RAILWAYS AND CAN ADS

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Railways and Canals-Welland Ship Canal- construction, $8,000,000.
Mr. STEWART (Lanark):: Will the minister state how the $5,000,000 appropriation for this item stood at the end of the fiscal year?


Mr. KENNEDY (Essex):: That appropriation was all used up last year, and in addition there was expended $435,000 under a supplementary estimate.


John Alexander Stewart: With reference to the increase in the appropriation for this year, perhaps the minister would tell the committee what work is proposed to be done.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The details in connection with the proposed expenditure of $8,000,000 are as follows: Sections 1 and 2, $2,000,000; sections 3 and 4, $2,700,000; section 5, $800,000; gravel, $40,000; sand, $200,000; cement, $1,000,000; metal work for locks, $330,000; timber, lock 1, $35,000; bridge superstructure, $250,000; moving superstructure, Grand Trunk bridge No. 11, $25,000; land expropriated not paid for, $110,000; engineering staff, $410,000; construction railway staff, $100,000; making a total of $8,000,000.


John Alexander Stewart: Would the minister inform the committee how the work is being carried on, whether on straight contract or cost-plus basis?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Sections 1, 2 and 5 are being carried on under straight contract. On sections 3 and 4 the work was on a cost-plus basis. We have asked for tenders, and they are now in, and will be considered within the next day or two.


John Alexander Stewart: What new
contracts have been entered into this year in connection with this work?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No new contracts.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Can the minister give the committee some information about any new scale of rents that the department is charging for water-power in connection with our canals? I believe that the new plant near Peterborough is coming into operation. What does the Government propose to charge the HydroElectric for that service?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That matter is under consideration and has not been determined.


William Findlay Maclean: What does the Dominion Power Company, of Hamilton, pay for the power rights it has on the old Welland canal?
Supply-Welland Canal


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am afraid I cannot give that information offhand, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend at an early date.


William Findlay Maclean: Also the information on the other point.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I shall be delighted.


Mr. McCONICA:: Will the minister tell us something of the present status of the work,-what new construction is ahead, how far this appropriation will go towards completing the work, and what the condition of the canal will be when the work is completed? I have been told that the channel both above and below the canal is such that when this work is completed the canal will be s'.e to accommodate no larger boats than are now using the old canal; in other words, that this new construction will add comparatively little to the navigability of that water route.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The original estimate of the cost of the whole canal was $50,000,000. Contracts for sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 were let in 1913, at an estimated value of $20,350,000. When the contracts were abandoned under agreement early in 1918, the total expenditure on the work to the end of 1918, including the purchase of plant, material and stores from contractors was $16,069,000. Work was resumed under cost-plus agreements in January, 1919, and total expenditure to March 31, 1921, was $25,340,000. Early in 1921, Section 5 was put under contract; later in the isame year, Sections 1 and 2 were combined and re-let; and at present Sections 3 and 4 are about to be placed under contract. The estimated value of a schedule-rate contract for completion of Sections 3 and 4 combined is $16,500,000, which includes $2,000,000 for plant and stores which the successful tenderer will have to take over. The estimated amount yet required to fully complete the canal from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario is $55,000,000.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister say what will be the position of the completed Welland canal in relation to the proposed further improved waterways system in order to allow the passage of seagoing vessels to the ports of the upper lakes?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When this
canal is completed, I understand, there will be a depth of 25 feet available for vessels,

as against 14 feet in the old canal. There will be that additional draught which will mean increased tonnage.


William Findlay Maclean: Could that
depth of 25 feet be extended to say 30 feet without entailing any very great additional expense, or without interfering with navigation?
Mr, KENNEDY (Essex) :	I understand that could be done without interfering with navigation, and that all the locks are being built with an extension to a depth of 30 feet in view.


Thomas Henry McConica: Do I understand that
when this work is completed it will be possible for vessels of 25' feet draught to enter from either end of these canals? Will the lock depths and the depth of the route up through the Detroit river be sufficient to accommodate vessels of that draught?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: As I understand, at low water on the Limekiln crossing on the Detroit river there is a depth of 21 feet. Of course this canal will not be finished for some years, and by that time there may be considerable difference in the depth Available for vessels passing up and down the lakes.


Mr. BRISTOL:: I understand the minister to say that the estimated cost of completing the canal is $55,000,000? What amount has been spent already?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Approximately $30,000,000. Fifty-five million dollars was the estimated cost when the work started.


Edmund James Bristol: And that is the estimated cost now for completing it?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: In what period of time, assuming that normal conditions prevail, do you expect to complete the work?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We expect
to have these five sections completed in 1927.


Edmund James Bristol: Would that be the
whole canal?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There are
nine sections jaltogether. The date of completion depends absolutely upon how much money there will be available and how readily we can obtain it.

Supply-Welland Canal


Edmund James Bristol: Unless the conditions
are favourable it will not be completed in 1927?


William Findlay Maclean: Does the
Government intend to avail itself of the cooperation of the United States?


Edmund James Bristol: Will there be any benefit to navigation from the expenditure already made until the canal is actually completed?
Mr. KENNEDY	(Essex) :	The	depth
for boats of the draught in use to-day is 14 feet, but they will have only seven locks instead of twenty-four as at present.


Edmund James Bristol: What I am asking the
minister is this:	Presuming we spend the
$55,000,000 in addition to moneys already spent, estimated to complete the work at present under construction will it benefit navigation?
Mr. KENNEDY	(Essex):	Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: In what	way?
Mr. KENNEDY	(Essex) :	The sum	of
$55,000,000, it is estimated, will complete the whole canal.


Edmund James Bristol: By 1927?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: If the money was available in all probability it would.


Mr. MARTELL:: In view of the present financial condition of the country could we not get along very well without doing any more work upon this canal? I may say that in the town of Windsor, in the county of Hants, the country owned certain wharves, but in 1914 the government leased them to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and to-day the small lumbermen are paying 75 cents a thousand for shipping lumber over those wharves. If the minister is going to spend some eight or nine millions of the people's money at the present time on canals, I think he should at least take those wharves back from the Canadian Pacific and give the people of the county of Hants their wharfage for nothing, and remove that handicap from the lumber industry.


Thomas Henry McConica: I would like to ask the minister this question: When this canal is completed, if there is no further work to be done on the St. Lawrence farther down the river, would it be possible for vessels of 25 feet draught to get into lake Ontario?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: When this canal is completed the largest vessel that is now on the lakes will be able to go as far as Port Colborne, and then on to Kingston and Prescott.


Thomas Henry McConica: If we were to stop construction at the present tame, except in regard to existing contracts, how much of this estimated expenditure could be dispensed with until we have more money in our treasury?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is rather a difficult question to answer. When we took up the question of the estimates for this year we went very thoroughly into the matter with a view of seeing whether it was possible to curtail the expenditure in view of the financial condition of the country. But in the case of at least three contracts we found that the material was on hand and that it would depreciate, and the expenditure of some $20,000,000 would be jeopardized. We therefore thought, after giving the matter every consideration, that the best thing to do would be to carry on as economically as we could in the meantime.


Mr. LEWIS:: What proportion of the work on the canal has been completed?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My recollection of the figures formerly given, and I think they are correct, is that about 33 per cent is finished at the present time.


Arthur John Lewis: And the expenditure has been in the neighbourhood of $25,000,000 so far.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Thirty millions.


Arthur John Lewis: At that rate the total expenditure would be approximately $90,000,000, whereas the minister told us a few minutes ago that the total cost would only be $55,000,000.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Well, the cost of the plant is included in that $30,000,000.


Arthur John Lewis: I presume the cost
of the plant would be $4,000,000. Excluding that, the total amount would be in the neighbourhood of $75,000,000. And it miust be remembered that since the canal has been started contracts have been let time and again at an advanced price.


William Findlay Maclean: I wish to say I am thoroughly in accord with the plans of the Government in going on with the deepening of the Welland canal; I think it is
Supply-Welland Canal

in the interest of the transportation service of this country. It is absolutely in harmony with our projects for improving the transportation systems of Canada, and lowering freight charges. All I regret is that the Government has not pushed its proposals more vigorously. I know there are financial reasons, perhaps, for not proceeding, but the sooner that work is done the better for the country and the sooner the Government decides to accept the offer of the United States the better. The United States have, for the first time, made an offer to co-operate with Canada in the direction of deep waterways that will allow the passage of seagoing vessels to the upper ports of lake Superior, to the great benefit of western Canada especially, which will give us a real competition in the matter of transportation charges of wheat and things of that kind.


Lewis Herbert Martell: What about the railways?


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend is very sore about the railways. Let him go to the committee of this House considering freight rates at the present time, if he wants some information, and he will get some surprising information. But the point I wish to make-and I say it on behalf of the commercial interests of Canada, and the agricultural interests of the West, especially-that you do not often get a proposal made of this character by the neighbouring country, with the money it has at its disposal. It would probably be an easy thing to make a joint arrangement, as between Canada and the United States, for the early completion of the deep waterways from the St. Lawrence right up to the upper ports of lake Superior.


Mr. KNOX:: I would like to ask the
minister if the argument submitted in favour of continuing the work would not apply equally as strongly to some other projects? I have in mind the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: We might
discuss that later in the afternoon.
Mr. STEWART (Lanark). With reference to the question of unemployment which has just been raised, I would like to make it perfectly clear that, so far as the continuation of this work is concerned, there is no question in this section of the House. But I desire to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the contracts, as I understand them, that still

exist in connection with this work, there is a provision that the work could be discontinued. I would like to have the minister give us a statement as to that-that is that the continuation of the - rk is a matter within the discretion of the Government and of the House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that is correct. If the Government does not vote the amount, the contract will be suspended.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: In view of the unemployment situation, perhaps never more severe than now, probably, the minister will consider it very unwise to take such a step.


Mr. CRERAR:: I want to get a little
information from the minister as to what real value the Welland Canal will be in the haulage of grain until the deepening of the St. Lawrence is carried out, and the work has been advanced so that it will enable the grain to be carried in large lake freights eastward as far as Kingston and Prescott. I cannot see that that will be of any very great advantage as reducing the transportation cost of grain. As a matter of fact, there are boats of comparatively small draught now that run from Fort William to Montreal, and the carriage of grain in large vessels down to Kingston will not prevent them from using the smaller boats for the whole distance. I believe that essentially the Welland canal project is a sound one, but it should certainly never have been undertaken until the whole scheme could be carried out, and these 20 and 25-foot vessels provided to carry the grain right through from Fort William to Montreal. I was opposed to the grant a year ago, and I see no reason for changing my position now. I quite realize that it might be a very costly thing to leave work, upon which twenty five or thirty millions have been spent and not carry it through. In other words, when you get a job half done it may be more expensive to leave it in that condition than to complete it. I would like to have some information from the minister upon that point, I wish to say that the results that will come from the completion of the Welland canal in itself, as far as moving grain from Fort William eastward is concerned, will be very small indeed.


Edmund James Bristol: I may, perhaps, give the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) some information on this subject,

Supply-Welland Canal
as I have been connected with transportation matters more or less for a few years. With reference to the ships that come down from the head of the lakes to Port Colborne and Buffalo, I do not know just what their grain rate is, but I think it is li cents a bushel. It is true they often get a return cargo. They carry from 450,000 to 750,000 bushels of wheat. If the Welland canal were deepened today the boats would go to Prescott, and it is a cheap proposition from Prescott to Montreal,-probably half a cent a bushel would cover the cost of taking it to Montreal, and putting it on the ocean liner, or into the elevators. As a matter of fact, my information is:-and I believe it to be accurate, because it is obtained from the best sources of information-that it would take practically seven boats, to-day to bring what the Grant Morgan would carry from the head of the lakes to Port Colborne, going through the canal. I think the highest capacity of these boats is about 100,000 bushels, and the average would be about 80,000 bushels. These large boats could run to Prescott for another cent or two, as against five cents, which is the cost today. Of course, the rates would vary. When you get a straight rate, it varies from four to eight cents, depending on how anxious they are to get the cargoes. It takes seven or eight of these smaller boats to carry what one of the large boats can handle, and the large boats have only about two more of a crew, so that the cost of operation of one of these small boats is about the same as the cost of the operation of a large up-to-date freighter. By this means relief would be given to the extent of about 3 cents a bushel to the farmers of the West, and I believe the St. Lawrence project would probably give them relief to the extent of another cent and a half. I favour the speeding-up of the Welland canal. There is competition between the two routes from the head of the lakes, between the line that goes through Canada to Montreal, and the line that goes through the United States to New York. The Americans have the use of our canal for nothing, and if they want to pay half the cost, let them do it. You cannot put a dollar into our canals, but the United States gets five times the benefit that Canada receives. The United States is willing to pay, and I do not know any reasoi^ under the existing conditions why she should not pay her
share. There is no international complication that I can see, because you are going to have all the money necessary for our purposes. There is no reason why, if the United States are getting ten times the benefit of the canal, they should not pay their share. And the only reason they are making this offer to us is because it is worth ten times as much to the farniers of the United States as it is to our farmers. It would make a difference of 4 cents a bushel on the price of the wheat on the continent. That is a great deal of money. What influences are today at work to stop the St. Lawrence project, and prevent our friends in the Cabinet from conferring with the United States, I have not the slightest idea.
Personally, I think it is extraordinary that when the government of the great United States wants to talk about a project of this kind, one that affects vitally every farmer on the northern part of the American continent, we cannot at least listen to what they have to say. I am absolutely in accord with the statement that has often been made that the carrying out of this great project will mean a difference of three cents a bushel to the farmer, and I do not believe the railways of this country will suffer materially, because what has heretofore come by rail will continue to come that way. Some arrangement should be made about the matter in this way. The reason that we are getting via Montreal a great deal more grain than is going via Portland is because our transportation facilities are better than those of the United States, and as regards freight rates we are beating the Americans by two cents a bushel. Last year 47,000,000 bushels came to Montreal out of Chicago, and it comes a little earlier than the wheat of the Canadian Northwest. We should have some control of that situation, because it should not be possible for the situation to arise that when our Canadian wheat is being transported, the Canadian farmer finds that the elevators are already filled up with United States wheat that has come through our canals free. That is only an [DOT]incidental matter; but you have to consider it. Wheat ripens in the United States two or three weeks earlier than it does in Canada, so that they are ready to transport it sooner than we are. Last year 138,000,000 bushels were shipped out of Montreal, and 47,000,000 bushels of that came from Chicago, for the first time in the history of the country. This grain is going to come
Supply-Welland Canal

more quickly in future, and Montreal is found to be one of the greatest ports on this continent; nothing can stop that. There can never be any really intelligent opposition to this project from Montreal, and I do not think there is any. There is only one place as vitally situated as it is, although there may be certain ports that will store wheat at the head of the Great Lakes. The Canadian farmer is vitally interested in the price of wheat, and the price that he receives for his wheat depends upon the price of wheat at Liverpool and the cost to transport it to that city. If you can lessen the cost of inland transportation by three cents a bushel, you are going to make the price of wheat to the farmer three cents higher, because that will be the price for wheat grown west of the Great Lakes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I recognize the force of the argument of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol), and it may be that the completion of the canal with the considerably larger vessels that can pass through it, will bring about the result, or, at any rate, part of the result that he has stated. I will admit that that aspect of the question is one that I have not looked into very closely. I believe, however, that it would mean the erection of elevators at Prescott and Kingston for the transfer of this grain from the lake vessels that brought it down to those points, to the barges that would carry it on to Montreal. What expense would be involved in doing that, is also a matter for consideration. I am free to admit, though, that my hon. friend in that respect may have substantial reasons to support his argument. My whole attitude to the question was rather governed by the idea that we should control, as much as possible, our public expenditures, in view of our financial situation, and I still think that is a consideration that should weigh with the Government. I am quite in agreement with what my hon. friend has said as to the attitude that should be taken by the Canadian government to the recent offer of the United States government to consider the question of the development of the St.' Lawrence waterways. Without question or doubt, that great project will some day be undertaken; it must be undertaken. That great system of waterways which we have through the St. Lawrence and our great lakes into the very heart of this continent will be, and it should be some day, an enterprise that will be taken up jointly by these 
two governments. Canada and the United States are going to live peacefully together, and it is to their mutual interest to co-operate in a matter of this kind. As I understand the situation, the proposal of the United States does not involve any outlay of money at the present time, excepting in a very small degree. It was rather along the line of getting action started with the ultimate development of this project in the way that I have stated. I certainly believe that that matter should not have been turned back by the Government in the way that it was. They would have been well advised had they met the Washington government half way in a consideration of this enterprise.


William Findlay Maclean: I should like again to present, on behalf of the people of Canada, the opinion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his Government owe an explanation in regard to their decision that the present was not an opportune time to take the matter up. Why is it not timely? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has been to Washington, and he must be of opinion that if there is some way in which we can co-operate, we ought to try to do so. The United States have come to this decision after their experience in connection with the Panama canal, the greatest proposition as regards canalization for the improvement of transportation, that was ever accomplished. The expenditure in that case was much larger than the original estimate; but they went to work and completed the canal, and by reason of their experience and success in connection with the Panama canal, they are determined to improve waterways elsewhere on this continent. They have made an offer, and for the time being the people of Canada are told that this is not the right time to take this matter up. I should like to have an answer from the Government-perhaps the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) will give it-why that offer has been declined for the present. If the question is one of money and the getting of money, I have no doubt that the money immediately necessary for expenditures in connection with deepening the waterways up to the Great lakes can be found by the United States without any trouble at less than four per cent. I imagine the United States Government can get all the money they want for the immediate development of the St. Lawrence waterways at probably 31 per cent, and thpt they would charge us nothing more than that rate.

Supply-Welland Canal


Mr. CARROLL:: Did they make the same offer in connection with the Welland canal?


William Findlay Maclean: That is what I want to know, and that is what the people want to know-whether they made the same offer in connection with the three waterways. All our chambers of commerce in this country are holding meetings and a great international association has been formed for the promotion of this proposal. It involves diplomatic relations and it necessitates correspondence. It involves the President of the United States, who is a man of his word, and who comes to a friendly government, as I believe he takes Canada to be, and makes an offer to us at this time when transportation is a fundamental question in America. We are, however, told in a short answer in this House, that this is not the timte to take up the matter. I hope the Minister of Railways will give us more details about the correspondence and will give some assurance to the people of Canada and at the same time to the people of the United States, that Canada is prepared to consider this question and is ready, at least, to have the proposition laid on the Table, so that the people of Canada and of the United States may appreciate what the proposition is.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I think it is about time that we should stop speaking of great schemes and of spending more money on transportation facilities. We have given the West three transcontinental railways; we are constructing the Welland canal, which requires a great deal of money. I think the scheme of deepening the St. Lawrence should be dropped immlediately for the time being and we should go on with the Welland canal if it is necessary to finish it at an early date. If we had not spent so much money on that canal, we should discontinue it; but from what I can gather from the minister, he is obliged to go on in order to take care of the work that has already been done. As regards this great scheme of deepening the St. Lawrence, I think we have spent enough money for some years to come in transportation facilities, and our friends from the West and Ontario should be satisfied. We in the East are satisfied that our friends from the West and Ontario have sufficient transportation facilities for the moment.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: During the last few years the work on this project has slowed up very considerably owing to financial
stress and the necessities of the country in other directions, and in that period a great deal of damage has been done to the half-finished work. Now, the minister would be well advised in doing one of two things: he should either stop the work entirely or else go ahead and do it in a businesslike way. What is the use of allowing half-finished work to depreciate? It seems to me to be a piece of absolute folly, as any one will admit who takes a look at the work. I have seen bridge abutments go out and slip down into the canal, and I have also seen the banks slip. The minister will hardly pretend that it is reasonable to spend $25,000,000 on a work of this kind and then leave it in that condition. The thing is too childish to think of.


Thomas Henry McConica: There is one aspect of the question that occurs to me. I thoroughly agree with my hon. friend as to the desirability of improving the St. Lawrence waterway, I am strongly in favour of that improvement being made as soon as it is possible to bring it about. I think the time will come when it will be absolutely necessary to do this in the welfare of the people of Canada, both from the point of view of the manufacturing centres in the East and from the standpoint of the grain producing regions in the West. I believe that the matter should be looked to very early and earnestly by the Government of Canada. But the question that suggests itself to me is this: Will not the improvement of the Welland canal be better carried on as a part of the whole project that is now under consideration than as a piecemeal operation undertaken by Canada when she is very much in need of money? I have no notion of wanting to delay the completion of that improvement, but I do question the propriety of our proceeding to piece out here and there this particular work while the whole project is under consideration. If it is proposed that we shall enter into this arrangement, as I sincerely hope it is, then would it not be better for us to undertake this work as a part of the whole scheme rather than do it on our own account?


Mr. HOCKEN:: Of course, I am in
favour of the completion of the Welland canal. But I have always thought it somewhat strange that we should have undertaken a work of that character unless we had it in mind to carry it a good deal further. The development of the Welland canal will allow us to bring boats
Supply-Welland Canal

of very great tonnage into lake Ontario from the northern lakes and from lake Ontario into lake Erie, but it is very doubtful in my opinion whether the advantage we shall gain by the completion of that work with the limited amount of service we can get from it justified the undertaking at the commencement unless we had something else in view. My hon. friends from Montreal and the province of Quebec, as well as their newspapers, seem to be afraid that the development of the St. Lawrence is going to be injurious to their interests. To my mind that is a very shortsighted view to take of the project. I confidently believe that that work will be proceeded with before many years, and I venture the prediction that no province in the Confederation will profit more from its completion than the province of Quebec. It will enable them to transport their manufactured goods to the head of the lakes at a cost of perhaps one-eighth of what is charged by the railways to-day. That fact is all that need be stated to men engaged in large businesses in Quebec to convince them that the work will be of great benefit to that province. Such advantages as the manufacturers in the province of Ontario have in the matter of freight rates as against Quebec would be entirely eliminated, for a vessel could load at Quebec and be given the same freight rate as if it were loaded at Toronto. My hon. friends from Quebec and their newspapers enlarge on the cost and tell us, perhaps truly, that we have not enough money to embark upon so considerable a project. Well, as I think has been pointed out before, the Dominion of Canada does not need to raise one dollar to carry out the work. The plan that has been suggested is for the government of the United States and the government of Canada to charter a commission that will render the service at cost, giving that commission power to issue bonds. There can be no doubt that they could issue bonds at 4 per cent for two or three times the amount of money necessary.


William Findlay Maclean: At 3i per cent.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: At least, what I have stated is the opinion of very eminent men with whom I have talked on the subject.


Mr. FIELDING:: Without government guarantees?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, both governments would guarantee the bonds.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another thing.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: But I submit that the project is of such a character that we should never be called upon to pay anything on our guarantee. I do not know that this is the time to go into the details of the question, but that is the plan that has been proposed, and to my mind it is one that is entirely feasible. The credit of the country would, of course, be involved, but the country would not be called upon to undertake the issuing of bonds at 5 per cent.
Now, with regard to the cost of the Welland canal, I think the problem will be largely solved by the completion of the larger work. The project, as set out in the report which my hon. friends have read, takes the Welland canal as part of the whole undertaking, and the cost of that canal-what we have spent and what is still to be spent-is to be part of the international obligation. That is a very material fact. It means that we go on and complete the Welland canal and make the waterway from the Atlantic ocean to the head of the Great lakes, and all the money that would be spent in completing the canal would be shared by the United States as a part of the entire project. I have been surprised that hon. gentlemen from the West, and the people of those provinces, have not gone into this international project more deeply and shown a greater interest in it than they seem to have taken. It means to them not only getting their grain out at somewhere between eight to ten cents a bushel less than it costs to transport it to the seaboard to-day, but all the manufactured goods that they take into the western provinces would share equally in the lower freight rates. And to my mind it is not to lower tariffs that my hon. friends from the West must look for relief, but to lower transportation costs.


An hon. MEMBER:: Both.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, you have a long way to go before you will get tariff reduction, as I think you must be convinced by what has happened this session. But, Sir, you have not very far to go to get the other, and personally I regret that the Government did not at least show more sympathy with the approaches made to them by the authorities of the United States than the newspaper reports would indicate. I do not think that there is anything before the people of Canada to-day that will give them greater relief from the burdens they are

Supply-Welland Canal
carrying, and greater advantages for the future development of the country, than the completion of this great waterway. Providence has put in our hands something of inestimable value, and we are letting it lie undeveloped. The time will come when all the railways we have will not be sufficient to carry the traffic from the central and western portions of this country. That state of affairs has already arrived in the United States; that country must have other and better means of transportation for the products of the western and central western states. We are not as congested as they are yet, but we hope that that congestion will come, as it must come with additional population. Therefore it is wise for us to have some vision on a great project of this kind and if we are not prepared to say, "We will look with sympathy into those representations which have been made to us by our great neighbour to the south;" we might at least say, "Whatever we may do in the future, we think this is worth talking about and looking into." But, unfortunately, the Government has not gone that far, and I sincerely regret the course which the negotiations have taken.


William Findlay Maclean: I still press the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) for an answer to the very fair question I put to him, namely, to give the House the reason why it is not informed of the policy of the Government in delaying action in this matter. To that I would add this thought. Imagine the relief that would be given to unemployment in this North American continent to-day if the policy which the President of the United States has in view, involving perhaps an expenditure of $300,000,000 or $400,000,000, for the building of a great highway, largely at the expense of the United States, were undertaken. I believe that money would be forthcoming at 3 or 3i per cent. It was not long ago that the government bonds of the United States were saleable all over the world at a price that gave a return of 3 per cent. I believe that day is coming back again, I predict that when the building of that international waterway is undertaken all the money will be found in the first place by the United States at 3 per cent, and that we will not be charged any more than that rate for our proportion of the capital outlay. In that way relief will be given to unemployment, and, most of all, relief will be given to transportation.
With regard to the opposition to this project from Montreal, the people of that city
think there is only one solution of 4 p.m. the transportation problem-by rail. There is, I contend, a better solution of that problem by developing our waterways and so enabling sea vessels to reach the upper lakes. Montreal's vision is distorted because it cannot see any other solution of the transportation problem, and this rail solution would perhaps be controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, of Montreal. Now, that company is in the ocean business and has large fleets of its own, but it would not like to see its vessels sent up to Duluth, Port Arthur and Fort William in competition with its railway. What is holding back this great undertaking? The railway interests of Canada and of the United States. But they cannot get by the President of the United States and the farmers' bloc. The President has brought forward this policy and has invited our co-operation-the first time that we have ever been approached by the United States to participate in a great international project. And yet the party that was in favour of reciprocal trade arrangements with the United States is not prepared to co-operate-or at least is prepared to delay entertaining the proposal for a solution of our transportation problem based on seaways as well as on railways.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend read the despatch from the Canadian to the American government which was laid on the Table a few days ago?


William Findlay Maclean: I have read it. But I have not read the reply of the Prime Minister to the despatch from the American government; that is what I want to see.


William Stevens Fielding: That is where my hon. friend has taken only a one-sided view of the case.


William Findlay Maclean: Give us the other side.


William Stevens Fielding: It has been given already. If my hon. friend were looking after parliamentary affairs constantly instead of only occasionally he would know that that document was laid on the table.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the policy of the Government?


William Stevens Fielding: I was just going to follow that up. If my hon. friend had read that despatch-


William Findlay Maclean: I have read it. What is the policy of the Government?

Supply-Welland Canal


William Stevens Fielding: He said just now that he had not read it.


William Findlay Maclean: There was no definite statement contained in the despatch I read.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is asking what is the reason for the Government's action. All I suggest is that if he will read the despatch sent by the Canadian Government to the United States government he will find that that reason could not be expressed in shorter or more concise terms than those set forth in that despatch.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the reason for the delay?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not a copy of the despatch in my hand. My hon. friend can send to the Clerk and get a copy.


William Findlay Maclean: The minister ought to be able to state what is the policy of the Government.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not set forth in the despatch which my hon. friend admits he has not read.


William Findlay Maclean: As a member of the House I request the Government to give an answer. What was the reply?


Mr. MILLAR:: I am interested in the conflicting statements that have been made in regard to this matter. The member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) has just stated that there would be a saving of from 8 to 10 cents a bushel on grain from the West to Montreal if the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence river were opened up for seagoing boats. I find that in a discussion which took place a short time ago in the Senate a statement was made that it now costs 7 cents a bushel to carry grain from Fort William to Montreal. So how it would be possible to save 8 or 10 cents a bushel when the total cost is now only 7 cents is something that I cannot understand. From information I have received I understand that during last season a private company purchased and placed on the lakes five new boats for the grain traffic as they found the business so profitable. In looking over the report of the International Joint Commission I was struck by some of the information it contains. In the discussion that took place in the House some time ago in regard to this matter I was led to believe that the total cost would be $252,000,000. I have been rather surprised to find that that sum only covers

the cost up to the Welland canal, and that to get at the total cost one would have to add $50,000,000 or $60,000,000 for the widening and deepening of the Welland canal, and that there has already been spent $2,900,000 on what are called the St. Clair flats. These would have to be deepened, as well as the Soo canal, in order to enable great boats to pass from Fort William to Montreal.
I have heard nothing in this discussion so far about great ocean liners from Liverpool going up the lakes to Fort William. I believe that prospect carried considerable weight at one time. In the evidence given before the commission I was surprised to find the statement that it costs three times as much to build a boat for the transatlantic traffic as for the lake traffic; and added to that is the fact, also rather startling, that one of those large boats would carry only about 60 or 65 per cent of the amount of cargo that a lake boat of similar tonnage would carry because of its deeper draught and special form of construction for deep sea traffic. Let me repeat that. A boat that is intended to carry grain from Fort William to Liverpool would have to be built so strongly that it would cost three times as much as a boat of the same tonnage on the Great Lakes. Think what that means in extra cost and overhead charges, and the greater cost in man power. This cost would have to be borne-and would bear interest-up through all these canals. I was also surprised to find that between Prescott and Montreal there are some forty-four miles of canal. It showed me how little I knew of the geography of my own country. The evidence given before the commission would show that a large boat could not pass through these canals at a greater speed than four miles an hour, and there is great danger of them being rubbed against the side, causing considerable damage, and hours delay before they can be released.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Does the hon. member think they could use some of the Canadian merchant marine boats on those canals? It would not be much loss if they were damaged.


John Millar: I have heard some
rumours about the merchant marine, but I would not like to pass any opinion on that question. One hon. member has said that there would be a saving of 11 cents per bushel on grain passing through the Welland canal, and of 1 cent a bushel pas-

Supply-Welland Canal
sing through the other canals to Montreal, or a total saving of 2J cents a bushel. If we reckon up the interest on the large amount of money required to complete this waterway, and reckon what would be saved even if grain could be , carried for two or even three cents a bushel cheaper,-and that would be near the limit, I believe,-we shall find that it would be a losing game, and that grain could be carried free, through the Welland and Lachine canals for less than the interest on the investment.
There is another matter that should be considered, because I believe some are still of the opinion that we can open up a route between Fort William and Liverpool or London. The great carriers that come across the ocean bring with them a cargo, That cargo at the present time, and for years to come, must be unloaded at Montreal. It is not a cargo for Fort William, and for many years to come Fort William cannot be a distributing point. Think what it would mean for one of these boats to stop at Montreal and unload, and then have to crawl empty, at the rate of four miles an hour, through 44 miles of canal, through the Welland canal, the St. Clair flats, the Soo canal and up to Fort William. Think of the lost time when they could be loading and unloading at the same time, as they must do if they are going to make dividends. You cannot load at one time and unload at another and make it pay.
I am not going to go more fully info the whole question of the deep waterway except to say that much of what has been said, and is believed, is based on information that is not well founded. We have our railway transportation problems at the present time, and great problems they are. While this waterway might result in a slight saving in transportation costs, it would take a certain amount of traffic from the railways. The time may come -I would not go so far as to say it never will come-when this route will be feasible and the Welland canal may pay, but at the present time, I am convinced, it will not pay, and considering that money is so much needed for other things I think it is unwise for the Government to expend this amount of money at this time.
The argument-and it is a very good one -has been made by the minister that much of the work that has been done would deteriorate if further amounts are not spent. But that argument also holds good in connection with several branch lines of railway. I referred to one some time ago, where the farmers were so anxious to have the railway that they offered to build it themselves and pay for it out of the freight. I receive letters quite frequently in regard to this branch line, saying that the farmers are drawing their grain nearly twenty miles, and that it is turned over to the Canadian Pacific rather than to the Government railway.
There is also the plea made on behalf of the unemployed. I think it would be much better if this Government would undertake to build with a part of this money some of the branch lines that are very much needed, and take those who are willing to work in the Welland canal district over the railways free to places where they are required, and bring them back again free. This would be work that would open up the country, and encourage an industry that is not now getting the consideration it should. These branch lines would serve as feeders for the present railways, would be an encouragement to agriculture, would produce freight, and, due to the greater buying power of those who are on the land, would help industry as a whole. On the other hand, I am convinced that if $8,000,000 is spent on the Welland canal this year, the benefit will be so small that very few will feel it. I think the Government would be well advised to reduce this item by one-half and spend the other $4,000,000 where it is much more needed. I do not say, spend it on branch lines necessarily, although I think that is perhaps where the money is most needed, but spent it wherever it is most needed. If there is any industry that is requiring assistance more than the agricultural industry spend it there. Certainly there are many ways in which it could be spent to advantage.
I know there is an inclination to pass this item without further discussion, but it is a large appropriation, and I do not . feel I would be honestly representing my constituency if I allowed it to pass unchallenged. I would just like to ask the House for a little sympathetic consideration. How would this project look to the man-I know this is an extreme case-who in order to keep the sheriff from the door last fall borrowed $400 at 25 per cent interest, and the loan was partly or fully covered by giving in return a Ford car and some other goods. That man has worked hard all his life. How would this undertaking look to him?
Supply-~Welland Canal

I notice an inclination on the part of some people to say, and I have heard it said in this House: You farmers ought to quit grumbling and get down to work. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers are not grumblers. With fair treatment, they are prepared to take their losses and gains without any grumbling whatever, but I can point to thousands of men who know the business of farming, who are slaves to work, and economizing more than they should be compelled to do, who waste nothing, and yet at the end of their year's work find - and this is no exaggeration - that they have not made, one cent. The return they get for their grain in many cases does not pay the cost entailed in securing the seed, sowing the grain, reaping, harvesting and threshing it. Now, I know some will smile and say that statement is surely exaggerated. However, I venture the assertion, that if I could not prove it to be correct in a reasonable length of time, on the authority of hundreds of letters, I would be willing to resign my seat in this House. Bearing that fact in mind, if my seat mate will act as seconder, I am going to move that this item be reduced by one-half, that is reduced to $4,000,000.


Mr. EVANS:: I believe this has been
an ill-advised scheme from the beginning. To think of constructing a canal in the middle of this continent, without having the approaches at either end of the same capacity, is most unreasonable. Thirty million dollars have already been spent, which will not be revenue bearing, at least, until about 1930. By that time another $30,000,000 will also be spent, and the interest on that at 6 per cent would meet the cost of carrying the whole of the western wheat crop that goes by this route, clear across the peninsula. I am very much surprised to hear the warm advocacy of this scheme from our friends in Toronto. I believe they see the possibility of deriving more benefit from it than anybody else, and perhaps they are thinking only of their city.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: We are thinking of the West.


John Evans: The greatest surprise of all to me is to hear hon. gentlemen to my right warmly advocate the co-operation of the United States on the ground that this is an international undertaking when, only a few years ago they told us we were not to have " truck or trade with the Yankees " in relation to a scheme that

would have been of international benefit, and revenue bearing from the very beginning. As to unemployment this project will not result in any lasting benefit, even though it may relieve unemployment for the time being. Our unemployment problem will rightly be solved by further* developing some of our natural resources and building branch lines. As one hon. member has already stated these would be revenue producing from the time they were completed; and it would only take a few million dollars to furnish facilities for those in the West who to-day are not only suffering inconvenience, but absolute hardship. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) has emphasized the unreasonableness of leaving a project like this remain unfinished and to deteriorate year after year. I can point out to him a project started in western Canada over ten years ago upon which $20,000,000 has been spent, and I see an item of $40,000 in the estimates this year to take care of the terminals of that railway only, although the grades are levelling down and the steel is rusting. I certainly oppose this estimate and do so with a clear conscience.
. Mr. MANION: I do not wish at this stage of the proceedings to cause any delay in the passage of the estimates of any branch of the government. I do not think, perhaps, that this is the most suitable time to discuss the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterways project, and I do not intend to do so except to offer two or three sentences which will perhaps clear the air a bit. My hon. friend from Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Millar) has said that he did not see where the saving would come from in connection with this enterprise. Well, I am not authority enough to tell him exactly where the saving would come from but the best authorities in the world who have investigated this scheme say it will save anywhere from five to ten cents a bushel on the wheat handled, not only from western Canada but from the western states. Julius Barnes, perhaps the best authority in the world to-day on grain statistics, says in the report from which my hon. friend quoted, that it will save ten cents. Herbert Hoover makes the same statement. Some of the other authorities assert that the saving will be five cents on the wheat coming from the West to-day or at least very much of the wheat -I refer to the proportion which goes down to Port Colborne, or perhaps to some

Supply-Welland Canal
of the Georgian Bay ports, and is there transferred and taken to Montreal. If the wheat does not go by the Canadian route, it is shipped to Buffalo where it is transferred either to the Erie canal or to railway cars and taken to New York. I believe the cost of shipping from the Georgian Bay ports and Port Colborne to Montreal, and from Buffalo to New York, is in the neighbourhood of nine or ten cents. The saving would be there. If wheat could be carried by boat all the way from the head of the lakes to Montreal that would result in a great saving. At present it is transferred at Port Colborne, or Buffalo, or some of these other points, and shipped by rail to Montreal and New York. That is where the saving comes in. My hon. friend made the statement-it was made by other members when this question was up before in the House; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) made the same statement if my recollection serves me correctly-that the interest on this expenditure was too great. But if the actual saving should happen to be five cents a bushel, if this scheme were carried through, it would mean a similar amount on every bushel of wheat grown in the prairie provinces. Not only that but as my hon. friend knows the price of wheat is fixed in Liverpool for the whole of the western provinces-not merely for the wheat sent to Liverpool-and supposing the saving in the carriage of wheat amounted to five cents a bushel, the total saving on 300,000,000 bushels would mean $15,000,000 a year which would pay the whole interest, as a mater of fact, on Canada's share of the cost of this entire project.


John Millar: I would like to ask my hon. friend some questions. Is he aware that the Erie canal, which is a strong competitor with us in the carriage of wheat, has a draught of only eight or nine feet? Secondly, would he say positively that the present freight rate is more than seven cents front Fort William to Montreal? My figures are taken from a speech delivered recently in the Senate by Senator Casgrain.


Mr. MANION:: Senator Casgrain is very much opposed to this scheme and loses no opportunity of expressing his opposition. Leaving that aside, in answer to my hon. friend let me say that I cannot give the actual figures, but I know that what I stated is correct. In the very report from which my hon. friend quoted, Herbert Hoover
and Julius Barnes say that the construction of this enterprise will make a saving of ten cents a bushel on the carriage of American and Canadian wheat. However, cut it down to five cents, which other authorities in the same report say would be the right figure. I believe my hon. friend will find that you cannot carry wheat to-day with navigation open from Fort William to Montreal for anything like seven cents a bushel. I may be wrong, but I think I am right, I am quoting authorities from the report of the commission appointed by the two governments. They took up an entire year to investigate this matter and this is their report. I must confess that when I was told that five or ten cents a bushel would be saved I did not believe it; but when the report came out and gave that figure on the authority and as the finding of the commissioners I had no hesitation in accepting it, speaking generally. My hon. friend mentioned the idea of boats coming from Liverpool to Fort William, or to the head of the lakes. I do not think there is very much likelihood of that happening, at least not to any extent. The idea would be this: Wheat would be carried from the head of the lakes to Montreal and there transhipped to ocean-going vessels. There is a type of vessel projected for canal, lake and ocean service, and I am told by competent engineers that the construction of this class of vessel would not cost any more than the building of any other type of boat.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some of the Canadian Merchant Marine vessels?


Robert James Manion: I am not referring to the Canadian Merchant Marine. Still, I have enough confidence in Canada to believe that we can build a merchant marine to suit this service. There seems to be a tendency, a continual tendency, to make fun of the Canadian Merchant Marine and at times, to make fun of everything Canadian. I admit many boats of the Canadian Merchant Marine are probably idle at the present time; so are many boats of the private corporations. I do not think there is anything particular to be gained by interjecting uncalled for references to the Canadian Merchant Marine, because it has nothing to do with the matter. The point I was making was that I had been told by competent engineers, one of them living in Ottawa, a representative of Sir Robert Perks, the gentleman who wishes to build the Georgian bay canal. This engineer has been studying the question for some years,
Supply-Welland Canal

and he told me personally that a boat could be built to serve both lake and ocean at little, if any, greater cost than the ordinary cost of building boats for ocean or lake. However, the point I wish to make is that it is not the intention in this canal scheme mainly to have boats run straight across the ocean. They would probably run to Montreal or to Quebec. The saving would be in the carrying without breaking bulk from the head of the lakes to Montreal or Quebec. I do not think the statement of the hon. member from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Miller) should go unchallenged, especially when we have the report of the commission which states the opposite.
I think it is rather an extraordinary proceeding for the Government to have practically refused to discuss this question at all with the United States' government. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has suggested that the reason is the lack of money. I do not dispute that, and I do not argue that the Government should not take any particular stand they choose. That is their right. But it is an unprecedented thing, it seems to me-and some of the Washington papers made a similar statement when the matter occurred-for one government to absolutely refuse to discuss with another government a question of international importance such as this. I do not say this particularly with a desire to criticize the Government, but I think they might be well advised to reconsider the question of discussing this matter with the United States' government. The fact, that they consented to discuss the matter would not by any means tie them up to the proposition, and it would not in any way tie my hon. friends to my left or any of them, to the proposition, but certainly all information on such a subject as this might well be gained by all of us, and certainly by the government in power. So that, I submit, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, that he might well reconsider the stand he has taken on the question and listen to and take part in such discussion, if the opportunity arose, wholly in the interest of getting information for the Government, and for the people of this country. If, after those discussions the Prime Minister chose to take an attitude absolutely opposed to the building of the canal, it is his right, but I do not believe it is in the interests of the Government or of the country for the Government to absolutely refuse at this time, or any other

time, to discuss a question of such great magnitude and importance as this.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The Government never refused to discuss it. We said it is not an opportune moment. We were asked to enter into a treaty, and we said no; that having regard to the magnitude of the matter, the expenditure involved and the importance of the question, we have not had time to consider it. We have not closed the door to discussion.


Robert James Manion: I am only going by the
Prime Minister's own words. 'He said in reply to a question asked by Sir Henry Drayton:
-"the Government has replied tc the effect that the present is not an opportune moment to take the matter up."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member was asking about entering into a treaty, and the reply was that this was not an opportune moment to discuss the question of making a treaty.


Robert James Manion: But has not the Prime Minister and the Government absolutely refused to discuss the matter at all with the Government of the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all. I am glad you have brought up the question. That impression is erroneous.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) made a similar statement a few minutes ago, and he must have taken it from the words of the Prime Minister, as I did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I laid the correspondence on the table of the House, and I think it was ordered to be printed. I do not know if it has been printed, but if hon. members will read the correspondence they will see that the communication received by this Government from the United States government related particularly to the question of entering into a treaty, and the reply related to the question of the treaty, and the discussion of the matter was not precluded. What I wanted to say particularly was that the Government had not had time to study the report. And until we have time to study the report, it would be unwise to talk about a treaty.


Robert James Manion: I am pleased to have the Prime Minister make the statement he has made. We drew a wrong conclusion from his words, but the conclusion drawn by me, the hon. member from Marquette, and other members of the House, was

Supply-Welland Canal
drawn from the words of the Prime Minister. I admit I have not read the correspondence, but I took his words in the House. However, his statement now is more satisfactory. I do not dispute it at all, and I believe it better that this information should have been given to us all.


Mr. SALES:: I would like to say a few words on this question before the vote is taken. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) said that he was surprised that the farmers were not interested in a proposal which would save them so much money. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) and the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol) also spoke in the same strain. They are surprised we are not interested. Well, we are interested, but we are also sceptical. I wonder who the saving is going to be for.


William Findlay Maclean: The farmer.


Thomas Sales: I doubt it. I say that we have spent millions of money on the waterways, and the more money we spend the higher our rates go. There was an increase from 1919 to 1920 of 2i cents a bushel.


Robert James Manion: Could we get the crop of western Canada out of the country at all, if it were not for the money that has been spent on the waterways of the country?


Thomas Sales: That is all right, perhaps we could not, but the more money we spend the higher the rates go. Is that saving going to be for the farmers or for the big watered stock companies, such as the Canada Steamship Company?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No. A commission will be appointed to work on costs.


Thomas Sales: This battle has been fought in this House time and again, year after year, for the control of the rates on our waterways and has been objected to by my hon. members on both sides of the House. They will not allow those rates to be brought under control, as the railway rates have been. A gentleman named Armstrong used to be a member of this House, and I find that, year after year, he brought up this question very very forcibly, and it was always resisted, and there was no control given over these rates whatever. Suppose we do improve these waterways, and we can carry the wheat and goods from the head of the lakes to Montreal so much cheaper, does that not mean that railway rates also will have to be reduced in the East to compete
with that water transportation? And if they are reduced in the East, does it not mean they will be increased in the West to make up for it?


Robert James Manion: No.


Thomas Sales: My hon. friend says no, but that is the experience we have been having for years.


Robert James Manion: Let me answer the hon. member. The hon. member knows that today all of the wheat of western Canada, or at least a large proportion of it,-until very recently 65 percent-went by the Erie canal and New York. I know that to be a fact. The building of these canals would permit that same wheat to go straight down the Canadian route, and there would be a saving. It costs I think in the neighbourhood of 10 to 11 cents to take it from Buffalo to New York. That saving could easily be made on that trip alone for sixty-five per cent of the wheat that is exported from western Canada at the present time.


Thomas Sales: The hon. member may be correct, but I have my doubts, because I find that the boat freight was 8.6 cents; it is now 11.8 cents all the way from Fort William to Montreal by the boats which we have now. In 1919, the rate was 11 cents, and in September, 1920, it was 133 cents. In October, when our wheat really begins to move and they could do us a service, they increased the rate from 11 cents, as it was the year befpre, to 15i cents, and we have no control over them.
There is something else that I wish to know. There are a few boats running down from the head of the great lakes, boats like the Grant Morden-I have been to Fort William and Port Arthur and I have seen them-that can carry these big loads; but there are only a few. Does the Canada Steamship Company intend immediately to scrap all the boats it has at present which can go through the Welland canal and all the way to Montreal, and replace them by these big boats which can carry 500,000 bushels? I do not think so. Until the canals at Montreal are finished, I can see no good in this Welland canal project, because the boats which now can go through the Welland canal can now go through to Montreal. When you get your larger boats through the Welland canal, you have to build bigger elevators at Kingston and Prescott, transfer elevators, or the scheme is of no value at all. If my hon. friends would move that the whole
Supply-Welland Canal

item be cut out except just what is needed to keep the canal from falling into decay, I would vote with them. I will vote with them as it is; but I think they do not go far enough. I think the whole proposition was a mistake, as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) says, in beginning in the middle a scheme of this kind. At this time, when economy is needed, what is the use of talking about economy and then voting millions of dollars for a proposition like this? The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), last night, I think, had some matter on which he could spend $2,000,000 of this very money, and I would like to see the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) do what has been suggested without our having to take a division on the question. The Government should practice economy as well as preach it.


Mr. McBRIDE:: In the first place, I
think the Government used very good judgment when they said that the time was not opportune to enter into any agreement with the United States. We have heard a great deal about some people having a vision of a greater Canada, and some people think they can see further ahead than others. Some years ago we had that class of men in British Columbia, and they told us about some railways that were needed. They also told us that the proposition would not cost the taxpayers of British Columbia one dollar; but when it was completed, the taxpayers of British Columbia have had to foot a bill of over $40,000,000, and that railway is . not making a cent. It started nowhere and it ends nowhere. We have too many people working up propositions in their own interest and not in the interest of Canada as a whole. I claim to know a little about steamboats, and there is in my mind a question whether ocean steamers of large tonnage would ever come up through the St. Lawrence canal when completed. If we take insurance and other things into consideration, I do not think it would pay them to do so. As an hon. member has stated, ocean steamers are built much heavier; the captains and engineers get higher pay; they have to carry a larger crew than would be required on the canal travelling at a low speed. While those boats were on the ocean, they would go at twelve or thirteen knots an hour, whereas, through the canal, they would have to go at three or four knots an hour. The wages of the crew and other expenses 'Mr. Sales. 1
including the interest on the investment in the boat, would go on just the same. The heavy machinery and other things would add to the expense. I question, therefore, whether the proposition would ever be used to the extent some people think it would. I do not think, with the amount of burden that this country is carrying at the present time, this proposition should be given any consideration at all. We are not sent here to consult with the United States and to consider their propositions; we are sent here to represent the people of Canada, and to work in their interest.


Mr. JOHNSON (Moosejaw) :: Before I
can intelligently vote on the amendment and on the resolution, I shall have to have some more information from the minister. I will ask my question first. What would be the probable cost to the Dominion were work discontinued on this project and it were allowed to stand over for a year or two? I should like to refer very briefly to the amendment and to the resolution. I should like very much to support the amendment of the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Millar), but I fear that it is subject to the same criticism as was offered against the project generally,-it starts in the middle and does not go anywhere. If the principle is right, I think his amendment should have read to delete the entire thing except such as would be required to prevent loss, or else to go ahead with the thing in a whole-hearted manner and complete it. When the debate started, I had an open mind on this subject, although I was probably a little inclined to cut it out in the interest of economy, because I think economy is demanded at this time. I was, nevertheless, very much impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol). I am not able to judge as to the correctness of his figures, I should like to have them confirmed. If those large boats, as he states, can, by this expenditure, go through the Welland canal, unload at Prescott instead of at Buffalo, transfer their cargoes to barges which can cheaply be carried down the St. Lawrence river and unloaded at Montreal, that is a very desirable thing. The other day we had it on informrtion given us by the Chairman of the Montreal Harbour Commissioners that 135,000,000 bushels of wheat passed through that port last year-I think the quantity was quoted by an hon. member a short time ago as 115,000,000 bushels; but my recollection is that the correct quantity is 135,000,000

Supply-Welland Canal
bushels,-about 65 per cent of which was Canadian wheat. If - e can, by a development of this sort, bring down a larger volume of wheat from Buffalo to Montreal and develop the port of Montreal rather than the port of Buffalo and, consequently, New York, that would he a very desirable thing. But it involves a considerable expenditure; it involves transfer houses at Prescott, while we already have transfer houses at Port Colborne and elevator space at Buffalo. Another hon. member, who represents, I think, one of the Toronto seats, referred to the return cargoes. In my opinion, that argument has very little weight, because, if I am correctly informed, the return cargo carried by those boats is principally coal from the Pennsylvania mines to western Canada. There is practically no heavy package freight going from Montreal up through the lakes to western Canada. Freight which goes that way has to go mostly over the railways.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why?


Robert Milton Johnson: I suppose
from the very nature of it; it is not bulky like coal. I do not know of any freight of any considerable volume going up the lakes to the western prairies.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why could the boats
not take package freight?


Robert Milton Johnson: Because package freight is a freight that has to be speedily carried through, and boats take a longer time to do that. The freight rate is not the consideration which it is on bulk commodities, on such heavy stuff as ores, lumber and coal. On the whole, I think that ultimately this entire project, in the interests of this country, must and will be carried through. I want to see it carried through for the development of the eastern ports and the various facilities which we have built at enormous cost. But at the present time, when the need for economy is so great and there are other projects requiring huge expenditures, when, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) under the best circumstances possible we can scarcely hope that our revenue will be equal to the expenditures that are to be made during the present year, unless it is necessary to spend a large amount of money in order that expenditures already made may not prove futile, I think we shall be very well advised if we cut out these expenditures for some considerable time. I cannot vote for the amendment, because it begins in the middle and goes nowhere; but
for a reduction in the entire amount I shall be glad to vote.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: This whole
matter was gone into very thoroughly by the department. We fully investigated the possibility of shutting down the work, and we have found that if we abandoned operations for two years it would involve a loss in depreciation and deterioration of between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000, to say nothing of the claims which the contractors would naturally put in for such work as has already been done. It must also be remembered that the five sections must be finished as nearly as possible about the same time. The only way you could reduce the vote by $4,000,000, would be to stop the work on one section. That would mean that you would finish four out of five and be unable to use them at the proper time. I can assure hon. gentlemen that we have gone into the matter very thoroughly, and while the members of the Government are as anxious as anybody else to avoid all unnecessary expenditures, we are asking for this vote only because we are convinced that it is absolutely in the best interests of economy.


Robert Milton Johnson: I understand from the minister that the country would suffer a loss of between five and six million dollars if we postponed this work for two years.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Robert Milton Johnson: Then we had better make the best of a bad job.


Thomas Sales: Has the minister been over this work personally?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, I have been over it with the engineers. We spent days discussing the matter with the chief engineer, and went thoroughly into the whole thing. We have not rushed things in any way, nor are we asking for this vote without the most careful consideration. We believe that it is in the very best interests of the country to spend this money.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: In view of all the statements that have been made I think the mover should withdraw his amendment. It is quite obvious that the reduction from $8,000,000 to $4,000,000 does not give expression to any principle. It gets us nowhere, and I do not think the committee should accept the amendment. I do submit that under all the circumstances, the mover should withdraw it.
Supply-Rideau Canal


Mr. WARD:: I do not rise to criticise the estimate at all, because I agree with the hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. Johnson) that the minister having been quite convinced that it is necessary to go ahead with this work in the interests of economy, it would be unwise to reduce the vote. I do want to suggest to; the minister, however, that he be consistent in all respects, and give to the various railways that are now half constructed the same consideration that he is giving to this particular matter. We have several miles of railway partly built in the West, and if the minister thinks it is in the interests of economy not to postpone the work under this vote, he should, I think, take the same view in regard to those railways and carry to completion the work in connection with them. The grades have already been built, and I would urge that he seriously consider the advisability of completing those lines.


John Millar: In view of the fact that some of my statements have been contradicted, I should like to read an extract from a speech of Senator Casgrain. Some hon. members have referred to the fact that he was opposed to the project. If I might do so I would quote some remarks of his.


The CHAIRMAN:: The hon. member would be out of order in quoting from the Senate debates of this session.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent Canal-construction and betterments, $240,000.
John Alexander Stewart: How much
remains unexpended of last year's appropriation?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The amount voted last year was $339,000, all of which was spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau Canal-construction of storehouse at Ottawa, $4,000.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not offer any criticism of this vote, nor am I moving to reduce or to strike it out. I see that on the next page there is a vote of $25,000 additional for the Rideau canal. Placed in such financial straits as we are, it is of course desirable that we should eliminate all expenditures that are unnecessary; and I submit that the minister should immediately decide to part ownership with the Rideau canal. It is as idle

as a painted ship upon a painted ocean; economically it is absolutely useless. It handles not one single cent of traffic, although it is true that a few cart loads of sand are carried through it. I do not know what it costs to carry on the Rideau canal, but probably it takes a considerable sum. I should like to see the minister decide before twelve o'clock to-night utterly to abandon this canal, and hand over to the city of Ottawa the greater part of it, retaining the lower part for railway purposes. I do not suggest that we should strike out this item or the item on the next page, but I certainly do not think that there is any justification whatever for the further retention of this canal. The amount of the vote is small, it is true, but it could as well be expended in purchasing soap bubbles as in further operating the canal, and I hope the minister will rise and say that next week he will advise the city of Ottawa that he is prepared to donate the canal to them for the purpose of beautifying certain sections of the city, retaining the lower part, as I say, for railway purposes.


John Alexander Stewart: I would
judge from the remarks of the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that in his opinion the Rideau canal is limited to that part of the waterway adjoining the city of Ottawa, and that that is the reason why he would present it to the city. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the point raised by him is much more serious than perhaps he appreciates. The Rideau canal was built by, and at the expense of, the British government and was presented to Canada upon an undertaking by our government that it would be maintained as a canal. So I feel that it would be impossible for the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy) to act upon the hon. member's suggestion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend surely does not mean to contend that the British government would expect us to carry out that obligation now in view of changed conditions?


John Alexander Stewart: I would at least feel that it was an obligation on the part of the people of Canada that should not be decided by the minister inside fifteen or twenty minutes as suggested by my hon. friend; I would think there should be a conference between this Government and the British government before any action is taken as proposed by him.

Supply-Rideau Canal


Mr. FORKE:: Was not the canal constructed for military purposes?


Mr. GRAHAM:: No doubt that was the underlying consideration.


John Alexander Stewart: I presume
that the British government one hundred years ago was influenced largely by military considerations in building this canal. But there is no doubt the canal was built at a very great cost, extending as it does from the Ottawa river here to lake Ontario at Kingston, considerable engineering difficulties having to be overcome, boats being raised 200 feet out of the Ottawa river by lockage between here and the height of land and then being let down 168 feet into lake Ontario. I am not urging that from the strictly commercial stand-
5 p.m. point there may not be something in what the senior member for Halifax suggests, but the canal has been operated since 1828, and the items in these estimates are surely not of sufficient importance to call for the offhand decision suggested.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I felt so
sure of my ground that I thought my suggestion could be carried out instantly. But I will qualify that and say we might take a few days or a few weeks to put it into execution.


John Alexander Stewart: My hon.
friend is entirely mistaken when he says that the canal is of no commercial advantage to the people of Canada. The canal is of very great commercial advantage to the people who live along its banks.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Is the commercial advantage commensurate with the cost to the people of Canada?


John Alexander Stewart: I am speaking of the advantage to the people who live along the canal. Since the question of transportation has been a live issue in federal politics we have heard arguments not only in favour of maintaining but of constructing railway lines into territory where there was no suggestion that the traffic returns would justify the cost of construction.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Not from western
Nova Scotia.


John Alexander Stewart: I am not talking of Nova Scotia. We have here a means of transportation that is of very great convenience to the people whom it serves.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would be very glad to be informed about that. I understood that there was practically no business carried on through the canal, with the exception of a little sand brought down to Ottawa from a point a few miles up the river.


John Alexander Stewart: Well, my
hon. friend has not been properly informed. I am quite free to confess that the traffic upon the canal has been very seriously interfered with by the construction of the Canadian Northern Railway along the south shore of the Rideau lakes. Prior to the advent of the railway the canal served all the villages and settlements between Ottawa and Kingston, and even yet boats ply to and fro. I am not prepared to say that the traffic would justify the government of Canada or any one else in the construction of this canal as an original enterprise; but we have the canal there, and if after having constructed locks which make the waterways altogether different to what they were in a state of nature we abandon this canal we would at once place the people who live along its banks at a serious disadvantage. The canal is of very great use to those people and they should not be deprived of the service they and their predecessors have enjoyed since 1828. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the freight traffic or any other remuneration that the government gets would justify maintaining this canal, but I do think my hon. friend has an exaggerated idea of its cost of maintenance. It is a splendidly built canal, and if my hon. friend has not gone over its whole course it would do him good to do so, for he would see a wonderful piece of engineering and would pass through the most picturesque part of Canada-a part exceeding in natural beauty the Thousand Islands that we hear so much about. In a word, my hon. friend has suggested something which should not be entertained by the Government.


Mr. BROWN:: When I came down to Ottawa as a new member I naturally wanted to get busy, and one of the first matters I inquired about was the cost of the Rideau canal, which was suggested to me from noticing that repairs were being made to the locks here. I therefore consulted the Auditor General's reports to find out the cost of this canal for the last six years. I am not much accustomed to going through these reports, but my figures are as nearly accurate as I could make
Supply-Rideau. Canal

them. I found that during the past six years we have paid for the upkeep of this canal in salaries and repairs a total of $1,205,534.66. The revenue derived from it in the same period amounted to $40,798.63. Being interested in the matter I put a question on the Order Paper-


Lewis Herbert Martell: What was the revenue derived from?


John Livingstone Brown: I presume from tolls.
Mr. STEWART Lanark): There are no tolls charged on the canal.


George Perry Graham: The revenue was from water-powers probably.


John Alexander Stewart: There are developed water-powers on the canal.


John Livingstone Brown: As I was saying, I also put a question on the Order Paper, but the answer, I confess, does not mean much to me. This is my question, which will be found on page 734 of Hansard:
How many vessels and what tonnage passed through the Rideau canal during each year since 1915?
The answer will be found on the same page, but I shall not read the figures as they can be very easily referred to by hon. members. Those figures convey no idea to me because I do not know what was the nature of the traffic. As the season opened up I saw that a considerable amount of work was being done on the canal here, but I question very much if, apart from this end of the canal and possibly a few other limited sections, very much traffic is going on.
When the hon. member for Halifax made the suggestion that it be presented to the city of Ottawa, it occurred to me offhand that that was just the thing to do with it. I am not certain that the figures given by the hon. member for Lanark as to what this canal has cost are absolutely correct. I was out at his town of Perth the other day. It is situated at the head of that famous ditch, as we used to call it; we heard of it back in the elections of 1896.
I was interested to know just what that canal looked like, and what it was being used for and from the information I could gather I would suggest that the Tay canal be presented to the city of Perth. I confess after seeing that canal in the town of Perth, some of my prejudices were removed. While there was no traffic on it to any extent, there is a basin and some docks, and no doubt it is a very beautiful thing for the town, but it is absolutely 
useless from a commercial standpoint. I believe the Tay canal does help to take away the sewerage from Perth and give the town better drainage. So I would suggest that the Tay canal be presented to the town of Perth. I came across a little item,- it is a trifling sum in the Auditor General's report,-showing that it costs $95 a year to put down, take up and care for the buoys in the Tay canal. I doubt if the canal is even worth that much for commercial purposes. I admit that the Rideau canal for scenic purposes and excursion parties undoubtedly is some value to the people of Canada, but as a commercial proposition I do not think it is worth considering. I would again call attention to the figures. The Auditor General's report shows that for 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920 and 1921 the people of Canada have spent $1,205 534.66 on this canal. To what extent it would be wise to continue that expenditure in future, I am by no means certain, but certainly it is not a commercial proposition.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton) :: I think that some of the work my hon. friend mentions should be charged up to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and not to the Rideau canal.


John Livingstone Brown: I think the figures I
quoted are accurate. If anything, I think be expenditure would be more rather than less.


William Foster Garland: The hon.
member said that when he was here last March he saw a lot of work being done along the Rideau canal. That work was being done for the relief of the unemployed and should be charged, I think, to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, and not to the Rideau canol. There was a retaining wall built, for instance, to give work to the unemployed.


George Perry Graham: I am very strong on the financial situation. I believe that we ought to be economical, but there are cases where it is a mistake, I think, to insist on estimating the value of a certain work in dollars and cents. The Rideau chain of lakes forms one of the most beautiful spots on the whole North American continent. There is no question about that in the mind of anyone who has seen them. The tourists who spend their summers along these lakes bring thousands and thousands of dollars annually to the Dominion of Canada. We often discuss

Supply-St. Lawrence Canal
in this House the desirability of opening up beauty spots in Canada, and it would not be wise, I think, for the sake of a few dollars to close up this one. It has a historic value, to my mind, apart altogether from its commercial value. It was originally constructed by the Imperial government, I believe, for the purposes of defence, and anyone who will take a trip through this chain of lakes and inspect the masonry will discover something that would be a revelation to the modern mason. On several occasions I have given many Americans the trip from Montreal to Kingston, through the Thousand Islands, down the Rideau chain of lakes, through the canal, and down the Ottawa to Montreal again, and although I am very proud of the Thousand Islands and think it a wonderful beauty spot, the Rideau chain of lakes is in a class by itself. We have spent millions of dollars to build the Trent canal, and the great argument in its favour was that it would enable those living inland and farther west up towards Georgian bay a short and quick method of transportation for light draft freight. The Rideau canal affords the same facilities. It' may be that during the last two or three years little freight has been carried over it, but let me point out to the committee that during the war a great many things went wrong. Before that time I know of my own personal knowledge that coal was transported from lake Ontario to points along the Rideau waterway. There are many bright little towns bordering these lakes, Westport, Portland, Smith's Falls, Perth, and many others I could name. These have all been served for years by this waterway, and I would hesitate for the small expenditure involved to give away this waterway that belongs to Canada. The city of Ottawa could not look after it, and this end of the canal would probably be used as a yard for the railway companies if it belonged to the city. The proposition was made to me when I was Minister of Railways that this end of the canal, where it empties into the Ottawa, should be transferred to one of the railway companies, to increase their facilities and allow them to make a tunnel from that point down to the other end of the city. I pointed out that if they would arrange another outlet into the Ottawa that would be just as satisfactory, we would discuss the matter.
As to the expenditure, hon. gentlemen will see at a glance that if we gave up the proprietorship of this waterway tomorrow, we would still be obliged to keep up the bridges over this stream. The committee will see, when we come to the estimate, that quite a large amount of the money expended has been spent on maintaining the old bridges and constructing new ones over this stream, and we should still be obliged to look after them if we gave up the canal. It is a matter that might be investigated, but certainly this House is not in a position to give instructions to the Minister of Railways at this time to interfere with the situation that has existed for many years. The canal is not altogether useless financially, and otherwise it is a great asset to the Dominion of Canada.


William John Ward: If it is the grand summer resort my hon. friend says, and I have no doubt he has stated the facts correctly, has any effort been made to induce tourists to come here? If this is the most picturesque spot on the American continent, let us advertise the fact and get people here and make the canal pay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence ship canal-surveys and investigations, $50,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be opportune for me to take advantage of this item to make a statement with regard to the point raised in discussion on the St. Lawrence ship canal. I have in my hand the communication from Mr. Charles E. Hughes, Secretary of State, Washington, which was sent to the British Ambassador on May 17, 1922, and which, amongst other representations, contains the following statement:
The report of the Joint Commission and the accompanying report of the Board of Engineers have doubtless by this time been considered by the Canadian government. I am authorized by the President to state that he favors the negotiation of a treaty to be framed on the basis of the report of the Joint Commission, or such modifications as might be agreed upon, and I should be glad to be informed whether the appropriate British and Canadian authorities are disposed to undertake the negotiation of such a treaty.
The communication was forwarded by the British Ambassador to His Excellency at Ottawa and came before the Government a few days after it was written. The Government's view on the matter was expressed in a report to Council, the essential
Supply-St. Lawrence Canal

part of which is contained in the following paragraph:
The minister represents, in connection therewith, that Your Excellencys' advisers have not thus far had opportunity to give to the report of the International Joint Commission and the accompanying report of the Board of Engineers appointed to examine the subject, that careful consideration which their importance merits, and that moreover, having regard to the magnitude of the project and the very large outlay of public money involved, the Government is of opinion that it would not appear to be expedient to deal with this matter at the present time.
The whole correspondence, hon. members will observe, relates to the immediate negotiation of a treaty. This Government deems it desirable to have a careful study of the report made, and possibly further expert opinion obtained in regard thereto, before a final answer is given. There was no intention to preclude further consideration and discussion.


William Findlay Maclean: Has this correspondence been brought down?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been on the table for a couple of weeks.


Mr. HANSON:: I would like to ask the minister for some little explanation of this item. I am told that a staff of engineers has been employed by the department for some time past making surveys along the St. Lawrence waterways. I merely rise for information, not to oppose the item, but in making my statement I would like to point out that I have learned that the more expensive members of this staff are being retained, and the junior members, or the lower priced men, have been let out. Now, that hardly seems fair especially, as I understand, it has created a certain amount of hardship in connection with the staff. If the work is not to be proceeded with it does not seem to me that it is necessary to retain an expensive staff, especially when we remember that expert engineers are paid as much as $10,000 a year. In view of these facts I would like to have an explanation from the minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: May I say that this item of $50,000 is exactly the same amount that was in the estimates last year, but under a different heading. Perhaps it will appeal to some hon. members who have argued in the past that the Government have rushed into expenditures that upon consideration might not have been undertaken, if I state it was felt that in so far as the deepening of the St. Lawrence is concerned the department itself, and the Government of the day,

should have every possible information. The engineering staff employed are taking borings and investigating and checking matters up, so that when the issue does arise we will be in possession of first hand information on the matters to be decided. As far as my hon. friend's question is concerned I understand the staff is not larger than is absolutely necessary; there may have been some dismissals, but they were perhaps made for the reason that economy was in the air. I am told by my department, and I have every reason to credit what they tell me, that we are not carrying a single official more than is absolutely necessary to give the Government intelligent information.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is any boring work being done now?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Some borings are being made.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: At the Long Sault rapids.
Soulanges canal-improvements, $214,000.


John Alexander Stewart: I notice that the appropriation under this heading last year was $9,500 as against $214,000 this year. I would like to ask the minister why there should be such a large increase?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The increase in the amount asked for this year in comparison with last year is largely on the account of the necessity for re-surfacing the roadway along the canal. The road along the canal is one of the main highways between Montreal and Cornwall. Built at the time of the construction of the canal twenty years ago, it has only been superficially repaired since and is now gradually disintegrating under heavy traffic. It is proposed to re-drain the whole road and reinforce it with macadam and asphalt binder.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the
length of the road.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Fourteen miles. We are now under legal liability for the proper maintenance of this roadway, this being a condition when settlement was made for the lands taken for canal purposes, and those situated to the north of the canal were cut off from access to existing roads. We simply have the legal liability, we cannot get away from it. The amount is the estimate that was arrived

Supply-Railways and Canals
at by the engineering department and the work is absolutely necessary at the present time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How do you
propose to do the work by contract or day labour? .


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: By contract.


Thomas Henry McConica: What proportion of
the appropriation goes to the building of the road, and what amount to the maintenance of the canal itself?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The amount
necessary for re-surfacing the roadway along the canal is $168,000 The other items are:
Reinforcing Weir No. 4	$20,000
Shop for construction of lock gates.. ..	16,000
Spare lock gates	 10,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland canal-improvements, $150,000.
Robert Milton Johnson: Is this in connection
with the present canal?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, in connection with the present canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau canal-improvements, $25,000.
John Livingstone Brown: The matter of the Rideau canal has come up, and I would like to repeat what has been said by the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham), that we must not measure everything in dollars and cents. I am heartily in favour of the principle of maintaining everything in our country that has any historic interest, and that canal has an historic interest. I think it might possibly be preserved on that account, if it would not mean too heavy a drain upon the country to maintain it, ostensibly for commercial purposes which, perhaps, it may not serve. In order that the House may know the way in which the money is being spent on that canal, I will read some details I gathered from the Auditor General's report. I do not criticise them, because I do not pretend to be in a position to do so. Perhaps those in charge of the operation of the canal will know whether the money was well spent. The
figures are as follows:
Rideau Canal 1919-1920
Staff	$ 66,877 80
Bonus and	sundry labour .. ..	34,679	60Bonus	
7,338	75Repairs	
102,140	94Dredge vessels	
28,965	25

The revenue was as follows:
Revenue
Kingston Mills	$ 333 00
Ottawa	
3,696	66Smiths Falls	
3,198	95Other revenues, fines, etc.. ..	385	00
I need not give the other years. They follow similar lines, and the minister might well inquire whether the money that is being spent ostensibly for commercial purposes is really serving those purposes. At the same time I would like to endorse most heartily the suggestion that the canal should be preserved because of its historic associations.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will be glad to look into the matter, but I might say, in so far as the lockmasters and other officials are concerned, that they are under the control of the Civil Service Commission, and we do not regulate the wages.


John Livingstone Brown: But the matter of repairs is in your department?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is the improvement?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The amount asked for is required to replace the present inadequate bridge across the locks in the town of Smiths Falls. This bridge is situated upon a main thoroughfare of the town and is wholly inadequate to carry modern traffic. The present bridge was built in 1887 and has of late years required frequent repairs. The above work will be performed under contract.


Andrew Knox: This is being charged to income and I would like to know what income we have from the Rideau canal.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is simply a matter of book-keeping, to differentiate between income and capital account. We could not charge it up to capital account; so we charge it to expense account.


Andrew Knox: There is really no income?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways to supplement pensions allowances payable under the provisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum payment, during the current fiscal year, the sum of $30 per month instead of $20 as fixed by the said act, $50,000.
John Alexander Stewart: I think that item was carried when these estimates were before us previously.
2770	COMMONS
Supply-Railways and Canals


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I thought so, but was not quite sure.


Robert Milton Johnson: I wish to bring before the minister a matter which perhaps is not relevant to this item, but I telephoned the Department of Railways this morning, and was told this would be the place to mention the matter. It is in connection with branch line extension. If I am not in order now, and the hon. minister will mention the item under which the subject may be considered, I will defer the discussion of it. The matter to which I refer is a small branch line extension in the southern part of the province of Saskatchewan.


George Newcombe Gordon: This item relates to Prince Edward Island.


Robert Milton Johnson: I quite agree, but I do not know the item under which this question might be discussed.


George Newcombe Gordon: If the committee is satisfied, the hon. member may proceed.


Robert Milton Johnson: This is a branch extension of the Canadian Northern Railway known as the Ben-gough extension. In 1919 I believe an appropriation was made for its construction. Owing to some little difficulty which arose as to location it was not constructed, although I understand the money was twice voted for its construction. As to the nature of this railway, I will not weary the committee with any of the information I have, except on one point. I desire to mention certain figures I have from one township, which is typical of the very large territory which would be served by this railway. I sent out some time ago letters asking for specific information. One of my correspondents was more specific than the other, and in order to be brief, I shall take his figures for a certain township. The figures are:
Township 1, range 30, west of the second meridian.
I asked the amount of crops produced there last year, the number of settlers, how much they could grow if they had not the railway facilities, and how many people would leave if the railway were not constructed. My correspondent has given me that information in regard to the farms in this particular township as follows:
Farmers; population of this township 151 Number of bushels of wheat grown in
1921	 44,375

This township was hailed over 50 per cent on an average last year.
No. of acres under cultivation	 8,030
No. of acres that can be put under
cultivation	 16,760
No. of acres that will go unseeded.. ..	1,000
Thirty one farmers have left by not having the
railway.
I will not give any more figures to prove the facts, except to say that this is typical of a great number of townships. I took the matter up with the Minister of Railways, the deputy minister and the chairman of the Canadian Northern Railway in Toronto. I quite realize the situation presented by the minister, that money cannot be granted for railway extensions this year, particularly in view of the proposed ire-organization of the board. I might say incidentally, that it seems to me high time that some steps were being taken to have that re-organization completed if we are going to get it in time to be of service to us. The officials I have mentioned have given me the assurance, verbally, it is true, very largely, but also by correspondence, which I could read but would prefer not to, that this branch to which I have referred is recognized as most important, and having one of the first claims. This information was given to me in correspondence from the department and also by the minister and the chairman of the board of the Canadian Northern verbally. I have taken their word. I ask one further concession which I think the people of that country are entitled to and which will not cost the Government anything. I refer to the location of the branch line. It was delayed two years owing to some difference of opinion over the location of the three surveys going through the country. I asked the minister, I think in April, if he could assure me that the location of this railway would, at least, be definitely settled during the present year. It will make a great deal of difference to the people in that locality, if they can know just where this railway is to go when funds are available for it. Seeing that that was a verbal communication and that it was very important to me, I rather think I endeavoured to steal a march on the minister. I do not know whether I succeeded or not. I acknowledged that verbal report in writing, in order that I might have the record for my file. I wrote the minister this letter on April 26:
Dear Sir,-I wish to give you written expression of my appreciation of your verbal promise of Monday that you would undertake to see

Supply-Railways and Canals
that the location of the Bengou&h extension of the C.N.K. is definitely settled during the coming summer.
While of course, in view of the imperative necessity of early construction of this line, assurance of such construction would be more welcome, the assurance that the location will be definitely settled during the present summer will give some measure of encouragement to the settlers along that line.
I may add that representations of the most decided character continue to reach me.
That was on April 26, and I thought the matter was settled then. On May 2,
I received a letter from the department, and I will read the last sentence which is as follows:
It is the intention that, when the new board of directors is appointed, they will go into the matter of branch lines very thoroughly, and, no doubt, the proposed Bengough line will be one of the first to be considered.
That was not definite enough for me, so I replied, and on the 23rd of May I received a letter which again made me sceptical. The minister, I am sure, will pardon me if I say that this letter from his department on the 23rd of May appeared to me as being evasive. I wanted that promise very much, so I wrote him again on the 25th of May.
I wish to read this letter, and then I will ask the minister to tell me whether he intends to carry out his promise or whether he recognizes it. This letter was written on May 25 to the Deputy Minister of Railways :
Dear Sir,-Replying to yours of April 5th, again setting forth the attitude of the Government towards branch line extensions and stating that it is the intention of the Government to submit the whole matter to the new board of directors, when such is appointed, I quite agree with you that such action should be taken. Permit me to say, however, that in my opinion, the Government cannot thus entirely avoid all responsibility in the matter.
Promises have been made in years past on behalf of the government of Canada, that such lines would be extended at the earliest possible date, and it makes no difference what political party may be in control, the government of Canada is still the government, and must be responsible for any contract entered into, or promises made on behalf of the Dominion.
I fully understand from my frequent interviews with yourself, the minister and the president of the Canadian National, that these lines cannot be built during the coming year. I have, however, distinct recollection of the promise of the Minister of Railways, and by Mr. Hanna that, recognising the importance of the Bengough extension, it should be one of the first to have consideration when construction work is again commenced, if they have anything to do with it. I further have the verbal promise of the Minister of Railways that the location of this line will be definitely settled during the present summer.
While conceding, under present circumstances. that the line cannot be built during this
year, I still rely on the promise of the minister and of the President of the Canadian National Railway that this Bengough line will be one of the first to receive consideration and that the location will be definitely settled during this summer.
It is on those two points that I would like a word from the minister.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I think, perhaps, my hon. friend has answered himself, because I gather, from what he has said in that letter, that he still relies on the Minister of Railways and the president of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. I say again that this shall be one of the first extensions that shall receive the consideration of the new board. I understand that the delay in building the line was largely because the people in that locality could not decide where they wanted the line. There were two factions; one wanted it to run in one direction, and the other in another. As I told my hon. friend when he called upon me, the matter of locating a line by the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways will not be at the whim of the people of the particular district, but rather it will be located where it is essential in the interest of the people of this country.


Robert Milton Johnson: I know this difficulty existed; but the local difficulty has been done away with, I think, almost entirely by conference of the people concerned. People have money invested in that locality. Only two or three days ago I received a letter from a gentleman in Montreal, who has a farm along the line, and he does not know what to do with it until the location is settled. I quite agree with the minister that, when the people have a difference as to the location of a line, the Department of Railways or the board must take the responsibility. I am quite prepared to accept that. The thing I wish to know is whether we can get this location settled during the present summer, so that people will know what their investment is and whether they will stay on and wait for the railway. They are going out now by hundreds.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have no doubt the hon. member will get the decision this summer. This is a matter which the board must decide; but I appreciate the importance of the extension, and I cannot for the life of me see any reason why they should not settle this summer where the location shall be. I certainly will bring



Supply-Railways and Canals
the matter to their attention at the earliest possible moment.


William Findlay Maclean: Perhaps the minister will tell the committee and the country when we are likely to have the appointment of the new railway board, and when the work of consolidation will be undertaken.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My hon.
friend will, perhaps, appreciate that, in order to answer a question of that kind, I would require the consent of the Governor in Council, in view of the fact that the board has not yet been passed upon by the Governor in Council. When the right time comes-and I hope it will be in the near future-I shall have pleasure in telling my hon. friend.


John Millar: When it is possible for the department to undertake building new branch lines, will preference be given to branch lines where road beds are already built?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is a matter which the board of directors will have to decide. As they will be railway men and men of experience who will acquaint themselves with conditions throughout the country, I have no doubt branch lines will be built where most needed in the public interest. ,


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to income- arbitrations and costs of litigation, $2,000.
Lewis Herbert Martell: I think this is a fitting opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) and the Government as a whole, the question of the ridiculous incongruities which exists as regards legal costs. Some time ago, I moved for a return of fees and costs paid to barristers and solicitors of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, and in going over the return, which is only partly here, I find that different departments of government are paying different amounts of fees. For instance, I find that where a man is asked to advise on a claim to property, that is to say, to search the title to the property, make an abstract of title and so on, he probably puts in an account of $25 or $30, which I consider to be a very reasonable amount, as he has drawn up a deed and so on. But this is very often taxed by the secretary of the Department of Justice down to the sum of $18 or $20. On the other hand, I find that governments 
have been prone in the past-I do not blame the last government any more than the present Government-to differentiate as between solicitors, whereas the bar societies of the respective provinces to which these gentlemen belong do not recognize a difference. For instance, regarding tthe Grand Trunk arbitration, the Government of Canada paid one gentleman from the province of Nova Scotia over $27,000. This man received fees of $150 a day; he also received $20 a day for living allowance and a sufficient amount to pay his fare wherever he was going. He is not a poor man by any means; but the government, at the outset of the arbitration, advanced to that man $12,000 for the purpose of carrying him on. That is quite a good advance to give a man, particularly when he only had to go from Halifax to Toronto and Ottawa.


Mr. POWER:: Who is he?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Hector Maclnnes K.C. of the city of Halifax. I only want to call a spade a spade. When I see other lawyers from Nova Scotia being paid $30 a day and expenses for work that they have come to Ottawa to do on behalf of the government of the country, I submit that it is absolutely unjust and unreasonable to give Mr. Hector Maclnnes or any other solicitor from Nova Scotia $150 a day and $20 a day expenses.


Mr. MARCILE:: Was he a candidate in the last election?


Lewis Herbert Martell: Yes.


Pius Michaud: Is he still receiving some money?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I do not know; the members of the Government will probably tell you that.


Mr. CANNON:: Did that gentleman have something to do with the vote overseas in the 1917 election?


Lewis Herbert Martell: I think so.


Charles Gavan Power: Then he deserves $150 a day.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Not out of the public treasury, though. Now, I protest against a system of this kind. I know these two members of the Bar in Nova Scotia, neither of them a political friend of mine-they are both Conservatives, I may say-who came to Ottawa and did some work for the government. One man did a lot of hard work and received $30 a day, the other man.
JUNE 10, 1922	r	2773
Supply-Railways and Canals
with no more ability,-I doubt whether he had as much-was given $150 a day and expenses. It is high time that there should be some co-ordination in the matter of legal services rendered the Government, so far as the question of allowances and taxation of costs is concerned. The people are told that it is necessary that we should have government ownership and operation of railways; and while I am not cpfnmitting myself as to which side of this question I prefer, I should like to see the deficit of $70,000,000 wiped out. But if you are to have a successful administration of the railways you cannot secure it by paying $150 a day and $20 expenses to solicitors. When I moved for this return I did so for the purpose of showing to the Government that in this particular matter there is confusion worse confounded. But this is also true of every other branch of the publie service; and the sooner the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King), and every individual member of it, examine into the whole system of public administration and the expenditures that are made in every department, the better it will be in the interests of economy in
this country. As things are at present you have department overlapping department. One department pays a solicitor a certain sum of money for work done, and another department pays another solicitor, in no better standing in his profession, twice as much. The same thing exists in the engineering department, and it is time that the people of this country got a fair accounting and had things run in a business way. To-day the citizens of Canada are crying out, in the words of Revelation, " How long, O Lord, how long?"


Henry Lumley Drayton: Things are
getting bad.


Lewis Herbert Martell: But the time is coming when they will no longer raise that cry but will wreak vengance on those who are squandering their money without adequate returns. I think that this is one of the most flagrant pieces of legal robbery ever perpetrated in the Dominion. It is a most serious matter that is not to be lightly brushed aside; it is a matter of vital importance to the people of Canada. I think that if the people could only come to the city of Ottawa and go through the various public departments, where they would find men falling over one another and three men filling one man's job, there would not only be a state of Bolshevism,
176J
but there would be a rebellion that, I think, would eventually be almost condoned by any parliament. I would urge upon the minister therefore that in future we have these bills of costs taxed. This bill of Mr. Hector Maclnnes has never been taxed by the Department of Justice. Now, why should Mr. Hector Maclnnes of Halifax receive better treatment at the hands of the Government of Canada than any other individual? As my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Carroll) has pointed out, he is no better than any other lawyer who practises at the Bar in that-province, and why should he not have his accounts taxed the same as any other barrister? Is this mighty Mr. Maclnnes any greater than any other man? I do not think the electors of Halifax thought so in December last when they elected the present member for that constituency (Mr. Blackadder) to represent them, Mr. Maclnnes almost losing his deposit. This is an important matter, and I shall ask the Government some other time to submit to the House a fully itemized statement of the costs paid to every solicitor in connection with the Canadian Northern deal and the Grand Trunk arbitration. The people will then no longer wonder why it is that government ownership does not pay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada -maintainance and operation of, ?221,635.
Mr. COOTE:: I would bring to the
attention of the Minister of Railways and of the Government a statement made by the Hon. George Langley in his evidence before the special committee appointed to consider the question of railway transportation costs. He said:
If we do not get the Crowsnest pass agreement reinstated, we are immediately thrown into the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners and I want to say this just as emphatically as I can say it that the farmers of the West have lost all confidence in that body.
As a proof of that, when Mr. Motherwell the Minister of Agriculture, was running his election in Regina, he made this statemtnt and it is in print and he won't repudiate it. He said if he was elected as member for Regina he would put on the order books of the House of Commons as one of the first things he did a motion asking for Mr. Carvell to be removed from the Board of Railway Commissioners.


James Dew Chaplin: Did he do it?


George Gibson Coote: I am not sufficiently familiar with the rules of procedure of the House to know whether it is customary for

Supply-Railway Commission
ministers to do this sort of thing. I thought that possibly the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) might have made representations to the Government since he assumed office, and I would ask the Government or the Minister of Railways whether or not he has made such representations, that is, to the effect that we should have a new chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am sure
the hon. gentleman will appreciate that the proper authority to ask is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). As Minister of Railways I have no knowledge of the matter.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The Minister of Agriculture is here, and I have no doubt he will tell us.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Mr. Chairman,
if the hon. gentleman will wait a moment, I think I have the statement in my desk-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say that the Minister of Agriculture has made representations to the Government which have been carefully considered.


George Gibson Coote: Is that as far as the matter got, or has any definite decision been reached? I am asking
6 p.m. this question because the people in western Canada are very much interested in it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is as far as the matter got.


George Gibson Coote: Then, Mr. Chairman, in case the Government needs a little encouragement to proceed in that investigation, I want to state plainly that I believe opinion,, in western Canada at least, is very similar to that expressed by the Minister of Agriculture in his election address, and I think we have good reason for entertaining that opinion. As it is six o'clock I do not wish to detain the committee, but if desired I will read a statement which Mr. Carvell made in Calgary while the Railway Commission was in that city.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the Chair, and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Hosie.-Mr. Clark.
[Mr. Coote.l
Bill No. 127 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Ila Cameron.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 128 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Hamilton Bawden.-Mr. Clarke.
Bill No. 129 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Alexander Smith.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 130 (from the Senate), for the relief of Allen Richard Morgan.-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 131 (from the Senate), fop the relief of Mildred Emma Blachford.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, maintenance and operation of, $221,635.
George Gibson Coote: Before the House rose at six o'clock the Minister of Agriculture stated that he would make a statement to the House regarding what he had said about the chairman of the Railway Commission, and before proceeding with my remarks I should like to hear that statement made. It might not then be necessary for me to speak.
The people of western Canada are very much dissatisfied with the Railway Commission as at present constituted, and they were, I think, greatly interested in the statement the Minister of Agriculture was reported to have made in his campaign address which, I believe, was to the effect that he would have Mr. Carvell removed from the board. As the Minister of Agriculture has not yet made his statement on that point, I wish to give to the committee some reasons why he should persist in carrying out his promise to the electors of Regina.
When the Railway Commission was sitting in Calgary on April 18, 1921, the chairman is reported to have said to Mr. Wood and Mr. Brownlee, when they attempted to present a statement from the United Farmers of Alberta regarding existing freight rates, that there had been a misunderstanding and that the only evidence which the commission would hear would have to be in relation to the equalization of freight rates between the East and the West. Mr. Brownlee and Mr. Symington both protested against that attitude on the part of the chairman, but he was very obdurate, and although he finally consented to hear Mr. Wood, he warned

Supply-Railway Commission
him that the evidence he was submitting would not be considered unless it had a direct bearing on the equalization of freight rates as between the East and the West. The following day the commissioner addressed the Canadian Club at a luncheon in Calgary, and in the Daily Herald of April 19, he is reported as saying:
"A healthy railway system is just as necessary to the country as sunshine and rain, and without it the West would still he left to the Indian and the buffalo. It is not pleasant to have a man like H. W. Wood, President of the U.F.A. make the statement, as he did, that he had no faith in the railways, and that because the rates on grain have been increased the railways are no good," The speaker paid that he liked and respected Mr. Wood, but that he was a man of one idea, a thing he admitted himself. He was working for the farmers alone, while the Railway Board were in such a position that they had to consider justice for everybody, not one particular section.
"I don't think that a man like Mr. Wood is entitled to very much credence," said Mr. Car-vell. " I would far rather take the opinion of the average business man who is vitally affected by railway and freight rates and let him be the judge.
Now, what I would like to ask the minister is this: Does this country pay the chairman of the Railway Commission a salary of $12,000-I believe that is his salary, if not, I stand to be corrected- for the purpose of travelling around Canada and telling people that he would put no credence in the word of a man who was working for the farmer? Do they believe that we should have a different status in this country for a farmer than for a business man? I would like to point out that I think the farmer is more vitally interested in freight rates than is any ordinary business man. The ordinary business man adds the freight that he pays to the cost and he charges that to the purchaser of his goods. The farmers' price is set at Fort William and the freight is deducted from that price.


An hon. MEMBER:: I thought the price was fixed at Liverpool?


George Gibson Coote: Well, Liverpool; it does not make any material difference as far as I can see. When I sell my grain I know it is always quoted at a certain price f.o.b. Fort William. I think it would not be out of place if the minister would give us his opinion in regard to this matter-whether we should continue to pay this salary to a man who travels around this country making such statements as that. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) addressed a meeting in Regina on November 16 at which the Prime Minister, the then leader of the Opposition (Right Hon. Mackenzie King) was present. Speaking of the necessity for reduction in freight rates Mr. Motherwell said:
He would expel Mr. Carvel,1 from the Board of Railway Commissioners if for nothing else, but for the improprieties which he has been committing in addressing club dinners throughout the country and trying to justify existing rates.
I would like to have the Minister of Railways answer this question, if he will be good enough to, and then I think this item should be allowed to stand until the Minister of Agriculture is present and reads us a statement, which he offered to do before we adjourned for dinner.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: In answer to what my hon. friend has said I am sure he needs no assertion that the Government has not instructed the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to go through the country making the statement that he had no faith or belief in what was said to him by farmers. My hon. friend will readily understand that no government would issue such instructions. As far as the chairman of the Railway Commissioners is concerned, the position is one of a semi-judicial character, and there must be a way under the rules of the House to lay a charge if such is warranted. I am not sufficiently conversant with the act to express an opinion, but I believe there must be some other way of dealing with the matter than the one proposed by my hon. friend when he asks that the vote for the salaries of the staff be allowed to stand over for the time being. I think this item is one which concerns the whole department, practically, and I think it is only fair and reasonable, at this period of the session, to ask that this item be passed. If my hon. friend has any charge to make against the chairman of the board I have no doubt that a means will be found to enable him to do so. The salary of the chairman, I may explain, is not included in the item under discussion.


Mr. SHAW:: I think that at this stage we are entitled to a declaration from the minister in regard to the policy that is proposed to be inaugurated in respect to this matter. Mr. Motherwell, who is now the Minister of Agriculture, sitting on the same platform as the present Prime Minister made the assertion to the electors of the city of Regina which has been quoted

2776 -
Supply-Railway Commission
for reasons which have already been indicated by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote). I may say that I had the privilege of hearing the remarks of the chairman of the Railway Commission at the dinner in the city of Calgary on the occasion referred to. There was a great deal of talk at the dinner dealing with the justification of existing freight rates, indicating the high labour costs and indicating also that apparently the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, at all events, must get a dividend of seven per cent per annum. Now my point is simply this: If the attitude of the chairman of the Railway Commission was so unworthy of that official on November 16, 1921, it seems to me that the situation has not particularly changed since. What we want to know now is whether or not the Minister of Agriculture has implemented the promises that he made the electors of the city of Regina at that time, and if not, what action if any, is proposed to be taken in connection with this matter? The item we are discussing, I understand, deals with the salary of the Railway Commission, and I think we have the right to know what the policy of the department is on this subject.


George Newcombe Gordon: I may tell the hon. member that this vote does not include the salaries of the chairman or the other members of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister whether the salary of the chairman of the Railway Commission is paid by the department? If so, has the vote for that purpose been passed, and if not, under what item does it appear?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My hon.
friend will see, if he refers to the Estimates the item on page 36:
Authorized by Statute-salaries of Board of Railway Commissioners, $58,500.
The item under discussion does not deal with the salary of the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution carry?


George Gibson Coote: May I ask the minister if stenographic reports of the evidence given at all the hearings of the Railway Commission are available at any place either for the public or for members of Parliament?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that when the commissioner goes out through the country he takes his stencil Mr. Shaw.]
grapher with him. Stenographic reports of the hearings are taken and the transcripts of the evidence are kept. No doubt they are available for members of Parliament.


George Gibson Coote: Would the minister be good enough to take into consideration the suggestion that copies of these stenographic records should be placed in the Library of Parliament? I think it would be a very proper thing if the records of all this evidence were available to members, without having to apply to the Railway Commission for them. It is sometimes very hard to get them, through the commission. I was told by the secretary of the Railway Commission, if I understood him, that he would have to send to Toronto to get copies. It seems to me that when the proceedings are recorded, a duplicate might be placed in the library and made available to members.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It seems to me the suggestion is a reasonable one. I cannot, for the moment, see any reason why it should not be complied with. I shall be glad to look into the matter, and, if possible, will have the hon. member's wishes acceded to.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to ask the minister if we might have some declaration of policy with regard to the personnel of the Railway Commission? I notice in the pamphlet headed " Liberals and Labour ", published from the National Liberal Committee rooms, 115 Sparks street, Ottawa, the committee rooms of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the statement that:
In Parliament the liberals have advocated the appointment of representatives of labour on permanent boards and commissions like the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Board of the Canadian National Railway.
It seems to me we might well ask whether this principle has been carried out, and whether the labour people have a representative on this board?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They have at the present time Mr. Lawrence, who represented organized labour before his appointment to the board. He is one of the commissioners.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have they a representative on the board to-day?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Lawrence is a commissioner on the Board of Railway Commissioners, and he was

connected with organized labour when he was appointed.


John Alexander Stewart: When the House adjourned at six o'clock I think the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) was about to make a statement. He is now in the House and possibly, we might have the statement.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I support my hon. friend's request that we should have a statement.


George Perry Graham: He does not have to.


Mr. DUFF:: There is too much nonsense to-night.


George Gibson Coote: I think the Minister of Agriculture stated that he would read a statement to us. I know the people of western Canada, at least, are anxious to hear it.


John Alexander Stewart: Before the resolution carries, I think we ought to know whether or not the minister refuses to make a statement.


William Duff: The hon. member has no right to say that he has a right to know whether the minister refuses to make a statement or not.


John Alexander Stewart: I do not know whether the hon. member from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) is the authority as to what is proper.


George Newcombe Gordon: The Minister of
Agriculture is not introduced in this item.


John Alexander Stewart: I am simply asking if that is the position.


George Newcombe Gordon: He does not require to answer the question. The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy) is here, and he should answer questions relating to these estimates.


John Alexander Stewart: The matter was raised in the House, the question was asked, and he was prepared to answer, but if he does not care to answer now, all right.


Mr. STEVENS:: I remember very distinctly quite a discussion in regard to this matter which, I think, arose again this afternoon. I have just one brief remark to make: The Minister of Agriculture pledged himself to the public in Regina, that when, and if he came to Ottawa he would fire the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Now, I took issue with him on a previous occasion on his power to do so. I think he was exceeding by far all his anticipated powers at that time.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: It was a slip of the tongue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I rather agree with my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Gau-vreau).


William Duff: Then why talk about it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the tongue of the Minister of Agriculture is altogether too slippery. Sometimes it is desirable-


Hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Duff: That language is not parliamentary.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If any hon. member desires to rise to a point of order, I shall be very glad to take my seat and let him raise the point but I think I am in order. I was going to point out to hon. members, as I did on a previous occasion, that there is always a constitutional, a sensible and an orderly way of doing these things. I have before me the Railway Act of 1919, and this is the way, in my estimation, that steps should be taken to criticise, question, or discipline any member of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Subsection 3, of section 9 of the Railway Act, under the heading "Board of Railway Commissioners, -Constitution"-I find the following:
Each commissioner shali hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, but may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council, upon address of the Senate and the House of Commons.
As I intimated to my hon. friend on a previous occasion during this session, the constitutional method would be to impeach the chairman of the Railway Board if he were guilty, or thought to be guilty, of any act which was inimical to the best interests of the country at large, or a violation of the position that he held, and, certainly, the hon. Minister of Agriculture owes to the House and the country some explanation of the very rash, and I think irrational, statement which he made in Regina in regard to this matter. I am not here to defend the chairman of the Railway Board, but I say that it is in the interests of good government and respect for law and order, that every public body, such as the Railway Commission, the

Supply-RaiIway Commiss ion
Supreme Court and all the subsidiary courts, should have the respect of the people of Canada, and that they should not be open to attack, except by constitutional method. I have stated the constitutional method. If the minister is not prepared to file a charge against the chairman of the Railway Board, he owes to him, to the country, and to his constituents, an explanation of the statement that he made on that occasion.


William Richard Motherwell: I will make a
statement to the House in reply to the hon. member, if it is proper. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a statement in reply to the hon. member who raised the question before we rose at six o'clock which would seem to cover the point. However, if the Chairman will rule that a question raised in this committee on a matter that has occurred in the Railway Commission, and which has not yet been reported to this House, is proper, I will have no objection to reading the statement I did make, and hon. members will find, after their curiosity has been satisfied, that there is not very much in it. I will submit to the ruling of the Chair as to whether a statement made by a witness before another committee, before it has been reported to this House, is properly in order for discussion.


George Newcombe Gordon: The ruling which I
wish to give and to draw to the attention of the hon. member who introduced this particular matter of discussion is this, and I am reading from Bourinot at page 358:
A11 references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the 'Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
If the discussion does not go beyond the bounds of that rule, I do not know that there is any serious objection to its continuance; but I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that, in this particular item, the salaries of the Board of Railway Commissioners, including the chairman, are not included; but they are included in item No. 141, and the discussion has already gone beyond the bounds of relevancy to the item under discussion.


George Perry Graham: The salaries of the
commissioners are paid under statute; the commissioners are appointed under statute, and we could not very well reach
IMr. Stevens.]
the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners in this House in this way if we wanted to do so. As a matter of fact, I had something to do with the Railway Act in the matter of the appointment of one or two of the chairmen, and the Railway Act was framed to prevent just what we are doing here now.


William Findlay Maclean: Firing
the chairman?


George Perry Graham: No. The Railway Act, as regards the appointment of the Board of Railway Commissioners was drafted to conform to the act under which judges are appointed and the act under which the Auditor General is appointed, so that his conduct, as theirs, is not open properly to review in the House of Commons and in the Senate in any way that might tend to influence his judgment, except in one way, and that is the way stated in the statute, of impeaching him. If he has done wrong, there is a proper method of procedure to bring about his dismissal, just as there is a proper way to go about accomplishing the dismissal of a judge or the dismissal of the Auditor General. No government in power in this country can dismiss the Auditor General, because that would make his life miserable, and it would make him inefficient in the performance of his duties. The same applies to judges, and that applies to the appointment of the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners just for the pui-pose of getting him above discussion from political .or any other standpoint. The only way by which he can be reached at all is as I outlined a moment ago. If any member of this House wishes to impeach the chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, he must proceed as he would if he purposed impeaching a judge. On the joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada, he can be impeached and he can be dismissed; but in no other way can that be accomplished.


William Duff: The discussion is out of
order.


George Gibson Coote: Might I ask the minister
(Mr. Graham) who has just spoken, whether, if we refuse to pass the item for the salaries of any particular body, he thinks we could get rid of them in that way?


George Perry Graham: No.
277'J

Supply-Railways and Canals


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The question which I addressed to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) is to this effect: Having regard to the report of the utterances of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) made, as pointed out by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), at a public meeting in Regina on the 16th of November, at which public meeting the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was present, is it the intention of the Governor in Council or of the Government to commence impeachment proceedings against the chairman of the Railway Commission? That is the question we want answered.


William Duff: No. That is a foolish question.


William Richard Motherwell: I made the statement I did as a private citizen. I am now a minister of the Crown, and there seems to be in the minds of some members of this committee a doubt as to the propriety of my making the statement in this House. If I were even a private member of this House, do you think I would stand this taunt about this matter for five minutes? Not at all; but as I am a minister of the Crown, there seems to be some impropriety as such. I shall have much pleasure in showing the hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) the actual statement, and he will wonder what the trouble is all about. I am willing to show this statement to any hon. member of the committee; I am just as anxious to show it to them as they are to see it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give it to us then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections and general expenditure: Railways, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily	$ 50,000
To provide for payment of expenses in connection with the acquisition of the Grand Trunk and associated railway systems and the arbitration proceedings in connection therewith	 400,000
George Gibson Coote: Seeing that the salaries of the Railway Commission come under this item-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: They do not.


George Gibson Coote: I understood the Minister of Railways to say that they did.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I said that this was immediately under item 141. If the hon. member will look at his book of estimates, he will see item 141 for $450,000;
and then underneath that comes " Authorized by statute: salaries of Board of Railway Commissioners." They are not covered by this item at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-staff and repairs, $2,265,000.
John Alexander Stewart: Will the minister give the particulars of this item?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is a
decrease of $5,000 as compared with last year's vote. This vote is required for the maintenance and operation of canals.
Quebec Canals-
Quebec canals, salaries	$ 38,000
Lachine canal	 309,000
Soulanges canal	 177,000
Chambly canal	 129,000
Carillon & Grenville	 77,000
St. Anne's lock	 15.000
St. Our's lock	 16,500
Quebec canals dredge fleet	 58,000
Hungry Bay dyke	 15,000
Ontario-St. Lawrence Canals-
Cornwall	    177,300
Williamsburg	 84,300
Murray	 14,900
St. Peter's canal	 14,750
Rideau canal	 208,250
Dredge vessels	 30,000
Sault Ste. Marie canal	 79,000
Trent canal	 220,000
Welland canal	 520,000
Miscellaneous	
General	 7,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous

compassionate allowance to the widow of the late James Innes, electrical foreman, who was electrocuted while in discharge of his duties on the Lachine canal, on September 30, 1921, $2,000.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is this an annuity?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, it is merely a gratuity.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Government Railways-toward any deficiency in receipts and revenues necessary to meet working expenditures for the twelve months ending December 31, 1922, the management of the railways being hereby authorized to apply receipts and revenues toward payment of the said working expenditures, $7,000,000.
Andrew Knox: I think the wording of this resolution is comprehensive enough, and the amount involved large enough, to justify me in speaking on a matter which I have been waiting for some little time to bring to the attention of the House. I have reference to the Hudson Bay Railway project. Earlier in the session I placed a notice of motion on the Order Paper in connection with this matter, but in deference to the wishes of the minister, on the day
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

that I expected to take it up I allowed it to stand; and as private members' day has now passed I have been waiting for an opportunity to bring the subject to the attention of the Government. The question I refer to is the consideration of the report of the Senate Committee in regard to the navigability of the Hudson bay and the fishery resources therein, and also in regard to the ports and railway. On the 23rd of April, 1920, the Senate of Canada ordered that a special committee of the House be appointed to take evidence and report upon these matters. The order reads:
That a special committee of twelve of this House he appointed to take evidence and report at this session upon the navigability and fishery resources of Hudson bay and strait, and of the character of the ports of said Hudson bay with regard to their fitness as railway terminals, and that such committee shall have power to call for persons and papers, and that the said committee do consist of the honourable Messieurs Bostock, Casgrain, Dandurand, Daniel, DeVeber, Fowler, Lougheed (Sir James), Michener, Schaffner, Sharpe, Watson and Willoughby.
This matter has been a live, burning question in the West for very many years. In fact, it has been discussed on the public platforms in that part of the country for over 40 years, and I have personally heard it so discussed for three quarters of that time in Saskatchewan. The people who discuss it believe earnestly in the feasibility of the project and are looking forward to the time when the matter will be brought to a successful conclusion. Some years ago it was so prominently before the minds of the people of Canada, and its success was so apparent, that both political parties adopted it at that time as part of their policies. During the discussion of this subject last year the views of the leaders of both the old parties in this House at that time were placed on Hansard, so that I need not repeat them on this occasion.


Mr. LOVETT:: What has Hudson Bay to do with the item before the committee?


George Newcombe Gordon: I understand that the Minister of Railways intimated in committee on a previous occasion that, with the consent of the committee, the question of the Hudson Bay Railway might be discussed on one of the last items. If there is no objection, therefore, the hon. member (Mr. Knox) may proceed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That was absolutely the understanding. When the estimates were before the committee on

a former occasion we passed an item in regard to the Hudson Bay Railway on the assurance that hon. members might discuss that subject when the last item was before the committee. This item therefore affords the hon. member an opportunity to take the matter up.


Andrew Knox: Tyrell spent one winter at a station in Hudson strait taking observations for the Canadian government and also looked over the country from The Pas to Churchill on behalf of a company who had some intention of building a railway in that part of the country-a scheme which was afterwards abandoned. He had no hesitation in saying that no difficulty whatever would be found in extending the railway to Churchill. It is the opinion of this committee that the Government would be well advised if before expending any more money on the harbour works of Nelson they were to appoint a committee of expert engineers and railway builders to examine the route to Churchill and ascertain whether or not it is really possible, as the Messrs. Tyrell say, and what would be the cost and advantage of making Churchill the port and terminus of the Hudson bay road rather than Nelson.
In the meantime, the laying of the rails could be completed to Nelson, and that port could be used for the present in its present state.
While no one was able to speak with certainty as to whether the cod fish were plentiful in the bay or not, there is no doubt as to the strait. AL1 the rivers flowing into the bay teem with fish, and walrus and seal are also found in large numbers in the strait. No doubt as soon as the Hudson bay route is established a very large and lucrative fishing industry will be established there. Recent discoveries have shown that the country surrounding Hudson bay is strongly and richly mineralized, particularly gold and copper.
Mr. Stefansson, the distinguished Polar explorer, gave evidence before your Committee. He is a devout believer in the possibility of utilizing what have always been known as the barren lands of the north, and the islands within the Arctic Circle, in the cultivation of the reindeer, caribou and musk ox for the production of meat. He gave evidence as to the splendid quality of the flesh of these animals as food for the people, and as to the cheapness with which it might be produced. He said that the wild lands of the north which have always been looked upon as worthless could carry at least fifty million head of reindeer and ten million head of musk ox, and that the cost of handling these huge numbers would be trifling in comparison with the profit to be made. The effect of this upon the world's food supply would be tremendous, and your committee would strongly recommend that the matter be energetically taken up by the Government.
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.
(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. Stefansson as to the cultivation of the reindeer and musk ox, and would urge upon the Government that the Department of Interior be empowered to take hold of this matter, earnestly taking advantage of what has been done in this regard by the United States government.
(7)	Your Committee, although it is somewhat outside the scope of their mandate, cannot close this report without making some reference to the national value of the explorations of Vihl-jalmur Stefansson. He has completely revolutionized our ideas of the region within the Polar Circle. He has demonstrated that it is possible for white men to live and thrive in that northern region though drawing from no other resources than those afforded by the country itself, and he has proven that those lands which were looked upon as barren and utterly worthless will eventually be a valuable asset to Canada. The committee ventuies the hope that the Canadian government will not be unmindful of the great services performed by Mr. Stefansson, whose reward so far has not been commensurate with the national importance of the work he has accomplished.
(8)	Your committee expresses its thanks to vb.e gentlemen who have voluntarily come forward and given valuable evidence upon the important matters under consideration.
(9)	Your committee submit herewith an extract in narrative form of the evidence given before the committee, and beg to recommend that 1,000 copies of this report and the extract of the evidence be printed in pamphlet form for general distribution.
All which is respectfully submitted.
Geo. W. Fowler,
Chairman,
Having given this summary of the evidence, I think it is unnecessary for me to go into detail, but I should like to point out one or two strong reasons, as they appear to me, in addition to those outlined in the committee's report why the completion of the railway and the development of a port on the Hudson bay should be proceeded with.
Since 1918 delegations have waited on the government here on a number of occasions, seeking to have this work pushed forward to completion. I have been a member of some of those delegations, and I might say I was a member of a delegation that waited on the present Government only recently in regard to this matter. Resolutions to the same effect have also been passed by boards of trade in the West on innumerable occasions, and recently the associated boards of trade of Saskatchewan passed a very strong resolution urging that this project should be

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
pushed forward to completion. In view of the fact that railway men claim that the average life of a railway tie and the woodwork of a trestle is only seven years, more particularly when the railway is not being operated I would urge that something be done because this work will certainly deteriorate very rapidly if it is not kept in a state of repair. I know that some slight appropriation is set aside for keeping it in repair, but from the fact that 92 miles of grade remains without steel laid, we must draw the conclusion that that grade will undoubtedly be deteriorating, as it cannot be kept in repair. I might point out that steel was laid to that bridge at Kettle rapids on the Saskatchewan river, and for 92 miles between that point and the bay grading has been done but no steel laid. Judging from the conclusions of the Senate committee, I think it would be advisable for the Government during the present summer to have engineers go over the route described by Tyrell Bros., to look into the advisability of branching off at the point they mention south of Nelson and going to Churchill, because from all the evidence submitted we are forced to the conclusion that Churchill is the better harbour of the two.
Naturally I would like to see the project pushed to a conclusion right away, but I know the policy of the Government at the present time is economy, and that is my policy also, but I think a small appropriation could be made to inquire into the feasibility of this route to Churchill. I have discussed the matter with J. W. Tyrell, and he is perfectly confident that there is good railway building all the way to Churchill. He says there is a ridge of gravel running parallel to the coast which has probably been the beach of an ancient sea, and on which there is as fine railway building as could be found anywhere.
I would also point out that wonderful mineral discoveries have been made in that portion of northwest Manitoba and northeast Saskatchewan close to the Hudson Bay railway. Companies, American, British and Canadian, have secured properties there and last year 813 claims were recorded in that district, and during the month of March of the present year 240 claims were recorded, so I think we may conclude that the mineral wealth in that district is well worth looking after. In fact, the district tributary to the railway
has been described as containing enough mineral wealth to pay the national debt. I would not take it on myself to go that far, because our national debt is very large at the present time, but I do know that there are very large deposits there well worth looking after.
I might also allude to the agricultural possibilities in the regions nearest to the bay, which have been settled for many years. Owing to the fact that they receive a reliable rainfall they can depend on a sure crop every year. In my own district, which is some 600 miles distant from the bay, and has been settled for over forty years, there has not been a single crop failure during that time, and from that portion of my constituency known as the Carrot river valley I have information that the amount of grain shipped during the past season ran between seven and eight million bushels. This region is even nearer the bay than the Prince Albert district to which I first referred.
We have lately been hearing something of the possibilities of shipping western wheat and western meat to the European market via the Panama canal. While this may be feasible at the same time it is difficult to believe that it will be profitable because of the length of the haul and the time it takes a ship to get around and to negotiate the canal, and *also by reason of the canal tolls that have to be paid. 1 find from the Panama canal record that last year only 3,500 tons of Canadian wheat passed through the canal, and the tolls amount to something like $1.20 per ton. I thmk, though, that that represents a ton's space as known to nautical men. However, it is a very considerable handicap on the price received by the producer. I would further point out that the distance from Vancouver to Liverpool via the canal is 8,572 miles. The distance from the Hudson bay ports to Liverpool is only 2,926 miles, not much more than one-third of the total distance from Vancouver to Liverpool, and the distance from Montreal to Liverpool is 3,000 miles, so that the ports on the bay have the advantage by some 74 miles even over Montreal. This is something which, I think, should set us all pondering, whether we are interested in developing the great waterways to the head of the lakes, or otherwise. We have here a port distant I would say, only 1,000 miles from the very centre of the wheat producing area of the West. This project
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

is something that people out there have been looking forward to seeing brought to fruition years before this, and they are still looking forward to it.
Now, Sir, I would like to point out, in view of the evidence given before the Senate committee and the report founded thereon, that in all fairness to the western provinces this project should be sympathetically considered, and some steps taken on the part of the Government towards completing the railway at as early a date as possible. I know I shall be asked the question; when is that possible? To that I would say that if we can expend between eight and nine million dollars on the Welland canal then, in all justice, let us apply at least one-half of that amount to the completion of the Hudson bay project. By so doing the Government will regain the confidence of the West, a confidence which, I must admit, has been waning of late. It has been shown that the project is perfectly feasible. The climatic conditions are not by any means an insuperable obstacle. Meteorological readings show that the temperatures were higher than those recorded at Winnipeg during the same year. It has been shown that the districts tributary to the railway and the bay carry enough mineral wealth to justify the building of the line. It has also been shown that immense quantities of fish of unsurpassed quality can be secured in this northern region, so located that they are within easy reach of the markets in the centre of the continent. Last, but most important of all, it has been shown that the project would bring the grain and the beef of the western provinces nearer an ocean seaport, and consequently nearer the markets of the world by a distance of 1,000 miles. Surely this should warrant the Government in making a favourable pronouncement on the matter. I have a firm conviction, Sir, that Providence placed the Hudson bay as a natural outlet for the great grain and beef producing areas of this Dominion; and I have enough faith in predestination to believe that it was predestined to carry, at no very distant date, the produce of the western provinces to outside markets. I would most respectfully ask the Government through the minister, to give us some assurance that this project dear to the heart of the western producer, who is so seriously handicapped at the present time, will be sympathetically considered and brought to a successful conclusion at an early date. Such an assurance would do much to 
restore a feeling of confidence on the part of the West, which, as I have already said, is fast ebbing away.
Mr. MOTHERWELL; I would ask my hon. friend if he would recommend the building of the Hudson Bay Railway in advance of the construction of branch lines in the West that are being so earnestly pressed for at the present time? I would enumerate the following branches: Turtleford to Prince Albert; Bengough westward; Prince Albert straight north; Thunder Hill branch westward, and many others. Is it not a case of giving consideration to the most pressing demands first? The feasibility of the Hudson Bay Railway can only be proved by building it first. The kernel of the whole thing is the matter of priority. What undertakings are the most greviously needed? These branch lines that I have enumerated, and others that could be mentioned, or the Hudson Bay Railway?


Andrew Knox: In reply to the minister I would like to say that I certainly wish to see the branch lines completed, and I emphasized that fact on previous occasions. As to the Hudson bay project I think there should be an investigation of the merits of Churchhill as a port before any further work is done at Nelson. I have already suggested that that work of investigation should be proceeded with during the present summer. I certainly desire to see the branch lines completed because the settlers in the districts concerned are in serious straits for the want of transportation.


John Millar: I quite agree with what the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has said that it would not be wise at this time to complete the Hudson Bay railway in view of the necessity for the construction of branch lines. I would also like to add my support to the request that he has made that the Government should take steps to decide which is the better port on Hudson bay. The opening of the Hudson Bay railway may seem to be a matter in which the industrial centres of the East are not very much interested, but it appears to me that if they would look into the matter very carefully they would see that the project is one of very great importance to them. They should realize what the opening up of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba means to the East. There was a time I think, when it was said that the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway would not pay for the axle grease, but after the lapse of a few years it was found that the construe-

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
tion of that railway was of very great value to the East.
Now I wish to touch briefly on a few points in connection with the territory north of where the member for Prince Albert now lives, because he is located pretty close to the northern boundary line of the settled district. Let me refer hurriedly to the southern states and say that there they can grow cotton but they cannot grow corn. A little farther north they can grow corn but they cannot grow wheat. Farther north still, in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, they can grow wheat but in the extreme north we find a territory where wheat cannot be successfully grown. Nevertheless they can raise oats, barley and the coarser grains much better than we can farther south. Just a week ago I was talking with a man who had spent a few weeks in Athabaska, which is about 100 miles north of Edmonton. This man was brought up on a farm in Ontario where he spent nearly all his life and he made this statement. He said "The best hundred acres of wheat that I have seen in my life I saw last summer at Athabaska" and as I already stated that district is 100 miles north of Edmonton. He told me of the districts up there where there were large settlements of foreigners. Both men and women worked the land there and were making a great success of it. I was also surprised when he told me of a large settlement of negroes, a fact of which I was not aware. Going over the report to which the hon. member for Prince Albert Mr. Knox) has referred, I say that this country that will grow rich grass, that will maintain millions of heads of caribou and muskoxen, is a country well worth paying attention to. In the report I notice this statement:
Muskox are found as far north as 400 miles from the North Pole.
And they are grass-eating animals. One explorer tells us he saw a herd that he estimated at a million and a half. Another explorer states that he saw a herd that he estimated at three and a half million.


John Alexander Stewart: When was that?


John Millar: Just a few years ago. They are there in millions now. The caribou is practically the same animal as the reindeer, and in the Yukon they are being ranched and herded like sheep. The Americans are making a great success of the business. Stefansson, the explorer, says that the muskox is probably the most
valuable animal in the world at the present time, and that it yields about three times as much wool of as fine quality as the sheep, and about three times as much meat. The Eskimo herd them as they would a flock of sheep. When you come to consider what cheap meat is going to mean in the near future, when you consider that our lands further south have become too expensive for ranching, and that we do not get the rain-fall they do further north, it gives one some idea of that great country north. To put it briefly, the rivers and bays are teeming with fish. I suppose some of you have the idea " Oh, that country is simply a great tract of ice and snow, that will never be settled." Why not? The same explorer states that the snowfall there is very much less than in Winnipeg. I believe the figures are from 25 to 50 per cent of the snowfall in Winnipeg, yet Winnipeg has a population about three times as large as Ottawa. In speaking of the islands of the north and of the coal area, he mentions five large islands in succession, and he states that these islands are all rich in coal, except one. It is well known that coal is very plentiful on the mainland. Some time ago I was talking to a man who had travelled around the country a great deal. He is quite a fancier of pure-bred stock, and he said: "I have never seen at the Chicago exhibitions, or at any of the other large exhibitions, animals better finished than I have seen on the grass in what is known as the Carrot river country." That is, I think, a little east of where my hon. friend from Prince Albert lives. He referred to this district in his address a moment ago.
I wish to add a word in regard to the two ports. I have looked into the matter very carefully, have studied all that I have been able to get hold of in the last two weeks in regard to the two ports, and it seems to me a miistake was made in choosing the port of Nelson. The port of Churchill is protected from all quarters from the wind. It is quite plain from the report that it could be made into one of the best-in fact, the words that were used were one of the best-ports of its size in the continent, with very little expense. I am going to make one further request, and that is this. The American people have taken steps in the Yukon-I do not know just how long ago, but some years ago-to protect their herds of caribou from the wolves. They are animals that do not
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

readily protect themselves. Only at certain seasons of the year are the muskoxen in very great danger from the wolves, but the caribou are in danger all the year round. They have engaged a number of rangers, and are paying them from $4,000 to $5,000 each to destroy the wolves in order to protect their great herds of caribou, but the rangers turn the pelts back to the government, and the return from these pelts pays nearly all of their expenses. It may look a long way off, but I would ask the committee to consider, if a farmer had a flock of sheep, and the wolves were destroying those sheep, would he not be ready to take some steps to protect them? These are our flocks. They are a long way off, it is true, but they are ours, and the time will come when we can make good use of them, and I think in the very near future the Government ought not only to take steps to discover which is the best port, and what it will cost to build to that port, but also to take steps to gather further information about that north country, and look into the plan adopted by the Americans for the protection of their great herds of caribou and muskoxen.


Mr. BIRD:: I regret to have to trespass on the time of the House in these crowded closing hours of the session, but the Hudson Bay railway is in an important part of my constituency and perhaps hon. members will tolerate me for a short time. I understand the reason for discontinuing this project was the state of our country's finances at the close of the war, and I judge that the same reason obtains as to the further suspension of the enterprise. I am not at all disinclined to give the fullest weight to that consideration. There are times when every part of the world is called upon to restrain itself, even in regard to its legitimate desires, for the sake of the common weal. But I do not think that any part of Canada ought to be asked to suffer from a discriminating economy of any kind, and I would like to see the Hudson Bay railway put into the same category as the enterprises of a similar kind in the eastern part of Canada.
I think there is a tendency in the public mind to entertain a somewhat distorted view as to the relative cost of this enterprise, and consequently as to its demand upon the public purse. Some few weeks ago I was privileged to view the Quebec bridge, and I was told that this enterprise cost something like $25,000,000, and yet there it lay quite comfortably within the

sphere of my unarmed vision, a single link, a golden link if you like, in the long extensive chain of communication between the West and the East. In the Hudson Bay railway, you have, not a single link, but an entire system of communication between the great prairies of the West and a whole hemisphere; that is it opens up the prairies to trade with the Atlantic and every shore on the Atlantic. By adding less than one per cent of the total mileage of our Canadian railways, you bring the prairies actually to the sea at the mere cost of a Quebec bridge. I think that is putting the matter in the right focus.
I want to say a few words regarding that aspect of the question which deals with the natural obstructions which lie in the way of the completion of this enterprise. As regards those obstructions that lie overland, they have already been accurately measured and completely overcome, so that does not enter any longer into the discussion. The real difficulty begins only at the seaboard, and it must be admitted at once that nature has not very richly endowed the Hudson bay with natural harbours. With respect to Port Nelson, I think the facts are pretty well known already. It seems that nature has left very much to the engineer as regards that port, but in such a way as not to make it impossible for the engineer to make a very workable and successful harbour. I think a fair-minded review of the evidence shows that the advocates of Port Nelson have very much in their support, and I believe they are right in prophesying for that port a great future. It is almost worthy of a great future, standing as it does at the mouth of one of the world's greatest rivers. I am sorry this controversy has been revived at the present time to becloud the issue.
As regards Fort Churchill, it seems that nature has been a little more generous, and that there you have, in a somewhat miniature way, a natural port. It seems, however, from all the evidence that I have read, that Fort Churchill does not possess those possibilities of expansion that might conceivably some day be required. In addition to that, it would require 100 miles of additional railway to reach that port, which lies further north in a more inhospitable climate, and we are told that that railway would have to pass over very difficult ground, in fact, over a morass 30 miles in extent. If that matter could be settled in a satisfactory way, I feel that one would

have to admit that Fort Churchill might be the proper place for the port in this scheme, at least, during its experimental stages. Supposing it was established as a port, and afterwards it was demonstrated to be inadequate, it might even then, when it had to give place to Port Nelson, serve as a subsidiary port especially in times of bad navigation.
It is scarcely necessary, however, to discuss the matter of a port, because the crux of this situation lies in the Hudson bay strait. The whole difficulty with respect to this scheme centres in the Hudson bay strait, where the drift ice from Baffin bay and Fox channel moves backwards and forwards with the tide all the year round and provides a serious obstacle to navigation. I have no doubt that we cannot in any way mitigate the seriousness of the obstruction that there exists to all-year-round navigation; but that it is navigable, there has been no doubt for the last 300 years. Hudson, the famous explorer, entered that strait on his fatal voyage early in July, and since that time we have records to prove that the strait has been navigated from the 5th of June until the early part of November. I think we may assume that the minimum period of navigation-and this is proved almost conclusively by the Senate committee and the evidence given there-for the Hudson bay strait is four clear months of the year. That is the irreducible minimum, therefore; but on the other hand we are told that the Hudson bay strait never freezes over; that with a properly constructed ship you could get through there at any time of the year. So, between these two limits, between the minimum of four months and that larger limit of almost twelve months in the year, you have quite a margin for the operation of modern science as applied to navigation, and he would be a bold man who would set any limit to achievements in that direction. The Senate committee had no less than eight witnesses to show that by modern appliances the strait might be navigated considerably longer and with greater safety than it can 'be at the present time. Having read all the evidence that is available on this aspect of the question, I have to conclude that these obstacles are not such that a born Canadian would willingly admit to be in any way insuperable. Our history is a succession of just such conquests as this enterprise sets before us.
In the history of Canada there have been many enterprises that have seemed absolutely insuperable until they have been re-
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
viewed in the light of the possibilities that lay behind them. Therefore, I want to say a few brief words in regard to the incentives that exist to overcome those admittedly serious obstacles. First of all, as regards the Hudson bay itself, this immense inland sea with approximately half a million square miles, deserves, on its own account, a humble connection with civilization. An eloquent member of this House, in the early part of this session, compared the Great Lakes with the Mediterranean sea. With greater truth I think the Hudson bay might be called the Baltic of the North American continent. The differences between the Hudson bay and the Baltic are these. It is a little more to the south than the Baltic; it is about twice the area, and it connects with an interior which is not only vaster in extent, but infinitely richer in natural resources. The Baltic has played a great part in the history of Europe. As we were told, it was the scene, in the middle ages, of a great trade league that placed Europe on the map of the world, and in later years, we are sorry to say that it witnessed the rise of a nation that was so powerful as nearly to put Europe off the map. If the Hudson bay ever becomes to this continent one tithe of the value that the Baltic has been to Europe, it will certainly have a great history before it.
Its waters, its estuaries, its rivers, are simply teeming with all kinds of finny wealth, marketable, edible fish; and its interior, as we have been told to-night, abounds in mineral and animal wealth which some day will be of great commercial importance to this country. Now, as to the land that is traversed by the railway itself, I need hardly say that the resources of the district through which the Hudson Bay railway passes are forever beyond the sphere of speculation. In agricultural value, in mineral value, in fur, wood, pulp and power, that land can no longer be classified as barren. On the Nelson river alone it is estimated that there is a potentiality of 2,500,000 horse-power, which, as is well known, is equivalent to 20,000,000 tons of coal a year. And yet there are those who would contend that this country through which the Hudson Bay railway passes is a barren and impossible country. That 2,500,000 horse-power Is equal to our share in the possibilities of the St. Lawrence water scheme, and it is altogether our own, secure within the Canadian hinterland.

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

Now, our western wealth is not depen-' dent upon the products of our mines, and forests, and rivers. Our future depends on cur wheat fields, and some of us on this side of the House have been- yearning for the sight this spring which we have missed for the first time in many years. I refer to the young growing wheat, as with swift strokes it paints the prairies and the beautiful rolling lands to the north of the three provinces. To look upon a growing field of wheat through the yellow haze of a quiet spring night is one of those things which to have seen once is to love the West forever. Some of us have yearned for that sight during this spring. On an occasion of that kind you can almost hear nature making her promise of the great wealth ' of autumn. Our wheat crops, in quality and quantity and in ease of production, have no equal in this wide world. But unfortunately they have one almost fatal drawback, and that is their distance from the ultimate market. The Premier of Alberta, speaking recently, said that if our western crops were as near to the markets as the crops of Ontario they would be worth approximately 100 per cent more than at present. That is a very serious consideration for the western farmer, and added to that drawback there is the immense cost of production, which is another story. It is only under great difficulties that many of our western farmers, even in the best wheat growing districts, carry on at all; and if they were as sensitive in the matter of profits as other Canadian business men are they would have given up long ago. But the farmer is not so very sensitve to the rise and fall of profits. There is a good deal of elasticity about the economic position of the farmer. Rather than give in he will take it out of himself and unfortunately out of his family. He will take it out of his bank account rather than give in. I read the remarks of, I think, one of the British Columbia members, who I presume is a protectionist, who in going through a boot factory some time ago turned to one of the western farmers and said: "Would you put these people-mostly girls in their teens-out of work for the sake of a few cents on a pair of boots?" The obvious retort was: "Would you put hundreds of thousands of farmers out of business for the sake of a few cents a bushel on wheat?" And that is what it amounts to. The western farmer stays by it and he and his family sometimes suffer considerably. Here, then, we have a [ Mr. Bird. ]
scheme that brings the wheat belt within 500 or 600 miles of the sea; it brings us within easy touch of the seaboard, within a few miles as near to Liverpool as is Montreal. A speaker in this House said a short time ago that Montreal owes its superiority over Quebec as a seaport to the fact that it is 100 miles nearer to the sources of production than is Quebec. What would you say about a port 1,000 miles nearer the sources of production than Montreal? It could afford to have a good many more obstacles than it has at present. In order to put Montreal in the same position as Port Nelson with reference to the western wheat fields, you would have to transplant it to a point a little east of Winnipeg.
I think our contention goes a little deeper than I have already indicated. The western people are proud of the West. We do not talk so much about it perhaps as the eastern people do about the East, but we are just as proud of our country all the same. At the same time, while in the bottom of our hearts we are proud of it, we sometimes feel its isolation. I know I do, living 400 miles from any city of importance. We are hemmed in on all sides. To the west there is one of the world's greatest mountain ranges; to the south one of the world's greatest tariff walls; to the north the frozen regions inhospitable to man; and to the east a wilderness that is almost as forbidding as the frigid north. I wish I had more weight in order that what I say here might impress the House, but I want hon. members to feel that these conditions have had their influence upon the West in a way no easterner can imagine. No one who has not lived in the West can realize what these conditions have meant to those provinces during the last few years. They have welded us together, and given us a self-consciousness. They have brought us to the point where we have one outlook economically, one social feeling, one aspiration. One would think that in the West where we have such a miscellaneous population, of whom over 50 per cent are Europeans, there would be an ideal opportunity for the maximum of religious, racial and political friction, at least to a greater extent than in Ontario. But what do you find? In all these respects, in racial matters, in religious matters, in political matters, we have been brought together. We have been unified and at the present time we are at one in many

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
things. Those hon. gentlemen opposite or on the right who are looking for any serious reversion in the West to the old state of things, politically or in any other sense, are, I am afraid, inviting very serious disappointment to themselves, because they are leaving out of consideration the economic factors that have driven us together in recent years. Out West if Protestant and Catholic, Jew and Gentile, European and Canadian, and Grit and Tory did not get together and capitalize their humanity, life would not be worth living at all. They simply have to do it, and I should like this House to remember the tremendous urge that is behind the movement represented in this quarter of the Chamber.
So it would be unreasonable, Mr. Chairman to expect that such a large body of population as we have in the three prairie provinces existing under the same economic conditions practically one unit, a vigorous, ambitious, self-conscious people, should permanently be content to be frustrated of even a visionary hope of getting an avenue to the sea-the great way of commerce. I do not think it reasonable to expect that we will forever submit to being denied a "place in the sun".
Now, it would be very regrettable if any other section of Canada should obstinately refuse to the West this privilege because, mark you, Mr. Chairman, if you read history rightly, it is just the opposition to that kind of aspiration that causes all the trouble. We have heard a lot about the origin of the Great War. What was its origin? It was simply that the great bullying commercial nations of Europe denied to little Serbia its right to an avenue to the sea for the purposes of commerce. That was the beginning of the war. I do not think, in fact I am sure that there is no such sanguinary possibility in these circumstances, but statesmen are always willing to take into account the remotest considerations when the uniting of a great country like this is concerned.
I for one stand very solidly for the loyalty of the West, despite its 50 per cent European population. I think there is no section of Canada more loyal than the West. But, mark you, I am not inclined to get sentimental about it, just the same, because I recognize that loyalty, sterling virtue as it is, is always finally over-ridden by economic necessity-the first law of our being.
Now, as you pass up the St. Lawrence and enter Canada you are struck with one
feature in particular-those narrow strips of farms, so picturesque and peculiar, that run back from the water's edge away to the distant bush. I presume that that condition of things arose in the early days when the St. Lawrence was the only channel of inter-communication, and that the original settlers were indisposed to be pushed back into the interior and denied access to that channel. That method of planning out homesteads is not economically justifiable. But it has led to general contentment and has certain picturesque characteristics. But I mention that peculiarity because the feeling of the original settlers is something like that which the people of the West feel -they want to be at the front, to have a place at the water's edge. That is all the West wants. It wants a breathing point, an ocean avenue whereby it can come in touch with the rest of the world.
Coming into this building one notices this inscription above the doorway:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
I wonder who was responsible for selecting that inscription. It must have been some one who was against the Hudson Bay Railway proposition, I know. I think some day that couplet ought to be amended, and if I am a judge of poetry, you could not very well hurt its poetic qualities by adding these words:
-and the north.
I hope that amendment will be made so as to render the inscription apt and accurate to the condition of things which will then obtain.


Mr. STEWART (Humboldt) :: Mr. Chairman, speaking in this House the other day I remarked that the people of western Canada believe that the case for the completion of the Hudson bay railway had been made out. That belief has been entertained for many years, and as long ago as I can remember in the West the people have referred to this project as feasible. In 1906,1 believe it was, the Hon. Walter Scott, the first Premier of Saskatchewan, speaking to a large audience of farmers of that province, remarked:
"The people of western Canada refuse to take their eyes off the Hudson bay route. For twenty years they have been looking that way."
That was in 1906. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) stated to-night that this project had been in the minds of the people of western Canada for forty years, and this is borne out by the facts. The Hon. Walter Scott continued:
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

UI have received an assurance that the Dominion government admit this project to be a national undertaking, and that they will not deny their responsibility."
It was a number of years later before the Dominion government assumed that responsibility.
I want, if possible, to make clear to this House some of the reasons why the people of western Canada believe that they have made out their case conclusively with regard to the Hudson bay project, and to this end I shall quote the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I believe the first time that in a public way the admission was made that this was a national undertaking, and would be undertaken in a national way, was at Niagara Palls in September 1908, and these are the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier as reported at that time:
"We have undertaken the construction of another railway, the Hudson bay railway. The Hudson's bay railway, I am sure, does not appeal very much to the people of Welland county. It concerns more the people of the West. But I say to you, gentlemen of Ontario, and you will agree with me, that what concerns one portion of the community concerns every part of the community. Now, we have come to the conclusion that this railway is a necessity, owing to the condition in which our fellow-citizens in the west are placed. This railway will give an alternative or optional route. At the present time all the wheat as soon as it is tracked is sent out to lake Superior. We want to provide another railway by Hudson's bay. There will then be the present route and the Hudson's bay route and the man who raises wheat and cattle will have two outlets for his production. We have been asked: "Are you not going to hurt the trade of the St. Lawrence, if you do that?'' Oh, ye of little faith! the trade of Canada is too great even for these two outlets. What we see coming will be more than sufficient for both the St. Lawrence and the Hudson's bay routes. We have come to the conclusion that the time to build this railway is now ; not to-morrow, but now; and we have surveyors in the field looking at the condition of the country and preparing plans for us, which we shall be prepared to put into execution as soon as we receive them. The Government will build the railway, or rather somebody will be entrusted with building it for us, but whatever we do, all the terminals and all the elevators shall be built by the Government, and retained under all and every circumstance by the Government so as to insure the [DOT] argest measure of benefit possible to the Canadian people in the North-West provinces.*'
Speaking that same year and referring to the speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. later Sir Robert Borden, said:
The Conservative party has been pledged to the building of that railway since 1S95, when it was promised by Sir Charles Tupper. The present Government has reached the same conclusion in the thirteenth year of its administration.

In the light of those statements, Mr. Chairman, I think it is only reasonable to assume that the people of western Canada believe their case is well made out, and they feel that if there is opposition to this route on the ground that it is not feasible, they have a right to claim that a report shall be made to them setting forth the circumstances in that respect.
I also want to place before the committee a few extracts from other reports which have been quoted in western Canada. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has given to the committee tonight the last report that has been placed at our disposal, but for many years, at least since 1905, there have been a great number of reports made available to the people of this country on the Hudson bay project, and I believe that all these reports are now available to members of this House in the Library of this Parliament. I have gathered a few extracts from these reports which I shall give to the committee to show why the people of western Canada, having faith in the accuracy of these reports, believe they are justified in demanding that this route shall be carried through to completion.
The first extract is from a report made by Walter Dickson, for twenty years in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company:
"From what I have observed of the movement of ice in Hudson bay during the summers I passed there I am perfectly assured that an ordinary screw steamer would never have any difficulty in getting through or around that ice which is usually met with in the bay or strait. The chief reason why the old sailing vessels of the Hudson's Bay Company often met with detention in the ice was that in the season when floe ice is met with, there is generally very little wind, and sailing vessels are as helpless amongst ice as they would be in a dead calm in the centre of the Atlantic or elsewhere. The bay has always been found of ready access to a good and careful navigator. From what is known, and my experience already obtained on the subject there is every reason to believe that were the Hudson bay thoroughly surveyed it would be found to be one of the safest of known seas. I have known the season when the harbours were accessible for seven months of the year.
Another captain in the employ of the Hudson's Bay Company, Janies Hackland, for thirty-nine years with the company, says:	"The strait is open all the year
round." Captain Colin Sinclair, for six years with the Hudson's Bay Company, says: "No unusual danger or difficulty in navigating the bay or strait." Captain Silsby, in the employ of the company from

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
1884, " saw no reason why steamships could not make excellent speed on that course to and from Europe for four months certainly in the year, and in open winters, five months." Captain Kennedy, with the company ror eight years, " found no ice after July first and only once on November first. The currents which open up the channel of ingress and egress are very regular and convert the bay and strait into a pathway for commerce."
These reports from which I have quoted, and similar reports, are probably the basis upon which the people of western Canada argue that the Hudson bay route is feasible. Their reason for requiring that route has been put before the committee with some detail in this debate by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, and I am not going .into that part of the question at this time. I simply want to point out that agriculturists in western Canada, in the position in which they find themselves at the present time are forced to look for every means which might alleviate their circumstances, and they have found that by attacking those things which were a hindrance to them and overcoming them, one by one, they have for a great many years been able to carry on in the face of countless obstacles. The cost of transportation before them at the present time is a problem they feel they must tackle and overcome. They believe that if this route were open, although it might not add greatly to the returns, would be of material help. The most optimistic figure is that if would add very materially to the returns, and that it might possibly mean all the difference between Fort William and Montreal, which is eleven or twelve cents a bushel, at the least. The most conservative estimate is that it would mean a difference of five cents a bushel on wheat, which at the present time would 'be something worth while for the western farmer.
Two or three hon. members who have spoken on this subject to-night have been so situated locally that this project appeals to them and their constituents in a personal way, because they are so close to the route and to the bay, comparatively speaking, but we must remember that all of western Canada is very much interested in this project, and not only western Canada but the northern states as well. It is perhaps not generally known that Winnipeg would be 600 miles closer to Liverpool via the Hudson bay route as compared with the railway route at the present time
via Montreal. Duluth would be 470 miles closer than it is via the Great lakes. St. Paul perhaps the greatest market in the western states for their grain, would be 150 miles closer to Liverpool via the Hudson bay route than it is via Chicago and Montreal. This is something that should be taken into account in considering this question.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to a letter I have in my hand, not that it has any particular bearing on the subject for, as I stated in the early part of my remarks, this is a national undertaking, as the Hon. Walter Scott said, and one which must be undertaken by the federal government, but it is from a correspondent who lives in a community which is in the unique position of having gone after a railroad and got it-not that they persuaded any great railway company to build for them, but when they could not get the railway company to build it they went to work and got out a charter and constructed the railway themselves. It is now a part of the Canadian National system. This correspondent urges me to take up this matter of the Hudson bay route, and suggests that if the Dominion of Canada is not in a position to finance it at the present time a charter should be granted to some of the western farmers, and they would finish the road themselves. He states in his letter that he is ready to pay $1,000 into any company that would be formed for that purpose, and he believes the project would meet with success. That shows you, Mr. Chairman, that the farmers of western Canada are not talking about this project as something which they believe in only theoretically, but they regard it as something that is absolutely practical.


Mr. CALDWELL:: After listening to the recent speeches, I cannot help but agree that the Hudson Bay railway is needed, and needed badly. I know something of the want of an outlet for the produce of our farms in the East, and while I do not live in western Canada, I believe that unless we can look at these questions from a broad national standpoint and be willing to help the other fellow as well as ourselves, we shall not get very far. But I did not rise to speak on this subject. Would the minister inform the committee who are the directors of the Canadian National Railways at the present time.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Hanna, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Riley, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Wood, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Mr. Barnhill, and Mr. Bell.
2792	COMMONS
Supply-Canadian National Ry.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is Col. Cantley still a director?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is :t proposed to
make any changes in the personnel of the directorate of the government railways at the present time?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The whole
question of the directorate of the government railways will be taken up by the Government in Council when the consolidation of the railways is considered.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: My purpose in asking this question was because we had a speech in this House by the present Prime Minister on May 19, 1921, a small portion of which I wish to place upon Hansard. When I have done that I think it will be obvious why I asked the question I did.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is in
Hansard now, are you going to put it on record again?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes, with the permission of the House I am going to put it on record again because very few members ever go back and read last year's speeches. It is punishment enough to listen to some of the speeches this session.


George Perry Graham: We are doing it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I have not wasted very much of the time of the House this session, and I think what I am going to read is very pertinent to the present question, if it were not I would not seek to waste the time of the House. The debate from which I am about to quote took place on the refusal of the former government to give information to this House in regard to certain expenditures by the board of directors of the government railways. I am not going to quote all the speech because, I think, that speech occupied a longer time in delivery than all the time I have taken up in speaking in this House possibly for two years. Beginning at page 3609 of Hansard of 1921, the right hon. gentleman said:
Compare this now with the methods devised by the present administration in the expenditure of public moneys on those vast transportation systems. Both in the case of the Canadian National railway and the merchant marine, the government has constituted boards of management. These boards are composed almost exclusively of the government's own friends; almost without exception the gentlemen who compose these boards are associated with large industrial enterprises and businesses which are engaged in the manufacture, selling

and distribution of the equipment and supplies required by these government undertakings. In the awarding of contracts, they are given a perfectly free hand. They may award to whomever they please, in whatever quantities they please, and at whatever prices they please. That of itself one would think, where there was no personal liability, and where the moneys to meet the required payments were not coming out of the bank accounts of the parties concerned, but out of the public treasury, would be sufficient to encourage an all but unlimited degree of extravagance. But what is to be expected where, in addition to this opportunity of helping one's friends, an undertaking is given by the ministry that, no matter what the transaction, notwithstanding it is out of the taxes of the people that payments have ultimately to be made, the people's representatives in Parliament shall be denied all right of inquiry, all right of information, on the score that such right and knowledge are not in the public interest? And yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation as it has existed for the past couple of years, and as it exists to-day. Is it any wonder there are huge expenditures and colossal deficits? The wonder of wonders would be how deficits could be avoided under such a system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that it may not be said this is a mere theorizing, let me give to the House the names of the members of the boards concerned, and the names of the companies with which these gentlemen are concerned. But, first of all, let me give a list of a few articles of commerce required in connection with the equipment and supplies of these transportation systems. It requires no understanding of human nature to believe that, unless the gentlemen who are directors of companies directly or indirectly concerned in furnishing such equipment and supplies are woefully neglectful of the business interests it is alike their duty and personal advantage to watch and further in every manner possible, the companies of which they are directors, or businesses associated with such companies, are not likely to be forgotten in the contracts awarded, and in the prices paid for the articles necessary to the equipment and supplies of these vast transportation systems.
But before I speak of the companies with which these gentlemen are connected in a business way as directors, let me refer to the classes of commodities which are likely to be required in large quantities as supplies and equipment for the government railways and the government merchant marine.
Iron and steel (locomotives, rails, cars, castings* couplers, bolts, bars, etc.)
Cement.
Oil; coal oil, white lead oil, boiled linseed oil.
Gasoline.
Lumber and timber, for car decking and roofing and for construction (fencing).
Paints.
Cotton and wool waste.
Uniforms for conductors and employees.
Coal.
Foods of all kinds.
Ties.
Pullman and sleepers materials.
Electric materials.
Fuses.
Wheels.
Hose.
Air-brake materials.

Supply-Canadian National Ry.
Tie plates.
Hotel supplies.
Insurance.
Advertising.
Printing.
It requires only the mention of this list to show what enormous patronage is extended through this particular source-a patronage running into millions of dollars; and all of it, mark you, under this arrangement is disposed of by the Government's friends just where they think best, and the people's representatives in this Parliament are denied all knowledge of where the contracts are placed. Now who are the members of the Board of Directors of the two companies? The personnel of the two directorates is the same, and is as follows:
Mr. D. B. Hanna, of Toronto.
Mr. A. J. Mitchell, of Toronto.
Mr. E. R. Wood, of Toronto.
Mr. R. Hobson, of Hamilton.
Major G. A. Bell, C.M.G., of Ottawa.
Sir Hormisdas Raporte, of Montreal.
Mr. A. F. Barnhill, K.C., D.C.D., of St. John, N.B.
Colonel Thomas Cantley, of New Glasgow, N.S.
Mr. R. T. Riley, of Winnipeg.
What are the companies with which these gentlemen are connected? Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish it distinctly understood that I make no reflection upon any of these gentlemen or their business integrity, I merely place the information before the House and let it speak for itself. This list is taken from the annual Financial Review for June, 1920, and, by the way, it does not, I believe, begin to include the companies with which these gentlemen are connected in an indirect way, nor is it complere as regards the companies of which they are directors, Mr. D. B. Hanna, is president of the Canada Flour Mills and a director of Canada Steamship Dines, Dimited; Electrical Development Company of Canada, Dimited; Canada Mortgage Investment Company; British-American Assurance Company; Western Assurance Company; Canadian North Prairies Dands Company ; Brazilion Traction, Dight and Power Company, Dimited; Rio de Janeiro Dight and Power Company; Sao Paulo Dight and Power Company. Mr. A. J. Mitchell is a director of the Western Canada Flour Mills. Mr. R. T. Riley is vice-president of the Union Bank of Canada and of the Great W'est Dife Assurance Company. Mr. Robert Hobson is president of the Steel Company of Canada, Dimited, and a director of the Canadian Docomotive Company, Dimited; Bank of Hamilton; Tuckett Tobacco Company, Dimited ; North Star Oil and Refining Company; Chartered Trusts and Executor Company ; British Empire Trust Company; Dominion Power and Transmission Company; Toronto General Trusts Corporation. Sir Hormisdas Ra-porte is a director of Credit Foncier Franco-Canadian ; Socidtd d'Adminlstration Gdngrale ; Frontenac Breweries, Dimited; Da Sauvegarde Dife Assurance Company. Mr. A. P. Barnhill is president of the New Brunswick Electrical Company and the Acamac Dand Company, Dimited, and a director of the Eastern Trusts Company; St. John Iron Works, Dimited; James Pender and Company, Dimited; Telegraph Publishing Company; Fenton Dand and Building Company; Westfield Dand Company; Times Publishing Company. Colonel Thomas Cantley is a director of Eastern Car Company, Dimited; Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, Dimited; Brandram-Henderson Paints and Varnishes. Mr. E. R. Wood is president of the Central Canada Doan and Savings Company, vice-president of the Canada Dife Assurance Company; National Trust Company ; Brazilion Traction, Dight and Power Company, Dimited, and director of British-American Assurance Company ; Western Assurance Company ; Canadian Bank of Commerce ; Dominion Steel Corporation ; Toronto Savings and Doan Company; Calgary Power Company; Mexico Northwestern Railway Company; Barcelona Traction, Dight and Power Company, Dimited; R!o de Janeiro Tramway Dight and Power Company; Soa Paulo Tramway, Dight and Power Company; Mexico Tramway Company; Mexico Electric Dight Company; Toronto Railway Company; Toronto Power Company, Dimited; Toronto Electric Dight Company, Dimited; Electrical Development Company of Canada, Dimited; Dominion Securities Corporation, Dimited.
Major Bell, being the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals, is not included in the list of directors of any companies.
I imagine that if he is doing his full duty as a deputy minister, which I believe he is, his whole time is taken up in the department and practically none of it can be given to the work of this Board of Management.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that I do not for a moment desire to be considered as reflecting upon the honesty or business integrity of the gentlemen connected with these various boards. All I wish to say is that if these gentlemen are directors of a large number of business enterprises from which commodities in the nature of supplies and equipment for the railways and merchant marine can be or are being obtained, they are not true to their obligations as directors of those business concerns if with the inside knowledge they have of what is available in the way of contracts they do not go after those contracts and try to get them for the companies with which they are connected. That is their duty. The duty of a director is to watch the interests of the businesses with which he is connected, and I say that these gentlemen being on the board of directors of various companies, and having knowledge of large numbers of contracts running into millions of dollars, it is certain that they would not be doing their best by the companies of which they are directors if they did not look out for the interests of those companies.
Could interlocking of directorates be carried to a degree of greater perfection? Just think of it, Mr. Speaker, all these vast industrial concerns, and many more, to all intents and purposes represented by this little circle of favoured individuals who comprise the board of directors of the government railways and merchant marine, who have a free hand in the disbursing of millions upon millions of the public moneys, with a guarantee that no information will be given to the people through their representatives in Parliament as to how or to whom the moneys were distributed. Need we look further, Mr. Speaker, for an explanation of the size of the deficits in these undertakings, and the vastly increased expenditures, and consequent increased taxation to which the people of Canada are being subjected. Would a more powerful combination of business interests be imagined? What government under such a system should be able to keep itself in power indefinitely?
^794	COMMONS
Supply-Canadian National Ry.
In view of this statement by the hon. member who is at the present time Premier of Canada-and we are told that this board of directors is the same to-day, as it was at that time, with the exception of one man, who, I presume resigned in order to run as a candidate in the election last fall-in view of the fact that we saw in the newspapers just before the election last fall, in big headlines, a statement to the effect that contracts had been let to the Canadian Locomotive Company and the Eastern Car Company, amounting to an aggregate of $25,000,000, and this was used as campaign literature last fall, and in view of the fact that we are asked to vote $114,049,500 for the upkeep, or for payment of the deficits on the national system, I think it is due this House that some explanation should be made, and that some guarantee should he given that if this condition was as terrible as it was declared to be last year, there should be some changes in this board before the vote is passed. I have not discussed this matter with any other member of the House. I happened to be absent from the House this afternoon and when I came in I found the House was in the middle of the estimates.
I want to offer these few remarks and comments in the manner I have done, and I think an explanation is due to the House, as to what is proposed to be done, in connection with the present board of management of the government railway.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: My hon.
friend stated that he was not in the House this afternoon, but I may tell him that the hon. memlher for South York (Mr. Maclean) asked a question this afternoon bearing on this point, and, in my reply, I told the hon. member that the Government hoped at an early date to be in a position to announce its board of directors to govern, not only the Canadian National lines but the Grand Trunk as well; in a word, the board would be provided for when the co-ordination took place. When the time comes the Government will make the announcement to the public. In the meantime, I can assure my hon. friend that what he has said, and everything, indeed, that bears upon the question of the fitness of any gentleman to occupy a position on that board, will be fully considered before the appointment is made.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Has any investigation been made into the report that huge

contracts were let to the Eastern Car Company and the Canadian Locomotive Company just previous to the election. If those contracts were let at what date were they let; what was the size of the contracts, and who let them?


William John Ward: Before we leave that question of the new directorate, I would like to ask the minster if he intends in the reorganization of that board to give the employees representation on it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That will also be considered when the opportune time arrives. In regard to the question the hon. member (Mr. Caldwell) asks, I do not understand that there were any contracts given to the Canadian Locomotive works just previous to the election.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It was so reported in the papers, and I never saw any contradiction of it.


William Foster Garland: I wanted information in regard to the highways, and I thought it would come up under item 134, but I observe that only provides for payment for services. I asked some questions in regard to the Ottawa-Kingston and Ottawa-Pembroke highway, and the reply was that nothing had been done in regard to having the highway projects submitted to the federal government. The question was asked by the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) as follows:
Road projects in Ontario
Mr. Wilson:
1. What road projects have been submitted to the Department of Railways and Tanals by the Ontario Department of Public Works?
The answer gives a list of some 30 roads, but neither of the roads that I have referred to is mentioned in the answer. The next question is
What road projects have been approved by the Department of Railways and Canals?
And neither of these roads appears in the answer. These roads are pretty well on the way to completion, and I wondered in what way the amount was paid from the federal treasury towards those roads.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: So far, there has been no application by the Ontario government for the approval of any plan in connection with the two roads he mentions and no roads bought by the Dominion government.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister has not answered the first part of my question. I

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
asked if the contracts had been let to either firm. He said no contract had been let to the Eastern Car Company.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, to the Canadian Locomotive Company.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was there a contract let to the Eastern Car Company?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand there was a contract let to the Eastern Car Company for the repair of 500 cars. The matter was discussed when my estimates were before the House previously. - The whole evening was spent discussing it. I think the former Minister of Railways on that occasion explained that the contract was let at that time with a view to relieving the unemployment that then existed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: That was the only contract let. No contracts for new cars?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, they were all for repairs.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do you know the amount of the contract and the date?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I cannot give an answer at the moment, but I will be glad to obtain it for my hon. friend, and give him full particulars with reference to it. In fact, a copy of the contract was laid on the table of the House at the time.


John Evans: Coming back again to the question of the Hudson Bay railway, I can remember away back about 1891, not long after I came to Canada, one of the leading papers in the West had a cartoon in which appeared a locomotive, with the engine driver sitting at the lever, just about ready to start. A questioner came up, and said, "Well, sir, what do you hope to carry over this road anyway?"' And the driver replied, "The province, my dear sir, the province." The engineer happened to be Sir Charles Tupper- This road for the last forty years has been made the political football of the parties, and I think it is about time that we dealt with these matters with some broad outlook for the future. I do not wonder that this has been the case, particularly after the information that my hon. friend in front of m/e has given to the House to-night. This Hudson Bay railway is one of the necessities of the present time, and has been for many years. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in the West in 1911 he said this line would be built as soon as the survey could be made and the feasibility established, with ports, terminals and everything under governmental control and ownership. Later on, it was promised by Sir Robert Borden, and after the change took place in 1911, when the call from the West became so insistent that it could not be put down, the construction of the road was begun. Some $21,000,000, I believe, has been spent on this road already, and it will take somewhere about $2,000,000 more to complete it. For many miles north of the Pas at the present time the steel is laid, and the grade has already been made to tide water. The steel has been left to rust and the grade has been left to crumble down, and it is time we looked after this to prevent the deterioration of the work that has been done. I know that, during all this time, this railway has been viewed with hostility by interests in the East, by those cities and railways which are benefiting by keeping the commerce of the western prairies coming this way to its ultimate market. The plea has been put forward that we have no money, notwithstanding the fact that millions of dollars have been voted for other purposes, which, to say the least, are of questionable benefit to the country at this time. But now that the war is over and labour is plentiful, we find the counter proposal put forward, which is attracting interest in the East at the present time, namely, the deep waterway scheme to the head of the lakes. We are told that nearly half a billion dollars can be found for this scheme, while $2,000,000 cannot be found for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
Indeed, I think it would not be out of place to make some few comparisons between these two schemes at the present time. The deep waterway project can be used possibly for seven months of the year, and we might compare the cost of the completion of this scheme with the paltry sum that is needed to complete a route to what will, perhaps, be and is admitted to be one of the finest harbours on the North American continent, if a deep sea harbour at the least possible cost can be constructed. Some doubt may be expressed as to the feasibility of this route; but this great inland sea seems to have been placed there by Providence for an outlet for what is, perhaps, the largest pastoral and grain growing area in the world. It is a route to the great West, and part of the immense domain that was seized on by that great trading company, the Hudson's Bay Company, over two centuries ago to take in supplies and carry out the produce gathered from the natives in barter. We know that, during
Supply

Hudson Bay Ry.

all that time, this great company did not lose one ship by ice or storm, and its captains of navigation have told us that they have gone in and out through those straits at any time of the year that they have been ready. We have been told that this great inland sea is one frozen mass of ice during the winter. This is not so. With the great volume of fresh water flowing into the bay every day through such streams as the Nelson river, the Churchill river, the Severn river and, perhaps, half a dozen other streams just as important, meeting the tide there which comes up through those straits every twenty-four hours, and all having to go out again, it is impossible that any ice could be formed except some shale ice on the shores. We used to be told that the country round about was one desert on which nothing could grow, on which human beings could not live. We know that now to be a fallacy, and that the railway would pay for itself independently of the traffic and commerce that might go out through the Hudson Bay strait. Anyone at all familiar with salt water will know that it is many degrees warmer than fresh water, and as compared with lake Superior, this is a fact. When we know that there is a rise and fall of a good many feet every twenty-four hours, we must realize that it is impossible that ice should form. We have been given a good deal of information about this route by certain expeditions, some of which before now have wintered in Hudson bay. Perhaps one of the most complete reports is that given by Captain Preakly before the committee here in 1920. Some extracts from his evidence are certainly very interesting. I do not think I need weary the House with much reading; but he says:
There are no icebergs in Fox channel or Hudson bay and comparatively few in the west end of Hudson straits, but numerous in the eastern portion of the straits.
He informs us of some of the peculiarities of the bay, where a strong current goes west from the straits and practically goes all around that great inland sea, attaining sometimes a velocity of seven miles an hour and keeping all ice moving at any time of the year.
I am convinced that the Hudson Bay Railway is the only salvation for agriculture on the western prairies. For instance, a trainload of cattle could be landed at the bay terminus of the Hudson Bay Railway in just about one-third of the time that it takes now to land them at any point where they can be transferred to

ocean-going steamers. This would mean a saving in feed and care of nearly four days, besides the tremendous shrinkage in weight consequent upon the movement of livestock. The advantage in mileage of this route is not generally realized, say from the centre of the wheat belt to the bay. Moreover, the producing area of the West, either in grain raising or for pastoral pursuits runs up very close to the bay itself, and I believe the northern limitation of wheat can be very much extended yet as the right varieties are propagated. From Saskatoon, which is about the heart of the wheat growing belt, it is 742 miles to tide water on the present route of the Hudson Bay Railway. From Saskatoon to Fort William it is 900 miles, and then we are further away from Liverpool than we are at Hudson bay. On this account alone, there would be a saving of over 160 miles, or over one and one-half day's travel. But even after getting to Fort William there is still 1,000 miles of a haul before the grain can reach the seaboard. The distance from Saskatoon to Liverpool via St. John in the winter months is 4,996 miles; from Saskatoon via Montreal in the summer months it is 4,587 miles; from Port Nelson to Liverpool the distance is only 3,708 miles, or a distinct saving of 879 miles over the route via Montreal and a distinct saving of 1,280 miles over the route via St. John. The utility of this route is unquestionable, if we only consider that it is important to the people of the West to be within one day's run to the ocean where the fish may come down to the millions who occupy the prairies, as well as the millions yet to come.
Again, we must not lose sight of the fact that the St. Lawrence carries about the highest rate of insurance of any navigable route in the world, while here is a route that has been used for 40 years now by people we know and who can speak of it with some knowledge. Sailing vessels have gone in and out any time of the year they were ready. When we consider the cost it means the difference between success and failure to the prairie provinces to-day. There will be a saving of at least 5 cents a bushel between Hudson bay and the present route to the present terminal at Fort William. The time has come when it is absolutely necessary to lower the cost of production on the prairies if agriculture is to continue there. Even if we did have the deep waterway to the head of the lakes we have a road that could be open six and a half or seven months at the outside

Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.
during the year. But I am convinced from what I have read from the evidence contained in this bulletin that navigation can be carried on for at least five months in the year with safety, as compared with any other navigable route in any part of the world. Several of the most valuable minerals are found along the route of the railway, besides timber, game, fish, etc. I think, therefore, that the work should be done. All the boards of trade as well as the farmers' organisations of western Canada are anxiously looking to the Government to complete this work, believing that it is going to be of great service to that part of the Dominion. Besides, the work already done is deteriorating, and much labour and material is going to waste. It is not too late yet to provide for this matter in the estimates for the present year. There is no scarcity of labour, and in fact thousands of men are anxiously waiting to get work. I do not think there was ever a more opportune time than the present to carry this work to a completion, and I should like to know what the policy of the Government is regarding the scheme. Are we to take it now that the policy of the Government is represented in this estimate of $40,000 for the care of terminals this year? The Government should let us know whether they intend to complete this road at the earliest possible moment, and what reason there is why the work cannot be proceeded with at the present time.


Thomas George McBride: I think it is time we had a change in this programme. Most of the Progressive members speak of the West as though it comprised just Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. One would imagine that these were the only places in the West. Well, I consider that coming from British Columbia I come from the West. We have heard a great deal of the Hudson Bay railway, and I do not object to hon. members putting their claims before the Government. I think that is their legitimate right and they should get every consideration. But I want to point out that we have been promised a railway in British Columbia for many years now. It was left in abeyance until the close of the war, and when the war was over the late government started work on it to give employment to returned men. Now I am told that between 200 and 300 of these men have bought land along that road and have settled, expecting the road to be completed and that they would then have transportation. I am referring to the railway between Kamloops and Kelowna. According
to a report I have received from the Minister of Railways, there has been $5,265,000 spent on this railway, and it requires a little over $1,250,000 to complete it. The ties are there, the bridges are in, the rails are very largely there, and everything is ready to complete the work. This road would be one of the greatest feeders that the Canadian National system could have. It would take practically all of the freight from the Okanagan valley to the Canadian National railway which is now taken by the Canadian Pacific railway. I do not complain because the Canadian Pacific railway has this freight, but I think that we should look to the interests of our own railways, and the Minister of Railways ought to see that this line is completed at the earliest possible date.


Mr. WARNER:: I just want to add a
word to the discussion on the Hudson bay question, It is not considered very seriously by some people, but this is perhaps because of their lack of appreciation of the facts. Now, I would not ask to-night, nor in the near future, for what the people are hoping for in the district in which I live. We have great possibilities in our mines, and we ourselves can hardly conceive the undeveloped natural resources that we have. We would not ask that the Hudson Bay railway be completed for our especial benefit at the present time, but there is a hope that some time when that road is completed there will be built a connecting line between our district and Fort Church-hill, which is not more than about 800 miles from Edmonton. But the Hudson Bay railway must be completed before we ask for anything of that kind. Naturally, of course, we are looking forward to the time when that can be done. The people in the wheat fields of Saskatchewan are more directly interested in the matter than perhaps we are, but I have been practically half way across from Edmonton to Fort Churchill, and have seen people already settled in that country from 125 to 150 miles distant from railways, who are anxiously waiting for railway accommodation. A large portion of that country is suitable for settlement. There is other wealth there besides agriculture, and I found that in places thousands of tons of hay could be cut if there were transportation facilities; but in the present state of things it is simply going to waste. Perhaps such a railroad at this time would not pay, but we are looking ahead to when it would be not only advisable but neces-
Supply-Hudson Bay Ry.

sary, for I have no doubt that the Hudson bay route is feasible. There is no question about the desirability of the Hudson bay route, but we will never know whether it will be a practicable outlet until we try it, and the people in our part of the country are very anxious that this should be settled one way or the other.
I feel that Canadians generally do not realize the immense potentialities of that part of the Dominion, and I believe that it is our own lack of enterprise rather than any natural handicap which has held back its development. I know people who are developing that country successfully, but they are very much discouraged by reason of lack of transportation facilities, and they will not continue their work until such facilities are provided. For instance, fish teem in the lakes there, and I heard a man state before the Board of Trade of Edmonton last winter-he was interested in a fishing company-that it cost as much to send fish from a small town on the Great Waterways railway to Edmonton as from the Pacific Coast clear through to Winnipeg. Therefore if a road were constructed from that country eastwards it would afford an outlet for the great mineral, agricultural and: timber and fisheries wealth of that extensive country.
The people of Alberta join with the people of Saskatchewan in the hope that some tilne a railroad will he built through to Fort Churchill and so afford an outlet for the cattle, grain and other products of the settlers who are developing that country.


John Evans: What is the ipolicy of the Government regarding this road?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am sure that every member, irrespective of the constituency he represents or his party affiliations, is interested in the transportation facilities of the West. It does not matter very much to most of us whether the grain be shipped eastward via the Great Lakes, westward to the Pacific coast, or northward, to Hudson hay; but we are all interested in seeing that every facility shall be afforded the grain growers of the West to market their grain at the lowest possible cost.
This Hudson bay project, as has been stated to-night, has cost so far approximately $20,000,000. The estimates I have seen indicate that it will take another $5,000,000 to complete the railway to the

bay, and an additional $10,000,000 to complete the terminal facilities.
We have been told to-night that notwithstanding our expenditure of $6,000,000 at Fort Nelson we should abandon that port and select Fort Churchill as the terminal. You can readily see, Mr. Chairman, that the Government can scarcely be expected to give an immediate answer to the question submitted to it when even among those who are advocating the completion of the project there is no unanimity of opinion. I did tell the delegation which the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) referred to this afternoon that when the new board of directors of the Canadian National Railways was organized the matter would be brought to their attention, and I have no doubt they will at the earliest possible date give it the consideration it deserves.


Andrew Knox: Is there a likehood of an investigation this season of the desirability of selecting Fort Churchill as the terminal?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am not
in a position to answer the question at the present time. That matter will have to be determined by the incoming board.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Was not an exhaustive
investigation made some time ago?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes, some
years ago.


Andrew Knox: There will be no tendency
on the part of the Government to allow this matter to drop?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: There is
not any tendency on the part of the Government to refrain from doing anything which they conceive to be in the public interest, and when the opportunity offers- as we hope it will at an early date- this problem, among many others, will be taken into consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In answer to a
question asked a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) the Minister of Railways (Mr. Kennedy) said that the matter of appointing an employee on the reorganized board of the Canadian National Railways would receive the consideration of the Government. Now, ' it seems to me that this House might rightly expect a rather more definite answer, I quoted a little earlier in the evening the policy of the Liberal party as set out in a pamphlet which was distributed broadcast throughout the country. Here it is:

Supply-Post Office
The Liberal policy to-day. In Parliament the Liberals have advocated the appointment of representatives of labour on boards and commissions like the Board of Railway Commissioners and the board of the Canadian National Railways.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is scrapped.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is suggested
that this policy is scrapped. That, it seems to me, is for the Government to say. This is not a matter that requires mature deliberation as I see it. It has been advocated by the Liberal party, and I think a good many of us will admit that it is of great importance to a considerable section of the community. Therefore now it is contemplated to reorganize the board of the Canadian National Railways I think we have a right to expect assurances that the policy advocated so recently by the Liberal paiffy will be put into effect. It seems to me that we ought to receive something more than simply the stock answer, "It will be given consideration." I hope the minister will see his way to give us more definite assurances to-night in regard to this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Post Offices-outside service, $28,833,200.40.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Postmaster General) :: Just a word of explanation as to this item. The committee will observe that as compared with the estimates of last year there is a decrease of $700,470.85. I might explain for the information of the committee that this decrease is due in the first place to the dropping of a number of positions whose incumbents have left the service; secondly, to the reduction of the amount required for temporary assistance during the year; and thirdly, to the dropping of an amount that was formerly voted for what is called a provisional allowance, but which has been replaced by the cost of living bonus.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this saving the result of the reorganization undertaken last fall in the department?


Charles Murphy: To a certain extent, but not altogether. Under the heading of miscellaneous in this item, there is a net increase of $29,250. This is due to the increased amount required for printing and stationery, for the manufacture of postage stamps, stamped envelopes, post cards, and other requisites of that kind, but even with this small increase there is still a net decrease of $700,470.85 in the whole item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: An hon. member desired me to get certain information as he could not be here. It is as to the greater use of our National Railway system for the carrying of the mails. I am not prepared, as he was, to discuss it fully, but I should like to bring to my hon. friend's attention the situation which exists to-day in British Columbia, and I have no doubt it is duplicated in other sections of the country, not through any intentional neglect on the part of the department, I believe, but through the growth and development of the National Railways in recent years.
There is a section between the city of Kamloops and the northern part of British Columbia served by the Canadian National Railways. Any mail that is posted in that district is carried to the city of Kamloops, then down by the Canadian Pacific to Vancouver; it goes into the post office at Kamloops and is sorted there, I believe, causing a delay, whereas the Canadian National runs daily trains right into Vancouver, and the mails could be carried on just the same schedule as the Canadian Pacific makes, the Canadian Pacific not touching the district at all.
There was the question also of sending mail into the considerable town of Prince George. The Canadian National could very well carry that mail from Vancouver to the Yellowhead, and then send it back on the Grand Trunk Pacific into Prince George. At the present time we send it all up the coast five hundred miles by Prince Rupert, a much longer distance, to Prince George and taking perhaps a day longer, and costing as much if not more. What I wish to say is this. I think a careful study should be made of the whole mail service, and that more business should be given to our National Railways than they are receiving at the present time. This is somewhat a large question to enter into in any extensive manner, and I am merely giving a very rough outline and simply enunciating what I think is the principle that should be adopted.
I may add this. We now have a schedule on the Canadian National Railways from Montreal to the Pacific coast that equals the Canadian Pacific schedule. They do not carry mail, I understand, on their fast trans-Canada train, but No. 1 on the Canadian Pacific and No. 1 on the Canadian National have a similar schedule; one is just as fast as the other, and there is no reason in the world why a great deal more of the mail of this country should not be carried over the National railways.
Supply-Post Office


Charles Murphy: The matter to which my hon. friend has drawn the attention of the committee, as well as of the department, is one of very great importance to the great province which he has the honour to represent in this House. I may inform him and the committee that the whole question is a very wide one and entails a good deal of consideration, much investigation, and a careful decision after these preliminaries have been carried out. It happens that at the present time such an inquiry is under way, and after the House prorogues it is the intention of the department to have one of the inspectors go over the whole route between here and the coast with a view to determining on the spot what changes can be made in the direction indicated by my hon. friend. Wherever it is possible to do so, preference will be given to the carriage of the mails by the National Railways, but this has to be borne in mind, that in view of the economy prescribed by the Minister of Finance, and of the financial condition of the country, with which my hon. friend is as fully conversant as I am, regard must be had to the cost of carrying the mail. Just on that point I might explain that in connection with one of the new railway services, the establishment of a daily train service between Edmonton and Prince Rupert, application was made for a corresponding change in the mail service; that is, instead of a tri-weekly , mail service, there should be established a daily mail service. At first glance that seemed the most natural thing in the world and personally, before seeking the advice of the officials of the department, I was inclined to favour it, but a few days later, after the matter had been thoroughly gone into, and I found from the reports presented to me that even this seemingly proper change and, at a superficial glance, this small change would alone entail an extra expenditure of nearly $75,000. Well, I had to hesitate before giving any instructions for the adoption of this change. I mention this merely as one illustration of how much money even an apparently slight change will run into. However, I can assure my hon. friend and the committee that special attention is being given to the postal service generally, and British Columbia will receive its full share of attention in this regard.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How much in dollars and cents was saved to the department by reason of the recent reorganization, and secondly, what is the policy of the department

with respect to the establishment of new rural free delivery routes.


Charles Murphy: In answer to my hon. friend's first question I may say that while I would be very pleased indeed to give the exact information for which he asks, I am informed that it is not possible to do so principally for the reason that the Post Office Department is one of the departments in which the re-organization was not completed at the time that the firm engaged in that work was discharged from its duties. Now the policy with regard to the establishment of additional rural mail routes has of necessity during the last few months continued to be that applications for new routes have been taken into serious consideration but up to the present time the Postmaster General has not been advised by his trustworthy officials that it is safe to venture on new expenditure in that direction. However, better things are hoped for in the future. I might add, for my hon. friend's information, that the practice of establishing new rural routes was suspended during the war and has not since been resumed.
Mr. HAN'SON: il quite appreciate that fact and that is why I asked the question. I would like to point out to the Postmaster General and to his officials, that people living in rural communities who desire these extensions of new routes get very little other service from the Dominion Government; they are located for the most part in back districts. Nearly all the thickly settled districts in my county are now well served; but there are communities which have not received free mail delivery and are very jealous of those communities which do have them. As every member of this House knows, the people in such districts are persistent in their requests for the extension of this service, and it is a matter which, I think, should receive the very sympathetic consideration of the Postmaster's department just as soon as the finances of the country will permit.


Charles Murphy: I entirely agree with the observations that have just fallen from my hon. friend, and I hope, before the expiry of the present year, to be able to act upon them in a practical way.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would like to inquire from the minister what the attitude of the department is going to be in regard to the contracts that may expire during the coming year. Does the department propose to keep these rural mail routes open?

Supply

Post Office


Charles Murphy: If I correctly apprehend my hon. friend's question he desires to know if it is intended to renew the rural mail contracts which may expire during the present year?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Well, each case will
have to be considered on its own merits. Generally speaking I know of no reason now why these rural mail contracts should not be continued; but, as I have just observed each case will have to be considered on its own merits.


Robert Gardiner: I presume that means
that providing the department can get reasonable tenders it is intended to continue those rural mail routes that are in operation at the present time? Is that the intention, or is it proposed to operate only some of them?


Charles Murphy: If the tenders are reasonable I do not know at the moment of any reason why those contracts should not be continued.


John Evans: What is the salary of
railway mail clerks, letter carriers, and similar employees? Is the salary to be continued as it was before?


Charles Murphy: In reply to my hon.
friend I may say that the salaries of railway mail clerks are graduated on a scale running from $840 to $1,560, and in the case of letter carriers from $780 to $1,260. I believe, however, there are some exceptional cases in which the maximum is a little larger than that mentioned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Plus the bonus?


Charles Murphy: Plus the bonus. In regard to the bonus I may inform my hon. friend that the employees of the Post Office Department will, of course, share in whatever bonus is granted, in accordance with the announcement made by the Prime Minister a few days ago, in the same way as the employees of the other departments.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This matter of
a bonus, I suppose, can hardly be discussed here but I would remind the minister that in the West the postal employees, before the bonus system was instituted, received ar extra allowance of $180 a year. When the bonus system came in, that special arrangement was cancelled. In that respect then it seems to me that we have somewhat of a right to inquire, even at this
stage, as to what the salaries for the year of postal employees, mail clerks, and other public servants of that kind will be. I would like to know whether the Government has in view the revision of the salaries of these men so as to bring the stipend up, in the ease of lower paid employees, to a decent standard of living. Seven or eight hundred dollars, I think, is not a sufficient salary to enable a man to live decently to-day.


Charles Murphy: In answer to my hon. friend I may say that the question which he has raised is one that has been under discussion. However, the salaries to which he has referred, are fixed by the Civil Service Commission, and it is my intention as soon as the House prorogues to take this matter up specially with that body and see what can be done, if anything, in the way of meeting the view expressed by my hon. friend. The extra allowance of $180 to which the hon. gentleman alluded was dropped and was replaced by the bonus. That has been the situation within the last couple of years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: One other question. Have we to wait until the session is over so that we may ask the permission of the Civil Service Commission to increase the salaries of the employees of this Government? It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if there are salaries being paid that are lower than a decent cost of living-lower than the cost of living as decided by the government's own bureau 

that matter should not be left to any Civil Service Commission to decide, but that it ought to be decided here and the necessary instructions given to the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Lewis Herbert Martell: That is right. Will
you vote to change the law?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will vote to change the law in that respect.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that the rural mail routes and the cost of running them are included in this item?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I would like to ask the minister if there is anything in the contracts against subletting? I know that in a particular mail route that I am familiar with-I refer to
Supply-Post Office

that from Peace River west to Dunvegan 

we have had during at least seven years a very poor mail service; and I think that in every case where we have had a poor service it has been due to sub-letting the contract. The good service that we had during three years was attributable to the fact that the parties who had the contract were reliable farmers who had good horses and were able to make the trips in time; but whenever the contractor who has the original contract starts in to sublet he can always get someone to accept it at a very low tender. It usually works out that the lowest tenderer gets the contract and very often he has not the stock to do the work. I think the minister ought to undertake to prohibit the subletting of these contracts entirely. I would like to ask also if the minister has any objection to giving full information as to who has the contract for the particular route referred to? I would like to get exact details as to who is actually doing the work at the present time.


Charles Murphy: Will my hon. friend
mention the route again I did not quite catch it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: From Peace River to Dunvegan or Spirit River.


Charles Murphy: I regret that I have not any information at hand at the moment, but I will obtain it and give it to my hon. friend when a subsequent item relating to the Post Office Department comes up for consideration, I will be very pleased to furnish that information.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: In connection
with the item for Yukon mail service, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the Postmaster General's attention to the fact that during the winter months the people of the Yukon get no parcel post service; only first and second class matter is carried, and I do not think the public get a sufficiently good service for the money expended. They get what the contract calls for, and I quite appreciate that the contract was made by the minister's predecessor in office, but it is none the less unsatisfactory to the people of the Yukon on that account. I would ask the minister to give the matter his attention and try to secure for the public a better service.


Charles Murphy: Although we have been in office but a few months, we have not overlooked the important part of the Do-

minion which the hon. member represents in this House. I am informed that his statement with regard to the parcel post is quite correct, and that matter will receive attention. Another matter which has been receiving attention, but does not relate to the winter service, is the proposal regarding a mail service by aeroplane to the Yukon. As with other suggestions, we have to look at that through glasses of economy, and we do not know what the position will be. I am not able to say at the moment, but the Yukon is receiving attention, and the observations which the hon member has addressed to the House will be specially looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Monday, June 12, 1922