William Richard Motherwell: -where everybody would have a chance to give evidence on this very important question, including the hon. member for South Wellington, because in this important matter we should not take a sudden plunge. Every precaution was taken, in devising these regulations, not to worry the producer unduly. Tt was 4 p.m. recognized that he had trouble enough without having to worry too much over the marketing of his eggs, and the idea was to make regulations with which he could comply without being unduly harassed, and at the same time try to raise the standard of the trade in the interest of the consumer and everybody else. Now section 10 of the regulation reads as follows:
All persons who receive eggs on consignment or buy eggs for resale, in making payment for same, shall apportion th-e returns on the basis of at least two of the grades specified in these regulations-

Supply-Egg Grading
There are no five grades such as were represented, and the dealers have to make a return of the eggs purchased which simplifies the matter very much. The section goes on to
say:
-accompanied 'by a statement on the forms as required in schedule "A" to these regulations, provided that this regulation shall not apply where producers market their eggs in less than fifteen dozen lots in any one day.
That is to say the farmers can market fifteen dozen in any one day without having the eggs graded. The question is asked, why cannot the farmers sell their eggs on the local market-place without being subject to grading? That is a matter for consideration. How are we going to do so and at the same time exclude the hucksters, the peddlers, and those who do not produce eggs but get them in any old way? Even if the concession were made what kind of market would be built up? Remember that only a very small proportion of the eggs produced by the farmers goes on the local market. The great bulk of them is disposed of through co-operative activities, or in other words the egg pools of the country In my own province of 'Saskatchewan recently the egg pool had over fifteen thousand signed contracts. There are some seven or eight egg stations and over two hundred receiving stations in the province, and eggs are going through by the carload under these regulations with perfect satisfaction to the farmer. Ever since 1911 we have ibeen endeavouring to improve the quality of the eggs sold in Canada wholesale and for export. The trade, after discussing the matter in 1911, 1912, and 1913 came to an agreement as to the grades that should be constituted. The great trouble was that in many cases the regulations did not conform with each other, but in 1918 the federal authority consolidated the regulations and crystallized them into national regulations looking to the betterment of this important project. In a matter of this kind, as in all other human affairs, it is necessary tha* there should be a process of evolution.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister had any
representations made by the poultry dealers' associations of British Columbia?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, I have a whole sheave of them here. I have the advantage of my hon. friend; I should have passed some of them over to him, there are more here than I can read. But they do not want any change. They do not ask for any modification such as that asked for by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie). Rather they want the regulations tried out for one year longer.
Now here is the section with regard to the local market, but as I said before I think the
hon. gentleman means the local market-place. Yes, I find I am right. Well, that is an old-fashioned institution to which all classes of people like to go,-the rich, the middle classes and the poor. The kind of eggs my hon. friend wishes is the catch-as-catch-can kind, you never know what is in them until you knock the top off. He thinks it is lots of fun going onto the market and dickering for produce. If you want to see real fun, you should go into a local market in some towns in the Old Country, especially in Ireland, where you will see people haggling over maybe an old rooster or an old hen they have in their hand and scrapping until you would think they were going to fight over it. People like to trade and dicker. I do not know how they will keep that up if my hon. friend has his way and hucksters, peddlers and anybody else are allowed in the market without grading. Is that a step in advance or a backward step or is it an intermediate step: I want the best. It has been my privilege to build on the foundation laid in some cases by my predecessor the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie). With respect to dairy matters he had the act passed through this House and left it to be brought into force by proclamation. In the meantime an educative campaign was going on preparing the public mind for the day when cheese, butter and eggs would be graded for export. We extended that grading but the measure was introduced by my predecessor and I wish to give him every credit for that initial step.
It has been my lot and privilege to introduce many reforms in the matter of grading, and out of them all, whether it be butter, eggs, cheese, hogs, apples, or vegetables of any kind, apparently exception can be had by our good friends on the other side just as regards the fractional part of one product __eggs-and only in the very smallest fractional part. Grading for export is all right and so is grading for import under which we have excluded practically all oriental eggs. By the strictness of our grading we are doing more to keep out that kind of rubbish than the duty of three per cent does. Our grading for export and import is sound; to our grading for the big markets like Montreal and Toronto my hon. friend has taken no exception. Just as on former occasions his heart is at present weeping for the farmer and he wants to do something for him in a strange sort of way. He wants to turn back the wheel of progress ten or fifteen years and again institute a market of this kind. I wonder how much my hon. friend would patronize it. He might go in and get a dozen of ducks' eggs. Ducks' eggs are recognized
Supply-Egg Grading

as very good for cooking, but nobody wants a straight duck's egg for breakfast. Somebody might offer a bunch of pigeons' eggs about the size of your nail. On the other hand a number of people might like big double-yolkers. Perhaps out on the farm the children will be running around hunting behind wood piles and in other places and find maybe fifty or sixty eggs clawed over for several days or weeks by each hen using the nest and with finger prints on them. Back they come with their arms full of these eggs, delighted at their find. Is that the kind of eggs my hon. friend wants on the local market? Every man to his taste!
Section 5 reads:
Every case or container of eggs that is exposed, displayed or offered for sale by any person selling or delivering eggs direct to consumers in a public place or manner shall be marked, labelled, tagged or accompanied in conspiciaus letters witih the name of the class and grade of eggs according to the Canadian standards.
That is the regulation requiring that all who go on the market and sell eggs as retailers must be figured alike. As I said before I am ready to refer this bill at a moment's notice to the Agricultural committee and see if it cannot be improved upon in any way. I would think it would be not a kindness but an unkindness to make the change, but perhaps my views are biased in the matter so that I will defer to what others think of it. This is a telegram received recently by Mr. Brown, Chief of the Poultry Division, from M!r. Clemens. Apparently he must have heard of this. The echoes of these things have reached Toronto from Guelph. This is the telegram:
Chief of Poultry division, Live Stock branch, Ottawa, Ont. In the interests of producers and consumers it would be disastrous to discontinue the grading of eggs on public markets and dealers' warehouses. Egg grading has most certainly increased home consumption, established confidence between producer and consumer and with our increasing production the farmer cannot afford to return to old slipshod way of selling eggs.
That is from the general manager of the United Farmers' Co-operative Company. Many hon. members must know Mr. Clemens who was in Ottawa about a month ago working out a proposal to construct a co-operative cold storage plant in Toronto for the purpose of storing eggs when the storage season would commence. That gentleman's testimony is worth something and I understand he represents at least 30,000 farmers. I have another telegram the substance of which indicates that on the Toronto market itself they are highly in favour of egg-grading and would be sorry to depart from it even on the local market.
[Mr Motherwell.]
I think if there was a grievance down by the sea they would discover it. I want to pay this tribute to the Maritimes; they have made more advance in the matter of production of eggs on a quality basis than any other part of Canada, even than British Columbia, and that is saying a great deal. This is particularly true of Prince Edward Island. They are great advocates of grading eggs and selling according to our standard, and they insist on that. Part of our recreation is to stand these gentlemen off in their protestations that we are not going forward more quickly than we are in completing this system. This is a resolution passed by the New Brunswick Poultry Exchange at their annual meeting in January, 1926, before it was ever whispered abroad that my hon. friend contemplated this momentous motion:
Whereas the Canadian egg regulations as at present existing have provided a common basis of trading, and created confidence in egg trading.
And whereas consumption of eggs in. Canada has gradually increased since the regulations went into effect so that our average per capita consumption is now 25 dozen annually.
That is correct. Fourteen years ago it was only sixteen dozen annually. In other words, we have made a market. Since the egg regulations came into force Canada consumes at home over 80,000,000 dozen eggs more than she did previously. We export only
3.000.	000 dozen. What will you do with the
77.000.	000 dozen and what will you get for them if you have to sell them as storage eggs abroad? The resolution continues:
And whereas under the present regulations Canadian eggs have found ready sale in British markets, Resolved, that the New Brunswick Poultry Exchange in annual convention assembled do hereby place themselves on record as entirely in accord with the principle of egg grading as required by the regulations and urge the department to rigidly enforce same both as regards class and grade.
Since it is only the minor detail of an infinitesimal fractional part of one article that the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) differs from me on, we are not so far apart as regards the principle and soundness of grading generally. How the hon. gentleman can drag this question into the limelight and propose a vote of want of confidence in the government, and at the same time have a desire to secure a reform, is really past my understanding. Possibly he will enlighten us at some future time. Let me read the following in reference to a meeting held at Waterloo:
At a meeting of the Waterloo retail grocers held in the council chambers, last night, (April 9th, 1926) the following resolution was passed, unanimously:
That this meeting of tihe Waterloo grocers and egg dealers, wishing to strengthan the hands of the

Minister of Agriculture, places iteelf on record, that they appreciate the value and benefit of the egg regulations and earnestly desire a stricter and more rigid enforcement of the regulations. They also wish to express their approval of the manner in which the Waterloo egg grading station has been operated."
In the city of Guelph, where the grading system is carried out, they are getting from three to seven cents more for their eggs than the producers obtain in Waterloo, where only 50 per cent of the eggs are graded. This shows that the more strictly they adhere to the grading system, the higher the prices the-producers receive for their eggs. There is a larger sale at Guelph and the return to the producer is enhanced, and this is due to the enforcement of the regulations. Here is what comes from New Westminster, to which a reference has been made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill):
Herewith please find list of names signed by our producers and vendors who are very much against altering the Dominion Egg Grading Act.
Your Mr. Thornfield has been very good and we have both spent a lot of time getting our producers and vendors broken in-
That is a good term.
-to grade and candle their eggs. Mr. Thornfield has gone out of his way many many times to show our producers how to grade their eggs and there is never a market day passes but what he is here inspecting the eggs and giving advice how to grade.
I feel it would be bad both for the producer and our market to alter the act just when it is working so weil for both parties.
Trusting that you will do all in your power to keep the act in force, I am,
In November there was a perfect epidemic of resolutions of this kind started in British Columbia on the far-away Pacific coast. The people there no doubt heard the reverberations and the after-claps from the election campaign in Wellington county, where apparently this question was made an important issue. And if the hon. gentleman had succeeded in getting on this side of the House he would evidently have abolished these regulations. This, at any rate, is the inference to be drawn from the reports of his campaign speeches. What he said at that time was no doubt magnified in the transmission from his county to the Pacific coast, with the result that there was a large crop of resolutions all imploring the government not to touch the regulations at all. Here is another letter signed by a considerable number of persons interested in the business:
We, the producers and vendors of the Fraser valley market understand that there is a movement on foot to alter the Dominion Egg Grading Act.
You see how far afield the hon. gentleman's fame spread.
, 1926	.	4187
Supply-Egg Grading
We wish to state that in our opinion the Egg Grading Act has been a great benefit to us in increased returns, and do not wish it altered.
There is no reservation there. A long list of names follows but I shall not read it. I do not know any of the persons enumerated nor do I think hon. gentlemen would recognize many of them. I come now to a communication from the Cowichan Creamery Association :
Re grading of eggs.
We notice a news item in a provincial paper to the effect that eastern produce dealers are asking for changes to be mode in the regulations governing the grading of eggs. Under date of 17th inst., we sent a letter to your inspector in Victoria supporting the regulations, as in our opinion we consider the present system of grading to be of benefit alike to producer, merchant and consumer. When writing to your inspector we were not aware of this agitation against the regulations.-
They call it an agitation.
-in eastern Canada, and we would esteem it a favour if you can give us any information on the point, whether our information is reliable or not, and if it is so, just what do the produce dealers hove in mind.
We think we state but the simple truth when we assert producers and dealers in British Columbia are in favour of the regulations. No doubt minor alterations may be made from time to time as experience show-s where adjustment is necessary, but as the governing standard in the egg business of the country we are strongly of the opinion they ought to stand.
That is almost word for word in agreement with what I have already said. This matter of egg grading, like so many other improvements, is one of evolution. The hon. gentleman would have us take a retrograde step, and while I am sure there is nothing to be said that is not favourable to the system as it is now in force, I am willing to have the subject investigated thoroughly in the place where such an investigation can best be held, namely, before the committee on Agriculture. If you like, I will stay away altogether.


Mr NEILL:: In view of the statement
made by the minister in the House some months ago, that it. was his determined policy to make no change in the regulations this year, is it fair now for him to refer the matter to that committee at this late stage of the session?


William Richard Motherwell: So much importance has been attached to the question by some hon. gentlemen opposite that I am willing to allow it to be discussed in that committee, and we can afford to run the risk of any changes being made in the regulations. This has been made a public question and we should, in my opinion, court the fullest publicity. All these documents can be submitted in evidence, to show the strong feeling that prevails against any change at this time.

Supply-Egg Grading
In any event it would not be worth while making any change for another year. Some considerable time ago, both the wholesale dealers and the retail trade met in this city, and the government was requested to remodel the regulations. We had no intention of making any alterations in the regulations, the idea being that we would merely simplify them. One gentleman from Winnipeg remained over to give what assistance he could to the departmental officials in working out possible improvements, and while this process of simplification was going on there came the insistent demand that the regulations be not touched. That is why I made the statement some time ago, to which my hon. friend has referred, that in view of the differences of opinion which apparently existed we would allow the regulations to be enforced for another year. The following resolution comes from Harmsworth District Farmers' Association, British Columbia:
That this meeting, being representative of the poultry industry of this district of the municipality of Langley, British Columbia, appreciates the value of the Egg Grading Act inasmuch as its enforcement has the effect of giving the producer fair value for the eggs marketed by him, and the consumer a guarantee of quality and weight', and
Be it resolved,
That this meeting would view with great apprehension any move to repeal or modify the said Egg Grading Act which would have the effect of relaxing the regulations to allow the purchase or sale of eggs other than by the present standard grades.
There would be no system of grading at all if eggs were sorted in the market place In olden times people instead of going to Hyde park to engage in arguments went to the market place, and I presume that the grading of eggs there would be a means of popularizing these open air debates. If people wanted to get rid of some undesirable speaker they would have the proper missiles handy with which to assail him.
So that I have read reports of public feeling in New Brunswick, on the Pacific coast, in Toronto and in Guelph, on the question of these regulations and the desirability or otherwise of amending them. There is another resolution addressed to me by a gentleman named Mufford, secretary of the Milner Poultry Association:
Whereas it has been learned that attempts are being made in certain provinces to change the present regulations respecting the grading and marking of eggs,
And whereas the present regulations as far as the payment' for eggs on a graded basis is concerned have proven to be the only fair method of returning payment to the producer,
And whereas the present method of payment on a graded basis has benefited the producer by giving him better returns for his eggs,
Be it therefore resolved that this meeting of poultry producers in the Milner district go on record as being [Mr Motherwell.]
in favour of the continued application of the regulations as far as payment to the producer on a graded basis is concerned.	.
By this time my hon. friend must have come to the conclusion that there are at least two sides to this question, and that not everything is on his side. These people who are the producers, and upon whose behalf he is pleading, as I am, because after all they are the most important people to be considered, are strongly in favour of egg-grading. Next to . them I presume come the consumers, although they are not in the habit of asserting themselves very much, but they also are in favour of the regulations because they know what they are buying when they buy graded eggs. As a result the people of this country are eating more eggs. Last year every man, woman and child in the Dominion ate 120 eggs more than four years ago. My hon. friend belongs to a party that never misses an opportunity of extolling the benefits of the home market. Well, I have produced a home market for 85,000,000 dozen of eggs more than our farmers had before, but I get not one word of approval from my hon. friends opposite. What is the use of playing their game if you are to get the cold shoulder in this way? And from an old political friend at one time! He should not be as bad as the hard-boiled ones. But unfortunately the latter stage of these backsliders is worse than their first. Here is a statement from Guelph. It is got up by the director of publicity for the live stock branch as a press despatch. We are not using it as propaganda or it would have been out before.
The grading of eggs has been applied rigidly on the Guelph market for over a year, the farmers' eggs being graded at a booth on the market. At Waterloo, although grading has been in effect for a much shorter time than at Guelph, fully ninety-eight per cent of the eggs sold on the market are classified and graded. At Kitchener, on the other hand, not alone has grading been in effect for only a short time, but the graded eggs have never constituted more than fifty per cent of the total quantity of eggs on the market.
Because of this difference to which my hon. friend and I have been referring.
In view of these conditions the price comparisons on the different markets are extremely interesting.
GueLph farmers, with their market strengthened by a full year of thorough grading, received an average of three cents a dozen more for their eggs than the Waterloo farmers and seven cents a dozen more than the farmers in the vicinity of Kitchener. Similarly, farmers on the Waterloo market, who have been practising grading for but a -few months, received an average of four cents per dozen more fo,r their eggs than d'd the producers at Kitchener, where only fifty per cent of the eggs were graded.
That is an authentic statement, and I think we may accept it as such.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


William Daum Euler: May we take it, then, that
the minister will allow the question to go to the agricultural committee?


William Richard Motherwell: The House is
master, and I feel that the hon. member for South Wellington has raised an issue that we should try to get to the bottom of as far as possible. I would be in favour of its going there.


Mr. DUNNING:: Not on this motion.


William Richard Motherwell: No. This motion,
if it passes, defeats the government. I should like to draw attention to the fact that, as I indicated before, this is a matter of more than ordinary importance. As our urban centres grow they consume a larger percentage of egg product as against meat product, the former being found to be more wholesome and healthful. I have in my hand a report on egg marketing in England and Wales issued by the British Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. It contains 148 pages, but I am not going to quote it. The report refers approvingly to the progress Canada has made, and it is pointed out that we are the only country grading eggs on an interior quality basis. If any hon. gentlemen think our system is complex, I would remind them that it is simple compared with even the rudimentary efforts in egg grading that are being made in Great Britain and in the United States. Whether the names of our grades are right or not; the United States have copied ours almost in toto. We have often been criticized for not having the grades numerically or alphabetically. Well, there is a habit all over the world of attaching the word special or fancy to something of particular excellence, and the best eggs for hospitals are called "specials." They are not looked upon as a commercial grade, for it is only men like my friend Goddard who can sell their eggs every other day and get very many specials fresh off the bat. My hon. friends can see this large sheet of United States standards and grades for eggs. It would make one dizzy to go through the complications in connection with grading in that country. They are where my hon. friends opposite were back in 1948 when they were laying the foundation for this work. It was optional for a while. It is optional in the United States now. Our grading for cheese and butter for a year after I had charge of this work was voluntary. That is the sensible way. In the United States they are preparing for the day when they will catch up to Canada and have their egg grading compulsory. The United States standards of quality for individual eggs
are: U.S. Special; U.S. Extra; U.S. Standard; U.S. Trade; U.S. Standard Dirty; U.S. Trade Dirty; U.S. Check. There is nothing suggestive of the relative standing of these grades except possibly the first two. This important question is engaging the attention of United States authorities, and they are following in our footsteps-instead of being a tailender we are leading the way. Egg grading is in force in the north of Ireland. Here is the regulation :
If any such eggs are exposed for sale by retail there shall be attached to or exhibited with,-
and so forth, and so forth. They are searching out in the same direction. Why? Because a great many of their eggs are sold in the British matket, and they know the taste of their customers is for eggs of the best quality, and they also know that if their customers want quality they must pay on the basis of quality. With all these authorities it is not surprising that the hon, member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) and myself, as well as others, might differ in the matter of details.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister consent to refer to the committee on Agriculture the specific question in the last line of this resolution:
-that such system, in so far as it applies to sale by retail in local markets, should be discontinued.
Would the minister refer that particular question to the committee without going into the whole egg trade?


William Richard Motherwell: I will do so if my hon. friend will withdraw his amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I am satisfied.


William Richard Motherwell: Then I have finished, Mr. Speaker.
Amendment withdrawn.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-Hudson Bay railway-construction and betterments, $3,000,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Explain.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): In order to explain I should say that the steel on the Hudson Bay railway is laid from mile O at Le Pas, Manitoba, to mile 332 at Kettle Rapids, and the
83,000,000 asked for is designed to .put that 332 miles in shape for operation. It is not intended to bring the road to main line standard, but to the ordinary standard of branch line construction. I had better give

Supply-Hudson Bay Railvxty
the committee the details of how the estimate of $3,000,000 is arrived1 at, and I may-say here that the estimate was made by the engineering staff of the Canadian National Railways. It is estimated that 950 tons of 80 pound rails will be required to replace those kinked; the amount involved is $39,900; there will be required 650,000 ties at $1.10, a total of $715,000, and the placing of those ties at 35 cenits each will amount to $227,500. Cutting brush on the right of way, $25,000; widening cuts, 50,000 cubic yards at 80 cents, $40,000; cleaning ditches, $10,000; widening banks and raising sags, 500,000 cubic yards at 90 cents, $450,000; ballasting at the rate of 500 cubic yards per mile, a total of 180,000 cubic yards at $1.10 per yard, a total of $198,000. One bridge is required at Cormorant lake narrows, mile 42, the estimated cost of which is $49,500; repairs to trestles and culverts, estimated cost $50,COO; repairs to telegraph line, $10,000. It should be understood that the existing Hudson Bay railway simply consists of a pair of rails with none of the necessary operating equipment such as water stations, engine terminals at divisional1 points and so on. So we are estimating that twelve water stations will be required at a total cost of $132,000. We will need thirty section men's dwellings costing a total of $57,000, thirty bunk houses costing $33,000, and thirty tool houses costing $9,000. We are only allowing for four stations at present in the 332 miles in addition to the present station at Le Pas, and these stations will cost $26,400. Only twenty miles of wire fencing is estimated, to cost $9,000. We will require six pumpmen's dwellings costing $12,000, and with regard to the necessary operating facilities we will require an engine terminal at Le Pas costing $200,000; another at mile 136 costing $250,000 and another at mile 296 costing the same amount. The total of the figures I have read is $2,793,300, and the balance of the $3,000,000 is allowed for engineering and contingencies.


Mr. HAY:: Are you not building an engine house at the terminal?


Charles Avery Dunning: Where?


Thomas Hay: At the bay.


Charles Avery Dunning: I explained at the outset that the $3,000,000 in this estimate is for the purpose of putting into condition the 332 miles which at present has steel.


Thomas Hay: I mean just an engine house.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not now dealing with any expenditure at Nelson, but with the expenditure necessary to put into condition the existing 332 miles of steel. The engine terminals to which I refer are those terminals necessary for the operation of that mileage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much farther is it to Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: Nelson is 92 miles from the end of steel at mile 332. The grade is built from the end of steel to Nelson but there is no steel beyond mile 332.


Mr. HANNESSON:: Has the minister an estimate of how much it will cost to complete that 92 miles?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and perhaps this is the proper place to give that information. It is quite clear, then, that the $3,000,000 now before the House is estimated in accordance with the detail which I have placed on Hansard and will be devoted to conditioning and putting into operating shape the 332 miles which already has steel. That is this year's work. The information I am now giving in response to the hon. member for Selkirk is with regard to the cost of completing the 92 miles, which is graded, from the present end of steel into Port Nelson. The estimated cost from Kettle Rapids, mile 332, to Port Nelson, mile 424, is $3,153,000. I presume my hon. friend would like the details in this connection as in the other. They are as follows:

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Canadian National Railways
Estimate of Cost to Complete Hudson Bay Railway from Kettle Rapids, Mile 332, Port Nelson, Mile 424 Main Line, 92-5 Miles. Sidings, 7-5 Miles. Total Track, 100 miles
Description	Unit	Quantity	Price	Amount250	$ 30 00	$ 7,500 20,000 160,000 200,000 40.000 62.400 570.000 5.000 494.000 8,640 100.000 330.000 225.000 50,875 55.000 600 13,200 11.400 6,600 1,800 4.000 500.000
Bridges:-				
				
				
	M.F.B.M... Each		800 300.000 50 11,230 21,600 100 300.000 250.000 92-5 5 100 2 6 6 6 2	78 00 1 90 100 00 44 00 0	40 1,000 00 1	10 0 90 550 00 11,000 00 6 00 6,600 00 1,900 00 1,100 00 300 00 2,000 00	
				
				
				
	Each				
				
	Cu. Yds.... Cu. Yds....			
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				* 2,866,115 286,885
				
				$ 3,153,000
				
With Tegard to the estimate for rails, it is based upon 80 pound relay rails, not new rails, but rails of the weight used on the road up to mile 332. Instead of using new rails, relay rails from other parts of the system will be used and we have on hand 1,342 tons.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Is there nothing for engine terminals?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is included in the item for railway terminal facilities at Port Nelson.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: That includes everything?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Mr. GEARY:: What percentage is allowed for engineering items?


Charles Avery Dunning: About 10 per cent. It will thus be seen that it will cost $3,000,000 to put the existing track in operating shape up to branch line standard. It will cost a further $3,153,000 on some future occasion of course, to finish the line to Port Nelson, to put it in complete operating shape as a railroad, including terminals for railway purposes only, or a total of $6,153,000 to complete and put into shape the Hudson Bay railway from The Pas to Port Nelson.


Mr. ROGERS:: My hon. friend used the phrase, "on some future occasion." What does he mean by that?


Charles Avery Dunning: By that I mean that the vote which is now before the committee, for $3,000,000, is for the purpose which I mentioned. Naturally we will have to come back to parliament for another vote to finish the line, as we are only asking on this occasion for this year, $3,000,000. Frankly I may tell my hon. friend that if I had thought it possible as Minister of Railways to do more than to put the existing line into shape this year, more would have been asked for, because it is the policy of the government to complete this railway.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would the minister also add to the figures he has given, the estimated cost in connection with the channels and various aids to navigation, wharfage, and such elevator facilities as may be contemplated at Port Nelson?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want to complicate this particular vote, because there will be a discussion of that later, but I think probably it would be as well to have all the information on Hansard. It is estimated that it will cost $6,153,000 to complete the railway. It is estimated that the harbour works at Port
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Nelson, including elevator accommodation to the extent of 4,000,000 bushels-I would ask my hon. friend to bear in mind that that is not yet decided upon, but the estimate does
include provision for it-with accommodation in the harbour for ten ships at the same time, will cost $20,200,000. The details of that are as follows:
Statement showing estimated cost of Harbour Works at Port Nelson for Ten 7,000-Ton Ships all in Port
at the same time
Unit Prices 50 per cent greater than are being used in St. Lawrence Project Estimates
Entrance channel and island to opposite Allette 20' below low water, earth and
boulders 1,570,000 yards at $1.60	$ 2,512,000
Along dock face on island-
4.400	ft. to 30 ft. below low water ordinary Spring tide, earth and boulders,
2.700.000	yards at $1.20	 3,240,000
5.400	ft. to 15 ft. below low water ordinary Spring tide, earth and boulders,
1.200.000	yards at $1.20	 1,440,000

4.000	ft. dock walls at 77 yards, 308,000 at 12.00	 3,696,000
Sinking and preparing crib seats .308,000 at 4.00	 1,232,000
3.000	ft. rear crib at 25 yards, 75,000 at 12.00	
900,0004.000	ft. anchorage crib, 12 yards, 48,000 at 12.00	
576,000Anchorage bolts 4,000 ft. at 200 lbs., 8,000,000 at	14c	
112,000Filling of island above elevation, x 7, 1,200,000 at	.60	
720,000

4,000,000 bu shel elevator at $0.90 per bush	 3,600,000
Lighthouse crib at entrance of harbour	 300,000
Add 10 per cent for engineering management
I would point out that the unit prices are based upon a 50 per cent greater unit price than the same engineers are using in connection with the St. Lawrence project estimates, so that surely they can be regarded as fairly accurate. The engineer in question is Mr. D. W. McLachlan, who was engineer at Port Nelson for many years, and who is now chairman of the joint engineering board in regard to the St. Lawrence. The engineer estimates for a 4.000,000 bushel elevator, but I am not prepared to concede that that capacity of storage is necessary. It is rather handling than storage that will be required at a port of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it is to handle any' considerable quantity of grain it would not be anything like sufficient.


Charles Avery Dunning: I take issue with my hon. friend right there. The bushel capacity of an elevator has nothing to do with its handling capacity.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But if at this particular port there will only be seven or eight weeks time for shipment it renders a much larger equipment necessary.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to take issue with my hon. friend on that question at a later stage of the debate. Now, in connection with these figures I want it distinctly understood that I am not committing the government to this expenditure. I anticipated being asked a question as to what the

engineering estimates were with respect to the completion of the terminal at Port Nelson. I want, in this connection, to revert to my previous statement: It is the policy of the government to complete this route as economically as possible in order to enable a fair trial of it to be made. While I have carefully gone over the figures with respect to the vote which is now before the committee, and have carefully gone over the figures with respect to the cost of completing the 92 miles of railway, I cannot say that it has been possible to do the same thing with reference to the estimated cost of the work at Nelson. Not that I am in any way casting doubt upon the engineer's figures as to the work which he proposes, but I am not satisfied that it is necessary to do all the work with which his estimate deals in order to obtain the object sought by the government. I brought down the information exactly as I have it with respect to a port capable of taking at one time ten ships, but without committing the government necessarily to an expenditure as large as that in order to attain the object we have in view.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: Are we to take it that the purpose of this expenditure is merely to test the route, and if that is the case, is it the feasibility of a railway to Port Nelson or the feasibility of the development of the port which is to be tested?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. There are a number of related questions of course. The feasibility

Supply-Hudson Bay Raihmy
of the railway is beyond question. Its utility in other directions than that of transporting the products of the west to the markets of the world can be demonstrated, and will, I have no doubt be demonstrated by. hon. members on both sides who have more intimate knowledge of the situation, acquired on the ground, than I have. The line without question runs through the mineral -belt as to which we have heard a great deal recently in connection with new discoveries. Generally that belt with its mineral possibilities extend across the territory. There are also certain possibilities from the point of view of pulpwood development, undoubtedly very great possibilities from the point of view of power, and great possibilities also from the point of view of wheat and other products. That is so far as the railroad, as such is concerned. 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. I need not make an extended speech upon the subject; it has been before parliament for the last forty years. I feel sure the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) will remember a certain famous political meeting which was being addressed by one of his political friends just before an election out there forty years ago, when a boy came up the aisle with a telegram and handed it to the speaker and the latter said "Thank God the rails are shipped for the Hudson Bay railway
Mr. ROGERS; That was a Liberal candidate.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the story as I
heard it.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: That was
Hugh Sutherland, the Liberal candidate.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never heard of Hugh
Sutherland as a Liberal.


Robert Rogers: He was certainly the
Liberal candidate.


Charles Avery Dunning: On that occasion?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: He reached
years of discretion afterwards.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the gentleman in
question was a Liberal candidate on that occasion he has certainly changed 5 p.m. his political faith since. But forty years is a long time, and I merely used the illustration to show what one of my hon. friend's political friends thought of the matter forty years ago.


Robert Rogers: Quite right.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now we understand each other. My point is that so far as the testing of the route is concerned it is something which has been a matter of repeated discussion and repeated investigation from a theoretical point of view, for the last forty years.


Mr. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Is it necessary to spend $20,000,000 to test that?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not admit that it is necessary to spend $20,000,000 in order to make the test. I wish to make that clear.
I was asked, as I anticipated I would be asked, for the cost as laid down by the engineers of a certain standard development of the port. Hon. gentlemen must clearly understand that this does not commit the government to this particular port development, or commit the government, for instance, to the erection of a 4,000,000 bushel elevator, not by any means. Furthermore, I may call the attention of Hon. members to the fact that in giving $3,600,000 as the estimated cost of a 4,000,000 bushel elevator I was giving the only engineering information available with respect to this particular size of port.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend spoke of
"this particular port." Has he in mind any other port?


Charles Avery Dunning: I may well settle
that question right now.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Trouble maker.


Charles Avery Dunning: The. government has no intention of changing to another port at the present time.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: The Minister of Railways has no doubt made an estimate of the passenger and freight traffic which will be carried over that road on which he is going to spend $6,153,000. Would he be good enough to give to the committee some account of the estimate that he has made in that regard?


Charles Avery Dunning: Some things are very
difficult to estimate. My hon. friend knows for instance that when the Canadian Pacific railway was built out into new country any estimate that might be made as to passenger or freight traffic would be futile indeed. This is a railway reaching out from the Pas to tidewater at an entirely new port. It would be the wildest guess to attempt to estimate what will develop along it. I can only say in general terms what I said a moment ago, namely, that there are certain possibilities of development along the road; there are possibilities in connection with arctic trade upon which some hon. members are, I believe, particularly well informed, and there are, of

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
course, the other possibilities of its use in connection with an overseas route to Europe. I cannot pretend to have made any estimate of revenue along the line requested by my hon. friend, but I can give him some detailed information in connection with one particular product being transported over that route if he will just give me time to look it up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister, while
we are at this interesting point, give some indication of what is in his mind as necessary to test the route? While asking that question I will ask him to deal with two or three phases, for instance, the equipment which he considers necessary to make this test, where and at what cost he expects to secure vessels capable of travelling that route, and also the aids to navigation which it will undoubtedly be necessary to put in for the direction of a commercial route, for example, certain lighthouses, lightships, buoys and so forth, the usual aids to navigation such as exist and must exist on every commercial route. If the minister could give us some idea of the cost of these, it might give us some better estimate of the ultimate cost of this route.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot do that at this time. It must be quite apparent to my hon. friend that investigation is required before one can determine precisely the aids to navigation which are needed. Previous information on the subject does not lead me to believe that any considerable expenditure will be necessary in connection with lighthouses and things of that sort through the strait, and the bay is open sea. Provision is made in the estimates which I have just dealt with for a lighthous at .the entrance to Nelson channel There are related questions upon which I could give general information in a little time. I thought there would be a more or less general discussion which would give me an opportunity of feeding the information more gradually than I have been able to do so far. I think I have under my hand most of the information which is available in the department.
As regards the question asked by the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) as to traffic, I have a memorandum dealing with this point. I think it is recognized by the committee that Mr. R. A. C. Henry of the Canadian National Railway Bureau of Economics is a capable student of these matters, and I do not think I can do better than indicate some facts as gathered by him. The total yield of wheat in Canada last year is now estimated at 411,375,700 bushels, the second largest on record for Canada. To this

total grain yield, the three prairie provinces contributed 382,959,000 bushels. In addition these provinces produced 322,254,000 bushels of oats, 94,141,000 bushels of barley, 11,545,000 bushels of rye and 9,138,000 bushels of flax seed.
Wheat commences to flow towards the elevators in the west about the 1st of September. It is agreed that navigation of Hudson bay and strait is at its best during September and October, and there is very little doubt but that with ordinary aids the period of navigation could be extended until November or a little later in some seasons. Mr. Henry uses two months as the basis of his calculations. I am giving the figures based conservatively by a student of economics on the basis of two months without in any way admitting that navigation is in fact limited to two months. Mr. Henry deals with the seasonal movement aspect of the bay route in a report to the chief engineer of the Department of Railways, in 1918, in the course of which he says:
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 Montreall, and that the necessity of creating an organization for such a short period is a serious factor.
That the season of navigation from Hudson bay as limited -to two and one-hailf 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 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 Bill 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 or three times the average load, so that during this period from two to three times the average number of oars, 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 existence for the short period Iof navigation on the Hudson bay will not be any more serious than doubling or trebling the handling equipment normally in use on the prairie; in fact, the labour equipment, et cetera, could prob-

Supply-Hudson Bay Rauway
abJy (Lye utilized for an extra monitih in relieving the pressure of traffic to the head of the lakes aifter the close of navigation on Hudson bay.
The amount of traffic to be handled is another factor. It would be absolutely foolish to consider shipments limited ito a million bushels or even two million bushels by this route, and the elevator should handle its capacity five times instead of twice as has been suggested.
He then goes on to figure on the basis of a total cost of 329,000,000, 316,000,000 for the railway and $13,000,000 for the terminal, and he concludes that at least 5,000,000 bushels would require to 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 the money invested. Is there any man who doubts for a moment, if grain can be transported over this route, that at least 10,000,000 of the many hundreds of millions of bushels of western grain will go that way? And this gentleman's estimate is that 10,000,000 bushels would clear operating expenses and fixed charges at 3 per cent, on a basis of a $29,000,000 investment. His conclusion was that the first of the new crop would not reach Port Nelson until between September 10 and 15, and that shipments made prior to that date would have tu be made from the previous year's crop. During the fiscal year 1923-24, 61.7 per cent of Canada's wheat crop was exported, and 38.3 per cent utilized in the domestic field. During the fiscal year 1924-25, 56.1 per cent of Canada's wheat was exported and 43.9 per cent utilized within the country. The application of the 60 per cent ratio to last year's wheat crop would mean a wheat export trade of 246,825,000 bushels. The bulk of this wheat is grown in the prairie provinces, and if, oil the Hudson Bay railway and harbaur development being brought to the stage where the practicability of the route could be commercially demonstrated, the grain growers of western Canada were to earmark a moderate percentage of their grain crop for export via this route, a long step could be taken toward establishing the feasibility of the project.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: The minister has not answered my question. He has dealt with the export end of the subject, but a few minutes ago he made a definite statement to the effect that the government would not attempt to build elevators or do any dredging or assume the responsibility for the performance of these things for the export trade this year.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: That is to say, under present conditions.


Charles Avery Dunning: You misunderstood me completely.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: What
position does the minister take?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say we would not do any dredging, and this and that for the export trade. Manifestly such a test as is contemplated could not be made without adequate facilities to permit of the ships coming in and going out, to say the least. And dredging would be necessary before that could take place.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Did not the minister say that he would not commit the government to any expenditure for that sort of work?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I had better repeat what I said to avoid any misapprehension elsewhere. What I did say was that I could not commit the government to the scale of development -the scale of development, I repeat-upon which the engineer's estimates are based; that is to say, a ten-vessel port development and a 4,000,000 bushel terminal elevator. It is simply a question of scale, that is all. We have yet to find out what it will be necessary to do at the port and in the Nelson channel to carry out the government's intention of trying out the route.


Robert Rogers: Does the minister not commit the government to any scale?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, a sufficient scale to permit of a fair trial being made.


Robert Rogers: What does the minister
mean by a sufficient scale?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will say what he means?


Mr. BENNETT:: What is the date of that memorandum the minister has read?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1918.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not take into account the movement of wheat which has since arisen through Vancouver and the Panama canal. That would make a serious difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: As Mr. Henry's figures regarding operating costs and overhead would be met by a 10,000,000 bushel movement, I thought it was not important to elaborate the significance of competitive movements.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Mr. MAROIL:: In order to have a complete record, will the .minister inform the committee how much has been spent so far on the road and on the port respectively?


Charles Avery Dunning: The total already spent on both the road and the port is $21,189,000. That is what the country has invested in the project up to the present time. Of that amount $14,944,000 has gone into the railway, and $6,244,000 into the port. That does not include this year's estimate.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: How much of the $3,000,000 to be voted will be spent this year in the fixing of lines and so on?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am informed by the
engineers that reconditioning is a class of work in which progress is difficult. From the commencement of the line at Le Pas to Mile 214, it is possible for a train to travel over the track, but that does not mean that the line is in operating condition, for any number of trains. As a matter of fact a train is now running over the track to Mile 214 twice a month. From Mile 214 to Mile 332, which is 118 miles, no train has run over the track in years. The track is in very bad shape and it is quite difficult accurately to estimate the length of time it would be necessary to straighten out twisted rails, kinks, and all that sort of thing. I can only say that every effort will be made to put on the fullest organization possible to complete before it is too late what I have outlined as this year's programme. The work will be expedited as much as possible. I am hoping to be able to get the whole of the existing track into shape this year, but this is only a hope; I do not state it as a certainty.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is all the work this year being concentrated on the roadbed, or is anything being done in the way of building stations, putting up tanks, roundhouses, and so on?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the $3,000,000 which I am asking parliament to vote there is included the cost of engines, terminals, and other buildings necessary. The work in connection with these properties will go forward as far as possible simultaneously with the conditioning of the track.


Mr. KAISER:: The minister speaks of trying out the route. That suggests that there are some doubts. What are they?


George Reginald Geary: When the minister speaks of a test I assume he means a test that will reach out into Hudson bay. Does not the test imply a reconditioning of the 332 miles, 
the laying of the 92 miles further, and other works in connection with terminal, port, dredging and aids to navigation as well as some elevator capacity and general equipment necessary on both land and sea? If that be the case, could he give some estimate of what this test will cost in capital expenditure?


Charles Avery Dunning: I regret I cannot. I gave the committee an absolutely outside figure respecting a ten-vessel port development and all that goes with it, including a four million bushel terminal elevator. With regard to the other features that my hon. friend mentions, what does he mean by equipment?


George Reginald Geary: Rolling stock and whatever else is necessary to operate the road.


Charles Avery Dunning: With regard to rolling stock, the road will be operated as it is at present by the Canadian National system.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will require additional rolling stock.


Charles Avery Dunning: There might be some little argument as to whether any additional rolling stock will be required in order to operate this particular road, because to the extent to which goods travel over it they would not go over some other route. I do not think we need worry very much about rolling stock at this point.


George Reginald Geary: Can I get some sort of estimate of what in the minister's opinion a test will cost in capital expenditure? He has given an outside estimate, by which he does not want the situation to be governed. There must be some estimate in his own mind, or which he can get, of a lower figure than this outside figure which will represent the capital expenditure on the test that he says the government desires to make.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I think I have gone as far as is reasonably possible along that line; I do not intend to enter the realm of pure speculation. The cost of the capital developments of an outside character I have already indicated. Beyond that it would be pure speculation on my part to go. In fact I do not believe the capital expenditure estimated by the engineer at Nelson will be all necessary to enable a trial to be made. But my hon. friend will surely allow me to make a little closer examination of that during the coming year. I am asking the committee now to put the existing track into shape, and later on I intend to ask the committee for a further sum of

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
money to complete the railroad and the terminals. By that time I hope to be in a position to say exactly what should be done regarding work on the port.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I observed in the press three days ago that the Hudson's Bay Company was sending out a new ship of some 4,000 tons, equipped as no other ship of that size has ever been equipped by the company. Might it not be well to secure from the company any special observations they may make this year that would be of benefit to us in making a test?


Charles Avery Dunning: I may tell my hon. friend that they have been asked. I was not aware of the particular ship to which my hon. friend refers, but the co-operation of the Hudson's Bay Company we have secured up to now from the point of view of information, and I think w7e have all their ship records.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is a new type of vessel.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am glad of the suggestion, and I will make sure that it is followed up.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, a
moment ago when the minister gave figures with regard to the necessary expenditure on the railway, I asked him just what he had in mind when he spoke of a sufficient expenditure t<o make a test that would be reliable, or words to that effect. I also asked the minister whether it was the feasibility of the railway he desired to test-*


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no doubt about that.


George Brecken Nicholson: -or whether it was the feasibilty of the entire route. In answering that question the minister discussed the traffic that might be developed along that route without regard to the navigation of the Hudson bay or straits, but he did not touch upon the question of navigation. I should like to ask him now:	Does he consider it
necessary to spend $6,000,000 or $8,000,000 on putting the railway into shape so that traffic can be carried over it-that is, a skeleton railway, not a railway capable of handling 'wheat traffic-and provide terminals and elevator equipment in order to determine the navigability of Hudson bay and straits? Surely he is not going to attempt to; run locomotives through the bay and straits. It is ships that are required, not railways at all. If it is a question of the navigation of Hudson 14011-266
bay and straits, is it necessary to spend this money on the railroad to make that test so definitely that all doubt as to whether the straits are navigable will be settled? After you have completed the railway and provided the terminals the question must still be dealt with whether the straits are navigable. Will' your railway assist in any way to determine that doubt?-an honest doubt that exists in the minds of a great many people.


Thomas Hay: Mr. Chairman, the navigability
of the straits was demonstrated over 200 years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend from
Springfield (Mr. Hay) says that the navigability of the straits has been proven for over 200 years. I do not want to get into any quibbles on the question of what a test means. Manifestly these straits are navigable:	They have been navigated continuously for over 200 years. They were being navigated continuously during the period my hon. friends opposite were in office and taking in the necessary materials and supplies for the harbour development at Nelson. When I spoke of a test I spoke of a commercial test of the route as a route.


George Brecken Nicholson: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not as to whether the
straits are navigable. We know the straits are navigable; there is not any doubt about that. There is some difference of opinion respecting the period each year during which they are navigable, and the evidence on that varies very widely, but I think all will agree that the Senate committee which investigated the matter a few years ago put the minimum at two and a half months.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four months,


Charles Avery Dunning: Did the Senate committee say that?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Our estimates are based
upon a minimum of two and a half months. Surely we are reasonablly conservative in that regard. I think I have made the point clear:	It is a commercial test which is required, a test which cannot be undertaken until you have the railway completed to the bay and can get to tidewater.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman,.the hon. minister suggested I was quibbling in connection with this.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


George Brecken Nicholson: I am in the judgment of the committee as to that. The minister says that the navigability of the straits has been demonstrated for 200 years.


Thomas Hay: Yes, more.


George Brecken Nicholson: So has the navigation of Coronation gulf been demonstrated in the same way; but would anyone suggest we should ship our wheat out through the Mackenzie river? The minister came to the point when he said it is a commercial test that is required. The test is: How many trips can a vessel constructed for carrying grain or freight make through the straits in any one season. Do you require to complete the railway to make that test? I say to the minister now that for the expenditure of one-half the money that is now being asked he could make a complete definite test-not something that is based on the experience of a man who worked his way through the icefields one year in July, another year in August. Last July a Hudson's Bay Company ship was crushed to pieces in the straits.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is my hon. friend sure of that?
M-. NICHOLSON: Yes, I am sure of it; I had a personal friend who was on board, and who with his wife was taken off across the ice. I realize that that is no argument, but the point is that you are building a railway there and spending a lot of money. In connection with that part of the railway which taps the country from which local freight may be secured, that is an entirely different question. But when you speak of building a railway to Port Nelson, and building at Port Nelson grain elevators and terminals for ships in order to test the commercial navigability of Hudson straits, you are simply throwing that much money away. The straits must be tested with ships, not with railways; you can put your ships back and forth through these straits and in that way find out whether or not the route is navigable.


Robert Rogers: The Hudson Bay railway and its proper construction have been matters of great moment to the people of the prairie provinces for many years. The hopes of those people are centred upon that route as being an outlet through which they may get their wheat and grain to the markets of the world at a very much lower rate than exists to-day. I must say, however, that I am sure the statement of the minister will be read with very great regret by the people of the west. They had their hopes raised even by the minister himself. A short time ago he made several speeches in regard to this matter, and in a

speech delivered in Saskatchewan he is reported in the Regina Leader of March 9, 1926, as follows:
Saskatchewan's political importance has become great says Hon. Charles A. Dunning. Tells Liberal women he is no ambassador of sectionalism and goes to tihe east to assist in developing a real Canadianism.
That was a very splendid declaration, and I congratulate the minister upon it. Later he dealt with the Hudson Bay railway, and this is what he said:
"As for the Hudson Bay railway," Mr. Dunning said, "we've been looking with longing eyes to our nearest sea coast, and in doing so are but following the national trend of thought; from time immemorial people have clone that.'' He wont on to say that forty years ago statesmen were promising to build the way to the Bay.
Probably this is what my hon. friend had in mind when he spoke a few moments ago.
Much of the road that has been built needed renovation, and ninety miles of steel were still unlaid. He did not believe the people should spend more money on it than was needed to give at a fair trial, but the fair -trial could not be given while the steel was ninety miles from the Bay.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend brings in an estimate of $3,000,000 which he claims will be all required to renovate the 332 miles already constructed, and apparently no provision has been made for the extension of the railway to the bay. This is where the disappointment will arise, because my hon. friend gave his pledge to the people of Saskatchewan that this ninety miles of railway would be constructed. The people of the west are tired of being put off with promises in this regard.
As my hon. friend has said, for forty years and more these people have had to live upon promises. The Liberal party was in power for fifteen years; they were promising the railway before they came into office; they were promising it when they went out of office, but they did not construct one mile. In 1911 the Conservative party came into office pledged to the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, and we immediately started to work, building the 332 miles spoken of and grading the line to Nelson. We also did a large amount of work at the terminal. This work would have been completed had it not been for war conditions which prevented.


Charles Avery Dunning: My bon. friend is surely aware that work continued until October, 1918.


Robert Rogers: Of course; that is what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: And then the war stoped it?


Robert Rogers: Yes, the war conditions got worse and stopped it. However, the Conservative party was not in office then; it was the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
party of my hon. friend. I am not responsible for conditions under the Union government. These conditions were such, however, that there was some excuse for a delay in the completion of the railway but now, after all the promises that have been made by the Liberals, surely the time has come when they should endeavour to fulfil honestly and honourably some of their pledges. I think even my hon. and smiling friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will agree that seldom if ever have the Liberal party fulfilled any pledge, in regard to the construction of railways in this country. I think it would be very difficult for any hon. member to mention one such pledge properly kept.
However, that is aside from the question and I am not going to introduce anything of that kind into this discussion. As I have already said, the people of the prairie provinces will undoubtedly be very much disappointed, primarily because they look to that route as their natural outlet. The interference with freight rates in the west, which has added to the cost of their transportation, has disappointed them very much. These increases were effected by hon. gentlemen opposite; they have been complained of strongly, and have been the means of urging the claim of the west for the completion of this route. As a representative of the province of Manitoba and western Canada it is my duty to urge in this House by every means within my power such assistance as will tend towards the completion of that undertaking in order that these conditions may be relieved.
I have found since I came to this House that there is a very wrong impression existing in the minds of many members of this parliament in respect to western Canada. First of all, some members think that we are a spoon-fed lot out in western Canada. I would say to my friends in this House that the people of western Canada have been a long-suffering people in the matter of freight rates and transportation costs, which have borne very heavily upon them. We have in the prairie provinces more miles of railway than there are in all the rest of Canada. Further, the net earnings of those miles of railway in western Canada represent greater net earnings by $1,000 per mile than do the railways in eastern Canada. I have some figures here, Mr. Chairman, that go to show the correctness of that statement, and it is not to be wondered at, in view of this fact, that we in western Canada claim that we have a condition in that portion of the country which requires some consideration at the hands of this parliament and at the hands of eastern Canada. We can never hope to 14011-2661
grow and prosper save and except as we get better transportation costs. I should like to give a few figures to the committee to make clear how we are discriminated against in western Canada in respect to freight rates.
Take the article of lumber, for instance, which is an item of great interest to the people. Let us compare the freight rate on a shipment of lumber between two points in western Canada and the rate for a similar distance between two points in eastern Canada-and I give these figures only for the purpose of bringing home to your minds the conditions as they exist in western Canada in this connection. Suppose a farmer or any other person wishes to ship a car of lumber from Megantic, Quebec, to Toronto, a distance of 503 miles. He has to pay a rate of 204 cents per 100 pounds. Now supposing a man in Golden, British Columbia is shipping a car load of lumber to Waldeck in Saskatchewan, a distance of 506 miles. He has to pay a rate of 354 cents per 100 pounds, or 73 per cent more than the rate the man in Toronto has to pay for a similar distance. The same thing applies if you take a shipment from Megantic, Quebec, to Ingersoll, Ontario, a distance of 596 miles, and compare the rate on that shipment with the rate from Golden, British Columbia to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, a distance of 606 miles, or 10 miles more. The farmer in Saskatchewan ha3 to pay 80 per cent more in freight rates on the shipment of that car of lumber than does the farmer at Ingersoll for a shipment over a slightly less distance. Take a shipment from St. John, New Brunswick, to Hamilton, Ontario, a distance of 850 miles, and compare the rate paid there with a shipment from Vancouver to Walsh, Alberta, a distance also of 850 miles. The farmer in Alberta has to pay 83 per cent more freight rates on that shipment thaD does the man living in Hamilton.
I place these figures before the committee in order that hon. members who do not understand conditions in western Canada as well as they should be expected to understand them will be careful before they make statements in regard to the conditions under which the people of western Canada have been suffering in the matter of transportation costs for a very long time.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Is there a difference in the operating expenses of the railways in the different parts of Canada mentioned, and if there is a difference, can it be justified?


Robert Rogers: I think the expense of
transportation in western Canada is no higher to the railways than in eastern Canada.

Private Bills


William Findlay Maclean: Therefore the
railways are not acting fairly by western Canada?


Robert Rogers: I would not want to say that. I am only giving the rates. The whole difficulty, Mr. Chairman, is that the farmer when he takes his grain to market is unable to get a price which will enable him to conserve the fertility of the soil and properly help him in conducting his work upon the land. He gets a price that not only does not give him a fair living wage, but gives him no return on his investment. Why should the farmers of our prairie provinces be expected to grow grain and exhaust the virgin soil by having to sell their products at a price that will neither enable them to conserve the fertiSty of the soil nor give them a living wage for themselves and their families. That is the reason why there is this demand upon the part of the people of western 'Canada for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway.
If we had been treated fairly by the Transcontinental railway or in connection with the Canadian Northern Railway, we would not probably have to make the same claim we are making to-day in connection with the building of the Hudson Bay railway. In the case of the Transcontinental railway, as you ail know, parliament pledged this country to build the line for $13,000,000, but here we have been this session grappling with liabilities incidental to * that great undertaking which, with interest added, amount to probably $2,500,000,000. That is an enormous figure; we are paying interest on it from year to year, and we are getting no relief whatever from that source. My friends opposite were not satisfied with the building of the Transcontinental line; they wanted to add another transcontinental, and so they extended the Canadian Northern railway from Port Arthur down to Montreal in order to connect with the ports of Montreal and Quebec and provide an outlet for the products of the farm. We looked forward with some hope for years for some good to come out of the arrangements made for the construction of these railways. In fact, when the Canadian Northern in 1911 was given the necessary aid by hon. gentlemen opposite to extend the line to Montreal and so establish another Transcontinental railway, it was on the condition that we would develop our own Canadian ports. But I would ask hon members of this House to tell me what good the Transcontinental railway or the Canadian Northern Railway have been in the matter of the development of our Canadian ports in the Maritime provinces or in the cities of Quebec or Montreal? The fact is that these

difficulties arise by reason of the great cost incident to their construction. In 1911 when the farmers and the people of Saskatchewan went before the railway commission at the city of Regina to protest in the matter of freight rates they were there met by the legal representatives of the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific and the National Transcontinental lines. Mr. C. P. Wilson appeared for the Transcontinental Railway at that time, and what was his defence on that occasion? It was in effect that in view of the heavy cost of the construction of their line it would be impossible for them to make any reduction in the freight rates and meet the fixed charges on the road. This, no doubt, is the true state of affairs. That is why we have this continual agitation for another outlet such as the Minister of Railways has described to Hudson bay.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS ' CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 113, respecting the Bronson Company.-Mt. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Mabel Ellen Barrett.-Mr. Simpson.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Mabel Victoria Westerby.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Morgan Hart. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 120, for the relief of James Arthur Breadon.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Marjorie Esther Splan.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Gladys Orme. -Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 123, for the relief of John Andrew Reid.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of William Thomas Charlton Spence.-Mr. M-cLenaghan.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Gladys Lucie White.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Robert Stewart McIntyre.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No 127, for the relief of Goldie Luella Russell.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 12S, for the relief of Arthur Atkinson.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Lillian Edith Hudgin.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 130, for the relief of Mary Booth. 

Mr. Anderson (Toronto).

Divorce Legislation
Bill No. 131, for the relief of Bernard Ernest Sleeth.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 132, for the relief of Elsie Fray.- Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Cecilia Marne Peters Kendall-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 134, for the relief of Elias Malky. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 135, for the relief of Ethel Beatrice Walker-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 136, for the relief of George Elgie Dulyea.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 137, for the relief of John Wilson. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 138, for the relief of John Sydney Wright.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 139, for the relief of Lillie Torrance Cascadden.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 140, for the relief of James Thomas Young.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 141, for the relief of Copland William Evans.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 142, for the relief of Arthur John Harman.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 143, for the relief of Annie Rebecca Herbert.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 144, for the relief of David Joseph Potter.-Mr. Stinson.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of Walter Harold Bingley.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Ethel Harriett Little.-Mr. Tummon.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 155, respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company.-Mr. Marcil.
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Samuel Wex-ler.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Samuel Lehman Stouffer.

Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Robert Douglas Ian McLeod.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Mary Margaret McOolgan Vinette Graydon.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Alexander Charles Boyd.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Charles Day. -Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Albert Wilson Denning.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Margaret Lambert.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Jessie Patterson.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Ernest Ashton. -Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Evelyn Christine Stewart.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Ernest Love.- Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Charles Stanley Reed Riches.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Mona Aileen Davies.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Elizabeth Wright.-Mr. McClenaghan.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest against the time of this House, when we are engaged in an important debate near the close of the session, being taken up with these divorce bills. There ought to be some court in this country to try these cases. [DOT] This parliament is not the place to try them, and it is an insult to parliament to have them tried here. I think it only needs someone to make a protest to have this nuisance stopped, and I appeal to the Prime Minister. The premiers of the different provinces are meeting here to-day, and he might get into consultation with them to try and put an end to this nuisance. But if we have got to stand it, surely we could simplify the process of treating these cases. If they have to be dealt with here, why should not the Senate make one report to the Commons covering all the divorce cases heard in the upper house, so that only one motion would be necessary here? I make that suggestion.
I notice that forty-eight divorce bills have gone through to-night, twenty for the relief of women and twenty-eight for the relief of men. It seems they are pretty equally divided, and while I am going to draw no inference from that, I do say that it is high time, Mr. Speaker, that this nuisance should end. There are men in this House who, for religious reasons, do not wish to vote on these motions, but they have to do it. I close simply by saying to the Prime Minister, to the government and to hon. members that it is high time that the trying of divorce cases in the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada should stop.


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, according to the rules of procedure I have to put the motions for the different stages of these bills. I cannot avoid doing that. I cannot divorce my own personal views from the rules of procedure.

The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Hudson Bay Railway: Construction and betterment, $3,000,000.


Robert Rogers: When the House rose at six o'clock I had just quoted a statement made by Mr. Wilson, representing the Na-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
ci'onal' Railways, then the Transcontinental railway, before the railway commission sitting in the -city of Regina, in which he pointed out that it was impossible for that company to reduce freight rates owing to the cost of construction of that railway. I want now to quote from Mr. Phippen, who represented the Canadian Northern Railway, as to why it was necessary to have such low rates in western Canada. Mr. Phippen said:
We have the fact thait owing to special circumstances created jby ithe action of the government of the province of Manitoba, the rates from the head of the Lakes to Winnipeg are lowered to a standard which we would not expect to find if these rates were governed by normal conditions, in so far as they affected that district.
Then Sir J. A. M. Aikins, representing the Canadian Pacific Railway, pointed out then position in the following language:
So far as ithe Canadian Pacific Railway is concerned, the company takes this position, that by virtue of the reductions that were forced upon the Northerr Pacific and Manitoba Railway, and subsequently upon the Canadian Northern Railway, the conditions in Manitoba were such as to make it highly competitive for the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway was not a party to that agreement, but by virtue of the reduction of tolls through these statutory agreements the conditions were such that they became highly competitive and the Canadian Pacific Railway was compelled to meet these competitive conditions.
That accounts for the rate reduction which we had in Manitoba, in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta, at that particular time, because, as hon. members from the west at all' events will know, by reason of an agreement reached with the Canadian Pacific Railway the reduction was extended in 1903, under the Manitoba contract, to the then Northwest Territories, that reduction being two cents per one hundred pounds on grain from all stations in that great territory. That reduction continued in force and effect for over eighteen years until it was interfered with by hon. gentlemen opposite in 1922. So that when certain hon. members of this House undertake to tell this parliament that the rate charged to the farmers of western Canada from 1903 to 1922 was the Crowsnest pass rate, they make a statement that is not in accordance with the facts, because during that long period of time not one pound of freight was carried in all the provinces of western Canada at the Crowsnest rate. It was all carried on rates fixed by contract made with the government of Manitoba.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I do not desire to be guilty of discourtesy towards him, but I do wish to point out in regard to the discussion from this point on, that if we are to enter into a

general discussion of freight rates, it wiii scarcely be in order on the motion which is now before the committee. There is a certain relationship, of course, between the prospective cost of moving freight via the Hudson Bay railway and the existing cost. While I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, I think it would be very unfortunate if the debate on the Hudson Bay railway vote developed into a general discussion in relation to rates on existing lines. I merely make that suggestion without raising the point of order, but in the interest of keeping to the point.


Robert Rogers: The rates in western Canada are all related to the proposals in respect to the Hudson Bay railway. I quite realize that I may not be privileged to go into the details of rates outside, but the committee is really considering the railway estimates in general, with particular reference to the Hudson Bay railway vote. If my hon. friend objects, however, I shall have to submit. In that event I promise my hon. friend I will take advantage of another opportunity to deal with this matter and may then occupy a great deal more time than if I were allowed to finish my statement to-night, which I would do in a comparatively short time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no intention of stopping my hon. friend.


Robert Rogers: If the minister persists in these technical objections I will have to submit, but I promise him that I will devote some attention to the matter at a later date


Charles Avery Dunning: May I say that I did not raise the point of order? We have listened to such speeches already this session have we not?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend has not listened to any speech of mine. That is a very unfair statement on his part, much more so than anything I should expect from him. The minister will find that he will have lots to do to take care of himself without endeavouring to speak for anybody else. If I am to be confined strictly to the rule I wish to say this: The present proposal in regard to the Hudson Bay railway is not of the character that was pledged by my hon. friend, by the_ Prime Minister and by the government, not only in the Speech from the Throne but in ministerial speeches made elsewhere. All that is proposed here is a vote of $3,000,000 in respect of that line. Now what was the position of the Minister of Railways when

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
he spoke on this project in Regina on March 17th? This is what he said on that occasion:
Mr. Dunning said that "Bob" Rogers had been flapping bus wings and was somewhat concerned as to what his, Mr. Dunning's, attitude was.
That is in respect to the Hudson Bay railway.
"Mr. Rogers had said that the opposition in the Saskatchewan legisJature had moved an amendment to the Hudson Bay resolution and lost out and that man Dunning would bear watching." Mr. Dunning then told the story of the attempts of the opposition in Saskatchewan a few months ago in connection with this resolution.
Then he goes on to say:
My attitude on the Hudson Bay railway is very simple. It is my job from now on to build it and I am going to do it. The job has got to be done.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Robert Rogers: And yet the hon. gentleman comes down to-night with a proposition that does not provide for the building of one mile of that railway. That is how he intends to fulfil his pledge. Still that is in harmony with the record of the Liberal party throughout the whole history of this Dominion. I challenge hon. gentlemen opposite to name any occasion when they have honourably and honestly fulfilled any railway contract they have ever made. If they had done so we would not be discussing the Hudson bay project to-night, and we would not be suffering, as we are suffering in western Canada, on account of the lack of fair treatment in the matter of railway legislation on the part of the Liberal government. We are forced to look for relief in some quarter, but we shall not get it from the legislation which hon. gentlemen opposite are proposing in connection with the Hudson Bay railway.
Now let me make one more point and I shall have done. In the Speech from the Throne, placed in the hands of His Excellency by the government, I find the following:
My govemmemt propose to submit provisions for the completion forthwith of the Hudson Bay railway.
What provision do they submit to-night? They submit a proposal to repair a portion of the line that is already built. In my opinion that line could do all the 9 p.m. business it was required to do without very much repair. I take it the present vote of $3,000,000 is only an attempt to fulfil a promise made to a certain group in this parliament and to the people of western Canada, It is not proposed to build a single mile of railway in fulfilment of the pledge contained in the Speech from the Throne. Yet the people of this country, and of western Canada in particular, are expected to believe the statements being made by the
Minister of Railways in this matter. Is it any wonder that we are excited in western Canada when we view the disappearance of the last hope we had of getting relief in the matter of railway freight rates? Is it any wonder that we feel this way in view of what has occurred in this House to-night?
I fancy that some people in the west'will not be surprised at what has occurred, but a great many of them will be when they find out that once again their hopes have been dashed to the ground, that once again the Liberal party have failed them. The Liberal party were very strong in their pledge when parliament opened to construct this railway forthwith. That was when they were appealing to certain quarters of the House for support, support which they expected to receive and which they have enjoyed throughout the session. Now when the session is about to close they simply bring in a vote to repair the Hudson Bay line and they state that the work is going to cost $3,000,000 when it could be done for two hundred thousand or three or four hundred thousand dollars at the most. That is the situation with which we are faced to-night. I appeal to the sense of honour of every member of this House no matter where he sits. I ask every member from the west to consider what position he will place himself in and what his constituents will think of him when such a proposition is made in view of the pledge broadcast through the country that the Hudson Bay railway would be completed forthwith? I ask every hon. member from western Canada what they think of the deception which has been practised on parliament and the country by the government of the day in regard to the construction of this line? That is all I have to say for the present but I promise you, Mr. Chairman, that I will take an early opportunity of dealing with the general record of the Liberal party to the satisfaction, I hope, of the House and the people seeing that I am denied the privilege of doing so to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have just a few remarks to make with reference to the speech of the hon. member for South Winnipeg. I do not intend to say much on the political aspect of the matter. .Apparently we on this side of the House are to be placed in this position:	We are to be attacked by hon.
members along the line just adopted by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) for not putting enough money into the estimates for the Hudson Bay railway and we are at the same time to be attacked by other hon. gentlemen opposite, some of whom have already given an indication of their sentiments in that regard, for putting

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
anything at all into the estimates for the Hudson Bay railway. The hon. member for South Winnipeg assured us this afternoon that a wave of great regret would go over western Canada at the news that there was $3,000,000 to be used on the Hudson Bay railway. I think I am as intimately acquainted with the 'people of western Canada as is my hon. friend. They are people of plain common sense and they know that you cannot build 92 miles of new railway on the end of an old one if you cannot get over the old one to the place where you want to start construction.
My hon. friend well knows that the present bi-monthly operation is only from Le Pas to mile 214; that the travel even for those 214 miles	is	not	very safe	and certainlywould not	be	safe	if the traffic	were heavier.He knows perfectly well also that from mile 214 to mile 333 there has not been a train over the road for a number of years and that a train cannot pass over it. I have sufficient regard for the common sense of the people of western Canada to know that they will realize that until at least that stretch of 118 miles	is	put	into shape	it would beimpossible	to	proceed to lay	rails on the
balance of the 92 miles.
During the period when the Conservative government and the Union government were building the Hudson Bay Railway there never was a year when they spent more than $3,250,000 on that railroad; they found it impossible even at full blast to expend more than $3,250,000 in one year. I am asking parliament for authority to spend $3,000,000 this year, and the work is already proceeding on the basis of the interim supply that is granted. A large part of this $3,000,000, as I indicated this afternoon, is required for the purpose of providing engine terminal facilities at the various divisional points along the existing road. My hon. friends opposite, when they built the railroad, made no provision for engine terminal facilities, for stations, for water tanks, for the necessary paraphernalia of operating a road. We intend to supply that deficiency. We do not think it is practical to try to operate 500 miles of railroad without the necessary railway engine terminal facilities and other things of that kind. The money is required for that purpose. What my hon. friend virtually proposes is this, that by some means unknown to mechanical science we should start at the end of the present steel and rush the work into Nelson regardless of the fact that trains could not travel over the existing steel in order to reach the new work. I would personally have been willing to put 
into the estimates a larger sum, a sum sufficient to complete the 92 miles, were it not for the fact that it would be deceiving the people of Canada to say to them that it would be possible in one year to put the existing track into shape and at the same time to construct the additional 92 miles required. My hon. friend knows that just as well as I do.
I want to put on Hansard a little history in connection with this question in order that we may all be clear in regard to it. In 1886 the Dominion Lands Act provided for a grant of 6,400 acres for every mile of such railway in Manitoba and 12,800 acres for every mile of the railway beyond the boundary of Manitoba to the bay. In 1906 the construction of the branch from Hudson Bay junction to the Saskatchewan river was commenced by Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann. In 1907 the sale of pre-emptions was authorized by an amendment of the Dominion Lands Act to provide funds for the construction of a publicly-owned railroad to the bay. In 1908 the Canadian Northern was completed to Le Pas. Le Pas being the starting point of the Hudson Bay railway. The provisions for land grants to private railway companies were repealed in that year. The restriction of the preemption area was provided by legislation, together with a definite announcement that the sale of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads in the restricted area was to provide funds to enable the country to construct, or to pledge the credit of the country to construct, a railroad to Hudson bay. On the 6th September, 1910, the first sod of the substructure of the bridge across the Saskatchewan river at Le Pas was turned by the Minister of Railways, the Hon. Mr. Graham. In August, 1911, the contract for the first section of the Hudson Bay railway was let by the Laurier government.


Robert Rogers: That was a month before
the election.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: When was the contract signed?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the information with me


Donald Sutherland: Two days after the defeat of the Liberal government they signed the contract.


Charles Avery Dunning: The contract for the
first section was signed by the Hon. Mr. Graham immediately after the election and before the Laurier government went out of power.


Donald Sutherland: After they were defeated.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway


Charles Avery Dunning: The contract for the
second section was let by the Borden government in 1912.


Mr. MANION:: How much was the first
section?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: A contract of 185 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that is right. In August, 1912, Port Nelson and Fort Churchill were visited by the then Minister of Railways, the late Hon. Frank Cochrane, and Port Nelson was selected as the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway. In December, 1912, the contract was let for the final section of the railway. In 1913 work was actively in progress on the terminals at Nelson. In the autumn of 1917 the work on the harbour terminals was closed down. In March, 1918, the pre-emption and homestead provisions of the Dominion Lands Act were suspended by order in council and subsequently deleted from the act by the amendment of 191S, chapter 19, section 28. In October, 1918, work on the railway was suspended with tracks laid to mile 332 including the bridge over the Nelson river, and the road was then turned over to the Canadian Northern board for operation. I mentioned that the most that was ever expended on railway construction in any one year during the whole period of construction was $3,256,000.
Some questions were raised this afternoon by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mi. Nicholson) regarding the practicability of the route. I offer as evidence in that connection the report of the Senate committee of 1920. I do not think it can be said that the committee in question was geographically packed in favour of the west. It consisted of six Conservatives and five Liberals, the names of the gentlemen being as follows: Senator Fowler, New Brunskick, Chairman; Senator Daniel, New Brunswick; Senator Lougheed, Alberta; Senator Miehener, Alberta; Senator Sohaffner, Manitoba; Senator Willoughby, Saskatchewan ; Senator Bostock, British Columbia; Senator Casgrain, Quebec; Senator Dandu-rand, Quebec; Senator De Veber, Alberta and Senator Watson, Manitoba. There was only one member from Saskatchewan, and there were two from Manitoba, three from Alberta, one from British Columbia, two from Quebec and two from New Brunswick. Neither British Columbia nor Quebec nor New Brunswick could be regarded as partial to the Hudson Bay project and I believe the attitude of Alberta even at that date might be described as strictly judicial. The committee made a unanimous report to -which I would
refer the hon. gentleman for an answer. This was one of its findings:
Your committee makes the following findings:
(1)	That the Hudson Bay route is feasible and will probably in time be profitable.
A committee such as this and appointed by such a body surely could not be accused of being wildly visionary or radical; surely it would weigh carefully all the evidence submitted, extracts from which may be found in the pages of the report. It is of course impossible to estimate the cost of such a project as this as accurately as one could in planning a branch line in known territory. There are many unknown or little known factors in this case, but it is worthy of note that a committee appointed by the Senate of Canada as recently as 1920 should reach unanimously, on a question of this nature, such a report as has been submitted.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Will the minister read
the third finding.


Charles Avery Dunning: I.will read them all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Read the whole report.


Charles Avery Dunning: The report itself covers
three or four pages and most of it would not be to the liking of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have read it.


Charles Avery Dunning: These are the findings
of the committee:
Your committee makes (the following findings upon the evidence adduced before them:
(1)	That the Hudson Bay route is feasible and will probably in time be profitable.
(2)	That the season of navigation under present conditions is at least four months in length and may by reason of improvements in aids to navigation be considerably increased.
I here call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that this afternoon I presented figures based only on two and a half months of navigation.
(3)	That in the opinion of this committee sufficient care was -not taken in the selection of Nelson as the terminus of the railway, and that the government should not make further important expenditures upon this port without first making a new and thorough examination into the relative merits of Churchill and Nelson as a terminus for the railroad.
(4)	That -the waters of the strait and rivers tributary to the bay teem with fish and valuable marine animals, and we believe that the bay is equally well stocked but there has not yet been sufficient data collected as to the extent of the fisheries of the bay to enable an authoritative statement to be made as to their value.
(5)	That the mines already discovered in the Hudson Bay district are of sufficient number and richness to indicate the existence of great potential mineral wealth.
(6)	Your committee feel that they cannot too strongly endorse the valuable suggestion of Mr. Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Stefansson as fto the cultivation of reindeer and muskox, and would urge upon the government that the Department of the Interior ibe empowered to take hold of this matter, earnestly taking advantage of what has been done in this regard by <tihe United States government.
Then they go on to make a reference to the explorations of Mr. Stefansson which of course is a matter that is not vital to the subject we are now discussing.
The province of Ontario has always displayed an interest in development in that part of the country and has been most anxious to secure rail communication with Hudson bay. When Nelson was selected as the terminus of the railway, arrangements were made to provide access to that point for the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway. Several yeara ago Ontario commenced the extension of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway northerly from Cochrane in the direction of Moose Foctory on James Bay, and I am informed that about one-third of this extension has been completed and is in operation. It is interesting to study the experience of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway inasmuch as it has provided a spectacular instance of the benefits which sometimes result from the construction of railways having for their object the development of latent natural resources-resources of the type to which I made reference this afternoon when discussing the possibilities of local traffic on the Hudson bay line. The Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway was originally projected to open to settlement the agricultural clay belt of the Temiskaming district. Before the good land was reached the construction of the railway revealed the rich silver deposits at Cobalt, while the more northerly construction made possible the development of the gold areas of the Porcupine; and several branch lines were found necessary to tap the considerable mining fields which were discovered. I have here a great deal of information which I may sum up in this statement: Including nickel and copper from the Sudbury area as a result of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, there has been produced in the area served by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, and in the Sudbury area as well, a total mineral wealth of more than $800,000,000 up to the end of 1925. And these figures do not take into consideration the development since the construction of the railway of the forest products taken out of that territory nor of agricultural development. The same general mineral formation in which valuable deposits have been found along the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway extends northwestwardly through the

new Red lake mineral field about which we have heard much in the House recently, and on up to Herb lake and the Flin Flon area on the Hudson bay road. We have reason to hope that considerable and very valuable mineral traffic may develop on the Hudson Bay railway. As I shall probably have to make a number of speeches on different phases of the subject as various members advance their ideas, I do not think I need say anything further at the moment.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Is this $3,000,000
estimate based upon any report available to the House, showing the present condition of the railway?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no such report available. The officers of the Canadian National Railway, who submitted this estimate, are at present in charge of the road, and consequently have had an oppor tunity of studying in detail such reports as are submitted by the men on the ground. I have consulted! with these men. I may tell my hon. friend frankly that I desired, quite naturally, that if possible money should be spent beyond the end of the present steel; that was my wish. But the engineers and the operating officers of the Canadian National Railways convinced me that we should be proceeding much more wisely if we decided to put the existing road into shape rather than run the risk of subjecting it to more traffic than now passes over the road, with resultant wrecks. The cost of one wreck as a result of a faulty track would provide for quite a little work in the way of reconditioning the road.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: There is no report available?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. I have read, of course, from the reports of the officers.


Mr. MULLINS:: Mr. Chairman, this is a
question I have been vitally interested in- for a great many years, and I have given it much thought and study. I happen to be one of those now in the House who was present at a political meeting thirty-eight years ago when this question was brought before the electors of Winnipeg. We were then told we were going to have this railway. We had a telegram dangled before us that the steel was on the way. It has been on the way ever since.
I want to see this railway finished1. The hon. Minister of Railways has placed in the estimates a certain sum to repair the Hudson Bay railway. From my seat in this House I want to say that the railway does require repairs. I have travelled over it to mile 184, and I know its condition. But in my opinion

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
he has allowed not only sufficient money to repair that piece of road but to continue the steel a long way towards Port Nelson.
A great deal is being said, Mr. Chairman, about which port we should go to; the question is raised whether we should go to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill. For my part, I say let us finish the road to Port Nelson, and finish it quickly. The Minister of Railways has covered the points that I had intended to deal with in that he has quoted from the report of the Senate committee on the Hudson Bay route, and therefore I shall not deal with the matter at any length. But I want to ask the minister, does the Hudson Bay railway get credit for the ties and the rails that were removed and used on the Canadian National?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, for every dollar.


Henry Alfred Mullins: And for the supplies that
were sold to the Hudson's Bay Company's factor?


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all credited.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I thank you. I received
a letter from The Pas stating that small ties were being placed upon the main line. In that regard I want to make an apology to the Minister of Railways, for I find those ties were being used for sidings and not for the main line, although some of them were spread along the main line. Those little six-inch ties were not suitable for the main line.
I am sorry a number of my Conservative friends seem to have doubts as to the feasibility of this route. I have no doubts whatever ; I have confidence in the navigability of the straits. The completion of that road will give us in central Canada a port within easy reach. Geographically situated as we are in the west, it will be a relief to us to get this means of transportation. That is what we are clamouring for, and the tariff and other issues that we have been talking about sink into insignificance alongside the transportation question for the man who is on the land in western Canada. So I appeal to my fellow-members to be fair to western Canada. Don't be too drastic in your ideas. You got $153,000,000 for canals in eastern Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: For the west.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I have the estimates
here, and I notice the total at the bottom is $153,167,000. You sold a quantity of land of ours and have the money on hand1, and we ask you to complete the railway, for even if the straits were never navigable-of course, I contend that they are navigable-this railway
will pay for itself out of the local freight. I know that country from personal experience. It is rich in minerals, it is rich in agriculture right through to Nelson, and the bay is rich in fish. It is a wonderful piece of country, and I ask doubting Thomases to change their minds and let the road be completed instead of throwing barriers in the way.
I want to make an explanation, Mr. Chairman. I am speaking not from my seat tonight because I want the Manitoba Free Press to know that I was here when this question came up. For some reason or other they stated I was not present on the former occasion-Friday-when this question was discussed. The hon. Minister of Railways knows I was here.


Charles Avery Dunning: You were here.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. Deputy Speaker knows I was present; but it was published in western Canada that I was absent. I have travelled since eight o'clock this morning over several branch lines of railway in order to be present for fear that the question would come up to-night. I do not want to talk cattle any more, but I want to say, Mr. Chairman, there is no route so well adapted for getting the live stock of western Canada overseas as the Hudson Bay route. It is a cool route. The ships will be nice and cool.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Not too cool, because up at Hudson bay the season is further advanced at the present time than it is here. While we had snowbanks in front of these buildings piled mountain high, there was balmy weather at Hudson bay. I have Hansard here away back for the last thirty years, and I find during that time every party that came into power promised to build a piece of that railway. The project has been dangling in front of us ever since. I am tired of these delays. Let us build the road, and build it quickly. Give us a chance to demonstrate to you that what was said at the time the Canadian Pacific railway was projected, that all the land west of lake Superior was only a frozen, barren wilderness, is just as misleading when applied to the country which this railway will serve. Whenever in the pursuit Of my business I have crossed the Atlantic I have met old sailors and asked them where they have been, they have told me they were up in the Hudson bay, and they have always added that they would rather navigate the Hudson Bay straits than the straits of Belle Isle. There are more icebergs in the straits of Belle Isle than in the Hudson Bay straits. If anything like the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
Titanic disaster had happened there the Hudson Bay route would be condemned. The island of Anticosti is dotted so thickly with wrecks that you can hardly stick a pin in the map without touching the scene of one. I have had cattle ships wrecked on that island. I know the Hudson Bay route is not anything like that. I feel absolutely satisfied that the completion of the Hudson Bay railway and the opening up of this route will give western Canada redress in the way of transportation. It is hard on live stock to rail them all the way from western Canada to Montreal or the Atlantic seaboard. That is what takes it out of them; the ship does not. By the opening of this route we will be close to a port and will be able to get our live stock abroad ship without a long rail haul, and the animals will reach the other side in much better condition. Once more, Mr. Chairman, I ask hon. members to let us have this road put into shape as quickly as possible.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Railways, in answering a question that I addressed to him before adjournment at six o'clock, read some extracts from the report of the Senate committee in 1920 in regard to the feasibility of the Hudson Bay route. I think he knew quite well that in my question I was not discussing the feasibility'' of the route at all. The minister himself in making his preliminary statement said that his purpose was to spend a sufficient amount of money to test the route thoroughly. If the minister and the government are satisfied, on the basis of the Senate report of 1920, that the route is commercially feasible why is it necessary to make any further tests? Why not start now and tell parliament and the Canadian people exactly what they intend to do to make this route feasible for the transportation of the grain crops and freight traffic of the west; why is it necessary to spend money in testing a route which the minister now says, basing his conclusions on the report of the Senate committee of 1920, has already been disclosed as commercially feasible?
In 1925 the Department of the Interior issued a bulletin in relation to this very route. May I at this point, Mr. Chairman, say that I am not opposing the Hudson Bay route at all. I am not taking the position that this is not a commercial possibility as a freight route, but I do say that no attempt has ever been made to test the Hudson bay as a freight route for commercial ships. All that has' been done is to take the reports of captains who have made one trip a year in 
and out, and sometimes they have not been able to make that trip. These records of ice conditions have been taken and conclusions based thereon. But there is a way by which this route can be effectively tested. If the minister would spend one-half this amount of money in getting one or two ships of about 8,000 tons, properly reinforced as the engineers have recommended and in ballast if you will, in service between a St. Lawrence or Newfoundland port and Port Nelson, to see how many times they can navigate Hudson straits in one, two or three seasons, the possibility of the route would be definitely determined. Then there would be some justification for this plan by which Canada is going to be put an expenditure which will amount to 840,000,000 or $50,000,000 if the whole scheme is carried out.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Fitzgerald of the Hudson's Bay Company demonstrated 250 years ago that the route was navigable. There is no use going to an expense of that kind at all.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend states what Mr. Fitzgerald did 250 years ago. I did not know Mr. Fitzgerald, so I cannot say whether or not he navigated the straits then. But the Department of the Interior of this government prepared and circulated a report last year with regard to the Hudson Bay route, and in that report they published the statement of Engineer McLachlan, who spent five years on that work. Surely if anyone knows the conditions obtaining there this man, who is recognized as one of our greatest engineers, should have that knowledge.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Is it not a fact that Mr. McLachlan only made one trip by water?


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not know how many trips Mr. McLachlan made by water; he was the engineer in charge and lived right at the works, and I have here his report dated September 17,	1917, addressed to Chief
Engineer Bowden:
Many a time during the past four years I ha/e been on the 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 vaUue for any national purpose, I thought that I had better not do so, especially as I know that you have always been one of its staunchest supporters. In the light of the ice conditions of this year, /which I observed carefully on August 13, 29 and September 6, in the entrance to Port Nelson and the operation of our ships to and from Port Nelson for the post five seasons, I have come to the conclusion that the season for it ramp steamships on this route is going to be so short that the cost of doing every item of work in the handling and transporting of

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
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.
Port Nelson was this year blocked with ice on August 29, and there was still ice around the harbour entrance on September 6, proof of which I enclose.
Later Mr. McLachlan goes on to say:
The extreme season will count in a commercial route.
I also feel that we cannot extend the latter end of the season beyond the date on which our ships have been leaving in recent years.
Then referring to the possibilities of the Hudson Bay railway in colonization or in developing the country, and leaving aside for the moment the question of the navigability of the Hudson bay and straits as a commercial route to Europe, Mr. McLachlan has this to say:
There is nothing for the Hudson bay north of the Huroniam rock outcrops south of Split lake.


Mr. GARDINER:: Is the hon. member
quoting from a report prepared by Engineer McLachlan?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I have just read
extracts from the report of this gentleman.


Robert Gardiner: Is this the Mr. Mc-
Lachlan who bought a million dollar sandsucking dredge for the purpose of removing hardpan?


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not know anything about the dredges Mr. McLachlan bought, but I do know that just a day or so ago the Minister of Railways, in reporting to this House that a 'board of engineers had been employed by this government to make surveys of the St. Lawrence route, told us that Mr. McLachlan,-this very same Mr. McLachlan-as one of the most outstanding engineers on this continent, had been made chairman of that board. I do not know Mr. McLachlan; I am simply submitting his report, but I do know he was in that country for five years.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I ask a question?
Why does the hon. member quote that one report of Mr. McLachlan's, and why does he make no reference at all to the evidence given by this gentleman in 1920 before the Senate committee? Why is no reference made to Mr. McLachlan's further report of 1922? He had had four years more experience then.


George Brecken Nicholson: Let me answer that
question with another. Was Mr. McLachlan in there between 192Q. and 1925?


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. McLachlan came out in 1920.


George Brecken Nicholson: In 1917 Mr. Mc-
Lachlan makes this statement based on four
years' experience at Port Nelson. I have read every single word of the contradictory evidence included in that Senate report; I have read everything I could get dealing with this question, but there is no consistent evidence anywhere to show that the Hudson straits can be navigated commercially. I am not going to say they cannot be navigated because I dc not know, but before this country is committed to an expenditure of this character we should take the only means possible to fine, out; we should put these ships on that route and let them navigate the straits themselves. Spending money on a railway to Port Nelson and spending money on terminals and elevators will not prove anything in relation tc that route. If the Hudson straits are navigable and if that route can be made available commercially there is no man in Canada who will not hold up both hands for the completion of that route and its development as a link between western Canada and Europe.
Coming to the appeal that is being made to members of this House to deal generously with western Canada because of their freight rate condition, because of what it costs to get the products of the west to the markets of the world, what is it that has intensified that condition? What it is more than anything else that has created the transportation difficulties that we have in this country? It is just because parliament has allowed itself in times past to be stampeded into projects of this character-a transcontinental, then a second transcontinental', and all that kind of thing-without adequate information as to what any one of these projects really means, with the result that we have a capital charge that our transportation business must take care of, and which is bearing it down, and will continue to bear it down. So long as we continue to throw millions and tens of millions of dollars into projects of this character without knowing before we start -what the ultimate result is going to be, just so long will our difficulties continue.


Mr. MILLAR:: Would the hon. member
put the Welland, canal in that class?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes, I would put the Welland canal or any other project involving the expenditure of large amounts of capital in that class, when proper estimates are not given, in the first instance, as to what these things are going to cost, and in the second instance, as to the results we are going to get from them. I am not in the slightest degree embarrassed by what hon. members may say in regard to the Welland canal or any other project that Canada has entered into and that
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

has proved a failure, or a partial failure, or that has proved too costly for the Canadian people. I say that the great difficulty in transportation that we must face and solve is due to allowing ourselves to be stampeded into capital projects of a character such as this without adequate information as to what is really involved.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Would the hon. member say that we are being stampeded into this project after it has been discussed for thirty-eight years? Does it take more than thirty-eight years to find out whether it is right or not?


George Brecken Nicholson: It makes no difference whether it is thirty-eight or one hundred and thirty-eight years. It makes no difference to me how many mistakes have been made in the past. I say we should try to reach a point when we will bring these mistakes to an end, and look at these things from the standpoint of plain common sense. The minister in his statement of probable cost, if I understood him correctly, gave figures approximating $26,000,000 as the amount to which we are committing this country to-night by passing this vote. Of that amount $6,000,000 is required to put the railway into the condition of a branch line, and $20,000,000 for a ten-shdp port in order that the route may be properly tested out.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must protect against
these words being put into my mouth. I specifically did not commit the government to a $20,000,000 port development.


George Brecken Nicholson: I recognize that the
minister said he did not know, but he gave us figures showing a necessary expenditure of $20,000,000. I appreciate at once that he immediately said' I am not going to vouch for these figures. That is one of our difficulties, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is deliberately misinterpreting me.


George Brecken Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I must protest. I am not deliberately misquoting anybody.


Charles Avery Dunning: I take back the word "deliberately". The hon. member is unintentionally misrepresenting my meaning. I wih' read the statement again, for the fourth time. In speaking of the port I said that while the figures had the backing of the engineer Mr. McLachlan, for a port development of that size and scale, I was not committing the government to a development on that scale. That is what I said.


George Brecken Nicholson: That is exactly what 1 said. Perhaps the minister will be good enough to tell us what he is committing the government and the Canadian people to as a means of testing out this route. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have a right to know that. This business of coming before parliament and saying: Here is the report of an engineer to the effect that this thing is going to cost $20,000,000 to put this port into a condition so that we can properly test out this route-


Charles Avery Dunning: The engineer did not
say that; neither did I, Mr. Chairman.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then what does the
engineer say the $20,000,000 is to be spent for? Why was the $20,000,000 mentioned?


Charles Avery Dunning: In response to a question as to what information I had. Perhaps I had better read it again, although it is already on Hansard. It shows an estimated cost of harbour works at Port Nelson, for ten ships, of 7,000 tons each, all in port at the same time, and allows for a 4,000,000 bushel terminal elevator, which would cost $3,600,000, out of the $20,000,000, and to which I specifically refused to commit myself or the government at this stage.


George Brecken Nicholson: Frankly I can see no
purpose in putting these figures on the record at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then why did the hon. member ask the question?


George Brecken Nicholson: Has parliament no
right to know to what this country is being committed when it passes this estimate?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite
right. Then why does he find fault with me for giving the information?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am not finding fault.
I accept the statement of the minister as to the figure he gave, and because I do so, he says I am deliberately misquoting him.


Charles Avery Dunning: I withdrew that word.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then he said I was
unintentionally misquoting him. The minister volunteers the information that it will cost $20,000,000. Now if the engineer has overestimated what the cost is going to be, I submit that this is the first time an engineer 'has ever overestimated what a work of this character is going to cost the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.


George Brecken Nicholson: The minister read in
detail the engineer's figures. It was unnecessary, because as a matter of fact we have the engineer's figures. He gave ten ships of 7,000

Supply

Hudson Bay Railway
tons each, and an elevator of 4,000,000 bushels capacity. Surely if Port Nelson is going to become the great wheat emporium of western Canada, a ten ship harbour and a 4,000,000 bushel elevator is not too great. That accounts for $20,000,000. The minister has given the figure of $6,000,000 to put the road in the condition of a branch line railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: Including engine and railway terminal facilities.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am going to take
the risk of putting into the record1 what it will cost to put the railway in the condition of a main line railway, for if you are going to transport wheat to Port Nelson, it is not a branch line you want at all, but a main line railway. It is not bent 80-pound relay rails that have been used before on a main line and taken up, and had the ends taken off and rebored, that you want. Without giving the details, although I have them here, to put the railway into the condition of a reasonable main line for carrying reasonably heavy traffic-200 carloads of wheat per day, for example-with a single track line, with necessary passing track, water service, round houses, machine and car shops, will cost, not $6,000,000, but $14,000,000, without a single item of rolling stock to take care of the traffic.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have an estimate from Sir Henry Thornton and his organization on the basis of raising the whole line to main line standard, and it is $8,100,000, not $14,000,000.


George Brecken Nicholson: We have received estimates of that character before. It is because of statements at that time submitted to parliament, based on estimates of such a character, that we find ourselves just where we are. As to this very line 21 miles of side tracks will be required.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are there now.


George Brecken Nicholson: What kind of side tracks? Would they permit of wheat trains passing each other?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: I have reports of a different character that contradict that statement. I submit that the necessary switches are not there and that whatever tracks are there will have to be replaced. The figures that I am giving are based on the necessary equipment in the shape of ties, rails, ballasting, ditching, clearing the right of way, water services, roundhouses, and so on right through to Port Nelson.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave the authority for my figures; will my hon. friend be good enough to say who supplied him with this information?


George Brecken Nicholson: No, I will not say who supplied me with this information but I will put it on Hansard. May I say in this connection that I have already put on Hansard figures with respect to other lines of railway, and if my hon. friend wants to look up Hansard he will find that these estimates have been absolutely borne out in every case. They were received from the same source and have been checked up by the same source as in the present case.


Charles Avery Dunning: I gave also details of every item required. It would be of great assistance to me if my hon. friend would follow my example in that regard and would place every detail required on Hansard.


George Brecken Nicholson: The following is a statement of the estimated oost of completing the railway to mile 333:
Details of amount required to complete Hudson Bay Ry. to mileage 333, to Mainline Standard
Railway ties in place 900,000 at $1.75
approx	   $1,600,000
Ballasting and surfacing at $4,000 per mile 1,332,000
31,263 tons new 80 No. rails at	$60	 1,875,780
New fastenings, etc	 115,000
Laying steel, $1,250 per mile	 416,250
Tie plates and rail anchors	 360,000
Bridges, culverts, ditches and clearing right
of way	 [DOT][DOT] [DOT] [DOT]	 1,665,000
New switches	 52,800
Siding rails	 264,000
Grading and ballasting sidings..'	 210,000
Ties for sidings	 78,750
Terminal water tanks and services, 2 at
$14,500	 29,000
Intermediate water tanks and services at
$10.500	 157.500
55 Trackmen's houses	 137,500
1-	24 stall roundhouse	
204,0002-	15 stall intermediate roundhouses	
255,0003-	50 ton coaling plants	
54,0003-90 ft. turntables	
105.0003 Terminal stations	
27,0001 Office building	
15,00015 Intermediate stations	
67,500

Engineering and supervising	 902,108


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope the hon. member for South Winnipeg is listening to this.


Robert Rogers: You are not going to spend any money for railway building. You do not intend to build a mile of railway.


George Brecken Nicholson: The remaining portion of the road could be simply taken on a mileage basis. To build the line and put it

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
in condition for operating as a main line railway would1 cost $65,000 a mile. Am' I putting the figure at an excessive amount when I say that it would cost $4,000,000 to complete the remaining 92 miles of railway and provide the railway terminal facilities necessary to take care of the traffic? And that does not provide one single dollar for rolling stock.
Nowr my time is limited1, and I do not wish to detain the House unduly. The minister, speaking this afternoon with regard to the question of rolling stock, quoted the director of economics of the Canadian National Railways as to whether it would cost more to put a complete organization on to the Hudson Bay railway, a distance of 420 odd mile3 in length to handle the grain traffic for two months, than it would to add the additional train crews and engine crews necessary to operate the part of the line they are already operating. I venture to suggest that if the director of economics placed! his opinion against that of the vice president and general manager of the Canadian National Railways they would say to him that it would1 cost 75 per cent more to create that organization and place it on the Hudson Bay railway to handle the same traffic that they
10 p.m. would) handle with additional train crews and engine crews- and that is practically all they require on a wheat route-on the lines they are already operating east of the point where they would branch off to go to Hudson bay.
Then as to rolling stock. Surely the minister or the director of economics of the Canadian National Railways does not ask the House or the Canadian people to take their word at par. They say they can operate these 420 miles of railway and thirty or forty million bushels of wheat in a couple of months without any additional rolling stock. How are they going to do it?


John Millar: Does any railway deliver all the grain to any terminal in two months and is not the wheat drawn all the year round?


George Brecken Nicholson: I am simply taking the word of the minister himself when he used the period of two months and said a 4,000,000 bushel elevator was an extravagant estimate as to the elevator capacity required. If there is only going to be 4,000,000 bushel elevator capacity how is the grain going to be stored?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not quoting me correctly; he must not say that.


George Brecken Nicholson: Then there is another point. Would' the western grain men care

to lock up 100,000,000 bushels of wheat at Port Nelson after navigation closes with the certain knowledge that they could not get it out of there again until navigation opens the next August or September? Would1 you suppose they would do it? It is not an economic possibility. It is not necessary for one to know anything about the grain trade in order to understand thoroughly that that cannot be done in connection with any commercial commodity whatever.


Charles Avery Dunning: It does not need to be done.


George Brecken Nicholson: No need of it?


Charles Avery Dunning: No need of its being done.


George Brecken Nicholson: If there is no need of doing it, what follows? If you are going to store it at Port Nelson, the minister stated that the grain traffic* begins about the first of September, so that you must get the wheat to Port Nelson and away from there between the first of September and the close of navigation, which will be between October 15th and November 1st, according to the fnost optimistic reports we have received. That means that traffic must be moved in approximately two months. Either the grain is moved in two months or we store it at Port Nelson. Are you going to handle the grain all the year round or not move it out? Perhaps you are going to take it out on skis.


Charles Avery Dunning: We will do exactly as
we do now with respect to other terminals. We will move out what we can during the period of navigation and we will not move any more until the next period of navigation.


George Brecken Nicholson: Again let me say that it is not necessary to be a wheat expert to know what is being done. The grain moves to the head of the lakes and is moved out from there until about the 20th December and sometimes until the end of December of each year. Then the elevators are filled excepting what is moved by the all-rail route. But the grain is available just the moment that navigation opens on the lakes. As a matter of fact it has been available for more than a month now at the head of lake Superior and it is moving eastward all the time. It is available for all-rail movement if that is required.


Robert James Manion: It has been available for
two months.


George Brecken Nicholson: My hon. friend reminds me that it has been available for two months. May I just digress for a moment in

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
regard to what has been said about the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway? That railway did exactly what the Hudson Bay railway might have done at any time between the time that the first construction was started and to-day if the same conditions had applied. If minerals had been disclosed along the line of the Hudson Bay railway that were disclosed along the line of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway during the construction period we would not be debating the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. It vfould have been a commercial success long before now. But unfortunately they have not been so disclosed. If the government will take the position that this is a colonization railway, built for the purpose of developing that country, I will say: Go ahead and build it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is one of its purposes.	.


George Brecken Nicholson: If that is one of its
purposes, before any other purpose is gone ahead with and before this country is committed to this other vast expenditure, parliament and the Canadian people should see to it that all the facts as to the possibility of navigating the Hudson bay and strait are made known. Just as surely as we are standing here to-night-and my opinion is that the minister knows it-in order to make the Hudson Bay railway with its terminus at Port Nelson a factor in the handling of the grain traffic of western Canada, this country will have to spend ,1550.000,000 on railway terminals and elevators at Port Nelson, to say nothing about providing special ships. Let me repeat what I said before. I am not expressing any opinion as to the feasibility of navigating the Hudson strait, because I do not know. I am in the same position as the rest of the 245 members of this House. That is the position we are in and it is solely because the government, if they intend to go ahead with this project, have taken no steps whatever to provide any information upon which a proper judgment may be based as to whether this route is feasible or not.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to clarify the
matter before the committee I would like to ask my hon. friend a few .questions with reference to the statement placed in his hands by his unknown railway expert. When I come before the committee and make a statement, based upon the - authority of the engineering and operating officers of the Canadian National, that this 332 miles of railway can be put into operating conditions on a branch HOI 1-267
line basis for 13,000,000, it is an important matter that my hon. friend should produce figures demonstrating that to put this 332 miles into shape for operation on a main line basis will cost $10,000,000, I believe he said. If a member assumes the responsibility of advancing figures, he should be willing to give the committee information regarding them. He spoke for instance about sidings. What is the amount involved in grading and laying tracks upon sidings on this stretch of 332 miles?


George Brecken Nicholson: Twenty-one miles of
sidings at $10,000 a mile.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is how much
money?


George Brecken Nicholson: Multiply it. Is that
an excessive figure?


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that for grading alone?


George Brecken Nicholson: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: The steel'


George Brecken Nicholson: Steel rails -for sidings
will cost $264,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is aware
that we already have sidings on this 332 miles.


George Brecken Nicholson: There may be spur
tracks and sidings, but the minister will not say that on the Hudson Bay railway there are passing tracks that can bake care of main line traffic and the rolling stock that would be necessary to handle that traffic.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not responsible;
the Minister of Railways of the Conservative party was responsible for starting the con-strution of that railway on a main line basis. I am not blaming him for it. He made provision for 27.8 miles of sidings in 332 miles of line, and I am informed that the sidings are, in fact, main line sidings. If my hon. friend would tell us who his expert was we might know whether he knew what he was talking about.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am willing to leave it to the judgment of the House and of the country as to whether or not I know what 1 am talking about.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say my hon.
friend; I said my hon. friend's expert, as to whether he knew what he was talking about. There are in existence 27.8 miles of sidings in 332 miles of line, whereas my hon. friend's expert asks for only 21 miles in order to make it a main line.


George Brecken Nicholson: We are at the point
where we have 27.8 miles of main line passing

4214	COMMONS
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
tracks on a railway on which the minister proposes to spend S3,000,000 in order to bring the main line of the railway itself up to the standard of a branch line. We have 27.8 miles of main line passing tracks capable of taking care of main line traffic such as we have been discussing this evening. Surely the minister is not going to take that position.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is almost an insult
to the intelligence of the committee, but it is necessary for me to explain that what was a main line standard when the road was originally constructed in 1913 or 1914 is not a main line standard to-day.


George Brecken Nicholson: Exactly.


Charles Avery Dunning: But as regards the length of the siding, the grading work, the steel work, it is all there, and we are able to ascertain what it would cost to put that particular piece of track and siding into a condition equivalent to present branch line standards. Surely that is plain enough to members of the committee. How much does my hon. friend's expert allow for new rails?


George Brecken Nicholson: To put the present
line into operating condition?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


George Brecken Nicholson: 


Charles Avery Dunning: The present line is being operated to mile 214. My hon. friend's expert surely would not claim that there had been enough traffic over those eighty pound rails since that railway was constructed to wear them out.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There has been enough
frost to put them out of shape.


Charles Avery Dunning: If trains are operating
over them they are not in bad enough condition to require a great deal of renewal. The only provision made in my estimate for new rails is in .connection with the last 100 miles, the calculation being based upon the experience we had with the other 214 miles. It >s believed that 950 tons costing $39,COO will be sufficient. My hon. friend's figure is $900,000.


George Brecken Nicholson: I am sorry I cannot
stay to continue this debate with my genial friend; but I have to leave to catch a train. I want to add just one word more to what I have said. The minister has spoken all along to-night in reference to branch line construction. I am referring to what will be necessary to make the main line construction of this railway capable of carrying a traffic such as, for example, 200 cars of wheat
fMr. Nicholson.]
per day, with the class of rolling stock used at the present time in handling that amount of freight. The minister knows as well as I do the nature of the sidetracks. Let him read the chief engineer's report wherein it is stated that, the rails have become so kinked and bent, as they obviously must have done under the conditions to which they have been exposed, as to make it imperative to replace them. Anyone who knows anything about the operations of a standard railway under the strain of modern traffic must realize that every single rail on the "whole of that line will have to be replaced before you can make a main line railway of it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know who my
hon. friend's expert is, but I have the estimate submitted by the engineers of the Canadian National system. That estimate contemplates the raising of the whole line to main line standard and it includes provision for three engine terminals at $500,000 each, covering all the items the hon. gentleman mentions. The total estimate is $4,373,000 to raise that 332 miles of main line to standard. My hon. friend's expert sa3fs it will take $10,000,000. Now, the names of the engineers of the Canadian National Railways are well known to the public; they are not anonymous. And the chief engineer of the system stands behind the estimate I have quoted. I would rather take that estimate, as I feel sure the committee would, than an estimate of $10,000 000 given anonymously by someone about whom this committee knows nothing.


George Brecken Nicholson: So far as that goes,
the minister knows perfectly well that a private member may secure information from an absolutely reliable source and be unable to disclose his authority. The person from whom he gets his information may be perfectly reliable but he dare not reveal his identity. I am prepared to stand by the figures I have put on Hansard. Is the minister equally ready to vouch for the figures he gave this afternoon and to-night in regard to the cost of terminals?


William Findlay Maclean: I shall deal with this question from a new angle. I have heard arguments made by different hon. gentlemen, and it seems to me that the same views might be advanced for the next ten years without any results. Three governments have studied this problem, and with every change of administration there has been a change in the arguments in support of the Hudson Bay railway and against it. What this country wants in this matter is action, and action forthwith. We have been thirty

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
years discussing the proposal, and here we are at the end of that time still wrangling. Let us do something. I cannot speak from the standpoint of a westerner, but speaking as a resident of Ontario and one who lives in the east, I say that the great desire of the people of this province to-day is to get to Hudson bay and to James bay. It is their desire to extend the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway so as to get into those two great watersheds, which are second to none on the American continent apart from the St. Lawrence. The important feature about these two watersheds is that some of the greatest rivers in America flow from them. There is a passage in the Bible which claims for the waters of Aban and Pharphar, rivers of Damascus, a superiority to the waters of Israel. Can we not make a similar claim for these watersheds in western Canada in comparison with the waters in other parts of the country? The hope of Canada lies in the north. The poet has said:
Westward the star of Empire takes its way.
I say this:	Northward the star of progress
in this Dominion takes its way, and the most promising part of Canada to-day is the northern country. Not only Ontario but the province of Quebec as well wants access, through the extension of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, to James Bay, and one railway will do for the two provinces.
There are more resources in that part of the country than almost anywhere else and they are lying there waiting for development. Most of the valuable things we have in Canada have been discovered in the west. It was the Temiskaming railway that was responsible for all these discoveries in the way of minerals. Sudbury, and the railways have also brought about the development *of the pulp industry and the prosperity of the wheat fields of western Canada. There is therefore no way in which this country can be made to prosper except through the providing of means of communication. In so far as we have established lines of communication we have succeeded. The question is not altogether irrelevant, why so many of these clubs like the Kiwanis, for example, are coming here so frequently. We have natural attractions which they lack in the United States. Comparing one country with the other I see in Canada potentially the richest section of the American continent. I am not going to despair of our country. Three or four governments have tried to settle this question, and they have all realized to what an extent political intrigue can de-14011-288
lay progress in any country. I am prepared to give the government a chance to go ahead with their estimates, and perhaps, as has been suggested, this railway might be tested as a colonization road. The important thing is, however, that we do something. It has been said that grain might have to remain in the elevators at Hudson bay over the winter. I do not quite accept that view; but even if the grain had to be stored for a time it could be moved and shipped. Certainly no grain will ever remain there six months. It may be tied up for a short time, but, as I say, it can be moved and in any case we shall have solved the problem to some extent in building the road.
People are apt to call this a God-forsaken country; they say there is something wrong with it; the climate is against us. Well, there are' lots of things that are in favour of the country and if there are problems to be solved we can face them and solve them. Take for instance the difficulty in connection with ice; I do not regard this as insuperable. Indeed, I am as sure of this as I am of my own existence, that in five or ten years' time the scientists of the world will find some way of ridding the navigation of harbours of the obstacle which has now to be faced in this direction. Every day marvellous things are being done. Who would have believed thirty years ago that such a thing as the telephone was possible? Yet it has come-communication through a wire. Now a beam does everything, we have wireless communication, and it is most effective. And science1 is going to do something to further solve the transportation problems of Canada.
Let me tell my friends here what happened the first winter in the settlement of Quebec three hundred years ago. I was reading the other day the Jesuit Relations, and I came across this passage:
Si'l y a du froid if y a da boia pour nous rechauffer.	.
If it is cold here we have wood to warm ourselves.
Now that ought to be the attitude of us who are trying to solve the problems of Canada to-day. Let us take example from those Jesuit fathers. They did mot ask for a ship to carry them home because they had winter ahead of them; they went on cutting wood. We have any amount of resources. Year after year we are cutting down a lot of our pulpwood, but science tells us to go in for reforestation, and by a proper system of replanting our cutover areas we shall have a constant supply of wood. I have studied that north country carefully, and I have no hesitation in saying that we have more



Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
resources there than can be found in any other country in the world. All we have to do is to build railways and open up the country, and by this development we will become the dominating part of this North America continent. The Americans would be glad to come over here to-morrow and do the job if we would let them.
I do not want to pass any opinion on others, but certain people would not like to see the Hudson Bay railway completed and a new port established there, for fear the ascendency of Montreal would be jeopardized. That ascendency has already been attacked, in a way, by Vancouver and Victoria, and by New York and other United States ports; but Montreal has not suffered. In the same way Montreal was not hurt by the opening of the Panama canal. I believe Montreal will be a better port than ever if it has to buck against the competition of the Hudson bay route. I want to see a lot of our grain go through Halifax and St John, and if we believe in the Maritime provinces we should do our share to help them forward. I noticed in the Globe newspaper the other day that for some reason or other it is advising the government not to be in too great a hurry in dealing with this question. Well, we have not been in a hurry so far; we have been too slow. Let us deal with the question, and if the route is no good let us say so and drop it. But when Canadians undertake a work they finish it, and we would not be worthy of those from whom we come if we had not the courage to deal with a problem of this kind. I admit there is a lot in what the member for Winnipeg and the member for Algoma have said, but we have been saying the same things year after year, and we can go on saying them for another thirty years, but the one outstanding thing is that with all our talk there has been very little action. Let the government proceed with this work. The only fault I have to find with them is that they have not acted when they said they would. The men from the west have not said much to-night in favour of the scheme. Well, they have been fooled a great deal in connection with it, they have been promised this railway under three governments. I do not blame those governments so much because the war intervened, but now the opportunity is here to complete the road and make it a success. We have talked enough for and against this undertaking; for God's sake let us go on and make the experiment.


Mr. OANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I think
it is abundantly evident to anybody who has
[Mr- W. 'F. Maclean.]
listened to the discussion to-night that the subject matter is one on which there is a considerable division of opinion. I congratulate the minister on the very temperate manner in which he introduced the question, and the caution with which he brought forward and dealt with most of the factors in the case. He made some reference to the cost of equipping the port. I am not quite sure as to what he included in that cost. A large amount of equipment was sent up to that country in 1913 and perhaps also in 1914. I do not know how much of it remains available for future work. That equipment included steam shovels, cranes, dredges and scows. In the estimate of the equipment required to carry on that work has he included the necessary dredges and other necessary construction equipment?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend wants to know about our general plant up there at the present time?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have two steam
shovels, four keystone drills, concrete mixers, one five-ton single track locomotive crane, one fifteen-ton double track locomotive crane -I could give the whole list.


Thomas Cantley: Pardon me, I do not
want the whole list. Is the minister convinced he has sufficient plant there to complete the work he has in mind?


Charles Avery Dunning: The work connected
with the vote before the House, or the work to be done in future on the harbour?


Thomas Cantley: Including work to be
done in future on the harbour to make it available for the berthing of the ten steamers he mentioned.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not prepared to say that we have sufficient equipment up there at the present time and of the right type in all respects to take 'care of the dredging work, but in the estimate I gave this afternoon, prepared by the engineer, the cost of needed extra equipment was taken into account.


Thomas Cantley: I have no desire to put the minister in any false position, I am simply and solely asking for information so that I may make up my mind as to whether the amount proposed is likely to complete the equipment of the port to take care of tonnage such as he suggests. We had some six steamers up there in 1913. One third of them never came out. The first boat reached there in August; she was expected to be there in

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
July, but was delayed on account of ice conditions. I know there is a great diversity of opinion held by members of this House and by people throughout this country in regard to the practicability of this route. We each have our opinions; some are better founded than others, but the fact is that of six boats which went in to Port Nelson in 1913 only four came out.
The reports in regard to conditions at the mouth of the Nelson river are, I think, such as should give anyone considerable thought as to how long it is possible to maintain an adequate channel in front of the estuary of the Nelson river. Captain Robertson, of one of the vessels which was lost, states that the bottom of the bay close to the mouth of the river, where the vessels must lie under this or any other plan which will make this a great grain shipping port, is strewn with great boulders covered by only about eighteen feet of water. It was largely because of that fact that this particular vessel was lost.


Mr. BIRD:: What was his ship?


Thomas Cantley: He was captain of the Aletite; the other boat lost was the Alcazar. One boat was loaded with 2,000,000 feet of hard pine, while the other one carried 3,000,000 feet of hard pine together with a couple of scows, which were never used.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will admit that those two wrecks did not occur in the straits.


Thomas Cantley: No, they occurred in the bay.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, in the Nelson estuary.


Thomas Cantley: I am not quite sure what the minister defines as the Nelson estuary; they occurred about as close to the site of the present dock as they could get.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right, because the works are not completed, of course.


Thomas Cantley: I do not think so; the disaster was not due to the non-completion of the dock. I think you will find a mass of evidence in Hansard of 1914 bearing on the cause of the loss of these vessels. The matter was argued back and forth and at considerable length in the House in 1914. However, I am not going into that matter very deeply. The point is that of the six steamers going in, two remained and are there yet.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend was asking for information; he asked me if it was correct that in 1913 two boats were wrecked. That is true, but it is also true that my hon.
14011-268}
friend might have taken the whole period during which work was going on there, from 1913 to 1918, and the same number were wrecked. That is to say, there were only two wrecks altogether during all the years the work was proceeding.


Thomas Cantley: I hardly think that is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have confirmed the information.


Thomas Cantley: I repeat that I hardly
think that is quite correct, but we will not quarrel over it. Is the big dredge that went up there still available?


Charles Avery Dunning: The suction dredge?


Thomas Cantley: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: The last information I have is that it was piled up on the rocks. Have you salved it?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one dredge on top of the cribbing on the island, but it is in perfectly good condition and can be taken down if the chief engineer there so desires.


Thomas Cantley: We are assured that the
ark is on mount Ararat, but it has not been salved yet. The top of an island is a rather poor place to have a dredge.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must
understand that the department did not put it there; the elements were responsible.


Thomas Cantley: Agreed, and that is exactly what you have to war against. There are several features which will make or unmake this whole project as a commercial proposition. One is the type of vessel it will be necessary to employ in order to navigate these waters. I do not think any man with practical experience particularly in connection with ice navigation will seriously propose or maintain that the ordinary type of freighter can successfully navigate these waters. I hold that the vessels carrying on that trade, if it is ever carried on, must be vessels of practically the same type as those prosecuting the seal fishing around Newfoundland. These vessels are constructed with double spaced scantlings and with double plating, and I take it that vessels of that type, especially as they will have to be more highly powered than the ordinary tramp vessels, will cost practically double the amount an ordinary tramp steamer of the same capacity would cost. If these vessels are to be engaged for three months only-and that is about the limit-how can they successfully compete in the trade of the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
world for the remaining nine months? They will be handicapped by the fact that their cost is practically double that of competing vessels of the same tonnage, and the result is obvious.
Then comes the question of insurance. The insurance out of the bay will certainly be double what it is out of the ports of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Halifax, St. John and Quebec. Then there is the question of duplication of rolling stock to maintain this road in operation for a limited period. I am not going to go into that question more fully, because I think the House is rather tired of this argument. But I want in all seriousness to make a proposition to the minister which I think is reasonable, practicable and one which I hope will commend itself to him and to the House. Prom the utterances of the minister to-day I take it that he wishes to gang warily, to ca' canny, to make sure and so make no great mistakes. I would remind the minister, although it may be unnecessary, that reputations have already been lost in connection with this enterprise.
The minister has twenty or twenty-two Canadian merchant marine steamers of about 5,400 tons net register or 8,000 tons dead weight capacity. He will require at Port Nelson a considerable quantity of coal if he goes on with this enterprise, as I believe he fully intends doing. I propose to him that beginning in July, of this present year he divert ten of these vessels-because they are just the size vessels he speaks of using in that trade-load them with coal in Nova Scotia and send them up. Such a fleet of ten steamers will carry 70,000 or 80,000 tons of coal, and he will need the coal for his port development. I am aware that he has no docks at which to discharge the coal, but that makes no great difference; let him throw the coal overboard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Cantley: Do not laugh; he who
laughs last laughs best. I am making a serious proposition, and an entirely practical one, and I leave it to the minister or any man with a knowledge of the subject whether or not it is practical. He can have those ships discharge that coal over the side, and he can dredge it up with a clam shell or dipper dredge as he requires it. Coal stored under water loses none of its value. This proposal is practical, for I daim to be a practical man. Let him send these boats there beginning in July ensuing, next month; they will return light, but he will get his coal there and at a lower cost than is otherwise possible, 
and if he is able to get the ten boats out safely next fall without accident, I will cease my opposition to the scheme.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be very glad to
have the suggestion made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) examined, and to give it consideration.


Thomas Cantley: Thank you.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Chairman-


John Millar: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) first.


John Millar: This is the third time I
have attempted to speak to-night, Mr. Chair-man.


William Duff: I saw the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre first.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The situation in regard to the Hudson Bay railway as it stands to-night is briefly this. The projected line extends from the townsite of Le Pas nothward to Hudson bay, a total distance of 426 miles. Already the 426 miles have been graded from Le Pas to tidewater. Of that distance the steel has been laid upon 334 miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: For 332 miles.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister says 332 miles. It requires to be laid on 92 miles more, which 92 miles is graded, to finish it. There have been expended in moneys on that railway to date approximately, including upkeep, $20,000,000. There have been expended in the matter of materials and equipment stored at the bay itself several millions of dollars. That railroad has been promised to Canada by prominent men of every political party who have held the reins of government in this country ever since confederation, and the question now is:	Will
we finish, a railway that is in that condition, or will we let it rot? So far as I am concerned,
I am for finishing the railway with all despatch.
This is not a party question, Mr. Chairman.
I must say that the Winnipeg Free Press has been a bit unfair in endeavouring to inject a little politics and propaganda into this question. In last Saturday's issue it calls attention to the fact that when the question of the Hudson bay estimate came up in this House on Friday for consideration, it was stood over at the instance of the acting leader of the opposition, the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and it intimated that the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
reason the vote was not dealt with on that occasion was because a number of Conservative members were absent attending a meeting in Montreal, and that it should have been proceeded with. It further points out that direct information had been given by the government that the Hudson Bay estimate would be considered on that day. I take issue with that statement. It is true that we knew that railway estimates would come up, but many days are spent here on the estimates of a particular department without certain individual items being reached.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon.- friend will
permit me, in reply to a question across the floor of the House I stated a week ago that on the next occasion that the railway estimates were before the House, the Hudson Bay railway vote would be taken up. I am not now quarrelling with my hon. friend's statement; I mention this only in the interest of accuracy.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If that statement was made by the minister, I did not hear it. So far as the particular occasion was concerned, there were a number of Conservative members absent on that day, including Conservative members who were in favour of that road. We spoke to the acting leader of the opposition and suggested to him that if by any chance the Hudson Bay railway vote was reached, it was our desire that it be not disposed of until we had had an opportunity to speak. I was one of those members, and I now take this opportunity to-night, as one of those then absent, to say that I stand foursquare behind this vote of $3,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway.


Mr. FORKE:: I think it is only fair to the
Winnipeg Free Press to say that they devoted a whole editorial praising the Conservative members at Ottawa for the stand they are taking on the Hudson Bay railway in their speeches. The hon. member saw that, I am sure.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not
know that the Winnipeg Free Press feels the need of any special sponsor here.


Robert Forke: It spoke very flatteringly of the Conservative members. Did the hon. member see it or not?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I did not, as a matter of fact. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a party issue. Examine the records of the parties since confederation, and you will find that prominent leaders of both political parties in this country have declared for the Hudson Bay railway. Sir John A.
Macdonald said that it was the great natural outlet for the west. Coming down to more recent times, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a great champion of that route. In the last political campaign, unless I misunderstood what they said in the west, the leaders of both the Conservative and the Liberal parties declared themselves for at least such a measure of completion of that road as would carry the line to the bay and give the road an effective test. For that measure of completion at the present I stand. I am not one of those who is going to urge upon members in the east, who are not perhaps so directly interested in that road as are we of the west, the necessity of immediately committing this country to the expenditure of $26,000,000 odd given in the estimated cost by the hon. Minister of Railways, but I am here to insist as a right, not only of the west but of this whole country, that that road be completed, and completed forthwith, to the bay. That I submit is not asking too much.
Appropriations for the completion of the Hudson Bay route have been included in the estimates every year between the years 1910 and 1918. They have been passed by successive governments and they have been passed by the Senate. Why, then, at this time does the whole question of the feasibility of the route come up? I submit that is a matter which has been passed upon at least to the extent of completion to tidewater. I will not go into an argument as to the feasibility of the route. I point merely to the last official report on the subject, which is the report of the special committee of the Senate in 1920, the effect and the exact wording of which has been placed upon Hansard by the hon. Minister of Railways. That committee declared the route feasible. I grant you that you can call witnesses for and against the route. Take any man who is placed on trial for his life on a charge of murder; you can call eminent alienists both for and against, twenty to prove that he is sane and twenty to prove that he is insane. It is much the same with the matter of the Hudson Bay route. I submit that the question of the feasibility of the route has already been passed upon, and is no longer a matter of argument in this House, at least in so far as to warrant its completion to tidewater.
On the question as to payment for this route, the Minister of Railways has drawn attention to the fact, if I interpreted his meaning correctly, that already certain western lands have been set aside, if not by statute, at least it was generally and distinctly understood, for the purpose of producing a revenue for the construction of this very

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
route. In the matter of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads, provision was made under the Dominion Lands Act of 1008 for the sale of these pre-emptions and purchased homesteads. Speaking to the point as to what was to be done with the revenue derived therefrom, Hon. Frank Oliver-and remember he was a member of the government when that provision was made-speaking in this House on 26th May, 1013, as reported at page 10061 of Hansard, said:
The question 'has been raised here in regard to tihe cost of this railroad, the charge upon the treasury. Some years ago the principle of pre-emptions was introduced into the western country, with the understanding that the fund accruing from the sale of pre-emptions would be considered as an extra source of revenue from which the Hudson Bay railway might be constructed.
That understanding has been confirmed tonight by the words of the Minister of Railways. What moneys up to date have been derived from the sale of these pre-emptions and purchased homesteads? A recent return submitted to this House in answer to an inquiry by the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. Murphy) shows the following figures:	The
number of acres sold up to March 31st of this year	were-pre-emptions	12,763,040
acres; sale price, $38,289,120. The acreage of purchased homesteads sold was 1,322,840 acres, and the sale price thereof $3,968,520, making a total sale price of $42,257,640. The moneys actually collected were as follows: Up to February 28th of this year there was collected on account of the sale of preemptions, $16,635,639.39 and for purchased homesteads $3,191,648.98, making a total collected up to the end of February last of $19,827,288 37. There is a balance still outstanding in respect of the sale of homesteads and pre-emptions that have not been cancelled' of over $7,000,000. I draw attention to these facts for the reason that those are lands of the western provinces contiguous to that railway. On the word of the Hon. Mr, Oliver, who was in the government at that time provision was made for the sale of those lands, it was distinctly understood, although not definitely provided in the statutes, that as to these moneys the proceeds thereof should be earmarked as a fund for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I think that is a matter worthy of some considteration.
It is urged against this route that it is but a dream. I ask hon. members of this House, was not Canadian confederation a dream? Was not the .carrying through of the Canadian Pacific railway to the Pacific coast a dream? Was not the securing of Canadh, as an integral part of the British Empire a

dream? But these are dreams that have since become realities. The opening up of northern Ontario by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway was a dream, but it is now a reality. I say to those hon. gentlemen that at the heart of everything worth while there is a bit of dreaming. The people of the west have been promised the completion of this railway not by one party only but by the leaders of all political parties on the hustings throughout this country for the last forty years. If then the people of the west have come to believe the pledges of the leaders of these parties, no blame is to be attached to them. They now ask for their redemption. As much as two hundred and fifty years ago the Hudson Bay route was the only ingress and egress to that western country. The Selkirk settlers who settled along the Red river came from Scotland via the Hudson bay. The Hudson's Bay Company have been using that route in their trading operations for nearly three centuries. The feasibility of the route has been proved by that method of ingress and egress for two hundred and fifty years.
If you look at the map of Canada you will find that the Hudson bay is the great natural outlet for western Canada. You will also find something else. You will find that to-day our settlement runs along the American border. To what direction are we going to look? Are we going to look to the south? There is only one way and that is northward1.. Build this road and you roll the map of Canada northward. That means new Canadians. If that road does nothing else- if it never carries a bushel of wheat to the markets of the world, if it never carries a steer to the world's markets-it will open up a country rich in mineral resources, rich in water power, rich in possibilities. It will open up the fisheries of Hudson bay, and as a colonization road alone its construction will be worth while.


John Millar: The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) raised one question that I should like to clear up. He seemed to find some difficulty in realizing that wheat could be taken out by this new route providing it was finished and the elevators built. May I point out that it has not been the custom of those who ship grain to ship it all out in a very short time? It would be impossible to do that even if they wished, and it would not be desirable. I have figures here, from government statistics, showing that on the 31st of March, 1924, 177,000,000 bushels of wheat were in the terminal elevators, in the hands of the farm-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
ers, in the country elevators, or in other places in Canada, If this line is built that grain is going to be fed to the market. It is the policy of the pool to feed grain to the market gradually, not rush it on to the market in a few months. Great Britain, for example, will take about 12,000,000 bushels a week, and it is the policy of the pool to feed that grain to that market just as it will take it. That grain is going to be fed to the British market in the months
11 p.m. of May, June, July, August and September and it must be stored somewhere before the new grain comes in. Is there any reason why that grain that is to be taken to Great Britain in July or August cannot be stored in the elevators at Port Nelson? None whatever.
It means a great deal if this route is feasible. I say "if", because there has been so much contradictory evidence given on the subject. And there are differences and degrees of doubt. I know that a great many hon. members have a doubt about the feasibility of the route. Others again are satisfied that it is feasible; that there is no danger whatever.


Robert James Manion: Have any of the party to which the hon. member belongs-and I ask this merely for information-investigated the matter, or are they just taking the reports? Have any of his party really gone up to the headwaters of the Nelson river and spent some time there to look into the matter?


John Millar: Yes, two of the present members of our group, and Mr. Hoey-I think at least four of our group have gone over this route and carefully examined it.


Robert James Manion: I am speaking about the strait and so forth. That does not cover that.


John Millar: Since my hon. friend has touched on that point, let me read a short extract from a statement by Captain Bernier of Quebec. I can of course read scores of them, and so can others on the other side. This is what Captain Bernier says:
After sixty years of navigation experience, Captain Bernier declared to an interviewer:	"It is while navigation is open a better Toute than the St. Lawrence. The difficulty is not the straits but the port."
Hon. members should take note of that because of some remarks that have been made recently. In another place Captain Bernier says:
Hudson bay dtselif was a mariner's paradise. "It has," said Captain Bernier, "a level sandy bottom with no islands and no reefs in the course from Hudson strait* "
He declaired tbalt the period of navigation would be at least three and sometimes four months.
Do hon. members realize that Port Nelson is the same distance from Liverpool as Montreal if you do not go by Belle Isle- 2,966 miles? But Port Nelson is 1,000 miles nearer the centre of the grain district than Montreal. I suppose hon. members will hardly believe that, but if they look at a map they will find that such is the case. That means 1,000 miles gained in distance. Let us consider for a moment what that 1,000 miles of distance saved means. If it was 1.000 miles of open water it would not mean very much, because the cost of carrying grain or other freight over open water is only one-eight of the cost of carrying it on land. But part of this is rail. It is 915 miles from Saskatoon to Fort William; it is 700 miles from Saskatoon to Port Nelson. When we get to Fort William there is open water for a distance, but the open water does not go through to Montreal by a long way. When we reach the canals, transportation through the canals is almost as expensive as by railway. There are 44 miles of canals on the St. Lawrence and 26 miles at the Welland; there is the difficulty and the waiting in going through the canals. A great deal of grain instead of taking the water route on the lower end takes the rail route from Parry Sound, Colldngwood, Owen Sound and so on, and I think that is proof that the cost over the lower end of that route is almost as expensive as by rail. The transfer points-which I have mentioned would be approximately 400 miles from Montreal, so that in that distance of 1,000 miles that I speak of, 400 miles and 200 miles are rail haul. If the Hudson bay route is feasible, that means that our grain will go to the Liverpool market over less mileage on water and with 600 miles less rail haul.
The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) asked: Would the pool like to tie up 100.000.000 bushels there? It is necessary for the pool or others who are shipping grain to have grain on hand at several points, at least to have enough grain at all times of the year to satisfy the market. For that reason they wiill always have to have grain at Montreal and Vancouver and perhaps at Halifax and St. John. But there is no reason why a portion of the grain that might be required in midsummer, as I said before, could not be stored at Port Nelson, and with the shorter route, unless the insurance is enormous, unless the losses are beyond anything that we can think of, there will be a vast gain. With the keen competition we are going to

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
have in a very short time from Russia, the shortest and cheapest route we can get for our grain will be necessary if we are going to continue in the grain 'business.
This route, if it is feasible-and I believe it is-will also mean better trade with Great Britain. I know the majority of the people of western Canada believe it is. Another factor that affects this question is this: Frequently it has been pointed out in this House that the water on the Great lakes is going down. Perhaps every member does not realize exactly what that means. I am speaking only from memory, but I am quite positive that my memory is not playing me any tricks when I say that a large grain boat which is pretty well loaded would require eighty tons of freight to sink it another inch, or 2,960 tons to sink it one foot. That figures out to about 33,000 bushels. Hon. members will see where we are drifting. We hope that in a very short time we shall be able to stop the diversion of water at Chicago and in some way raise the water in the Great lakes to its former level. But if we are not able to do that. hon. members can see that the expense of transporting grain and other freight over the lake route is going to increase rapidly. What does it mean to have a large boat going down the lakes not filled but within a foot and a half of being filled? It means, if it is only a foot, 33 000 bushels short, and if it is a foot and a half, 49,500 bushels short. Therefore every foot lost in the depth of these lakes is an enormous loss. The situation is serious enough at the present. If it should become more serious and expensive the greater will be the necessity of opening up a new route via the Hudson bay. There are many other points that I could touch on; some of them have been touched on and some not, but at this late hour I am not going to prolong the discussion any longer.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: As one of the
Winnipeg representatives I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on a question which has created so much discussion throughout western Canada. Some arguments which have been used do not particularly appeal to me. We are told that this legislation must be given simply to satisfy the west. I do not think that argument is good. The government should not yield to the clamour either of Oshawa or of Winnipeg. We are told that the question is not debatable. I do not think that position is tenable. We are told that the cost of construction is already provided for by the sale of western lands. I do not think that in itself is sufficient to warrant this
LMr. Millar.]
estimate being passed. We are told that this is not a new project. I am inclined to think that argument has a considerable amount of weight, as we have already spent a great deal of money on the project and this expenditure would be lost if we did not go at least so far as the vote goes-that is to rehabilitate the road. I would point out incidentally that it is only on such an argument as this that we can justify continued expenditures on the Welland canal, more especially at this time and before the St. Lawrence waterway is deepened. Those who are afraid of the Hudson Bay railway ought to remember the Welland canal with its enormous expenditure; and it is a question whether or not it will be wise for us to complete that undertaking until we have finished the waterways lower down.
I have noticed that the advocates of the Hudson Bay railway are sometimes very resourceful and shift their ground as the necessity demands. If it is not a grain route, then it is a cattle route, and if it is not a cattle route then there is fishing or there are minerals to be developed.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does not the hon.
member say the same of the opponents of the railway?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. I say
that we ought frankly to face all the facts of the case. This railroad, even though completed to tidewater, would be of comparatively little advantage without the terminals, and these terminals would be expensive. The question is undoubtedly of importance as to the choice between Churchill and Nelson as terminus. It is all very well for the advocates of the railroad to say that this question has been settled and that we cannot alter it. I do not believe that is so. It is no use suggesting that a discussion of the preference as between Churchill and Nelson is something in the nature of a red herring. Certainly we ought not to allow anything to divert us from the project if it is sound, but surely it is not too late to consider whether or not it is advisable to change the terminus.
For me, however, I confess, the most important consideration is the feasibility of the straits.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the hon. gentleman give us his reasons for thinking that the question as to which port should be chosen should be gone into again?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it should be considered on general principle. We have the most diverse statements with regard to the two ports, and it is not too late to make

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
a decision one way or the other, especially in view of the importance of the question.


Hannes Marino Hannesson: Is not the present
vote intended for repairs to the existing system?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall come to
that in a moment. At this stage we ought to consider not merely the vote now before us-and I may observe here that I intend to support it-but the future possibilities as well. I am going to support this vote, but I want to explain the grounds on which I shall do so. I should not feel justified in voting for this expenditure unless I put my position before the committee. We cannot very well go ahead and spend $3,000,000 without knowing what our objective is to be.


Milton Neil Campbell: Two independent staffs of engineers went into the question fully and both reported in favour of Nelson.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am aware that
there arc those who favour Nelson, but surely we need not wait until the tracks are actually laid and the terminals built before deciding an engineering question of this character. I may summarize briefly the points which, in my opinion, should be considered in deciding the question of the construction of this railway. According to the evidence, which undoubtedly is conflicting and not altogether conclusive, we may gather the following facts.
The straits are open somewhere between two and four months, with a maximum of fifteen weeks, and this not to be depended upon every year.


Milton Neil Campbell: Where does the hon.
gentleman get his information?


James Shaver Woodsworth: My hon. friend has studied the question thoroughly and, as he knows, this information is obtained from the various reports that have been submitted to the government, such for instance as the one referred to by the Minister of Railways today, as well as from returns brought down to the House on different occasions by the Department of the Interior, the reports of Mr. McLachlan and so on. I would refer the committee to one rather interesting document which I fancy is about as careful a statement as we may find on this question. This study was made by one of my own fellow townsmen, Mr. W. Nelson Smith, and is reported in the Engineering Journal of June, 1924.
As I was going to say, we may gather from the evidence which we have before us that there is a maximum of fifteen weeks during which the straits are open, and this is not to be depended upon every year. Apparently
the months are August, September and October. Before or after would mean delay and would involve specially strengthened ships; and we should also be forced, as has already been mentioned, to move the crop of the previous year. Apparently we should require special aids to navigation involving large expenditures, and as has been so frequently pointed out, it would be commercially difficult to develop a port handling mixed cargoes. That difficulty has been experienced in the ease of Quebec in competition with the port of Montreal. The latter port has a much larger city behind it, and all sorts of mixed cargoes are shipped there. That is one reason why it has been so difficult for the port of Quebec to attain the development which some of us had hoped for. Then, operating for but a short period of the year there would undoubtedly be a heavy additional expense in the way of insurance and overhead of all kinds. .
I am inclined to think, after looking at the matter from the standpoint of the road as a grain route, that the annual expense would *be greater than the saving that would be effected. Possibly in time that might be reversed; but so far as we can see now, basing our conclusions upon the evidence at present available, it would appear that the expenditure involved might perhaps be used to better advantage in subsidizing existing roads rather than opening out this new one. Last of all, may I point out that until we have some control of the shipping situation on the Atlantic, about which we heard so much last year, the shipping combine there could readily neutralize any gains we might make on the railway.
It seems to me that this matter should be frankly faced before we make any very great additional expenditures. In the Engineering Journal of June 1924 there appears what strikes me as a very sane resolution as passed by the Engineering Institute of Canada:
That the proposed Hudson Bay railroad be thoroughly investigated from the engineering, economic and national viewpoints before any decision is made to construct, complete or operate the said railway.
I would not go quite so far. I would 'build to tidewater, seeing that we have constructed so much of the road. But before proceeding to construct expensive terminals and provide necessary aids to navigation we should, I think, have a most careful investigation made into the whole question. I have already said that I intend to vote for the estimate before us, which in my opinion is quite justified. But I do urge that we ought not to be asked next year to vote still further sums without having
4224	COMMONS
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
a great deal more evidence than is now before us. Why not carry out the suggestion made in one of the articles to which I have already referred and let the government appoint a commission, not of politicians, but entirely of technical experts-such men as the past president of the Engineering Institute, Mr. R. A. Ross, whom I do not know personally, but whose reputation is Dominion-wide?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Are not technical
engineers a good deal like lawyers, never agreed on anything?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They may be; but after all I have a good deal of confidence in technical engineers and in modem scientists generally. I would say we ought to have experts in engineering, in railroading, in harbour construction, in shipping operation and in grain handling. Let these men get together and make a thorough study of the subject at a cost of a few hundred thousand dollars, if need be, and prepare a report-not such a report as that made by the Senate after calling a few people before a committee to answer a few random questions.


Thomas William Bird: How could engineers investigate the problem in any other way than it has already been investigated?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not an
engineer, but when hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party go up to the Hudson bay, take a look at the water, swim in it, and then come back and tell us the route is feasible, I should suggest it is quite possible that engineers with the scientific data available ought to be able to give some sort of opinion that would be at least equally as valuable.


Thomas William Bird: How would engineers investigate navigating conditions?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said not only
engineers but men expert in shipping operations.


Thomas William Bird: How would they go about the work?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are a number of suggestions to be made. I have heard, for example, that We could have a good deal of help if the line was once in operation by having ships direct their course through drifting ice by means of airplane observation. I might say I was talking to some airmen about it, and they did not relish the prospect, but if that suggestion is feasible after the line is completed, it is feasible now. Further, I cannot see why some of the ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine that

are being sold off should not be sent there to make frequent trips during the next two or three years and keep a careful record of navigating conditions.


Thomas Hay: An expedition was sent up there forty years ago by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald, and we have their report. They got expert advice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I have read
that report. And I know perfectly well as an old-timer in the west that that route has been used by the Hudson's Bay Company through all these years.


Thomas Hay: I am not speaking of the
Hudson's Bay Company; I am speaking of the expedition sent by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald in 1885.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said I had read
that report, and I added that the route has been used by the Hudson's Bay Company for a much longer period. All that is true, but it is one thing to have a ship go there and wait until the ice clears; it is quite another thing to operate steamships under modem commercial conditions. We might profitably spend a very considerable sum of money in investigating this proposition before embarking on the heavy expenditure necessary if it is to become a practical grain-carrying route.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if my hon.
friend will permit me to make an explanation at this point that I should have made earlier in the day. So far as scientific investigation is concerned, we already have the Nelson estuary completely charted right out to deep water, soundings have been taken on two separate occasions, and the maps are in existence. So engineering data relating to the Nelson estuary is already fully available. With regard to the harbour of Churchill, there is in existence the hydrographic survey of 1910 with the soundings out to deep water. There is also considerable information available from the Department of Marine and Fisheries regarding the currents in Hudson straits and the navigation conditions there generally. I merely give this information in order to assure my hon. friend that the technical aspects of these various questions have not been lost sight of by past governments and are not being overlooked by the present government. We have in the various departments of government technical experts on these matters, and the air service suggestion to which my hon. friend made reference is under consideration. I may say that that idea is rather promising. It must be remembered that icebergs, as such, are seldom if

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
ever found in Hudson straits; the difficulty is field ice. I may tell the committee frankly that since I came down here I have studied every log book of every steamer available in the Department of Railways, and every track chart.


An hon. MEMBER:: Any from Lunenburg?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, some from Lunenburg. Of course, there is no market in Hudson bay for the kind of goods my hon. friend has in mind. What strikes one in connection with both the log books and the track charts, particularly the latter, is the fact that where a vessel does encounter ice, very frequently after being held up for a period varying from half a day to a week, it shortly finds a clear passage a few miles from where it originally struck the ice, but beyond the range of vision of the mariner at the time. As a matter of fact one vessel will find a clear passage relatively a few miles from another vessel that hits an ice field. The possibilities of hydroplane observation in that regard is receiving the attention of the technical experts of the government at the present time. In all probability valuable work can be done in that connection by communicating by wireless to the captain of the ship where he is likely to find open water. Under ordinary conditions without such aids the mariner of course is limited to his own vision from the ship. But these points are all under consideration now, and I can assure my hon. friend we require no commission of experts to take charge of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I am very giad to be assured by the minister that he has all this information before him. I would feel a little more satisfied if he were not quite so sure about the matter, because it seems to me with the very conflicting evidence which has been published throughout all these years we might very well have a little more definite information with regard to a number of the points to which I have already referred. However, I thought it was oniy right to explain my position with regard to this matter. I intend to vote for the expenditure if it comes to a vote. I am a westerner, and I have seen in the last forty-four years that great lone land develop until we have now three great provinces. I remember as a boy driving north from Calgary to Edmonton and ferrying across the river there. At that time there was absolutely no evidence that within a few years an imposing provincial capitol on one bank and extensive university buildings on the other would overlook the little
ferry that then lay before the old fort. Any of us who have pioneered in the west, have become convinced, I think, that we must take some chances. I might remind the House that although we have not as full or convincing evidence as I should like before committing ourselves to this additional expenditure, the chances we are taking in going on with the Hudson bay undertaking are not nearly so great as the chances which western men continually have to take in carrying on their private business affairs.
There is just one other point I wish to mention before sitting down. I do not think we have started to estimate the water-power that will be made available in that northern country by the construction of this railway and the opening up of the country. We may get minerals; we probably will get fish, but I am sure these water-powers will repay us fully; they at least are already in sight.


Milton Neil Campbell: I have no intention of taking up much of the time of the committee at this late hour in a discussion of this matter. The question has been under discussion in this House for the past five years, but for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I would like to refer to a report by an engineer named J. W. Tyrrell, who was sent to the Hudson straits in 1903 to study conditions. He established himself in a chamber in the rocks four hundred feet above water to study the ice conditions during the whole winter. He states in his report that there was no time during the winter when the ice was not constantly on the move, and that there were open spaces through which a vessel could pass in all except two months of the year, January and February. That is very much in conflict with the statements of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and would imply that there are some years at least when the ice conditions are not so bad. Then I would refer to a report made by Mr. A. P. Low, another engineer who was sent to the bay in charge of the steamer Neptune. He wintered inside the straits and came out in the spring, and said in his report:
There is little doubt that a specially constructed ship for ice navigation might pass through Hudson strait at any season, but the voyage would be long and the difficulties and dangers would be great.
I might refer again to the Senate report of 1907. In part the report states:
The consensus of opinion of witnesses is that Hudson bay remains open all year, strait also open all or nearly all year and would be open all the time except for drift ice from the channel. Aids to navigation would greatly facilitate and extend length of season.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
I see nothing whatever to be gained by adding expense by a prolonged investigation into this matter. We have had two complete investigations into this whole situation at two different periods of our history; we have already spent -a lot of money and this route is either feasible or it is not feasible. Surely we can decide on the - evidence before us to-day and not waste time and money in further consideration.


Mr. FOSTER:: I rise to speak on this
subject with a great deal of diffidence, Mr. Chairman, because I fancy I* am the only member of this House who has ever been in Hudson bay. Consequently I have had an opportunity of encountering the actual conditions there, and it might be supposed that I would have some personal knowledge of those conditions. But a little personal knowledge, however little it might be, would certainly unfit one for speaking on a subject of this kind. That reminds me somewhat of after-dinner speeches, of which they say he makes the best after-dinner speech who announces his subject, departs from it and never approaches it again during the length of his discourse. But the fact remains that in this particular vote and in all subsequent votes which will come before the House in the decades yet to come before we effectively dispose of this subject, I have a peculiar interest.
In the first place I represent a constituency in the far eastern part of Canada -which cannot possibly be benefited to any material extent by this route if it is proven feasible and developed into a great grain-carrying route. If it should be economically sound to carry grain from the west by this route I am sure the grain going by Buffalo and the American ports, plus that which goes by this new northern route, will entirely overlook that, route especially built to carry grain from Winnipeg to Quebec and the Maritimes, the Transcontinental railway. So in any case this will tend to sidetrack the portion of the country from which I come.
That, however, is not the main point to be considered because I realize, as the people of Nova Scotia have always realized since they came into confederation, that we must give a great deal in order to benefit the whole of Canada. If they have become a little tired of giving and not getting very much in return, as they think, I can assure you that it is projects such as these together with the great amount of money spent upon railways all over the country that have brought them partly to that conclusion.
I do not say that I am not go ng to support this vote, but my first objection is that in my

humble judgment this is not the time in the affairs of Canada when we should embark upon a $3,000,000, $10,000,000, $20,000,000 or $50,000,000 project regarding transportation. I cannot help come to the conclusion that we have been spending money in this country on transportation problems for the last twenty-five years, piling up deficit after deficit year after year until we now have a staggering debt on the shoulders of our people. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite as well as hon. members on this side of the House get up and wave their arms in enthusiastic support of schemes of this character, which would indicate at least that our burden is very light indeed. It was that self same enthusiasm which sent us into our railway problems as we have them in Canada to-day; it was that same enthusiasm, without proper examination and proper information, which has cost this country millions of dollars which we will never get back.
, What is the financial situation of Canada today? Hon. gentlemen might consider for a moment our national debt of $2,422,000,000; add to that if you will the provincial debts of $784,000,000 and the municipal debts of another $794,000,000. Then figure the amount of money borrowed from outside Canada, upon which we have to pay interest every year, and we arrive at the staggering sum of 8.000 million dollars. owing bs' this little Dominion of 9,000,000 people, on which sum we have to pay interest. I say that when we start in on propositions of this kind by voting $3,000,000 now-and unquestionably in the next fifteen or twenty years it will take $50,000,000 or $75,000,000-we should go very carefully. Considering this debt we should pause before bringing in, for sentimental reasons only, a measure of this kind and proceeding to vote millions of dollars in this way.
That total of 8,000 million dollars owing by 9,000.000 - people means $940 for every man, woman and child in this country. There is .nothing wrong about these figures; they have been compiled by reputable business men, ana are correct. The total is staggering, and the people of my constituency are asking themselves what this project means so far as they are concerned. I made a little notation here extending it over a period of twenty-five years, and assuming that the expenditure reaches $50,000,000. With $20,000,000 already spent, on the basis of 4 per cent it will mean $2,000,000 to the province of Nova Scotia, or for my own constituency alone something like $140,000 as a capital charge. On that sum the interest each year will amount to $8,000 or $10,000.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
I am not casting my vote in this House because some person who never was in Hudson bay gets up and says that in September and October someone bathed there and the climate is beautiful. You will never make the route pay on climate alone, my information teaches me. In the bay itself, as the hon. minister says, the difficulty is with the ice fields, 100 miles long, and from 75 to 85 miles wide. Is it proposed that when a steamer leaves the dock an aeroplane shall accompany her overhead, with a string hanging down to chart the course and tell her where the opening in the ice field is? There may be some value in the air service there But after all is said and done, until you have determined, as the hon. member for Pictou has said, that this route is feasible, the conditions obtaining in the bay as we know them certainly indicate that as a grain route much has got to be done before it will be feasible. I do not know whether it is feasible or not, but I will say this: Having made one trip in there there is not enough money this House could vote to-night that would induce me to make another in an ice breaker in the Canadian service, which ice breaker was built for the purpose of navigating water such as that. Let me add that in 260 years the Hudson Bay Company, with all their millions, have never built a steamer until this last year. The newspapers advised us the other day that they are putting their first steamer in service in that bay, to cross the Atlantic, and that it is of the ice breaker type. If you are going to have steamers of that kind, as the hon. member for Pictou has pointed out, surely it is only a mathematical problem to figure out how much higher your rates will have to be when you attempt to carry grain in boats of that character, as against boats that are proper grain boats operating from ports further south on the Atlantic. So if we are asked to vote this item for the railway as a grain route, I say that our information at the moment does not warrant it.
Then we	get	back to	the	second reasonoffered, and	that is that	the	land on eitherside is rich	in	minerals,	and	that the roadshould be built	as a colonization road. As
a Canadian, I hope that the land on either side is rich in all sorts of minerals, as I know the bay and streams are rich in fish. But I still say, in view of all the millions we have spent on colonization roads in this country and the difficulty we have in getting people by one scheme or another to settle along the various lines of railway that have been built, that now is not the time to embark
upon another colonization road and spend three or four million dollars for that purpose.
If there is one reason why this road should be built now and why this item should pass, there is one reason only, and that is the sentimental one. In the west, through propaganda in all these years, due to the fact that one leader of one party, then another leader of another party, in order to get some support in that part of the country, had to go west and pledge the party all over Canada to the support of that proposition, there has grown up a sentiment in that part of the country in favour of it, and if we pass this vote we shall be doing so in obedience to that sentiment in that part of the country.
Listening to the arguments that have been adduced, I say that that is the only reason I can see for asking my people in Nova Scotia to vote any money for this purpose, namely, in order to satisfy the great mass of people in the west, to prove to them that we in the east are ready, as we have always been since confederation, to put our shoulder to the wheel and help bear these additional burdens, that we may have unity in the Dominion. That is the only reason that has appealed to me and if I vote for the measure it will be upon that basis, and upon no other that has been given to the House.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As it is now nearly twelve o'clock and we have been discussing other matters than this since two o'clock this afternoon, I would suggest that this is a reasonable hour to adjourn.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The expressions of opinion on this side have shown that there is a sufficient number of hon. members over here in favour of this measure to enable the hon. leader of' the government to put it through. But in view of the interest taken in the Hudson Bay road, a greater interest than is taken in any other measure before this House, I suggest that it is not wise to force us to discuss this question after midnight. I am prepared to go on, but the House is dealing very fairly with this issue, I think. No time has been wasted in long speeches; and I am suggesting, with great deference that the debate might well now be adjourned and a couple of hours be taken to-morrow, because there are a number who wish to express their opinion upon it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Naturally it would be my desire to defer to the wishes of an hon. member like my hon. friend from St.
Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Lawrence-St. George if there were any general sentiment in accord with his own. But I am inclined to think that he is about the only person left who really wishes to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course in this matter I shall be very happy to place myself in the judgment of the committee. But certainly the government would not wish to have Ithe debate prolonged, and I really think it is the wish of the House that we should if possible, conclude this debate tonight. If it goes over to another day, the chances are that a number of the speeches made this afternoon will simply be repeated, and another day will be lost. May I point out to my hon. friend that we were ready to proceed last week with this particular item, but at the request of the acting leader of the opposition we deferred the debate from Friday last until this time, in order to give hon. members opposite the latitude and opportunity they wished.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think you lost any time by that. Very good use was made of the time during which the discussion was deferred. It is not wise, it is not expedient, that it should go. to the country that the Hudson Bay vote is being forced through at twelve o'clock at night without allowing due time for an expression of opinion by the members, for in the eyes of the country this is one of the most important issues before it. The hon. gentleman, as he knows, will have support on this side of the House sufficient to pass the measure when the final vote comes, but I think members on this side should have ample time to express their opinion. Does the right hon. gentleman insist that I should go on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to hear an expression of the view of the committee.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not think it would be fair to the rest of us from distant parts of the country to stay here during the whole session and who cannot get home at all, as other hon. members can, to postpone this debate. We postponed it last week to accommodate members who were unable to be present, and I agreed to that; I had no objection to offer. But I do not see why the hon. member should not go on now. We have been discussing this thing all day, and if it is put over until to-morrow some hon. gentlemen will probably be asking to have it postponed still further because some other hon. gentleman

is absent. I do not think that is fair to hon. members who have to stay here during the whole session.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have certainly lost no time by any adjournment.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I say that any further delay is unfair to the members from the far west and from the Maritime provinces, who have been here since the 7th of January. A few of us went home during the first adjournment because we have our own affairs to look after, just as have hon. members who come from Quebec and Ontario and whose homes are comparatively near this city. I think my objections are well founded. The members for whom I am speaking cannot go away over the week end but have to stay here. Therefore I think other hon. members should be fair to us and let us go on with this matter and finish it up to-night.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I simply rise for the purpose of pointing out that the time of the House has not been wasted by any adj ournment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but the contention that there was any loss of time owing to an adjournment is entirely beside the mark. There was no time at all lost by it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should not like to be put in the position of attempting to force a vote through the House-I think that was the language used by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. There is no intention of the kind. It is really a matter for the committee itself to decide. Judging from the sentiment of the committee, there seems to be a disposition to go on with this discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not to-night.


Charles Avery Dunning: So far as the government is concerned we are prepared either to go on or to stop, as the committee itself may decide.


Arthur Edward Ross: There are a good many members who want to speak on the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to make a request, without seeking to get more than an undertaking given in the way I think it might be given at the moment: If the government agree to adj oum the debate now, will my hon. friends opposite undertake to see that we can go on with the debate when the House meets to-morrow afternoon? I announced last night, as hon. members will

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway
recall, that we would take up the Hudson bay vote in the expectation that the entire day would be given to it; but we were met on a motion to go into Supply by an amendment, the discussion of which took up a good part of the afternoon. If I thought the same thing was going to happen to-morrow I certainly would be opposed to granting an adjournment now. However, if hon. gentlemen opposite will undertake to say that they feel sure no opposition will be offered to-morrow to our proceeding with the Hudson bay discussion from the time the House meets, I am perfectly agreeable that my colleague the Minister of Railways should move that the committee rise and report progress.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If there is one thing I think I can say it is that the opposition have let this government off very easily in connection with motions on going into Supply or for adjourning the House. I am quite sure there is no room for any complaint there at
all. Such being the case I think it is hardly fair that my right hon. friend should seek to make this condition. So far as I am aware at the present moment there is no right the opposition intend to exercise in that connection, but I am not going beyond that point. I simply do not know of anything at the moment; that is all I can say. My right hon. friend will agree with me that is all I could say. I really do think we are not to blame for bringing on many amendments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to accept what my hon. friend has just stated that so far as he knows the opposition do not intend to bring in any motion that will delay our proceeding with this matter to-morrow.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12 o'clock (midnight).



END OF VOLUME IV