FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines-Company.-Mr. Crawford.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That from this date to the end of the session, government orders have precedence on Mondays immediately after questions to be put by members.


Mr. SPROULE.: As there are some sixty-five orders on the Order Paper, Public Bills and Orders, and as this will preclude the possibility of dealing with any of these without the consent of the government, I would ask if I could not have an opportunity of passing the motion which I ineffectually endeavoured to have passed some time ago, when the First Minister moved the adjournment of the debate. I submit that the motion is a reasonable one ; a similar motion was moved on a previous occasion in this House without opposition and I hold the printed copy of it here. This motion really goes farther than my motion. As the Mr. J. J. HUGHES.	!
matter is of importance not only to myself but to both parties as the return would do no injustice I would ask the First Minister to consent to the passing of my motion.


Rt.   H@: I am sorry to say that there are several members who have motions or Bills which they would like to have an opportunity to bring to the attention of the House. However, we have come to the period of the session when this motion taking Monday for government business is usually passed. If my hon. friend will allow the matter to stand, perhaps he and I can settle it.
Motion (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) agreed to.



THOMAS D'ARCY McGEE.

Mr. THOMAS CHISHOLM.: As this is the 40th anniversary of the death of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, I would like to know what steps the government are likely to take in regard to the fulfilment of a promise made by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the 25th April last year in respect to the erection of a monument to his memory?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The matter will receive the consideration of the government in connection with the coming estimates.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: When may I expect the return for which I moved in connection with the cost to date and the estimated future cost of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canal3).: I asked my department to rush that return and also directed them to comply with the request of my hon. friend to include in the return anything that was embraced in the question which he withdrew.


Mr. PORTER.: When may I expect the return ordered on January 15, with reference to royal commissions appointed by the government since 1896 ?


Mr. CROCKET.: When may I expect a return moved for on December 18 for a statement showing the post office services in the different counties of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Hon. RODOLPIIE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I have the returns for several counties ready and expect that the remainder will be ready in a few days. Probably next week I shall be able to lay the papers on the table of the House.


Mr. MONK.: I beg to renew a notice which I gave some time last month that on the first opportunity when the House should

be moved into Committee of Supply, I would move an amendment having for its object the abolition of the bonus system.


Rt.   H@: If my hon. friend will agree with me I will arrange a date privately with him if he wants to have an opportunity of discussing this matter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There would be no difficulty in so far as I am personally concerned, but knowing that the House was going to be moved into Committee of Supply to-day I informed a number of -hon. members who wish to speak upon this subject that the discussion would take place to-day. It seems to be an inconvenient custom to introduce into this House that supporters of the government, without giving notice, should be able to arrange for a discussion, presumably of an amicable character, just at the stage when the House is moved into Committee of Supply. It is the proper moment, as I understand it, to air grievances, and it is for that reason that I would be rather disposed to insist upon what appears to be my right.


William Stevens Fielding: I think there have been several motions for Supply since my hon. friend gave that intimation, if I am not mistaken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I think there was only one motion to go into Supply which was made in order to vote a certain amount of Supply to meet the pressing needs of the fiscal year ending on the 31st March.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not turned up the dates and I cannot contradict my hon. friend, but my impression is that there have been several motions to go into Supply. Therefore, the hon. gentleman has had an opportunity to bring this matter up. In regard to the motion to-day all that happened was what very often happens; if an hon. gentleman desires to deal with any given question he asks when the House is going to be moved into Committee of Supply and he intimates that he will bring the matter up. This question was mentioned last night in connection with the business of the House. I would suggest that unless the hon. gentleman wishes to speak on this question he can bring forward his motion after the earlier discussion has taken place.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that any motion to go into Committee of Supply has been moved since I gave this notice except the one to which I have just referred.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not looked up the dates, but I am under that impression. However, my hon. friend may be right.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend here beside me informs me that the hon. gentleman who intends to discuss this question has a notice of motion on the paper.


William Stevens Fielding: In his absence yesterday another hon. gentleman struck it off at his request in order that he might be able to bring it up on the motion to go into Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And before it was struck off the paper my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Monk) gave notice that the first time the House was moved into Committee of Supply he would bring his motion forward.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is my understanding.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) did not say the first time that the House was moved into Committee of Supply; he said that upon a future occasion when the House was moved into Committee of Supply he would bring the matter up. He simply intimated an intention to bring forward his motion but he did not say that he would do so on the first motion to go into committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have just been looking over ' Hansard ' and I cannot find it, but my recollection is that I gave notice that the first time the House was moved into Committee of Supply, if I could conveniently present this motion, I would do so.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My impression is that the motion to go into Supply has only been made on one occasion.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not attach enough importance to it to look it up, but I remember that the hon. gentleman gave notice that if the House was. going to be moved into Supply on a particular evening he preferred not to go on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But it was not moved.


William Stevens Fielding: If the House should be moved into Supply on that evening.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It was not moved into Supply on that occasion. I think it is a very inconvenient custom which does not exist in England to arrange for the discussion, at the moment when the House is moved into Committee of Supply, of some question chosen by a supporter of the government upon which there is some extente cordiale. It removes from members on the opposition side of the House the opportunity of engaging in the discussion of grievances.


William Stevens Fielding: I can only say that in so far as an arrangement being made with an hon. gentleman supporting the government is concerned, it is a common occurrence for an hon. gentleman on either side of this House to come to a minister and ask when the motion for Supply will next be made, as he desires to avail himself of the opportunity to call attention to a particular sub-

ject. I have had such suggestions made to me frequently and I have said that on such and such a day Supply would be moved; as to the rest it was in the judgment of the House.



SUPPLY-RAILWAY TO HUDSON BAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
[". I'1 regard to the general question, the subject is one of intense interest to the people of the west. That is perfectly apparent to any gentleman who has gone to the west and who knows how thoroughly the people of Manitoba and the two other provinces are convinced that the Hudson bay route will give to them an outlet which is absolutely necessary to the full and complete development of their country. It is only a question of the requisite information and we are informed that the government have in their possession at the present time information which justifies them in coming to the conclusion that the Hudson Bay route is a reasonably practicable and feasible route for a reasonable number of months in the year as the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. McIntyre) very well put it tonight. If that is the case why have they not effectively dealt with the matter during the last twrelve years ? Why is it that they did not take some steps to give a practical illustration of the sympathy which was dwelt upon so much here to-night by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) ? Sympathy is a very desirable quality, but action is a much more desirable quality on the part of the government in regard to a great transportation question of this kind. Let me point out to the minister one illustration of that. In 1904, four years ago, there was the same unanimity in this House in regard to the application of the British preference only to goods which entered Canada by Canadian ports. There were the same delightful expressions from even greater statesmen than the Minister of the Interior, from the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and from the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and we know very well that in so far as the application of that principle is concerned the matter is exactly in the same position as it was when that motion was passed by the House. If that is a fair omen of what the people of the west may expect from this resolution, 1 do not know that they have any very great cause for satisfaction after what has taken place. There was on that occasion in 1904, a unanimous resolution of the House and yet the government have paid absolutely no attention to it, except that the terms of that resolution have been incorporated in the statutes of this country to be brought into operation at some indefinite and unknown time in the future, described by the Prime Minister as dependent upon the completion of the National Transcontinental Railway. Four years have elapsed, we do not know how many more will lapse before effect will be given to that resolution, now four years old, and if the people of the wmst are to wait for a similar length of time before any action is taken by the government in regard to this railway, it does not seem that the hon. member for West Assiniboia has made quite so impor-\n\ntant or great a stride towards the goal on the present occasion as some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House seem to imagine.\nThe subject recalls the discussion on the tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland which was alluded to by one of my hon. friend from the island ; it is simply a question of getting the requisite information as to whether or not this is a feasible route. This government have been in power for twelve years and assuming the worst default that you are entitled to assume in regard to their predecessors, I think that they long ago should have acted upon the information which has been available. Now, we are assured by the Minister of the Interior that the government have . it under consideration, and I suppose that we must content ourselves with that unless some other gentleman of the treasury benches is inclined to go a little further than the Minister of the Interior has done.\nMotion as amended, agreed to."]
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (West Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by an hon. gentleman opposite this afternoon the notice of this motion has been on the Order Paper since the commencement of this session asking that the government should take into their serious consideration the question of transportation' in reference to the Canadian west and especially in regard to the construction in the very near future of the Hudson Bay Railway. It had been my purpose to go on with that motion on the first available opportunity, and I have been watching for such an opportunity for weeks, but upon any occasion upon which I have been present it has not presented itself. Yesterday it was dropped that I might have the privilege which is open to every hon. member of this House of presenting views upon this and similar subjects on the occasion of our going into Committee of Supply.
The proposition which I desire to bring before the House is one which my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) seconded last year and one which I believe he will still endorse. Over a year ago i brought to the attention of this'House this same problem. On that occasion I had a very strong case to make before the House in view of the very congested condition of the transportation facilities in the west. The House will recall that a year ago there was a very much more serious congestion than there is during this present year. Happily this year we have not had the vicissitudes in regard to weather conditions to cause a repetition of the very serious condition of affairs which prevailed a year ago, but I am sorry to have to say again this session that notwithstanding the condition of the season, the favourable weather we have had and the unfortunately small crop, there has still been a great deal of congestion. I have seen at different points in the elevator towns in the Northwest a condition of affairs where men were not able to ship the grain which they had raised for weeks this last fall because of the repetition of this congested condition of affairs, and I must say that I cannot too forcibly impress upon the members of this House the seriousness of a condition of that kind. When we find that men have worked their farms through the summer to the end that they may have the product of the soil to sell, and when we find that when they have that product ready for market they are not able to move it, they are not able to find a purchaser for their grain, it is indeed a most serious condition Mr. FIELDING
of affairs. I myself have stood at many elevator points along the different railway lines and I have seen farmers standing with their hands in their pockets looking up at the elevators and entirely helpless to raise one dollar upon their grain.
However, the condition of affairs this season was not nearly so serious as in the season before. But that does not in any way make me hesitate in my desire to bring this question again before the House during the present session, for I think it would be the utmost folly if we were to say that because last year wre had something of a failure in our crop, and because this winter has been so favourable in weather conditions there has not been the congestion that otherwise would prevail and therefore, we have considered the transportation problem solved. That would be a most foolish policy. I desire on the contrary to say that under these circumstances., while they ensure against a repetition this year of the serious condition of affairs that we had a year ago, at the same time instead of making us less anxious they should make us more anxious, because it is no exaggeration to say that as each succeeding year comes upon us there will always be a greater problem to solve than there was in the year before. The country is filling up by leaps and bounds, and unless, there is something undertaken by the government of Canada in the very near future I am at a loss to know how we will solve this great problem of transportation. We have had during the last few seasons an abnormal increase of our population by immigration. During the year 1906 there came into our country from Great Britain, 97,757 immigrants; from the United States, 63,782 immigrants and from continental Europe, 54,373; making a total of immigrants in 1906 of 215,912. In the year 1907 we had a total immigration of 277,376, a very material increase over the number of immigrants in 1906. And, I am happy to say that the class of immigrants which we have been receiving in recent years belong to the very best class of people we could expect to bring to this country.
I might cite as an instance of this that the settlers from the United States in 1906 brought with them settlers, effects to the value of 49 million dollars, and in 1907 they brought with them settlers, effects to the value of 52 million dollars. And, I may say to those gentlemen who are prone to talk about the balance of trade being against us, that if they consider such an item as this in their calculations it would go a long way to explain how it is that our imports are greater than our exports. If we take 52 million dollars worth of settlers effects brought from the United States alone, it will give us an average per capita for each immigrant of over $800. We are all aware that the immigration during the present year has been larger than it was last year,

and that during January and February of this year (1908) there has been an increase of 61 per cent over the immigration in January and February of the year 1907.
It is reliably figured that the lands in the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan w'hich are not yet tilled, will when brought under cultivation result in the reaping of the harvest of almost inconceivable magnitude ; that if we take the grain land which as yet is not settled and if we figure that on the basis of it producing only one half of what the present cultivated acreage does, even on that basis there will be 2,000,000,000 bushels of grain raised in the three new west provinces. It is therefore no exaggeration to say that the outlook in that country is very bright, and that for the moment we are justified in passing on to this very urgent matter of attempting to solve the great transportation problem in preference to taking up the subject which the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) wished to discuss this afternoon. I might also remind my hon. friends on both sides of the House that the facilities for handling the grain in the way of transportation accommodation are very little better than they were twenty-three years ago when the last spike was driven on the Canadian Pacific Railway. I fail to see how any hon. gentlemen on either side of the House can say that the government is going too fast, as they sometimes say when they talk about the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. These hon. gentlemen may express themselves similarly with regard to this proposition that I have the honour to bring before the House this afternoon, and they may say that Canada can afford to go slowly, but I say that in view of the fact that we have very little more facilities for transportation than we had twenty-five years ago, the criticism is, in all fairness and justice, not properly advanced that the government of Canada has gone too fast in making provision along the line of transportation facilities. It comes to this, that with regard to the production of grain just as with regard to the production of any other staple you may have for the world's market, if you cannot find a reasonable and convenient market for the thing you are producing the rules of trade and commerce very soon cause the production to cease. You cannot for ever expect farmers in the Northwest to be producing grain they cannot sell. You cannot expect they will go on producing that for which they cannot find a ready market any more than you can expect the man who runs a factory to keep on producing goods when he is not able to find a convenient market for the product of his factory. And with regard to the Northwest Territories, Providence has cast our lot along agricultural lines just as in Ontario, to a very large extent, the lot of that province is cast along
manufacturing lines. The wealth of Ontario is largely bound up in the great cities where the manufacturing industries are centralized, while just as truly are our lines cast for us along agricultural pursuits. That is so ordained by nature and it is only by developing our resources along that natural line that we will be able to attain the true destiny for which the great fertile prairies were created. After all, without the slightest comparison that may be odious, I leave it to any hon. gentleman present if it is not a fair proposition to make, that if there must be any industry encouraged first in the Dominion of Canada, we first should encourage the agricultural industry. I recall reading in a recent life of Peel that he said : We would no doubt rather have com fields than cotton factories ; we no doubt would rather have an agricultural population than a population engaged in manufacturing industries, but Providence has decreed otherwise and statesmen are powerless to prevail against it. So I may say with regard to the Northwest Territories, that it is always going to be for the blessing of Canada that Providence has ordained that that country shall be a great agricultural country and the supporter of a great agricultural population which in morals, in intelligence, in industry, and in every desirable feature you like to speak of, is always recognized throughout the world as the best and most desirable population that any nation may aspire to possess. And, when we speak about solving the problem of the agricultural community the words can scarcely be out of our mouth before we learn that it is the transportation problem we have to solve, and that when we talk about agricultural problems in that country of great distance it amounts to the same thing as referring to the transportation problem. I must remark here that I read, very carefully the platform of the leader of the opposition announced in the city of Halifax, and it was with regret I found that for us in the west he had no utterance to make with regard to how we were going to solve that great problem. I should have been very pleased had he on that occasion taken hold of the great national question of the Hudson Bay Railway, or the great national question of transportation for the movement of our grain in the west, and if he had presented to us in definite words that we could have understood some solution by which he thought we could address ourselves to the carrying out of this great task which lies upon us as a nation. I say it was with regret, that in the platform of the leader of the opposition announced in the city of Halifax, I was not able to find any treatment of this important subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask my hon. friend whether he has found out what

the government platform is on the question ?


William Erskine Knowles: I am trying to find that out this afternoon. However, since the Hudson Bay Railway became a great national question, the government as far as I am aware has not undertaken to consolidate and present their policy in the clear and well defined words which we find for example in the Halifax platform.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


William Erskine Knowles: I have not said that I am altogether satisfied with the way in which the government have addressed themselves to the transportation problem of the west : I would like to have seen them move a little more quickly.
Coming to the specific matter about which I wish to speak this afternoon, I wish again briefly to give the distances from various settled points in the Northwest by way of the proposed Hudson Bay Railway, in order that the figures may be again placed on * Hansard.' Generally speaking, the use of the Hudson Bay Railway will save about the distance from Fort William to the sea ; that is to say, the distance from the centre of tl^e wheat country to Fort Churchill is about the same as the distance from the centre of the wheat country to Fort William, and the distance from Fort Churchill to Liverpool is about the same as the dis-, tance from Montreal to Liverpool, which means that the distance from Fort William to Montreal will be saved. The various distances are as follows :
From	To Montreal. .	To Fort Churchill.	DifferenceMiles.	Miles.	Miles.Winnipeg	1,422	945	477Brandon 	1,555	940	615Mcosejaw	1,823	817	1,006Medicine Hat	2,082	1,076	1,006
The distance from Fort Churchill to Liverpool is 2,946 miles and the distance from Montreal to Liverpool is 2,927 miles, being practically the same. The distance from New York to Liverpool by the northern route is 3,07,9 miles. Thus there will be. generally speaking, a saving of distance by the Hudson Bay route, as proposed between 950 and 1,000 miles. This saving in distance will be of course a great advantage in every direction. It will mean a saving in time and in charges, while the route will afford, what is very important, another outlet for the products of the west. The number of miles of railway that will require to be constructed is at present only 470 or 475 miles, just about one and a half the distance from Toronto to Montreal. That seems a small matter when we consider the importance of moving the wheat Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
harvested in the western country every year. With regard to the saving of charges, I wish to refer to the treatise on the subject compiled by Mr. J. A. McKenna under instructions of the hon. Minister of the Interior, and published by the Department of the Interior. This treatise is regarded as an authority on the subject. At page 51, Mr. McKenna says, with regard to the saving on wheat :
The freight upon grain from the wheat belt to Hudson bay would 'approximate ten cents a bushel, the same as to Port Arthur; the additional 15 cents from there to the Atlantic sea-board would be saved to the farmer, and this, of itself, represents a fair profit to the wheat-grower. Assuming an export trade of 20,000,000 of bushels, which can easily be handled in two months of the season by the proposed railway the saving of 15 cents a bushel, being the difference in cost of freight from Port Arthur to the Atlantic sea-board, would amount to $3,000,000.
That is with regard to wheat alone. Now let me read what Mr. McKenna has to say with regard to the saving and profit in the transportation of cattle :
A very important feature in connection with a railway which secures quick access to the sea is with relation to the shipping of cattle to the European markets; this great industry is at present seriously handicapped in consequence of the long journey to be endured under present conditions. It is admitted as a well recognized fact, that cattle shipped to the Atlantic coast arrive at the shipping port in poor condition, emaciated by long days of rail travel. It is also admitted that on the sea journey they gain rather than lose in flesh, if put on board in good condition. Experience proves that after three days of rail travel cattle will deteriorate; that three days is about the limit of the time during which they can travel and maintain the condition in which they are placed on board. This being so, cattle could be transported to Fort Churchill without loss in flesh, and the voyage to Liverpool would improve this condition rather than the contrary. Therefore, this great industry alone would find in the Fort Churchill route a solution of the difficulty under which those engaged in the business of cattle shipping now labour.


Mr.  F. W.@: Peters, assistant freight traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific at Winnipeg, states that up to the end of October over 72,000 head of cattle had been shipped to Liverpool from western Canada, and he expected a further 10,000 head to be shipped that season. The freight rate on these cattle would be about 60 cents a hundred pounds in car lots from Winnipeg to Montreal. The rate from Calgary to Fort Churchill would be about the same as to Winnipeg, and the distance about equal, so that this 60 cents a hundred pounds could be saved to the shipper if he could put the cattle on board at Hudson bay, and he would also prevent the shrinkage which would otherwise occur, by reason of the additional rail journey from Winnipeg to Montreal.
Upon the 82,000 head of cattle shipped to Montreal from the west during the past sea-

son, the saving in freight alone, $6 a head, or in round figures $650,000, would be equal to about 20 per cent of the selling price.
That has reference to the saving in freight charges alone ; and it is said by experienced cattlemen that to these you can add $2 a head for the saving of shrinkage in the cattle from making the rail journey so much shorter.
We now come to the question of the land through which this railway will have to pass. Iu my speech of last session I went into this subject more fully than I propose to do to-day, because the character of the land is not something that has now to be proved, but is generally accepted. We have had expert evidence given on this subject before different committees of the House during this session and last session, and I think that not only to lion, members of this House but to the whole country it is no longer a debatable question whether or not the country through which it is proposed to build this railway is of such a nature that the railway is feasible. It is recognized to be a country through which the building of a railway would not be difficult. A great deal of the country is of limestone formation, which is the ideal kind of land upon which to lay rails. There is sufficient timber to furnish ties in abundance. And there are resources which would bring a great deal of profitable traffic to the railway. Besides the short distance over which a railway has to be constructed, 470 miles, surely justifies me in saying that the construction is from every point of view, feasible, and one which would bring such profit to the farmers of the Northwest Territories that there can be no excuse for delaying the work any longer.
I beg to refer to a document published by the Senate entitled ' Our Fertile North Lands.' On page 89 you will find particulars regarding the nature of the country. I have had the pleasure of discussing this question with different engineers who have been over that territory, and they tell me- especially Mr. Thibaudeau, an engineer who has recently been out there-that in every way it is an ideal country for railway building. There are great stretches in it of first-class argricultural land. For an extent of 200 miles north and south and an indefinite distance east and west there are great resources which would yield profitable traffic. There are timber, mineral and agricultural lands, and when we get to the bay itself we find good fisheries such as cod, salmon and lake trout. As regards Fort Churchill, it is one of the best natural harbours in the world. It is deep, well sheltered, easily kept open during nine months of the year, and there would be very little cost in fitting it up beyond the building of elevators and wharfs. On pages 45 and 46 of this book to which I have referred. I find that the writer, Mr. McKenna, quoting from Mr. Thibaudeau, thus describes some of the advantages of Fort Churchill harbour :
It can be kept open all the year by the employment of ice-breakers. Last year, 1906, the harbour closed between December 5 and December 10. The conditions in January, 1907, were as follows: In the bay at Fort Chuchill the ice was II inches thick. It extended for a third of a mile from the shore into the bay. Ice was much thinner in the bay than in the harbour. There was some floating ice about a quarter of a mile from the edge of the bay ice. This is sent in by a northerly wind; should the prevailing winds blow from any other direction, there^ would be no floating ice. Beyond this floating ice there was clear open water straight away into the bay and beyond. This was the general condition up to and including January 2, 1907. An icebreaker similar to either the north or south now in use between Quebec and Levis would, by making two trips a week, keep the harbour open the year round.
The entrance to the harbour is about 2,000 feet wide, with a minimum depth of water of ten fathoms. Vessels drawing 36 feet draft could enter the harbour and anchor within 200 yards of the west division, to a point 3,500 feet south of Fort Prince of Wales. The bay outside the harbour also affords good anchorage; there is ample depth of water.
A vessel drawing 24 feet of water can come within 150 yards of the east side of the harbour, from its mouth to a point 150 yards south of Battery beacon. There is also good anchorage south of the point east alluded to (150 yards south of Battery beacon) for 2,000 feet by 800 feet in width for vessels drawing 24 feet of water. Opposite Battery beacon for a distance of 2,500 feet across the harbour there is a minimum depth of 24 feet of water.
He then goes on to speak of other places in and outside the harbour where there is splendid anchorage. The great question, of course, occurs to us at this point, and that is the navigability of the straits. This is also dealt with in the treatise to which I have referred. I shall not take up time by going into the details, but there seems to be no doubt that the straits are safely navigable at least four months in the year. A great many of the old Hudson bay navigators put a much longer period of time during which the straits are open to shipping. We have data on this subject dating back about one hundred and fifty years, for ships have gone into the bay as many and even more years back. And when we reflect that in this present age we have our ice-breakers, our modern steamships which can break the ice themselves, and with the aids to navigation such as telegraph stations, lighthouses and other facilities, there does not seem the slightest doubt that the Hudson bay straits could easily be open for shipping at least four months in the year. My own opinion is that they may be kept open much longer.
So far I have discussed the question from the view point of the west. Let me point out that it would also be profitable for the eastern provinces. In the territories, in the next fifteen or twenty or a hundred years,

we shall inquire great quantities of steel. This is called the steel age, and in the construction of our buildings and bridges and other works of development, including railways, we shall require no doubt immense quantities of that product. Is it not very advisable, therefore, that ships should come direct from the steel plants in Sydney, laden with their products, and discharge in Fort Churchill, which is but a few hundred miles away from the centre of the Northwest Territories? Not only does this apply to steel but to all those other products which are placed upon the market by our fellow citizens in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton or even Prince Edward Island. Take, for instance, fish and other products raised in these provinces, they could be laid down at Fort Churchill very cheaply and in that way help not only the west but the east.
I now come to deal for a few minutes with the question of who should pay for the Hudson Bay Railway. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) seemed to lay it down as a foregone conclusion, that the money should not come out of the exchequer of Canada. I wish to be the last to raise the question of the east against the west or the west against the east. There is no profit in that kind of discussion, but I would be wanting in my duty to my constituents, if I did not say very frankly that, in my humble opinion, the people of the west are contributing very much to the exchequer of the Dominion and are not receiving one scintilla of profit in return except what they get back in the shape of expended revenue. It would not be unreasonable therefore to ask our friends in the east to seriously consider this question, whether it would not, in some way, tend to equalize the burdens of this nation we are trying together to build up if a return were made to the west by undertaking some great national enterprise such as this. It is very seldom that this matter is touched upon in this House, but this afternoon I am goiug to speak for a moment or two frankly along that line. When I spoke last session on the subject of the Hudson Bay Railway, I said that we of the west were willing to pay a certain amount of revenue and, incidentally-as there is no use denying-a certain amount of protection, that we might help our sister provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and the rest to develop their resources and build up their industries to the end that we might, together, eventually make a great nation in Canada. But I wish to recall What this House does not often hear, and that is that we are agriculturists, and while there are many agriculturists in Ontario and Quebec and the other older provinces, yet our people do not profit from the building up of manufacturing centres as do the agricultrists in the eastern provinces. The agriculturist in Ontario may find the burden of the tariff bear somewhat Mr. KNOWLES.
heavily upon him as a consumer, but he always has the consoling thought that he is building up at his very doors, a great market-in Toronto it may be, London, or Hamilton, or Halifax, or Sydney, or Quebec or Montreal-building up a great market to which he may bring his produce. But there is no such consolation for us, there is no' such compensation for us. We have to find our market on Liverpool prices, and anything that -\ve contribute for the building up of Canada-I want to say here and I say it without fear of contradiction-we are paying for the purpose of building up the nation and there is no selfish advantage whatever. In view of that fact, would it be a very unreasonable principle to lay down, that, in the administration of the affairs of this country, the west should be more generously dealt with than she is, and that in the administration of the affairs of the country there should be a freer hand in dealing with the west because she has no such compensation as that of which I have spoken in the case of the people who live in the east ? Of course this is not necessarily to be applied toward the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, but I contend that It is not an unreasonable principle to lay down.
My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) suggests-and I confess that I have nearly made up my mind that there is something in the idea-that the Hudson Bay Railway is not to be built out of the exchequer of Canada. The hon. gentleman suggests an arrangement which he outlined. He said : Let us keep one-tenth of the lands and wait until they are worth $10 and $12 an acre, and then sell them and reimburse the exchequer of Canada for the cost of building the road. To me it is a very unwelcome task to differ from such an eminent and hon. gentleman as the member from Brandon ; still, in my humble way, I do differ from the position he laid down, and I will tell you why. For one thing, I am against tying up ten per cent of the land. We have had such a curse upon us from tying up lands for the Canadian Pacific Railway that not ten per cent, or even one per cent, would I favour tying up for the days to come. I can show you school districts, Mr. Speaker, that have to close the doors of their schools and could not educate their children because of the tying up the lands of the Canadian Pacific Railway as these lands could not be taxed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sifton) went further, and took advantage of the opportunity to say that, in his opinion, the odd-numbered sections which had been tied up as being in the railway belt, should be thrown open for settlement without the preemption. I do not agree with the hon. gentleman in his expression of opinion on that point either. The governmnet has already announced itself-the announcement having been made last session that it was in

favour of the pre-emption clause in the Consolidated Land Bill which was brought down, and I have no reason to believe that the government has changed on that point. For my part, I was a supporter of that feature, and am still in favour of it. That Bill provides that the present settler in the Northwest shall be given opportunity to become possessed of a farm of not only 160 acres but 320 acres. Let me give, very briefly, my reasons for favouring this plan. In the first place, we must admit that the best land, speaking generally, is gone. Of course, there is a great deal of good land left, and not homesteaded? 1 am not trying to give a black eye to the land not taken up-but there is no denying that, generally speaking, the choice land has been taken, as is only natural. Therefore, it is to be considered whether there is not an arrangement to be made by which a man, if he cannot get as good land as the homesteader of the past got, many receive 'more of the land that is not so valuable. And we say that it is to be given on residence duties as proposed, with the payment of $3 an acre, that removes any objection that may be raised that the land is going to the speculator. As I am on that subject, I wrish to say what my opinion is in reference to the pre-emption clause. My hon. friend from Brandon brought this subject up. I have no hesitation in saying, as a western man, and one in touch with western conditions, that the opposition to this provision of the measure comes from the great land speculators of the west. Let me read an article from the Regina ' Standard,' which hon. gentlemen opposite, no doubt, will listen to with great respect- and, on the point referred to I think the ' Standard ' is right. I read from the issue of March 5 :
Hon. Frank Oliver's new land measure, which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in the House of Commons

I am not sure they are right about that.
-and which is shortly to he up for consideration, was the subject of discussion, it is learned, at a meeting of a number of business men at the city hall yesterday afternoon, at which John Ridington, formerly of the Winnipeg r Free Press,' but now representing the corporations interested, and attached to the staff of the Pearson Land Company, dealt with the pre-emption provisions of the Bill and endeavoured to work up a feeling against these pre-emption clauses with a view to haying pressure brought to bear on Mr. Oliver, through letters to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to break the determination of the Minister of the Interior to have the pre-emption clauses inserted. Mr. Ridington's mission was not crowned with much success, apparently, for the meeting broke up without any action being taken and the whole question was referred to the business men's committee of the board of trade.
It is gathered that Mr. Ridington's main objection was to the pre-emption clauses of the Oliver Land Bill.
I could read you other reports and items from the public press which go to show that this opposition comes from the great land speculators. I myself was waited upon by a gentleman, who, I think, is the largest land dealer in Winnipeg, and he asked me to give my opposition to these Bills. He said :	Witli all our thousands
and tens of thousands of acres of land, if the Dominion government is going to throw open the odd-numbered sections to enable men to get their quarter-section by means of pre-emption, it would ruin our market. I remember his saying to me :	If the government must give the settler another 160 acres, don't talk about $3 an acre ; we want $15 an acre for our land, and when you talk about $3 an acre it makes people say our price is ridiculous. I could cite many cases of men identified with the land interest in the west, having taken a similar view to that of my hon. friend from Brandon, that the pre-emption feature should not he carried out, but that the land should be kept only for the individual homesteader. There is this also to be remembered that previously when homesteaders went into that country they had the privilege of purchasing another quarter-section in addition to their homestead from the railway company or the Hudson Bay Company'. That privilege is now gone. The railway lands are nearly all sold, the Hudson Bay lands are virtually all sold, so I have no hesitation in saying, speaking only for myself, that for these reasons, the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) to the contrary notwithstanding, the pre-emption clause should stand.
Mi-. SPROULE. That is the pre-emption clause of $3 an acre?


William Erskine Knowles: Yes, with settlement duties iu connection. I am in favour of that and wish to be judged accordingly. In the administration of lands in the Northwest the government, I think, should not be too afraid of exercising generosity to the settlers. It is a matter of pride to me personally, without wishing to bring politics into this discussion that this government has never given away an acre of land to a railway company, or any other company except in the case of that bargain, which in my opinion was a good bargain, with the Saskatchewan Yalley Land Company, under which that company undertook to settle lands that before that time had been barren. Apart from that they have sold no land to any land company or for that matter have sold no land at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about the land they gave to ranching companies at a dollar an acre, one-fifth of all their holdings ?


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend is mistaken. No land was sold to a ranching company at $1 an acre.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it was not, the information given to the House was incorrect. Three companies had the option of taking one-liftli of their holdings at $1 an acre and they bought over 10,000 acres at this price.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend no doubt is quite sincere in what he says, but he is altogether mistaken.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is any mistake it comes from the government because they gave the information to the House.


William Erskine Knowles: I wish to get along with my speech.


Mr. FOSTER.: Will he say that McGregor & Hitchcock did not buy 9,450 acres, one-tenth of their holdings of grazing lands at $1 an acre and pay for it?


William Erskine Knowles: That is two against one, anybody else? My hon. friend will have to admit that, I am right when I say that these people did not go on the market and buy land at $1 an acre. I will admit that under the grazing lease the holder can buy a small amount of land for home and corral purposes, but that is different from going on the market and buying outright. I am glad my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Poster) spoke witli reference to that McGregor & Hitchcock lease. The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) spoke of the Robbins Irrigation Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I spoke of the cattle ranching company.


William Erskine Knowles: I will therefore qualify my remarks by saying that the government has sold semi-arid lands under the Irrigation Act at $3 an acre, $2 to be spent in improving the land. This is quite different from saying that it is sold at $1 an acre.


George Eulas Foster: That is not the land I spoke of.


William Erskine Knowles: No, the hon. member refers to lands sold under the home and corral provisions of the grazing regulations.


George Eulas Foster: But not for corral purposes?


William Erskine Knowles: Doctors differ.


George Eulas Foster: It does not take 9,000 acres to make a corral.


William Erskine Knowles: I am of the opinion that any land sold in that way was sold under that clause, but I am sure that the hon. gentleman is not right in his figures about the 9,000 acres.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman admit that under the terms of the leases of these -three companies they are entitled to purchase, if they have not already purchased, 35,000 acres for $1 an acre, that is one-tenth of their holdings? Is that not in accordance with the terms of the lease?


William Erskine Knowles: 


William Erskine Knowles: I am not aware that it is, no I do not think so,-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be well for the hon. member to inform himself.


William Erskine Knowles: Unless it is under regulations that were in force long before I became familiar with the regulations. If there were such regulations they were made by the Conservative government. I never knew of such regulations, and am confident that no such regulations have been in force since I have had anything to do with parliament. I think the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) are both mistaken.


George Eulas Foster: Not at all, your leader is there within a few feet of you, ask him.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is all wrong.


William Erskine Knowles: Tile hon. member will at least have to listen to me when I say that this government stands in a very favourable light compared with the previous government in regard to the alienation of land?


George Eulas Foster: In what way ?


William Erskine Knowles: In every way.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will substantiate that there is a fine chance for him.


William Erskine Knowles: I have made a great many .statements this afternoon and I can give the book for every statement. I have heard the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) make a great many statements which I could have stopped by asking him to substantiate them, but we are so used to him and his statements that we do not question him.


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. member substantiate this one? It is his own assertion.


William Erskine Knowles: I would have to take about half of all the 'Hansard' of this session.


George Eulas Foster: We will give you all you want so that you substantiate it.


William Erskine Knowles: Because my hon. friend has undoubtedly occupied a great deal more than his share of the time of the House.


George Eulas Foster: That does not touch the question; will the hon. gentleman substantiate his statement?


William Erskine Knowles: It is too much to go over all my hon. friend's speeches, you must remember that he spoke five hours and twenty minutes a few days ago and I do not know that he said anything worth listening to.


Mr.   POSTER@: My hon. friend does not substantiate his statement.


William Erskine Knowles: At any rate if this government has sold and is selling land in large quantities I wish to say that Uiey have not my support in that.


George Eulas Foster: That is plain enough.


William Erskine Knowles: But I am quite sure my hon. friend is away out in the number of acres he has given. We need only look at the records to see that the previous government sold and gave away millions of acres of laud. This government has certainly not alienated any such quantity of land as that. Since I am speaking in regard to the alienation of land by pre-emption, I wish to emphasize what I am saying when I was interrupted that there is every need for the government to exercise a policy of generosity towards the settler. He is going into that country to stay, to raise his family ; and if there is to be an error made on any side, let it be made on the side of giving him a few acres too many rather than restricting him unduly. Any one familiar with the lands which have not already been takeu up will agree that 160 acres are not sufficient for a man to make his home on permanently. Even if 320 acres should be a small number of acres more than he requires, I say it is wise to err on that side, for as time goes on and his family grows up he will want to expand his farm, he will want land on which to put his sons. If you tied him down to a very limited number of acres you will cause the separation of his family which we should avoid as long as possible.
I remember on the occasion of the inauguration of the new provinces, when His Excellency and the Prime Minister and other ministers of the Crown were in Edmonton, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) made a speech which was extremely popular. Before him were lined up wagon after wagon filled with little children. On each of these wagons there was a motto, ' they will grow.' The Minister of Customs took that motto as the text of his address, and he spoke of the manner in which all through that country growth was manifest on every hand. He spoke of the way the country had grown in the past and was going to expand in the future and as that voice of his carried out over the prairie aud across the Saskatchewan river, the people enjoyed his speech extremely and almost forgave him for the very large amount of money he takes from them in customs year after year. I say that the same motto may be applied to our families in regard to making provision for them by giving them a generous supply of land. If you are going to tie men down to ICO acres of land, not the best kind of land even, you should make provision for the development of that country and for the growth of their families. I wish to place myself on record not as holding the
views of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), but rather as holding the views which were embodied in the R 11 of the government last session.
There are one or two objections that have been raised against the Hudson Bay Railway that I wish to refer to. The objection is raised that the equipment of this railway will be used only three or four months, or, at the most, five months in the year. I do not think that is correct. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there will be the hauling of wheat to the elevators at Fort Churchill month after month and then, taking it at its very worst, whatever railway company operates the Hudson Bay Railway, the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the Grand Trunk Pacific, it will in twenty-four hours, at any time. '* able to take its rolling stock off that new railway and place it on its main line. Therefore, I say it is impossible for people to contend that the equipment would lie idle during seven or eight months in the year. We have also to remember that even at this present day they are carrying to Fort William and Port Arthur many million bushels of grain ; there is storage accommodation at the head of the lakes for about 15,000,000 bushels. Why should not the same be done at Fort Churchill ?
So, Mr. Speaker, without desiring to detain the House further, I wish simply to close by saying that the people of the west, of my own constituency, and I think I can speak for the residents of the province of Saskatchewan, are desirous that this government should take into its immediate consideration the solution of this problem by which they may have readier access to the markets, and by which they will be afforded relief from that great inconvenience which has lain upon them like a burden for the last few years. They ask that the government will come to their assistance by providing greater facilities for the transportation of their grain. I have endeavoured to point out that the scheme which is embodied in this proposition is feasible, that a demand has come from the farmers of the west for a solution of this problem, that it is nothing which will stagger this government, that the west has great claims upon the Dominion government because of the great contribution it is making towards the development of the natural industries of Canada, and I trust that these considerations will weigh with the government and with hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, so that this question may receive the favourable consideration of the House and of the government.


Mr. F. L. SCHAFFNER (Souris).: Mr. Speaker-, I would ask the indulgence of the House for a short time this afternoon while I place myself on record on this important question that so much affects our western country. During the twenty-five years that
6S07

and the men who produce the grain always struggling like the devil to stand off the banks. When a man takes the long end of a government offer which bets him 160 acres of homestead land against $10 that he can't stay on.it three years necessary to prove up and get title, and then makes good and raises a crop of grain, it would seem that he ought to get a fair share of the proceeds of his work.


Mr. A. A. WRIGHT.: Does the hon. gentleman consider that a reputable authority?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman can judge of that for himself. I am not vouching for the authority ; but it probably tells a good deal of truth sometimes. I lay it down that the character of that western country to-day demands the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. I believe that the opening of the Hudson Bay route, while it may not accomplish all that is desired, will go a very long way in solving the great transportation problem. I go further. A great deal of the opposition to this project has come from eastern Canada, largely from the great corporations ; but I say that the east would be more than compensated for any apparent loss it would sustain by the building of this road. I claim that the trade that would be created by that route is one which the St. Lawrence route could not handle in any case. I do not think it has ever been suggested that the opening of Galveston as an ocean port in the southwest worked any injury to the eastern states, while on the other hand it certainly aided very materially the manufacturing interests of the eastern states. We have heard a great deal of the proposed canalization of the Mississippi and its connection with Chicago. While the difficulties and the initial cost of that project are so much greater than those of the Hudson Bay Railway, we should remember this fact, that after you canalize the Mississippi and connect it with Chicago, the products carried by the canal to the sea-board would be 1,000 miles further from the markets of the world than they were when they started, whereas the products carried by the Hudson Bay Railway will be brought 1,000 miles nearer to the markets of the world. This is a fact that is worthy of consideration. The opening of the Hudson Bay route is a matter of great importance not only to the west, but also to the east. Eastern Canada has for a long time opposed the building of this road, just as some people in the United States opposed the building of the Panama canal. If the great corporations and others in eastern Canada oppose the building of the Hudson Bay Railway, the result will be that the responsibility of building it will fall upon the people of the west. Such a narrow, sectional feeling is contrary to the best interests of eastern Canada. The discussion on this question, in this House and out of it, is no very new7 thing. There has been sermoniz-Mr. SCHAFFNER.
mg, by various governments and individuals. on the building of the Hudson Bay Railway nearly as long as I can remember. The same excuses have been put forwrard from time to time by those opposed to the project, and we have not the road yet. In 1884 the government sent out the 'Alert,' with Lieutenant Bordon in command, to explore the -waters of Hudson bay and straits. For some reasons, it took him a very long time to make a report. When it w7as made it was none too favourable; w7e believe for none too unselfish motives. Those who favoured the building of the Hudson Bay Railway at that time believed the report was purposely adverse. We must remember that the Canadian Pacific Railway was at that time being built, w'hich was probably a greater undertaking for the Dominion of Canada then than it would be to-day. There is no doubt that there was a fear upon the part of governments and financiers that the building of this road would be simply an excuse for another demand on the treasury of Canada ; and so the report of the ' Alert's ' expedition w7as unfavourable to the building of the road and to the navigation of Hudson bay and Hudson straits. In 1S97 the ' Diana ' was sent out. It appears only to have cruised about the straits during the summer, and returned. The report of that cruise was also adverse, and for similar reasons. But a great many years have passed since that time, and we believe the time has come when the proposition is entitled to receive the serious consideration of the government.
I am no great Calvinist or believer in predestination ; but I ask the members of this House to look at the map of North America, with that great inland sea extending so far into the country, and ask whether they do not believe that it w7as placed there for an all-wise purpose. I do
I believe that that great inland sea was purposely placed where it is in order that it might be utilized in the interests of that great western country. There we have a great bay, with its 2,000 miles of sea coast, one half the size of the Mediterranean, in what may be said to be a fairly temperate climate; and all the indications are that before many years the shores of this bay will be peopled with prosperous communities and its harbours will contain large elevators. Hudson bay is geographically to this continent what the Baltic sea is to Europe. Its length Is 1,000 miles north to south and 600 miles east to west, having an area of 580,000 square miles. Perhaps the best idea I can give of its dimensions is to ask you to bear in mind that the length of the bay is as great as the distance from Winnipeg to the Rockv mountains and nearly six times the size of the great lakes separating Canada from the United States.
I want to call attention in this connection to some reports of temperatures. People seem to think that the -weather is extremely

cold out there, but the more one studies the subject the more one is convinced that after all the country around Hudson bay is almost a banana belt. Here is what Dr. Bell says, and in giving you these quotations I do so that you may have some idea of the climate and of the feasibility of navigating the straits. If it can be shown that the building of this road is practicable, as I believe it is, then we ought to proceed with it. If not, we should let the matter drop. Dr. Bell says :
Both the bay and the straits are remarkably free from rooks and shoals, which might interfere with her free navigation. The groups of islands near the east side of the bay are surrounded by deep water, and a wide channel leads up the centre of James bay. Fortunately the main body of the bay, which is the portion likely to be hereafter frequented by shipping is entirely without shoals, reefs or islands. The depth is very uniform over most of the bay, and nowhere does it present any great irregularities. It averages about 70 fathoms throughout, deepening to 100 and upwards in approaching tile outlet of Hudson straits; while in the strait itself the soundings along the centre vary from about 150 to upwards of 300 fathoms. The bottom appears to consist almost everywhere of boulder clay and mud. Near the shores a stiff clay, affording good holding ground for anchors is almost invariably met with on both sides.
As regards the climate, Mr. O'Sullivan says :
The ordinary half-breeds are more easily coaxed to eat than to swim any day. No matter how often you propose lunch they are always ready, but it is not so often you get them to strip and wash themselves. This day, however, I succeeded in getting them all to take a plunge and we enjoyed it immensely. The water was in excellent condition, reminding one of Old Orchard Beach or Chester bay. X have never found the water as warm in any part of the St. Lawrence or in Bay des Chaleurs as we found it on the east main coast in the end of August and beginning of September

I would like bon. members for the east to take note of this statement :
-and I have no doubt that if easy communication could be had by rail, the most northern limit of our province would prove an attractive scene for tourists and health seekers.
Let me give you some information regarding temperatures because there seems to be the idea that the climate is an arctic one. Here is what Dr. Bell says on that point: I
I took the temperature of the sea upwards of 20 times during our voyage which extended over the greater part of July, August and September, and I found it to average 53 degrees of Fahrenheit. I also noted the temperature of the rivers which we visited and found the average of five of them to be 61 degrees Fahrenheit. We bathed in the salt water almost daily and found the temperature agreeable.
He winds up by saying :
The average temperature of the air between July 11 and September 21, from the above observations, would appear to be 621 degrees.
That is better than we have in the Northwest. If we had in September or August such temperature as that, we would not be troubled with frozen wheat.
As most of these observations were taken in the morning or the evening and as the nights were generally warm owing to the prevalence of southerly winds this is perhaps not far from the true mean temperature and it is above the average of the main temperature for these months of ten principal stations from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Fort Simpson, on the Mackenzie river. About two-thirds of the bay in the south might be .included in this classification with regard to summer temperature.
Now the climate of this vast territory compares very favourably with that of the western territories :
The temperature of the waters in Hudson bay is several degrees higher than that in Lake Superior and Lieutenant Gordon declared that the bay might be regarded as a vast basin of comparatively warm water, a fact which must help to mitigate the severity of the winter in the surrounding country.
My good friend opposite (Mr. Knowles) spoke of the ice being easily kept clear by means of ice breaking vessels. But, as a matter of fact, the bay freezes very little and is besides remarkably free from storms and fogs :
The waters are deep and uniform and the soundings, of 480 feet at many points indicate that its bed is a level plateau. Now as to the opening and closing date of the harbour of Fort Churchill since 1825 can be given.
I am not going to give all the temperatures for fifty years, but I shall give you a few taken at random between the dates I have mentioned. I may say that since I started to make this address, I have heard men saying what is the good of Hudson bay, it is only open two months in the year. Well, I am going to furnish proof that these gentlemen are altogether mistaken:	.
1824, open June 12, closed November 18-five months, six days.
1827, open June 24, closed November 13-four months and twenty days.
1834, open June 21, closed November 15-four months and twenty-five days.
1844, open June 24, closed November 23-five months.
1848, open June 19, closed November 6-four months, eighteen days.
1852, open June 13, closed November 28-five months, fifteen days.
1862,	open June 7, closed November 5-four months, twenty-nine days.
1863,	open June 5, closed November 11- five months, six days.
1892, open June 19, closed November 11- four months, twenty-three days.

1891, open June 6, closed November 19-five months, thirteen days.
What do we find the average to be? The average is from June 19th to November 8th, five months. I have not asked anybody to say off-hand how long the St. Lawrence is open, but I suppose it is not open more than six months. The longest season for Hudson bay and straits was in 1846, five months and eighteen days; the shortest season was from June 14 to November 8. Now this period extended over seventy years and is taken from the Hudson bay officials. And I find no evidence against it, that harbours in Huuson bay and the mouth of the rivers are open about five months of the year.
It is wonderful what great men will do.
T have a great deal of respect for the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Butler, as a man of ability, but he is a little narrow on this point. They say every one is narrow on some point, and this is the point on which Mr. Butler is narrow. He made an address before the May Court Club jn this city not long ago-about the time my bon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) was talking about the Georgian Bay canal, and seemed anxious that the Georgian Bay canal should be built. I don't stand here to say a word against the building of the Georgian Bay canal, let us have it by all means. But I don't want the Georgian Bay canal or any other canal to be built at the expense of the Hudson Bay Railway which we must have. Mr. Butler, is thus reported :
Transportation, a subject of intense practical interest to all Canadians, was the item last night of a brilliant address before the May Court Club by Mr. M. J. Butler, Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. In the course of his remarks Mr. Butler said that the Georgian Bay canal was the solution of Canada's transportation problem. I
I say, it is only one of the solutions. The great solution, so far as we in the west are concerned, is to build the Hudson Bay Railway and use Hudson bay and Hudson strait for carrying our products to the markets of the world. Mr. Butler says the Hudson Bay road is 1 in the talkative stage.' Well, how long is a thing to stay in that stage ? The Hudson Bay Railway has been in the ' talkative stage ' as long as I can remember, and I am no kid. It seems to me that when a man like the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, with all his ability-for which I give him credit-and with all his experience, says that the Hudson Bay Railway is only ' in the talkative stage ' he needs a little educating, and X am trying to give it to him right now.
So far, we have talked about Hudson bay ; we have shown its extent and shown that it is free from shoals and fogs. And, on that point, I would like to make reference to another remark made bv M- Butler, Mr. SCHAFFNEF
He says that insurance was an argument against the building of this road and utilizing Hudson bay and strait. Perhaps it is. But what is the experience ? In the course of a century and a half the Hudson Bay Company sent out 750 vessels through Hudson strait and bay. There were vessels running from 70-gun ships down to ships of ten tons burden. No one will say that these vessels were strongly built. They were rudely built and small. But the records of the Hudson Bay Company show that, out of 750 vessels, sent through, only two were lost. That does not look as though navigation of these waters was very dangerous. We must remember also that these vessels had none of the advantages of the aids to navigation-lighthouses and all the rest, that are provided on every well-travelled route to-day. Well, I have spoken of Hudson bay. What do they say of Hudson strait ?
Markham says :
I have in my possession an official record of the voyages out and home of the Hudson Bay Company's ship '"Prince Rupert' for a period of eleven consecutive years, namely from 1835 to 1816 inclusive. I find that the average time of getting through the straits in the outward voyages during this period ' and it must not be forgotten that the strait is 500 miles in length ' was 16 days. The longest time was 31 days, when there was probably an exceptionally bad ice year. The shortest time was 8 days. But the delays in getting through the strait were caused by calms and adverse winds-
Something that will be absolutely overcome by the navigation of to-day.
-and not by the ice. On the homeward passage no difficulties were met with from ice in the strait, and the vessel usually reached London in about five weeks after leaving York Factory. . . . The ' Prince Rupert ' was 38 days on the passage to London; so that it is impossible she could have had any serious detention from ice in the strait.
And Gordon says :
As to the length of season for practical navigation, if we regard the presence of field ice as the only barrier, the information which we have got would point to the months of July, August, September and October as being the months in which the straits are passable. As a rule, in July there will be delays, not to vessels strengthened and sheeted, there would be no danger in making the passage.
Mr. Low says :
The period of safe navigation for ordinary iron steamships through Hudson Bay strait and across Hudson bay to the Port of Churchill may be stated to extend from the 20th of July to the 1st of November. The period might be increased without much risk by a week in the beginning of the season, and by perhaps two weeks at the close.
In my report last year, I described the ice as consisting of three kinds, viz.: icebergs, heavy arctic ice and ordinary field ice. The icebergs are stated to have come from Fox channel. This conclusion was based on the re-

port of No. 3 station made on the homeward voyage of the ' Neptune' that the icebergs passed the bluff from west towards east. This report was made on the strength of the few observations which the party had been able to make in the interval between the Lwo calls of the 'Neptune' at Ihe inlet. Further and more perfect observations show conclusively that the current sets in the opposite direction and that the icebergs move from east to West.
This is a very important fact.
If further proof of the existence of this set were necessary we have it in the drift of the ' Alert ' when fast in the ice off Ashe inlet and invariably carried to the westward.
It has been said a good many times that much of our grain would have to be stored at Fort Churchill. That is true enough but it Is also true that a large per cent is now stored at Port Arthur and Fort William for the winter. With regard to ice in the straits, we have a good deal of information in the blue-books. Dr. Ferguson, in the Senate, describes four kinds of ice to be found ; first the young or harbour ice, never regarded as serious ; second the rafted ice which has drifted by the wind, one flake piled upon another until it assumes very formidable proportions. All authorities agree that no icebergs are found in Hudson bay or in the waters that flow into Hudson bay. Those that have been encountered by navigators have always been found within 100 miles of the Atlantic, and it seems now to be settled that they are icebergs that have been formed up about Greenland, have been carried into Hudson strait by the current, and, after going a short distance into Hudson strait, are met by another current and returned to the Atlantic ocean. They are formidable enemies to navigation and are treated by sailors with great respect. There is another class called ' growlers.' These are icebergs broken up. They are low in the water and do not appear on the surface. And, like all enemies that we cannot see, they are more to be dreaded than enemies we can see. It is said that most of the losses in the north are caused by coming into contact with these 1 growlers,' but these are seldom found in Hudson straits. The most reliable explorers who have travelled these straits for twenty years for-the sole purpose of investigation, now believe that Hudson bay and straits are now open for safe navigation for at least four and a half months in the year so far as ice is concerned. And, considering that the ship course from Churchill to Liverpool is free from rocks and shoals and that these four and a half months are when the days are very long in the northern region, the sun shining for twenty hours a day, these facts will enhance the rapid navigation to and from the sea. Fort Churchill communicates with the open sea as directly as Halifax. Comparing 201
Montreal and Churchill, the latter is not hampered with the long St. Lawrence navigation.
My good friend on the other side (Mr. Knowles) put on t Hansard ' some distances. To make my story complete, even at the risk of repeating some of his statements, I also wish to place on ' Hansard ' some distances because after all when it has been proven beyond doubt that the straits and bay are navigable and the great obstacle of the ice is removed from our calculations, the great remaining question is that of distance for our prime object is to place our products upon the markets of the world in the shortest possible time. The following tables of distances will be found of interest :	.	*
Miles.
Fort Churchill to Liverpool	 3,000
Montreal to Liverpool	 3,220
New York to Liverpool	 3,057
Duluth via New York to Liverpool.. .. 4,201 Duluth oia Hudson hay to Liverpool.. 3,728 St. Paul to Liverpool via New York.. 4,240 St. Paul to Liverpool via Hudson bay.. 4,096
Vancouver to Liverpool via Canadian
Pacific Railway	 5,868
Vancouver to Liverpool via Hudson bay 4,568
Saving from Vancouver to Liverpool .. 1,300
From	To Montreal.	To Churchill.	DifferenceMiles.	Miles.	Miles.Winnipeg	1,423	945	477Brandon	1,555	940	615Regina	1,780	774	1,006Medicine Hat	2,082	1,076	1,006Calgary	2,262	1,256	1,900Prince Albert	1,058	717	1,241Battleford	1,994	876	1,118Saskatoon	1,924	806	1,118Edmonton	2,247	1,129	1,118
Average saving in rail transportation for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, 1,000 miles.
I have referred to the transportation of products, but there is another way in which the building of that road would be of great benefit to that western country and for that matter eastern Canada as well, that is in relation to immigration. This government and all governments have spent a great deal of money in promoting immigration, in bringing people from Europe and the British Isles to settle in the great Northwest. These people have left their homes to seek fortune in that great country, which was happily described by the Earl of Duf-ferin as a country of indeterminate possibilities. Every member of this House is aware that many of the immigrants who have been induced to come to Canada have drifted into the L'nited States. This was only natural owing to the influences to



which they were subjected on the existing routes of transportation. Canada has lost incalculably in population and in money owing to this fact, and if we had this route these people would not be subjected to the influences of which I have spoken. The tide of immigration to this country continues and we all rejoice at that fact provided some restrictions are placed on the classes that come in. During the last century the United States always had a northwest, the energetic people of the eastern states, the young men and the men of energy were going west and occupying the land in that country that was still unsettled. That condition I am told and believe does not exist to-day, so that these people from the other side are flocking into western Canada, they are crossing the border. Previously they were settling in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, but Sir, they are to-day beginning to go forward, they are settling in a great country extending from 70 miles east of Winnipeg to the Rocky mountains, and from the International boundary up to the western shores of Hudson bav. I have no doubt and my opinion is borne out by the information furnished us in the Agricultural Committee that we have not yet begun to know the possibilities of the northern portions of that country which we previously thought was a frozen region, absolutely useless for agricultural industry. We find these people going up there and undoubtedly that country will be thickly settled. We find in Russia a province whose southern boundary is 100 miles farther north than Edmonton, with a population of one and a half million people, producing 65,000,000 bushels of wheat, and 100,000,000 bushels of oats. I think we have reason to believe that our north country will be just as productive and will be almost as thickly settled as this Russian province. Personally I have not the slightest doubt on this point.
I am sure that three-quarters of the members of this House believe that the country through which this railway will pass is nothing but barren rock and almost impassable from, say, the Saskatchewan river to Hudson bay. The facts do not at all accord *with this idea. One engineer, Mr. Adrian Nelson, writing to the directors of the Canadian Northern Railway says :
I beg to submit the following report on the feasibility and construction of the proposed railway to Hudson bay. The country that the railway passes through is of such description as to offer but few engineering difficulties in the construction of it. The whole of the country partakes of the nature of a flat plain. The first half being practically level and the remainder with a slight exception having a gradual and almost interceptible slope to the Hudson bay. There is very little rock work and the country far from being drowned is well drained by a system of rivers and lakes. Besides this there is an abundance of timber and stone.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 


Mr.  W. W.@: Kirkpatrick, another of the engineers who made an exploratory survey of the line to the Hudson bay, says :
There is no difficulty in building a railway through this country; there are no heavy grades or cuttings and very little rock work. Timber and ballast are plentiful in the vicinity while nearly all streams crossed appear to have timber suitable for bridging.
The counti'y is fairly level and about equally divided as to prairie and timber sections and considerably cut up by lakes and hay marshes. The soil on the average appears good, and I believe will prove a favourable country for settlement.
The American people, Sir, are alive to the great importance of this route. Senator Davis, of the Senate of Washington, drew the attention of the House to the fact that if the Hudson bay route was opened up the trade of the northwestern states would be diverted to it and the Canadians would thereby reap the benefits of the large carrying trade from the states adjacent to Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and to check this he advised the enlargement of the Sault Ste. Marie canal. But the United States may enlarge their canals and improve their shipping facilities, but it will be all of no avail. They cannot keep the trade of these states within their own boundaries because they are working against nature. Hudson bay is the natural outlet of the European market to the whole northwest portion of this continent, and just as soon as this route is opened up the large export trade of Minnesota, Dakota and Montana will go through Hudson bay.
I want to give a short history of the legislation which has been going on in connection with the building of the Hudson bay railway. The first measure for provincial aid was introduced by the late Mr. Nor-quay, in 1885 in the shape of an Act pledging the province to give a bonus of one million dollars to the enterprise on the completion of the road within five years from that time. The expectation was that with such an endorsement the promotors would be enabled to float their scheme on the English money market, but they failed, and in the season of 1886 sought from the province a more liberal bonus in the shape of a guarantee of interest on the bonds of the company to the extent of four and a half millions of dollars for twenty-five years at the rate of 4 per cent per annum - a provincial bonus, in effect, of one hundred and eight thousand a year for twenty-five years.
Mr. Norquay appeared unwilling at first to grant this measure and he proposed the appointment of a committee to inquire into the matter, a proposition which was met by a motion on the part of Messrs. Thomas Greenway and Joseph Martin to ask the House to vote the guarantee applied for.

This Mr. Norquay allowed and the Act of 1885 was passed authorizing the government to give such a guarantee for twenty-five years on the completion of the road. Again the promoters of the road were unable to float their scheme on the financial market and in 1887 they once more sought to extend this guarantee.
As before Mr. Norquay hesitated and was unwilling to go as far as his opponents in meeting the demands of the promoters, but a decided declaration of the intention of Messrs. Greenway and Martin to go further than this brought the premier once more to time and the Act of 1887 was passed authorizing the guarantee of four and a half millions of dollars to be given but on more liberal terms than those of the Act of 1887. The scheme was taken up in the succeeding year by Messrs. Onderdonk & Ross, the well known railway contractors, and they proposed to proceed at once with the enterprise. It was at this stage that the new Greenway government declared its unwillingness to give the guarantee authorized by the Act notwithstanding the premier's pledge when in opposition. The ministers rested their objections largely on the view that while the province had, for the sake of procuring a line of railway to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway proposed to give a bonus equal to $180,000 a year for twenty-five years, it had since that time in the shape of aid granted the Northern Pacific and Manitoba Road, pledging its credit for about $80,000. In return for which it had secured competition.
For that reason the government contended that the government could not now afford or be expected to give more than $100,000 a year at the most to the Hudson Bay Railway, that being the interest at 4 per cent on two million five hundred thousand dollars. Although the promoters state they had obtained means in London to go on with the road if their terms were accepted their negotiations evidently came to nothing.
The Aid Act of 1887 was repealed. However, in 1899, a resolution was passed by the House on motion of Mr. Greenway offering aid to the road to the extent of $2,000 a mile within the province, not exceeding 300 miles; in other words offering at this time aid to the extent of $600,000 to the enterprise. In 1890 the government introduced a Bill which was passed authorizing aid to the extent of $3,000 per mile for 250 miles of line equal to $750,000. Neither of these propositions, however, seems to have been of much service in floating the scheme.
During the season of 1891 another Act was passed not simply containing an offer of assistance but undertaking on the part of the province by formal contract to grant a bonus for one and a half millions of dollars to the company on the completion of the road within five years.
201 i
It came to be generally considered that the necessary means could hardly be raised in the English or foreign markets without an additional bonus from the Dominion government. The hopes of the people in this direction were all greatly encouraged, however, by the scheme of financial aid to the company introduced and carried by the Dominion government in the 1891 session of the federal parliament.
The general opinion throughout the province at that time was that a complete railway to Hudson bay was practically secured. In reality the assistance pledged was not very great, no sum was absolutely granted by way of bonus and the proposed railway was only to extend so far as Saskatchewan. The aid pledged by the Dominion government was simply an undertaking in advance that the government for public service would pay the company a certain specific yearly sum for a definite number of years after the road should have been built. The sum announced was $80,000 a year and it was to be given for twenty years.
The value of this promise in advance was the help it might be to the promoters in raising money to build the road. None of these schemes or legislative enactments has so far come to anything. Now, I have taken up far more time than I expected but I could not very well have taken up very much less and done justice to the subject I could speak for another hour if I wanted to. I quite understand that our eastern friends do not like to hear very much about the Hudson bay route. My good friend on the other side said that he was sad and sorry because my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) had not put something in his platform in connection with the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. He has had this motion on the notice paper for four or five months, and I suppose he has been waiting to see what policy his government would adopt in connection with this question. After waiting for all that time he concluded to introduce his motion advocating the building of this railway. I tell the government from the bottom of my heart that the very best enterprise in the interest of Canada in which they could engage is to take hold, and at once, of the building of this road, and I tell the government further that if they want to have the honour of building this road they had better get busy because after the next election my hon. friend the leader of the opposition will be most decidedly the man to build the road. Nineteen hundred and ten will be the tercentenary of the death of that great sailor Henry Hudson, who gave his name to that great inland sea and that beautiful river that flows through the state of New York to the Atlantic ocean. I "believe that by 1910, the tercentenary year of that great man we will see a railroad built to the Hudson bay, we will see the shores of the Hudson

bay peopled by prosperous communities, we will see elevators built at ports on the Hudson bay, we will see docks there, and splendid system of steam vessels carrying the products of that great country to the markets of the world. I believe in making that prophesy, I prophesy for the prosperity not only of the west, but for the east.


Mr. GEO. E. McCRANEY (Saskatchewan).: Ever since we have had an agricultural population In the west we have had a transportation problem upon our hands, and our people have been agitating for the building of a railroad to Hudson bay and the establishment of a port there from which to ship their products to European markets. When this proposal was first mooted some twenty-five or thirty years ago the conditions were then much different from what they are to-day, and at the present time we are able to discuss the question altogether in a more favourable light than we could then and with much better knowledge of the conditions. At that time our only outlet was by the Canadian Pacific Railway which was the original Canadian transcontinental line and which had few branches. To-day we have the Canadian Northern a second road across the prairies and which promises In the future to extend to the Pacific coast; we have the Grand Trunk Pacific under construction, and we have the Great Northern road which is likely to become an Important Canadian railway In the near future. Twenty five years ago the proposal to build a railway to the Hudson bay meant the building of a road from the nearest point at which there was railway communication, namely from Winnipeg to Fort Churchill which is the best harbour on the Hudson bay, by way of Erwood and Le Pas, a distance of 945 miles. To-day in discussing the scheme, we reduce that distance by one-half and there remains to be constructed only a railway from Le Pas, 474 miles to the Hudson bay. In addition to having a much shorter route, we have a considerable fund of information with regard to Hudson bay and the country through which the railway would pass, and which was not available at that time. My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has mentioned the expedition of Commander (Jordon in 18S4 and 1885, of Commander Wakeham in 1897, and I will include the expedition of Mr. A. P. Low in the ' Neptune ' of 1904 and 1905, and the later expedition of Captain Bernier in the ' Arctic,' all of which go to prove that the Hudson straits are open for at least three and a half months In the year. From the figures which my hon. friend from Souris has given it Is quite evident- that this would be probably the shortest period of open navigation in any one year, and that) there are many years in which the navigation period would be* much longer. The Information we have now at hand has also established that Fort Churchill is one of the best and safest harbours on the north Ameri-Mr. SCHAFFNER.
can continent. In addition to our information gathered in this way with respect to Hudson bay and straits we have also information acquired by railway surveyors who have gone through the country, and the valuable data obtained by the staff of our own Geological Survey. These reports all tend to show that there are natural resources to be found in that country which would of themselves justify the building of a railroad there, without any reference whatever to the solution of the transportation problem. There are great quantities of timber and pulp wood in the country, the rivers and lakes abound in commercial fish and there are signs of minerals which would justify the hope that considerable mineral development will take place, and there are also very considerable quantities of land which is fit for agriculture. Before the Agricultural Committee the other day Mr. Mclnnes, of the Geological Survey staff, told us of a clay belt through which the proposed Hudson bay line would pass. He said it was evidently in the bed of a glacial lake, situated in the neighbourhood of the Burntwood river and has an area of some 10,000 square miles. There is a larger view also in this question, not only with reference to the country which is in the immediate proximity to the proposed route of the railway, but we are getting more information all the time as to the available lands of the Northwest. In a speech delivered by the Hon. R. P. Roblin last summer he estimated that there were 180,000,000 acres of agricultural land in the west from which he believed that in a very short time at least 1,000,000,000 bushels of wheat would be produced. From statements made in this House by the Minister of the Interior last session, and recently before a committee of the Senate, there is every reason to believe that such an estimate is quite conservative. The Minister of the Interior told us that south of latitude 52 in Manitoba and of latitude 55 in Saskatchewan and Alberta there were lands available to the extent of 175,000,000 acres. Before the Senate committee, Mr. Bredin, a member of the Alberta legislature made a statement that north of latitude 55 in the province of Alberta there were available about 100,000,000 acres for agricultural purposes, and Mr. Conroy a member of the staff of the Department of the Interior, though he does not commit himself to figures says, that he believes that there is north of the 55th parallel of latitude a quantity of agricultural land which is equal in extent to the agricultural land west of Winnipeg. The other day in the Committee on Agriculture we had the evidence of Mr. R. E. Young, that there was under crop last year 8,600,000 acres of land of which 5,000,000 acres were in wheat and which produced approximately 100,000,000 bushels. So that when we consider the vast amount of land which is available and

the very small proportion which is now under cultivation, it is no stretch of the imagination to see that there will be in the future a volume of production which to-day we can hardly estimate. Immigration is coming into the country; we want to bring in the agricultural people as fast as we can, and the larger the number who come, the more productive will our country be.
Ever since there has been any considerable immigration into the west there have been great blockades, and the call of the western provinces is for more railroads. But while our call is for more roads to relieve the present situation, the roads which we are getting are colonization roads ; and while to some extent they may relieve the congestion of traffic, they are themselves contributing to settle up the country for probably fifty miles on each side. I think the conclusion must be that until our lands are all settled we shall always have the transportation question on our hands, and grain blockades will take place every year. These considerations make us feel that we must not only increase the handling power of our present roads, but provide new outlets. Consequently our people have been looking to the Hudson Bay route. One objection put forward has been that if we make use of Hudson bay, which is open for a period of only four or five months of the year, there will have to be a great amount of grain kept in store for a considerable period eacli year. To one who has had any experience of western conditions the fact that grain must remain in store for five, or six or seven months of the year is not a formidable objection. Most of the crop of 1906, which was a very large one, was marketed in my own town in May, 1907. It would be no hardship to our farmers to have to wait a month or two longer, and perhaps the increased facilities would relieve them so that they might secure a better price for the portion of the crop shipped by way of Lake Superior. No question has been more agitated by the people of the prairie provinces than the Hudson Bay route, because they look to it as a means of shipping out their grain and their cattle. We think that the building of the road would be justified not only on transportation grounds, but in the results which it would produce in the settlement of the country immediately adjoining the road and also in developing and attracting attention to our northern country. We feel that this is a most opportune time to bring the matter to the attention of the government, because, while there may be some differences of opinion as to how the road should be constructed, we are in a position at least to discuss the question as to whether the road should or should not be built out of lands in the west now owned by the Dominion government. I beg to move in amendment to the motion that you do now leave the chair:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following be substituted therefor : In the opinion of this House the government should, on account of the rapid development of western Canada and the continued inadequacy of existing transportation facilities, take early action towards the construction of a railway to Fort Churchill on Hudson bay.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy (Calgary). Mr. Speaker, it is not very surprising to me to find another resolution introduced by one of the Liberal members from the west in regard to the Hudson Bay question, a question that has been before the House for many years, and before the government almost every year since they came into power.
I venture to say that if the pages of ' Hansard ' containing the speeches that have been made by bon. gentlemen opposite on the Hudson Bay question were taken, they would almost reach from the Pas to Fort Churchill. If bon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House are really sincere in their professed desire to have this road built, it , appears to me that they should bring pressure to bear on the present administration. The road is not going to be built by men coming down here year after year and introducing motions and having them discussed in this House, and letting the matter end at that. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) who first spoke on this question this afternoon, criticised the bon. leader of the opposition for not having put in his Halifax platform an article dealing with this great question. This question was discussed somewhat last session, and we had hon. gentlemen getting up and bowing their acknowledgments ro the hon. gentleman who has made the motion this afternoon, indicating that some speedy action would be taken by the government in the matter. The reason for the delay apparently is that there is not unanimity of opinion on the other side of the House as to which is the proper outlet for the prairie products. Last session there appeared on the Order Paper a notice of motion by the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles), and side by side with it another by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). and I propose to put these notices of motion in ' Hansard.' The first was as follows:
Mr. Knowles-Proposed resolution-That in the opinion of this House the interests of the Dominion of Canada urgently require that every possible effort be made by the government to effect some suitable arrangemnt for the speedy construction of a railway to the shores of Hudson bay.
Practically the same as the motion brought up to-day by the hon. member for West Assiniboia: the only difference is that the motion of to-day mentions Fort Churchill as the desirable port. The notice of motion of the hon. member for Vancouver was as follows :

Mr. Macpherspn-Proposed resolution-That in the opinion of this House it is advisable for the Canadian government to take active steps towards the establishing of terminal elevators at the port of Vancouver, for the better handling of the grain crops of Alberta and other western provinces, whose natural outlet is the Pacific coast. '
So it is quite apparent that there is not unanimity of opinion amongst hon. gentlemen opposite as to which is the natural outlet for prairie products. Nor is there probably unanimity of opinion in the country on this subject. But in rising to speak to the amendment, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I am in favour of the government undertaking this work with the least possible delay. X have listened to the reasons advanced for and against the construction of the road to Hudson bay. Those in its favour appeal to me, and I propose to support the project to the best of my ability, believing that in so doing I represent the views of the majority of my constituents. If there were no other reasons in its favour, I would support it for this one. This road would furnish a safety valve at a time when there is apt to be congestion of freight and when there is great delay and difficulty in moving our crop. It would thus relieve any hardship suffered by the people in the west who desire to get their grain to market as speedily as possible. One of the reasons I have heard urged against the building of this road is that we have a short haul to Fort William which suits the greater part of the territories, and another argument used is that we should rather look to opening a market in the orient. It is claimed that in Vancouver we have a port which is open 365 days in the year, and which is frequented by tramp steamers, and that those tramp steamers keep down the freight rates. And it is further argued that none of this class of steamers can go to Hudson bay, because that bay has to be navigated by boats specially built for that purpose. But the great reason which appeals to me in favour of this project is that it would save a haul of about 1,500 miles from the majority of places from which grain is shipped in the prairie section and that it would also relieve the congestion of freight at a time when it is most desirable we should have speedy shipment. There is also this argument in its favour that it would be a much more suitable route both for cattle and grain. But while I am in favour of the construction of this road, I am not In favour of the wording of the amendment to the motion to go into Supply. I think that this notice of motion should rather censure the government for its delay. Although my hon. friend from West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) went as close as he safely could to censuring the government, the only fault he had to find was that the present railway Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
facilities are not adequate. If he had followed out the history of this question a little closer, he would have found ample justification for censuring the government because the fact stands out perfectly clear that the government have taken hold of the land grant set aside for the construction of a railway to Hudson bay and given it for the construction of railways which for the most part go away from the bay. They have permitted railway companies to duplicate their lines and have given them out of this land grant subsidies for the construction of railways in very erratic courses and in many instances running in an opposite direction to Hudson bay. For ahat reason I think the government are deserving of censure. They are deserving of censure for what I might term their wilful waste of aid to railways by giving them land grants which were intended to aid in the building of a road to Hudson bay. At the same time I wish to point out that I am not objecting to the aid granted these railways, as they were no doubt built in sections of the country which require railway construction, but what I want to note particularly is that hon. members opposite claim that the Laurier administration have never granted an acre of land in aid of railways, whereas they have on the contrary given large grants but have tried to conceal these grants behind an old Hudson bay charter. Just trace back this question of the construction of a railway to Hudson bay. Some years ago we find that a charter was given to the Winnipeg and Great Northern Railway Company and that company was given the choice of two routes to Hudson bay, either of which it could select. One of these routes ran east of Lake Manitoba and the other ran west of Lake Manitoba to Lake Dauphin. Both joined at Waterhorn lake and then proceeded northerly to Grand Rapids.
The original line of this railway is laid out in a report of the Committee of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency on the 8th April, 1882. Here is the line of location as described in this order in council :
The chief engineer of railways reports that the line of location, as marked out, starts from the city of Winnipeg,* thence northerly to the east of Shoal lake, thence crossing the narrows between Lake Manitoba and Lake St. Martin, thence to the outlet of Cedar lake at the Grand rapids, thence following the shore of Lake Winnipeg, crossing Ross island, a short distance above Play Gren lake and Sea falls, thence following the general direction of the shore of Lake Winnipegosis to beyond the falls, thence in a direct line to its terminus on the Nelson river, a short distance below the Limestone falls.
That was the line originally intended. A short time after that the Winnipeg and Great Northern got the choice of two lines.

Some years after a land grant was given to the Hudson Bay Railway. That company was to obtain 6,400 acres per mile in Manitoba and 12,800 acres per mile in the territories. All these lines became finally a part of the Canadian Northern. I have tried to trace out what has been done with that laud grant since the date of that order in council in April, 1882.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: When you left the chair, Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to point out how the present administration had exhausted the land grant originally set aside for the construction of a railway to Hudson bay and had applied that land grant, in many instances, to branch lines running in a direction away from Hudson bay . I was also proceeding to trace the history of some of the old charters authorizing the construction of this Hudson bay road. There was first the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway Company. Then there was a charter to the Nelson Valley Railway and Transportation Company. These two charters, some years after, were merged. Later on, the company was known as tne Winnipeg and Great Northern T?nil-way Company. This road, as I pointed out before you left the chair, had two alternative routes. One runs east of Lake Manitoba, the other west of Lake Manitoba, touching Lake Dauphin. Both join at Waterhern lake and then go north to Grand Rapids. There was also the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company. Their charter, as I understand it, provides for the construction of a line from Portage la Prairie or Gladstone to a point on the Saskatchewan river. All these charters have come into the possession of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and, in the discussion of the matter they can all be treated as belonging to that company. What X suggested before you left the chair was that the government has simply been playing with this question. The question has been* before them every year since 1896, as a perusal of the orders in council will show. Applications have been made to them to extend land grants, to extend the time of construction, or to extend the time within which the companies would be entitled to land grants set aside for the construction of the railway. They have not shown in this matter the haste which they have displayed in other matters. Only a couple of years ago the Grand Trunk Pacific was being mooted. An agitation was created in that country with the idea of persuading the people that there must be increased transportation facilities. Time, the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) told us, would not wait. ' Heaven grant that it may not be too late,' he said. But in connection with this matter of the Hudson bay road, he has not shown the same activity that he exercised in order to have the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific undertaken and gone ahead without delay.
Mr. SPROUT,E. It was Cox who could not wait.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. An hon. gentleman remarks that Senator Cox could not wait. It may, be of assistance to hon. members from the west to point out that Senator Cox is greatly interested in that western country, having extensive investments there. Possibly, if they could secure his influence to hurry on the building of this road, it might be of some assistance.
I also criticised the government, suggesting that they are not only responsible for the delay but also for wilfully wasting the aid in the handling of the grants, that is assuming that the object in view was a road to Hudson bay. I repeat that the government have practically exhausted the land grant set aside for this purpose, anl that they have applied it to branch line* running towards Prince Albert, or in many cases to lines in a direction away from Hudson bay. Not only have they done that, but they have permitted these branch lines to take a very erratic course. If any person interested will look at the map, one moment will be enough to satisfy him that, if the land grant is being applied, it is not being applied to construct a railway to Hudson bay, and that to call this a grant for a railway to Hudson bay is simply a misnomer. The location of the line shows that there are a great many subsidy curves, if I may so call them. If you look back into the order in council, you find these people who had the right to construct a railway under these charters are entitled to a land grant of 6,480 acres a mile in Manitoba and 12,S00 acres a mile in the Northwest. If you figure out the value of that grant on the basis of a reasonable figure per acre, say $6 per acre net at the time the road was constructed, you will realize the significance of the term ' subsidy curves,' and he able to see the reason of the erratic course the road pursues and realize why it is that it wobbles over the country in this way. Now, to be more specific, looking at the map for a moment-not at the map in the Canadian Northern folder, because the line of railway indicated on that map is a line that goes almost as the crow flies. There may be a jog of thirty miles to the west and another of forty-seven miles to the west, but one look at the line in the folder would infer that the line goes practically straight. But look at the map issued by the government and you will observe the jogs in the line and can follow the er-

ratic course of the location of the line throughout. To show the House just what these people have got for the construction of the different branches under these Him son bay charters, X want to refer for a moment to an extract from the report of the Gommittee of the Privy Council, approved of August 10, 1903 :
The order in council continues :
The minister further states that the chief engineer of government railways reports that the mileage of the Canadian Northern Railway Company constructed and placed in running order is :
From Beaver to Gladstone, 18-37 miles.
From Gladstone to Winnipegosis, 124 75 miles.
From Sifton Junction to Mafeking, 125 miles.
From Mafeking to the provincial boundary, 28 -33 miles, all in Manitoba.
And from the provincial boundary to Erwood in the Northwest Territories 22 -16 miles, which entitles the company to a total land grant of 2,180,928 acres for the construction of 320 miles of railway.
We have often heard in this House, we read it in the subsidized organs of the Liberal party and in their campaign literature, and we hear from their speakers on the platform, that the present, administration have never given away an acre of land to aid in the construction of a railway. I have just pointed to one instance where 2,180,920 acres of laud were granted for the construction of this railway between the points I have mentioned.
If any persou will look at the map and observe the locality where this line of- railway is constructed and point out to me wherein it is a railway being built to connect with Hudson bay, I would toe very glad to be enlightened on that point. No person could seriously take that position. The present administration were under absolutely no obligation to revive these land grants if they did not want to do so, and they cannot say that they have never given an aci'e of land to aid in the construction of railways, by trying to hide behind the fence of an old Hudson bay charter. For the construction of 320 miles of railway from Gladstone to Erwood, they have received this immense land grant but at Erwood you are not closer to the Hudson bay by more than 350 miles than you are at Gladstone. That would indicate that the ' subsidy curves' or the jogs in the line enabled the company to get a land grant on 370 miles of railway which was an utter waste of aid in so far as connecting with Hudson bay is concerned. On this 170. miles they received a land grant of 32,800 acres per mile for 221 miles, and 6,400 acres a mile for 147* miles, or a total of 1,229,824 acres of land over and above what was required if the object of the railway was to get to Hudson bay. If the Pas was the objective point why should not the line have gone from Sifton Junction to the Pas direct? I am given to understand by peo-Mr. m. s. McCarthy.
pie who are familiar with the locality that there are no physical features to prevent that. I am not opposed to aiding the construction of railways in these localities, out I wish to point out the hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite when they claim that they have never given away an acre of land to assist in the construction of railways. From Sifton Junction to Winnipegosis there is a little branch line 21 miles in length which surely could not be said to have been aided in order to get to Hudson bay. If they were going to Hudson bay in that direction it was not necessary to give a land grant from Sifton Junction to Erwood and from Sifton Junction to Winnipegosis as it is simply duplicating the line, you have a fork, one line running from Sifton Junction to Winnipegosis for 23 miles and the other from Sifton Junction in a northwesterly direction. If the object was to get to Hudson bay, why was it necessary to swing west in township 35 for 30* miles from Cowan to Swan River, and why was it necessary to swing west again from Baden to Erwood for 42 miles? I am not opposed to aiding these lines, but do they run towards Hudson bay? The answer is simply that when people are getting a land grant of 12,800 acres per mile for some parts of their road, an erratic course pays.


Mr. BURROWS.: The reason they ran that line was to avoid the mountain In both places, first the Duck mountain and then the Porcupine mountain. There was no possibility of running the railway over the mountains.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to answer me. I am told by people in the locality that there is no reason why the road should not have run from Sifton Junction to the Pas, but it would seem as if the company looked the country over in order to find mountains to get an excuse to run around them, and get 32,800 acres of land per mile.
I might point to another ' subsidy curve.' The Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company so far as I have been able to trace their rights when they obtained their charter, were to run a line from Portage la Prairie or from Gladstone to a point on the Saskatchewan river, but I find from the orders in council and memorandum which I have read that a portion of this land grant is applied for the construction of the line from Gladstone to Beaver, about 18 miles of railway running in a southeasterly direction from Gladstone. If any one will figure up this waste of mileage, taking as I have said a land grant of 12,800 acres a mile, and place on it a valuation of $6 per acre, which I take to be a moderate estimate, it will be seen what an enormous amount these people were getting for the construction of these branch lines, in some cases $78,000 per mile if the land netted $6 per acre. When this land grant was origi-
APEIL 7i 1908
nally given, there were certain . limitations on the area out of which they were entitled to select, but when the present administration came into power they allowed them to extend this area and they chose their lands all over Saskatchewan, right up to the 4th meridian. They are selecting lands to satisfy these old grants north of Swift Current and they have not selected 9 per cent of the lauds out of the area originally set aside for selection. It is difficult to understand how this influential corporation can come down and secure an extension of the time within which they should construct these railways, and have the areas of the lands from which they can select enlarged running their line wherever they see fit, selecting lands at their own sweet will. It will be seen that they have received from the present administration as favourable treatment as any company ever got in this country and it does not lie in the mouths of lion, gentlemen opposite to say that the present administration has not given away one acre of land to assist in the construction of railways in the west. If you will take the figures mentioned in the order in council it will be found that from Sifton Junction to Erwood 1,300,000 acres of land have been given to this company for the purpose of assisting in the construction of that part of the road-I say 'assisting': it would more than pay for the whole construction. In connection with the -question which was raised by the hon. member for West Assini-boia that no laud has been given away, let me point out to him that if he would read through the orders in council he would find that there is hardly a year during the last ten years in which the time for the construction of the road, or the earning of the land grant lias not been extended. For example. let me read the following :
Extract from a report of the committee of the hon. the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency on the 19th October, 1899.
The minister further states that the Canadian Northern Railway Company has applied to him for an extension of time for the completion of its lines of railway, for the purposes of its land grant, the period for the completion of such lines, for that purpose, having onlv been extended until the -31st December, 1899, by the order in council of 22nd October, 1898.
The minister therefore recommends that the time fixed by the order in council of 22nd October, 1898, for the completion of the lines of railway hereinbefore referred to be extended to the 10th July, 1904.
Again, on the 20th February, 1900, the following order in council was passed :
The minister, therefore, recommends that as the time for the completion of the company's lines of railway north of the Saskatchewan river was extended by the Act. chanter 57 of the statutes of 1899, 62-63 Victoria, to the 10th July, 1906, the time fixed for the completion of such lines for the purposes of the company's land grant therefor, as provided by the orders in council hereinbefore referred to including the order of the 22nd October, 1898, be extended to the 10th July, 1906. This order in council also shifts the line westerly to the Swan river district.
And so, all the way down the line. That is not the treatment which has been meted out to other holders of charters in the country. I remember that about three years ago an application was made by the Red Deer Valley Company for an extension of time. They also wanted to have the time in which they could construct their road extended and also the privilege of taking advantage of the land grant. That was not conceded to them. They apparently had not the influence with the present administration to secure the same consideration that the Canadian Northern have had for the last eight or nine years. The hon. member for West Assiniboia said that he was opposed to the scheme suggested by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that it would tie up so many acres of land in the country. He said that the curse of the country had been so many acres of land had been tied up from time to time and that It was depriving the people of the opportunity of having proper schools and, of course, as he usually does, he blamed all this on the Conservative administration and on the Canadian Pacific Railway. Let me point out to him that since his friends have come into power there have been no less than 8,750.000 acres of land set apart out of which this company were to make their selection, and that the privilege has been extended from time to time during a great many years. In conclusion, I repeat what I have said that the whole history of this case shows that the government have only been playing with this question and that instead of this land grant having been used for the purpose of establishing railway conection with Hudson bay the orders in council show that the government have been guilty of wilful waste of the aid in connection with this whole matter.
Mr, E. Jj. CASH (Mackenzie). Mr. Speaker. in undertaking to take part in this debate, I must confess that I do it with a great deal of diffidence, because I realize probably * as fully as any person the importance of what we are undertaking, and the serious consequences that may result if we fail to properly impress not alone this House and the government, but the people of the Dominion as to the necessity, the feasibility, and the advantages to he derived from this undertaking, not alone for the western provinces, but for the whole of the Dominion.
I shall, therefore, undertake to describe as nearly as possible the condition of the agri-cblturists in Saskatchewan, and as they are there, so they are in the other western provinces. and I feel that if I can do this properly. and can then show the feasibility and the advantages to be derived from this proposition, there would not be one member in this House who would oppose our proposi-

tion as such, whatever differences might exist as to the means of its accomplishment.
For instance, I personally believe that the government should undertake this as a national project, and that It might not prove a burden to this country, there is plenty of land in the west on which the scheme could be financed. They should build a line from the main line of the Canadian Northern to Churchill, and this should be built with the idea that it would eventually be double tracked. By making provision for double tracking this line at the time of construction great expense might be saved as soon as it became necessary to put in the extra track, as I can assure you it will not be many years before this will be absolutely necessary. Extensive terminal facilities at both ends of the line, prepared to take cars from all roads and carry them to their destination and return, large storage facilities at Churchill in the shape of elevators and so forth, a line of suitable boats from Churchill to Liverpool, and extensive elevators in Liverpool, would best serve the interests of that part of the country which we are endeavouring to promote.
X, however, am willing to support any feasible measure which has for its object, the building of this line, whether it be by the government or by a private corporation for the route is the one essential thing, and of much greater importance than the manner of its construction.
There is no question in the mind of any thinking man in this Dominion as to the importance of agriculture. It is the foundation of our whole prosperity and, I might almost say, of our existence, and by doing what we can to strengthen this foundation, we thereby are enabled not alone to raise a larger, but a safer superstructure. If we are to become the great nation which we aspire to become, it is well that our foundation be well laid, and in this way we will avoid many of the disasters which have overtaken nations, causing them in time of distress or financial difficulties to topple, and, in some instances, to fall, because their foundation was not broad enough and based upon the earth, from which all our riches primarily come.
The agriculturists in Saskatchewan have not the diversified means of prospering that farmers have in Ontario and the States. They are consumers of tomatoes, and not producers on which there is an extravagant protection. They are consumers of tobacco and not producers, and so I could go on and mention quite a number of other protected products for which our people pay extravagant prices, and, I am pleased to say, usually without a murmur. But they produce staple farm products, such as wheat, oats, barley, flax and so forth, and raise horses, cattle, sheep and hogs, and bitterly complain about having to produce grain which has to compete with all comers in the mar-Mr. CASH.
ket of the world by the use of machinery upon which they have to pay a tariff.
I do not imagine that there is one member in the House who does not appreciate what the importance and value of the development of the west is to the whole Dominion, to the manufacturers of the east, ts the fruit growers of the east, to the carrying trade, new boats on the lakes, new lines of railways ; all these can trace their prosperity, and, in a great many instances, their origin, entirely to the development of the west, and I think that this is the place where we should pause for a moment to say, without any political bias, that this, in a large measure, has been brought about by the wise and energetic immigration policy inaugurated and carried out by the present government.
Now, we, who live in the west, know that even with the utmost straining and most earnest endeavour on the part of the railway companies, that they are not able to take care of in reasonable time, the freight which is offered them by our people which was plainly demonstrated in the fall of 1906 when there was such a demand for more cars from nearly all parts of the west. In my own town of Yorkton, there were over 250 names waiting at one time upon the car order list at the station waiting for their turn to be supplied with cars which they had ordered, and the elevators all filled to the roof. To illustrate the growth that has taken place in the west I would call the attention of the House to the district I represent. I took up my residence there in 1897, and until 1901, I think I am safe in saying that it was emphatically a ranching country. About that time, or shortly after, we began to raise grain-the country began to fill up, and while, prior to the time mentioned, we had no grain to ship out, yet, in the season of 1906, we raised :
Grain.	Bushels.	Acres.Wheat.;	
2,M3,223	81,357Oats	
4,316,731	97,500Barley	
224,847	8,264
Area under cultivation 275,000 acres ' estimated/
Elevator capacity 931,000 bushels.
Shipments of cattle 2,361.
I refer to those things in order to give hon. gentlemen some idea of the progress that has taken place during the last few years. The following extract from the Toronto ' Globe ' of April 15 of last year, written by their special correspondent from Regina, will show the area under cultivation :
Regina, April 15.-While the farmers are waiting for opportunities to scatter the seed for the crop of 1907 the probable extensions of the grain growing area are receiving consideration. The mathematicians who make calcu-

lations in Winnipeg have usually considered that an increase of 10 per cent in the acreage under wheat was sufficient as an average for the whole west, hut this will not do for Saskatchewan. The total under wheat in Saskatchewan in 1906, according to the figures of the Department of Agriculture, was 1,730,586 acres, as compared with 1,130,084 in 1905, an increase of 53.10 per cent. The total under all crops was 2,501,247 acres, as compared with 1,639,563 in 1905, an increase of .56 per cent. These large increases are sufficient in themselves to show the rapid development of the grain-producing industry, and the record which is constituted by them is difficult to maintain. For instance, another increase of -53 per cent in the acreage under wheat would bring the total in this province to over 2,600,000, and the amount looks very large at this writing. It will probably look normal six months hence, and there are those who say that it may even be exceeded.
I have here an extract from the Department of Agriculture's Report on the grain crops of Saskatchewan for the year 1907 which shows that there were in 1907 produced in the province :
Grain.	Bushels.	Acreage.Wheat	
28,042,106	1,847,708Oats	
29,167,964	772,770Barley	
1,903,072	60,261Flax	
921,043	85,209Total	
60,034,185	2,765,948
There was also shipped out of Saskatchewan :
Cattle	 27,271
Horses	 3,499
Sheep	 15,929
Hogs	 4,716
This Is a very good showing, when the climatic conditions which prevailed over such a large area of our province are taken into consideration. There was a much larger area prepared for crop, some of which was not put in, and thousands of acres that were not cut, and a great deal that was cut was not threshed.
I bring these things to the attention of the House that you may have some Idea of the progress that we are making. I may also refer to the report of the Department of Trade and Commerce which establishes what I have already stated, that similar progress is being made in Manitoba and Alberta as I claim for Saskatchewan. These are the figures :
government a better condition of affairs as regards transportation. We have all heard of the great railway tie-up we had in 1906, I will read a couple of letters that will emphasize this matter and will then undertake by railway statistics to show that we are liable to be up against a similar condition at any time when the crop in the west is of ordinary proportions to the amount of land under cultivation. I do not wish to find undue fault with any railway company for I realize they are making an effort to supply the country with reasonable facilities for the transportation of grain, but I wish to emphasize that notwithstanding their efforts thev have been unable to cope with the situation and they certainly will not be able to if the country continues to progress as it has in the past. I shall read the following letters, most of which I received last year, bearing on this question :
Rokeby, Saskatchewan, February 23, 1907. E. L. Cash, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Iu reply to your favour of 19th instant, I may say that the amount of grain at Rokeby is as follows (grown 1906):
Bushels.
Amount sold up to February 1, 1907.. 210,000
Amount in farmers' hands	 190,000
Amount shipped up to above date.. 130,000
Amount yet to ship out	 270,000
Total amount for Rokeby market.. .. 400,000
Increase over last season	 100,000
Yours truly,



[Stage Direction]
Mr. Black has charge of the Northern elevator at Rokeby. This is another letter sent to me :
Yorkton District Board of Trade.
Incorporated 1900.
Yorkton, Saskatchewan, March 19, 1907.
E. L. Cash, Esqj, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-Shipments of grain from Yorkton are as follows:
Bushels.
From September 1, 1906, to March
18, 1907	   951,295
In store in	elevators	 224,180
Stored in sheds and warehouses about
town	 75,000
Grain held	by	farmers	 1,000,000
Total	 2,250,475
Total grain weighed, Manitoba inspection division.
Bushels.
1906-07, 9 months	 97,041,653
1905-06	"	
130,547,9551904-05	"	
77,371,5331903-04	"	
68,645,7161902-03	*'	
39,442,575
With this growth of the trade of the country, the House will readily understand why our people are demanding from the
In addition to above there has been milled
70,000	bushels of wheat, making a total of 2,320,475 bushels of grain, the crop product of the Yorkton distriot, 35 per cent of this amount represents wheat, balance oats. A very large amount of grain has yet to be threshed. The supply of cars is very small and business is at a standstill. In regard to the Hudson bay road, the general opinion here is that the road would prove of immense advantage to this country for the timber, mineral and fish products which would be
[Stage Direction]
carried over it even if no grain could be taken out by the Hudson bav straits.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
President Board of Trade.
The Hon. Mr. Motherwell wrote to me as follows :
Executive Council, Saskatchewan,
Kegina, February 28, 1907. Dr. E. L. Cash, M.P..
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Sir,-The inclosed crop statistics and summaries of condition and amount of last season's crop yet in the farmers' hands will doubtless be of interest to you in pressing for better equipment of our present lines and the immediate construction of the Hudson Bay Railway, which questions are now before the federal House.
Yours faithfully,
W. R. MOTHERWELL, [DOT] Commissioner of Agriculture.
Crop, 19(M).	Shipped.	In Elevators.	In Farmers' Hands.28,089,475	9,874,295	6,362,190	8,135,000
To show that there is still complaint I will read the following letter received by me last month :
Peaker Brothers, grain merchants, Yorkton, Saskatchewan, March 19, 1908.
My Dear Cash,-We are getting stuck for want of cars at Rokeby. Do you think you could help us bv a timely word to the Canadian Pacific Railwav or its representatives at Ottawa ?
Yours very truly,

[Stage Direction]
This correspondence plainly shows that last year the railways at that time were certainly not supplying the needs of the country, and that there are complaints even
at present. This will be evident from the following railway statistics:
Number of freight cars in Canada-
1897	   57,754
1907	 105,540
Increase, 82 per cent.
Mileage of railway-
1897	 16,550
1907	 22,452
Increase, 35 per cent.
Tons of freight carried-
1897	 25,300,331
1907	 63,866,135
Increase, 152 per cent.
Traffic per car-
Tons.
1897	 439
1907	 605
Increase, 37 per cent.
Mr. CASH.: expeditions dispatched to investigate the possibilities of Hudson bay were possibly coloured by political consideration or the decision influenced by the vested railroad interest affected by the proposal. We, however, know that the Hudson Bay Company's boats have traversed these seas for a couple of hundred years, and I have also read in the ' Gentlemen's Magazine.' an English publication, vol. 52, page 547, of date October 29, 1782, a quotation from the Paris ' Gazette ' of an expedition to Hudson bay by a small French squadron under the command of Admiral De La Perouse. This squadron consisted of the ' Sceptre,' 74 guns, and two frigates ' L'Astree ' and * L'Enga-gente' under the command of Chevalier Langle and the Sieur Joillie, having on board a detachment of 250 land forces with two 8-in. mortars, 300 shells, and four field pieces, that they sailed from Cape Francois on May 31, 1782. and on July 17, 1782, they arrived at the mouth of the strait, that they had neither charts nor pilots, but that they entered the bay, captured Fort Prince of Wales and Fort York, which is at the mouth of Nelson's river and after looting the several forts they sailed away having captured valuables to the amount of twelve millions of livres, which would represent about five hundred thousand pounds sterling.
The fact that a vessel of this class, a sailing vessel of course, of 74 guns could go into the bay in 1782 at that time of the year, accomplish what it did, and get out safely, would convince any ordinary man that both the straits and the bays are navigable for vessels of a larger draught. It convinces me that ordinary steamboats with proper appliances could navigate those waters much earlier than the dates mentioned.
It is twenty-two years since the route was first officially examined, and the long delay in coming to a favourable conclusion affords another proof of the false perspective in which suggestions of transportation alterations are seen .
Last year several hon. gentlemen on both sides spoke favourably of this matter.
Quoting from 'Hansard.' page 901, on March 30, 1906,1 find the hon. member from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) used these words:
I do not see how any one can look at that inland sea and not come to the opinion that Providence had a very wise thing in his mind when he put Hudson bay there. It was to oarry out the products, not only of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, but also of the Northern United States.
The hon. member for East Assiniboia, as reported in ' Hansard,' page 908, March 30, 1906, expressed the hope that a railroad to Hudson bay would shortly be built and that such road would receive substantial aid from the Dominion government. The hon. member for East Assiniboia agreed with the hon. gentleman from Souris that such a railroad was a necessity, and would be a valuable Mr. CASH.
additional route for the whole of the western country.
Hon. Walter Scott in his address to the electors of Saskatchewan, in his last campaign said :
We have been obeying the direction of the Saskatchewan Liberal convention to urge the Hudson bay road project on the federal authorities, and not without success. I have now received assurance that the Dominion Government admit this project to be a national undertaking, and that they will not deny their responsibility. In other words, the Dominion Government will take measures to procure the construction of a railway from a point in Saskatchewan to the Hudson bay.
The policy of recognizing the Hudson bay route has actually received the endorsement of this government, and the people of the west have been officially informed of this fact by the gentleman who occupies the position of Premier of Saskatchewan.
Referring to this announcement as made by Hon. Mr. Scott, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) reported in ' Hansard,' page 909, March 30, 1906, said in the House that he hailed this statement by Mr. Scott with infinite deljght and that he regarded the pledge made by the .Dominion government to undertake the work as one which wouid satisfy all the people of the [DOT]west.
Dealing with the subject from a practical standpoint, one only has to quote from a speech delivered in the Senate, on March 16 last, by Hon. Mr. Perley, a practical farmer in the Northwest.
After alluding to the difficulty and loss occasioned to the wheat grower by reason of the long and expensive haul from the wheat fields to the sea, the honourable senator said :	' Freight from Wolseley, Saskatchewan to Fort William is 10 cents a bushel, from Wolseley to North Bay it is 22 cents ' ; concluding his remarks the hon. gentleman said ' export from the Atlantic sea-board by rail is entirely out of the question.'
The freight rate upon grain from the belt to Hudson bay would approximate 10 cents a bushel : this is a freight the farmer could afford to pay, but the additional 15 cents necessary to get the grain to the Atlantic sea-board is prohibitive and of itself represents a fair profit to the wheat grower.
The saving in freight to the western farmer by reason of an outlet at Hudson bay, is represented by appalling figures. Assuming an export of 20,000,000 bushels of wheat to European markets via Hudson bay, the saving at 15 cents, being about the difference in cost of freight from Winnipeg to the sea-board which would thus be obviated, amounts to no less than $3,000,000.
When one pursues these figures and calculates the legitimate measure in foreign demand for Canadian wheat, the amount saved to the western farmer who has the
/

facilities of shipping via Hudson bay reaches a colossal sum.
I contend that the people of the west, having been invited by the government of Canada to settle in and cultivate that important territory, are entitled to facilities whereby easy access to a shipping port may be secured, without being compelled to surrender a large proportion of the results of their industry in payment of freight charges for unnecessary long hauls.
Are the advantages gained through the efforts of the Immigration Department, with their accompanying vast expenditures of money to be made, nugatory by failure to appreciate a proposition that is self-evident? When one reflects upon Canada's great western heritage, with its vast natural resources, its inexhaustible vitality, its great areas, its millions of acres of grazing lands, the industrial and commercial genius of its enterprising and aggressive people, the conclusion reached cannot be that all these should go for nought, or be in any manner compelled to fall short of their greatest realization by the mere incident of neglect with respect to providing intelligent transportation.
It is a principle of political economy that legitimate demands of commerce for an outlet at the point of least resistance, cannot be long delayed, and never ultimately frustrated. If the products of the west can be brought 1,000 miles nearer a European market via Hudson bay, then that point becomes, as a matter of course, the natural outlet.
The question may be asked, are not the people of the west entitled to their natural transportation advantages? I believe they are, and I regard it as the paramount duty of the government to recognize this principle.
An outlet at Hudson bay for the products of the west will annihilate a quarter of the distance from western Canada to Europe, bring uncounted millions of acres in the wheat belt a thousand miles nearer to market, and cut in half the annual transportation cost of 50,000,000 bushels of grain.
A very important feature in connection with a railway which secures quick access to the sea is with relation to the shipping of cattle to all the European markets ; this great industry is at present seriously handicapped in consequence of the long journey to be endured under present conditions. It is admitted as a well recognized fact, that cattle shipped to the Atlantic coast arrive at the shipping port in poor condition, bruised and emaciated by long days of rail travel. It is also admitted that on the sea journey they gain rather than lose flesh, if put on board in good condition. Experience proves that after three days of rail travel cattle will deteriorate ; that three days is about the limit of the time during which they can travel and maintain the condition in which they are placed on board. This
being so, cattle could be transported to Fort Churchill without loss of flesh, and the voyage to Liverpool would improve this condition rather than the contrary. Therefore, this great industry alone would find in the Fort Churchill route a solution of the difficulty under which those engaged in the business of cattle shipping now labour.


Mr.  F. W.@: Peters, assistant freight traffic manager of the Canadian Pacific at Winnipeg, states that up to the end of October over 72,000 head of cattle had been shipped to Liverpool from western Canada, and he expected a further 10,000 head to be shipped that season. The freight rate on these cattle would be about 60 cents a hundred pounds in (far lots from Winnipeg to Montreal. The rate from Calgary to Fort Churchill would be about the same as to Winnipeg, and the distance about equal, so that this 60 cents a hundred pounds could be saved to the shippers if he could put the cattle on board at Hudson bay, and he would also prevent the shrinkage which otherwise occur, .by reason of the additional rail journey from Winnipeg to Montreal.
Upon the 82,000 head of cattle shipped to Montreal from the west during the past season, the saving in freight alone, !f6 a head, or in round figures, $650,000, would be equal to about 20 per cent of the selling price.
Now, let us for a moment consider what amount of railway service will be required to handle 50,000,000 bushels of wheat and
82,000	head of cattle, which certainly is rather under than above the present output of that country, and we are not taking into consideration the handling of coarser grains, and, in my section of the country, as I have already stated, our oat crop is more than double that of the wheat. In order to move fifty million bushels of grain it would require 50,000 cars, loaded with 1,000 bushels to the car ; and with fifteen cars to the train, it would require 3,333 trains. For eighty-two thousand head of cattle, 5,125 cars, and, figuring on fifteen cars to the train, we would have 341 train loads. And if we stop to consider that the total area surveyed in the three provinces is about one hundred and twenty million acres, that it was stated before a committee of the Senate last year that there were one hundred million acres of land suitable for settlement north of the surveyed area, and that out of this gross amount there has been selected by railway companies' and by homesteaders about thirty-six million acres, which we can state with a great degree of certainty is all arable land, and that out of this there are about eight million six hundred thousand acres under cultivation, we can see that with a continued increase in the development of the country, which I think will be more rapid in the future than it has been in the past, it will be utterly impossible for any three railways to handle

the grain and the products of that country. Therefore, I think that this parliament and this government are in duty bound to give the question their immediate and most earnest attention.	[DOT]
A revolution in traffic routes through Canada is bound to come, and the objective point for the west, is without doubt, Hudson bay. The citizens of Canada have not realized the transportation advantages of their country in the extraordinary rapidity with which they are being developed ; but the people of the west, those more nearly affected and most directly interested and having a knowledge of the conditions are clamouring for the immediate building of the Hudson bay route, because it will eliminate a long rail haul and save rehandling of freight.
Instead of this prejudicing existing transcontinental routes, I think they will be vastly benefited by the opening of the Hudson Bay route and by the improvement of the river and lake waterways of Canada. The possibility of direct communication with Europe through, the very centre of the American continent and at a saving of a thousand miles over the route through the great lakes, affords the greatest opportunity of all times to bring Western Canada a thousand miles nearer Europe and to place the farmers who cultivate millions of acres of land in control of the grain markets of the world, by making possible a fifty per cent reduction in the cost of transportation.


Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Speaker, considering the great fund of information which those who have addressed tht House have afforded hon. members on this important question, it is not with any idea that I can add anything of a very original character to the debate that I rise to address the House. I wish to take exception to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) reflecting, as he did in his opening remarks, on the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) for wishing to introduce on going* into Supply his resolution referring to the immigration question, or' which he gave notice some days ago. The hon. member for West Assiniboia claimed that this question paled into insignificance in comparison with the question of a railway line to Hudson bay which, he said, was a question of extreme urgency. I could not help thinking that, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) was sincere in making that statement, he did not by his actions show that he was any too urgent in bringing this question before the House. When I turn to the notice of his resolution on the order paper I find that it was given on December 8, 1907-just four months ago. The hon. gentleman waited until the last private member's day, then had the resolution dropped, and, to-day. he arises and introduces what I thought was going to be a Mr; CASH.
merely academic discussion. So far as the hon. gentleman was concerned, it certainly looked as if it would be no more than that, for he sat down without even moving his resolution. It seems to have been an after thought on the part of his colleagues to have another hon. gentleman from the Northwest move the-resolution of which the hon. member for West Assiniboia gave notice four months ago.
We must admit that this is a question of very great importance, more especially to the people of western Canada, but of importance as well to the people of Canada generally. For some years this question of a line to Hudson bay has been engaging the attention of the people of the west especially. The provincial government of Manitoba had taken steps many years ago, by way of statute in the form of money grants and guarantee of bonds, to ensure the completion of that road. Boards of trade, Farmers' Institutes, Grain Growers' Associations, have all passed resolutions in favour of the enterprise. And, in spite of many difficulties and many disappointments, the people's hopes have been many times buoyed up by indications that the road would soon be an accomplished fact. Rumours have been rife on more than one occasion that capitalists from Europe were ready to invest money in the enterprise, that steamship companies were about to place a line of properly constructed vessels on the route to carry our products across the Atlantic by the best and shortest route to the markets of the world. Those hopes have been, on every occasion, disappointed. But, in spite of disappointments, the people cling tenaciously to the belief in the enterprise, its practicability and its necessity. If the propaganda in favour of this enterprise has not been carried on during the past decade with the extreme vigour which characterized it some time before, it is not because the people believe that it is not necessary, nor is it that they are not in favour of it. The change is simply due to the fact that, during that time, our transportation facilities have very largely extended in other directions, and have, to a certain extent, relieved the grievances of the people during the past ten years. For instance, in days gone by, the Canadian Pacific Railway had practically a monopoly of the carrying trade in that country. That company was not better probably, and no worse certainly, than any other corporation similarly situated in a new country. However, the people felt that they were paying such high freight rates that they set up an agitation for what they believed would be the shortest route to market and one that would save a great deal in freight rates and make fanning operations more profitable. However, in the meantime the Canadian Pacific Railway has largely ex-


tended its system. Let any lion, member take up the map of Manitoba and he will see that It is a network of railways. Farmers in' that country have to carry their grain a comparatively short distance to the nearest market. Railway development has been so wonderful during these years by reason of provincial assistance, and Dominion assistance as well that now every farmer has a railway within a few miles of his door. The Canadian Northern Railway has an almost equal mileage in the province of Manitoba to the Canadian Pacific Railway. There are over 3,000 miles of railway in Manitoba alone and both these systems have been developing in the new provinces of the west, the Hill system to the south has tapped the prairie provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and extends as far north as the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Grand Trunk Pacific has been before the people of this country for some years, and. while not in operation yet, combined with other roads has allayed to a certain extent the agitation in favour of the immediate construction of the Hudson bay road. But it is felt that, notwithstanding this great and wonderful development in our transportation facilities, the local traffic as created by these roads will supply more than sufficient for the carrying power of the roads and that, by the time this Hudson Bay Railway can be constructed, there will be sufficient and more than sufficient to afford traffic for that line also.
In the past political parties have vied with each other in the west in trying to impress on the people that each was more favourable and more earnest in its effort to secure the [DOT] construction of this road than the other. This shows that if it were allowed to become a party question it would be a very keenly contested one. It is true also that in years gone by, especially in eastern Canada, whenever this project was brought up it met with serious opposition, I will not say from disinterested sources or from unselfish motives : the opposition came largely from interested transportation companies and they invariably started to ' knock ' the enterprise. Newspapers were engaged in order to decry especially the feasibility of the route. Then too, business men in the east, who looked on the west almost as their own preserve, and who, to use their own expression, after having employed their money in developing the west felt that any advantages that would accrue from carrying the products of the west to the markets of the world should be realized by the people of the east, also opposed to it. I am glad to say. however, that a great deal of this former opposition to the enterprise has been done away with and this skepticism and doubt as to the feasibility of the route has been dispelled. Now a more enlightened public opinion appreciates the enormous po-202
tentialities of the west, and the fact that by reason of the large immigration and the larger acreage being brought under cultivation all these transportation lines will have more than enough traffic to tax their resources in the very near future. I am aware that while' the people of the west are anxious to have the line constructed, there may be and undoubtedly is a difference of opinion as to the best method of construction. It has not been made a party measure and one political party in the west may differ as to the method of construction. For Instance, the Liberals assembled in convention in Alberta showed their preference for a road that should be undertaken by the four western provincial governments, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia these governments joining together and making it a purely western enterprise. In convention assembled In the province of Alberta, they pased this resolution :
Resolved, that, inasmuch as the provinces westward of the Great Lakes are peculiarly interested in the establishment of a new route to the sea-hoard alternative to that afforded by railways to the Atlantic coast, and inasmuch as the creation of two new provinces out of the Northwest Territories gives the first opportunity for co-operation with this end in view; therefore this convention is of the opinion that the earliest possible steps should be taken to secure joint action by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, in order to ascertain definitely and finally the feasibility of the Hudson Bay route as an outlet for our commodities, and to decide upon the best means of constructing a railway by that route to tide water, whereby the long land haul may be divided by one-half and the ocean voyage to European ports also materially decreased.
The Liberals of Saskatchewan also met in convention and adopted a somewhat different course. They passed a resolution in the following words :	.
That in the opinion of this convention the early construction of a railway to Hudson bay is essential to the full development and progress of western Canada, including the province of Saskatchewan, and that the building of the road should be arranged for as a federal work in the general interests of Canada as a whole; and
Re it further resolved, that it shall be the immediate duty of the provincial authorities to press upon the Dominion government for the early completion of the project.
It will thus be seen that the same party in the two provinces differed materially as to the method of constructing the road. As to Manitoba, both political parties have been pledged to the construction of the road, both of them have placed money and guaranteed assistance in.the statute-book of that province many years ago, so that while there may be a difference of opinion In regard to the method of construction, there is no dif-



ference of opinion in the west in regard to the necessity of the road.
I know that objections have been offered, such as have been referred to by my colleagues in the House to-day. These objections have been offered by those who do not seem to greatly favour the entei'prise. These are such objections as that the route could never be navigable by reason of fogs and floating ice. Another strongly urged alleged reason is that the season of navigation would not be long enough to make it a profitable commercial enterprise. As to the question of fogs we have only to look up the history of the steamers that have already gone up there for the express purpose of testing the practicability of that route, and in every case it will be found that the captains of these steamers report that they were not as greatly troubled with fogs on that route as they would be off the coast of Newfoundland; they Teport that the St. Lawrence route is in some respects more dangerous than the Hudson Bay route would be. We all know to-day that there are people who, not from disinterested motives, try to decry our own St. Lawrence route, but still what would Canada be to-day without that route? It has been decried by rival enterprises and we have often heard complaints of discrimination by insurance companies against the St. Lawrence route on the ground of its being more dangerous than the New York route. These are objections that can all be dispelled, and as far as the navigability of Hudson straits is concerned, the steamers there have reported that there is four to five months of open navigation. We all know that in years gone by even our own great west was belittled. It was claimed not only by outsiders but even by those resident in our own country that it was only fit for the home of Indians and buffalo, and that no railway through it would ever pay as a commercial enterprise. Recently I came across a clipping from a Montreal newspaper of many years ago, and I shall read a short extract from it in order to show the opinion of our great Northwest as an agricultural country held in the east at that time. It will emphasize the great change of opinion that has taken place in this respect. This is from the Montreal 'Transcript ' of 1856 :
The Red river is an oasis in the midst of a desert, a vast, treeless prairie on which scarcely a shrub is to "be seen. The climate is unfavourable to the growth of grain; the summer though warm enough is too short in duration, so that even the few fertile spots could with difficulty mature a potato or a cabbage.
That is the opinion of an eastern newspaper of 1856, of what I and the members of this House regard as the future granary of the British empire. All these fertile plains with their miles of waving grain, have been opened up, and I wish to give due credit to the transportation company that Mr. W. J. ROCHE.
has opened up that great country. Had it not been for its efforts we would not to-day require the Hudson Bay route. Just as experience has demonstrated the fallacy of this opinion of the Montreal ' Transcript ' in regard to the fertility of the Northwest so we will be able to remove the prejudice and ignorance as to the Hudson Bay route. I feel that in less than a quarter of a century public opinion in regard to it will have very materially changed.
It has been stated that the Hudson Bay Company's vessels have been going in and out of the bay for 250 years, and the hon. member from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) who has been very industrious in looking up statistics, quoted to the House to-day the statement that out of 750 vessels going in and out of the bay in the course of that time, only two vessels have been lost. If that route were equipped with modern aids to navigation it would be even less dangerous than it has been in the past.
In Mr. Low's report I ran across two or three expressions in regard first to the necessity of the route and secondly to its navigability. Mr. Low says ;
The question of Hudson bay and Hudson strait has been before the Canadian public for a period extending back almost to the time of confederation.
The deputy Minister of Railways and Canals states that it is only at the present time in its talkative stage and here Mr. Low truly states that it has been engaging public attention almost since confederation.
An answer to this question has become more and more pressing, as the latent wealth of the grain fields of the Northwest has been proved, and as the present means of transport of this great volume of grain to the eastward become yearly less capable of handling it expeditiously and cheaply.
Within the past few years the yield of Northwest grain has increased enormously, and a second line of rails is being laid across the continent to aid in the rapid transport of this wealth to the sea-board. If the increase in the area of land opened annually to cultivation continues as at present, a few years will show such a volume of grain to be transported that the new outlets will be unable to give free exit to it, and a new lane by which it can be taken to the European markets must be found.
The route by rail to the port of Churchill, on the western side of Hudson bay, and from thence to Europe in ships, is the shortest, and is likely to prove the best, of all those outside the present routes by rail to the head waters of the St. Lawrence navigation.
Shins co wherever cargoes can be obtained, and all that is needed to open Hudson bay for ordinary commercial navigation is a line of rails to carry freight to one of its ports.
Evidently, Mr. Low, who has been up there during more than one season, and who has had an opportunity of making observations on behalf of the government, has no doubt, with respect to this enterprise

as evidenced by these statements which I have just read to the House. Apparently he has no doubt whatever as far as the navigability of Hudson bay is concerned, nor does he consider that there Is any question as to the navigability of Hudson strait in so far as the strait freezing over is concerned ; the only danger is in the frozen ice that comes down from the north. As to the period of navigation which has been referred to by previous speakers, Mr. Low has something to say. The bugaboo is raised by some hon. gentlemen that because you cannot haul the grain out during the same season, in which it is raised the route will be commercially unprofitable. I am not sure that Mr. Low is correct in his estimate of the quantity of grain exported during the same season, but this is what he says on that point:
The question of the storage of the grain until the season following the harvest, is at first sight a serious one, but when it is known that not 20 per cent of the grain at present reaches the sea-board before the opening of navigation of the year following that in which it is harvested this objection practically disappears, but the grain may be as well stored on the shores of Hudson bay as in the elevators on the plains, or at Fort William. The question of storage is reduced to the length of time between the opening of navigation of Hudson strait, and the time required to transport grain from Fort William to Montreal after the opening of navigation on the great lakes, and this difference in time may be measured by days.
So that, if Mr. Low is an authority on that point, there is no great difficulty to be overcome in regard to the question of the storage of the grain. It might just as well be stored there as at Fort William or in the interior elevators. It has been said that 1,000 miles of rail haul will be saved. That is very true. To-day we have a ten cent rate between Winnipeg and Fort Willihm, a distance of 425 miles. If it is six cents a bushel for 425 miles, it would be 12 cents, that would be saved per bushel for 1,000 miles, but it would be really more than that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was ten cents from Brandon.


William James Roche: No, from Winnipeg. As a matter of fact the rate east of Fort William, by rail, is higher, so that probably 12 or 15 cents per bushel would be saved. If the statement of the last speaker is correct that there would be an export of
20,000,000 bushels by this route, it would mean a saving of upwards of $3,000,000 per annum. That $3,000,000 might just as well be put into the hands of the farmers of the Northwest as into the hands of the transportation companies. Certainly nobody is more deserving of it than those whose products are being marketed and they do not wish to 2024
enter into a partnership with the carrying companies and pay an excessive rate of freight, I think they have a right to.benefit in the saving which the construction of this railway would bring about.
The question of the land grant has been referred to. I am not going to go extensively into this because my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) has referred to it, nor would I refer to it were it not for the fact that the bon. member for West Assiniboia, during the discussion of this question, treated the subject from a party standpoint. He tried to make a little capital against my hon. friend the leader of the opposition for not having incorporated in his Halifax platform anything in regard to the Hudson Bay route. But. we noticed that the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution also introduced it last year, that he brought it forward on going into Supply and that there was a discussion upon it. What became of that motion we do not know. It was never withdrawn or voted upon and there is no record to show what became of it. Certainly it has not been acted upon, and although the Prime Minister declared that the question was engaging the attention of the government and that he would declare his policy no statement was made by the right hon. gentleman up to the end of last session. Still, the hon. member for West Assiniboia does not take his leader to task because of his non-fulfilment of his pledge, and although five months of this session have passed we are still without any statement from his leader. So, the hon. gentleman had better obtain a statement of the position and policy of his own leader before he undertakes to reflect upon the leader of the opposition party in regard to his policy upon this question. My hon. friend from* Calgary has already stated that when the Liberals claim that they have not tied up one acre of land for railway purposes since they came into power they are saying something which they cannot substantiate. We know how they made the welkin ring on the western hustings when the elections were on as to how they had carried out their platform with regard to the granting of lands for railway construction, and we know they announced that when a particular railway charter which had expired since the government came in, that of the Red Deer Valley Railway Company, the land grant of necessity expired as well. They stated that the government, when they were asked to renew the charter, refused to renew the land grant showing that not an acre of land would be alienated for the purpose of building our railways. We are not condemning the voting of land or saying that we are not in a position to defend the voting of land in the past for the purpose of securing railway systems. We could not have had our railway systems

built were it not for the grants of land which were made. But, Sir, when these hon. gentlemen say that they have not given an acre of land for the purpose of building railways they have done so in regard to this very road, ostensibly for the purpose of building a line ostensibly to Hudson bay when really a portion of it was given not to build a road in the direction of Hudson bay but to build a road in the direction of Prince Albert. This charter has expired on more than one occasion. Did they drop their land grant when they renewed their charter ? Did they. do as they did in the case of the Red Deer Talley Railway Company ? Not at all. Prior to 1896, there was placed on the statute-books a subsidy of $80,000 per annum for transport and mail service over this road. That was placed on the statute-book by the Conservative administration. That was changed by order in council on May 7, 1896 into $40,000 per annum to the Lake Manitoba Railway Company for a line from Portage La Prairie or Gladstone to a point on the Saskatchewan river, and the time was extended for the construction of the road until December 31, 1898. That was the position of affairs when the Liberals came into power. Of course, they had a land grant and it would expire on that date, less these two years, after this administration came into power. By an order in council of October 22, 1898, they authorized the deflection of the line from the mouth of the Saskatchewan river to the Swan river country, they also extended the time to December 31, 1899, for 125 miles, and there was further an extension of the land grant which was practically a renewal of the land grant although these hon. gentlemen claimed that they gave no land grant to the Red Deer Talley Railway Company. They gave 6,400 acres per mile within the province of Manitoba and 12.800 acres per mile without the boundaries of that province. Then again an order in council was passed on October 19, 1899, granting a further extension of time until July 10,	1904.
That was extension number two. Then, again, on the 20th of February. 1900. they granted a further extension of time to the 10th of July, 1906. Again a land grant renewed. An order in council was passed on the 5th of January, 1907, for 125 miles from Sifton Junction, and this was approved of for subsidy purposes. An order in council was also passed on the 9th of October, 1900, and the engineer reported 250 miles completed and entitled to the land grant of 1,598,400 acres. That is what they had earned up to that time and of which they had selected 2,835. Another order in council was passed on the 5th of June, 1901, under which they had selected and had been granted S9.115:59 acres. Another order in council followed on the 11th September, Mr. W. J. ROCHE
1901, under which 168,202 acres were selected and transferred to the company. Another order in council passed on the 10th of August, 1903, and it was reported that at this time the Canadian Northern 'had in running order from Beaver to Gladstone, 18 miles, Gladstone to Winnipegosis, 124 miles, Sifton Junction to Mafeking, 125 miles, Mafeking to tlie boundary, 28 miles, the boundary to Irwood, 22 miles, total 3l8 miles. Now, as the member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) has truly said, of that 320 miles there was subsidized the most of it to the extent of 6,400 acres per mile, some of it at 12,800 acres per mile, and when you get to the termination of the the 320 miles you are only within 150 miles or 170 miles nearer to Hudson bay than when you started. By reason of allowing the deflection westward and getting away from the hay, they drew that large land grant, and yet at the end of 320 miles they were no nearer than 150 or 170 miles to the bay than they were at Gladstone where they commenced. Now, on this 320 miles they were entitled to a land grant of 2,1S0,928 acres. But they claimed that some of these lands set apart for selection were not fairly fit for settlement and the government then allpwed them a great number of concessions, amongst others : they enlarged their area of selection to include the territory reserved for the Manitoba and Northwestern, that is, after the Manitoba and Northwestern had selected their lands in a particular area, this company were allowed to go in and ^ select the surplus of lands, and of the surplus of lands they were to select 100,000 acres out of the area of 124,330. They were also allowed to select from the reserve set apart for the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan, and the time for completion of selection was extended to the 31st December, 1905. An order in council was passed on the 27th January, 1904, under which they selected this 100,000 acres from the Manitoba and Northern reserve, another order in council was passed on the 1st October, 1904, under which the land grant they had earned on lines south of the Saskatchewan was extended to June the 25th, 1908. Another extension of time and another revival of the land grant. Now, an order in council was also passed on the 29th December, 1904, under which the survey fee was reduced from 10 cents an acre to 5 cents an acre. Up to this time they had been paying ten cents an acre for the survey, but the government made a concession to them reducing it one-half. There was also some land that they had to surrender for Doukho-bor reserve, the Riding Mountain forest reserve in which they had selected west of the Duck mountains, and a certain amount along the Prince Albert branch. The lands necessary to complete their selection were to be selected from 55 townships west of the area set apart for the Qu'Appelle, Long

Lake and Saskatchewan. Not only were they allowed to go into the Manitoba and Northern reserve, not only were they allowed to go into the reserve set apart for the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan, but they were allowed to go into the 55 townships west of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan^ reserve and where are situated some of the very be'st lands they have in the province of Saskatchewan. From these 55 townships, which have an area, by the way, of 580,000 acres, they had to select in round numbers some 250.000 acres. By an order in council passed on the 25th of June, 1906, the Canadian Northern Railway selected 557,000 acres within the reserve of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan. I may say just here that the latter company protested very strenuously to the government for allowing this company to go in and select from their lands prior to the time they themselves had made their selection, because the order in council passed allowing the Canadian Northern Railway to have the privilege of selecting from tlie area set apart for the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan contained a provision stating that they were only to select the surplus lands. That is to say, after the grant of Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan had been satisfied. After that was done the Canadian Northern had the privilege of coming in as they had in the Manitoba and Northwestern area and making their selection, but they went in and made their selection of some 250,000 acres prior to the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and .Saskatchewan having completed selection'and quite naturally the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan protested to the government. The matter was reported to the Minister of Justice by the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice reported that what the Minister of the Interior did was illegal ; that he had done an illegal act by allowing the Canadian Northern to go into this area and make their selection prior to the time when the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan land grant had been satisfied. But notwithstanding that and in the face of the opinion of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of the Interior allowed the Canadian Northern Railway to make their selection. An order [DOT] in council was passed on the 23rd of July, 1906, which allows them to select their lands which they had surrendered for the Duck mountain forest reserve, 213,640 acres, and for the Lake Manitoba forest reserve
70,000	acres, and they accepted in lieu thereof 33,367 acres of the surplus lands of the Manitoba and Northwestern and 250.000 acres in the 55 townships west of the area of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan. Again an order in Council was parsed on May 8, 1907, granting a further extension of time-and this is the last order in council I have any note of-to July 20, 1910, and this is an extension both of the
land grant and of the charter. In face of that some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House claim that this government has not alienated an acre of land for the construction of any railway. I have cited no less than five extensions since they have been in power with reference to the construction of this road. I am citing this to disabuse the minds of the people of the idea that the Liberals were reallv in earnest ; or at least if they were in earnest they are certainly making, through inadvertence or ignorance, a statement which cannot be substantiated. I am not quoting this with any idea of stating that we on this side of the House object to granting assistance to any of these railway enterprises. In fact the Conservative party showed their faith in the country and showed their faith in the enterprise by placing the land grant originally upon the statute-books. Now, it is not necessary for me to occupy the attention of the House further ;
I'merely desire to add my voice to that of my colleagues in favour of this enterprise. This railway is a work that we need very greatly. By the time it is constructed there will be plenty of products to supply all of our transportation companies. The productiveness of that country is so enormous and the immigration going in, now that the tide has set in that direction, is so great that I am confident that there will soon be sufficient traffic for the Hudson Bay Railway route in addition to those we have at present. The people of eastern Canada are' especialy interested in the supplies that the people of the west will require. Anything that assists us in the west will assist the people in the east. This enterprise is one that we should look upon as a national enterprise in which as Canadians we should all join. I hope that before this discussion ends, the Prime Minister will announce a policy on the subject on behalf of the government, and I trust that whatever pledge he may make will be implemented by legislation in a practical manner, and that the enterprise which hon. gentlemen say is today only in the talkative stage, may soon lie an accomplished fact.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of pleasure to the various speeches which have been delivered this afternoon and this evening on this very important question. Some of the gentlemen on both sides of the House who have spoken, have given the history of the different steps that have been taken from time to time by the western people to secure an outlet by way of Hudson bay. The subject has been pretty well covered by previous speakers, and were it not that I represent a constituency which is the farthest north in Manitoba and therefore the nearest Hudson to bay. and in which the first 200 miles of the Hudson Bay Railway have been built and operated, and feel a special interest in seeing a road to

the bay completed, I do not think I would have risen to address the House. The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W.
J.	Roche) seems to have risen more for the purpose of making a complaint against this government for the action they have taken in assisting in railway construction than with the object of advocating the construction of a railway to Hudsons bay. He objected to the extensions granted to the Canadian Northern Railway from time to time since 1896 by the Liberal government, but he forgot altogether


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He did not object at all.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Well, he criticised the government very severely ; but he forgot that the original charter authorizing the construction of this railway was granted in the year 1880, and that from that time until 1896, when the government he supported so strenuously went out of power, there was not a single mile of that railway built, although the charter and the land grant were extended from time to time. What took place after this government came into power ? In 1896, their first year, the first 100 miles of the Canadian Northern Railway were built. That was the portion from Gladstone to Sifton Junction, which was built under the charter of the Lake Manitoba Railway and Canal Company. In the following year they built the extension to Winnipegosis, which was the total mileage they had power to build under that charter. The hon. gentleman knows that by virtue of that charter they earned a land grant of 6,400 acres per mile from Gladstone to Winnipegosis. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy) made a great complaint of the fact that there was a land grant for that portion of the road from Sifton Junction to Winnipegosis.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I did not make any great complaint of the land grant given for the line from Sifton Junction to Winnipegosis. I asked what was the necessity of giving that, and also giving a land grant for a line running in a northeasterly direction. Both could not be going to Hudson bay.


Theodore Arthur Burrows: The necessity for giving the land grant for the portion from Sifton to Winnipegosis was that it was authorized by an Act passed by the Conservative government before the Liberals came into power. Before leaving that part of the subject, I might refer to the extensions granted from time to time. There have been various extensions granted by the present government to the Canadian Northern; but it must be borne in mind that the Canadian Northern built 100 miles of railway in 1896 and another 100 miles in 1897, and have continued to add to their mileage year by year; so that there was some reason for their asking for extensions of time when Mr. BURROWS.
they showed their bona fides by going on and constructing the road. That was an altogether different state of things from what existed from 1880 to 1896, when not a single mile was built. With regard to a railway to Hudson bay. I may repeat what has been said by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, that ever since Manitoba entered the confederation, indeed, ever since there was a settlement in any portion of that western country, there has been an agitation for the construction of a railway to Hudson bay. Probably this originated from the fact that the first settlers in the Red River settlement went into that country via Hudson bay, and therefore looked on the Hudson bay route as the natural trade route of the country, and looked forward to the time when they would not have to spend a month or six weeks on the journey to Fort Churchill, portaging around rapids, but would have railway connection with that seaport. Any person who looks at the map and observes the position of Hudson bay will easily recognize what an important factor it may yet become in the trade of the western country. It is an inland sea 1,000 miles long and 600 miles wide, and its principal port, Fort Churchill, is so situated that it is farther from the Atlantic coast than it is from the Pacific ocean. So that if you can once establish proper navigation to Fort Churchill, you will have an ocean port in the centre of the country 600 miles from the prairie, and bringing the prairie country closer to the sea-board than some parts of the province of Ontario. If you draw a line due north from St. Paul or St. Louis, it will pass 250 miles east of Fort Churchill. What the White Sea is to Russia, what the Baltic is to Germany and Sweden, what the Gulf of St. Lawrence is to eastern Canada, the Hudson bay is bound to become to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In 1S80 the first charters were granted to two companies giving them power to build railways to Hudson bay. They vied with each other to get the land grant. Three years afterwards au Act of parliament was passed amalgamating the two companies, and from that time on the promoters of the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway Company endeavoured to raise money by various means.
They went to the local government and got assistance from time to time. They tried first to float their bonds in the markets of the world, but in those days it was impossible to raise money to build a railway to the bay. By and by, in addition to the land grant the Dominion government gave them a further subvention of $80,000 a year for twenty years, but even then they were not able to raise sufficient money to build the road. It was not until after 1896, when Mackenzie & Mann & Company, obtained the charter, that any work was done in the construction of this railway. It will be seen

that the parliament of Canada from 1880 on, under the direction of both governments, has from time to time recognized the importance of a railway to Hudson bay. It has done this by various enactments, by giving them a charter to build and a land grant. In 1884 an Act was passed authorizing the granting a land subsidy of 6,400 acres per mile for the mileage inside the province and 12,800 acres per mile for the mileage outside the province. In 1996 construction began and a year and a half ago the last 90 miles were built to the Pass. A year ago the company finished the last link connecting the southern prairie country with the Saskatchewan river, so that to-day we have a railway built as far as the Saskatchewan and the proposition now is to build a link which will connect the Pass with Hudson bay.
When the charter was first granted giving power to build this railway, we did not know much of that northern country, but during the last twenty-five years a great many surveying parties were sent out. The government sent out members of the geological survey and others and we have learned from them a great deal of information. We have found that instead of that country being full of rocks and swamps and not fit for settlement there is along the projected line of this road a great deal of territory valuable for agriculture. Commencing at the Pass there is for 150 miles a country containing a very large amount of pulp wood. Hr. Thibeaudeau, who made a survey for the government last year, reports that pulp wood can be obtained along that route for the first distance of 150 miles. After that the reports from many men who have explored that territory, indicate that there is in it a large area of agricultural land, and the lakes and rivers are teeming with valuable food fish. Mr. Tyrrell reports an area of country there of 10,000 square miles as good as the ordinary land in Manitoba. North of that the country is sot so good. Within 100 miles of the bay the reports indicate that the land is not very fit for settlement, but it seems to me that a country having 10,000 square miles of good land is a country through which we ought to have a railway. When you consider that in Manitoba, where we have a very large wheat yield, there were not more than 5,000,000 acres under crop last year, you can see what possibilities there are along this line of railroad, which will surely open up 6,000,000 acres to agriculture. There are besides natural resources such as mineral wealth which are very promising. Mr. Tyrrell and other geologists say that the formation is very similar to that of the western part of Ontario where we have discovered much valuable mineral. The railway will run along the Nelson river a distance of 50 to 75 miles, and the Nelson is one of the greatest rivers in point of volume of water, we have in the whole continent. It is 400 miles long and drains a very large area. In these 400
miles there are 300 miles from the upper to the lower rapids, and between those there is a fall of 850 feet, so that the water power which may be generated is tremendous, and if it should become expedient to run the road by electricity, the water power is there at hand. Churchill harbour is reported to be one of the best in America. There are therefore several grounds on which the construction of this road can be justified. In the first place it will be a colonization road. In the second place, it will be the final link connecting the prairies with Hvidson bay ; and in the third place, it will open up a route to connect the western prairies with the markets of Europe. Some objection has been taken to the grants for building the portions of the line already completed. No doubt the grants seems to be large. In addition to the land grant, this railway draws a subsidy of $80,000 a year for twenty years. But when we look at what has been accomplished by its construction, we will see that the expenditure has been well repaid. The whole country through which this railway runs was not settled and would never have become settled had it not been for that line. That line has opened up an important fishing industry at lake Winnipegosis and very large lumber industries in the northern part of the province, so that although it has cost a great deal in money and land, it has developed that northern country in a marvelous manner.
There is a very large area around Hudson bay which we know contains natural resources, which it would be very important to develop, and the development of which can only be accomplished by means of a railway to that bay. Then at present the Canadian government is undertaking to administer that country. It has established mounted police stations around the bay. But if this government wants to communicate with these police stations, that will take a long time at present. The building of a railway, however, would facilitate the administration of that whole locality by the government. Then when the railway is built to the bay, stores will be established at various points from where prospectors can get their supplies. It will be easy for prospectors to get to the bay, and they will then use Fort Churchill as the point from which to start their exploring work. In two or three years after that railway is built to Hudson bay, you will see great development in the line of minerals, for we have as good reason to anticipate great mineral development in that country as we had to expect mineral development at Cobalt six years ago or in the Yukon fifteen years ago. The reports of Dr. Bell, Professor Tyrrell and other geologists indicate that there is gold, silver, lead, iron, copper-


Mr. LABOR.: Any timber ?


Theodore Arthur Burrows: Lots of timber can be found around the shores of the bay. With regard to the land through which this road would pass, I would like to read an extract from the report of the men who explored that country. Mr. Mclnnes, a member of the Geological Survey, was sent out to make an exploratory trip from the Pas to Hudson bay and he gives this as his opinion regarding the country in his evidence before the committee of the Senate a year ago :
The witness passed through this country, went by the Burntwood river and came back by Dart of the Grassy river, and made a number of excursions inland between these two rivers. After leaving Split lake, ascending the river, this clay-covered country shows absolutely no boulders and no gravel. Even the shores of the lakes, until you reach a height of about 800 feet, show no gravel bars at all.
There is absolutely nothing to interfere with the cultivation of tbe soil there. It is a country that has been burnt over. Witness assumed that the Burntwood river got its name that way. It has been subject to repeated burns. At the present time it is covered by a very open forest. Grasses grow fairly luxuriantly. There are two species of this, blue joint grass and a wild rye, that are the prevailing grasses. He understood, though he is not very familiar with those grasses himself, from Professor Macoun, that these are very excellent meadow grasses and make excellent fodder.
Mr. Mclnnes left Norway House in the second week of .Tune and made the circuit and came out at the Pas on September 6, so it was June, July and August he was there. He saw grass growing from eighteen inches to two feet high.
The witness computed the area of this country at about 10,000 square miles. He does not mean to sav that ail of that ten thousand square miles is good land, but the basin characterized by this deposit of clay has an area of about ten thousand square miles.
Referring to what is grown in the country, he says :
Upon the Nelson river wheat has been grown successfully at Norway House, and also at Cross lake. Of course, he could see that they grow no grain at any of their posts nowadays. In the old days they grew it and ground it in hand mills. Witness saw potatoes that were grown about 50 miies north of the Pas. There were quite showy potatoes, great large fellows like those you see exhibited in fairs.
There are no settlers in tbe Nelson district. The Indians, however, grow potatoes at several points, even in the northern part of it, as far north as Nelson House, about latitude 55. On July 11, when the witness arrived at Nelson House, the Indian potatoes had vines about eleven inches high, and were almost ready to flower. When he got out on September G to the Saskatchewan, at the Hudson bay post there, at tbe Pas, Indian corn was very well headed out, with very large tine ears quite ready for table use, and there was no frost until September 29. He knew that because he stayed there until then.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: With eighteen hours of the daylight, and no frost in the summer, vegetation is rapid. In a country where you can ripen Indian corn you can grow practically anything.
Mr. Tyrrell passed through that country some years ago, and this is the evidence he gave to the Senate Committee:
North of Lake Winnipeg there is another magnificent area of from five to ten thousand square miles of as fine country as there is in Manitoba or anywhere else.
That is on t he proposed line of the Hudson bay railway. When the witness came out of there a number of years ago, after spending a summer there, and said there was a rich agricultural country north of Lake Winnipeg, tbe Hudson bay men and the people in the southern country pooh-poohed the idea. They said they had been up at the head of the lake and knew there was not a foot of good land there. But there is a magnificent stretch of country there, and it extends westward along the Churchill. These lands north of Lake Winnipeg are clay lands, an extension of the same basin as the Manitoba clays.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Sehaff-. ner) this afternoon, spent a good deal of time in setting forth the fact concerning the navigability of Hudson straits. I think the hon. member is to he commended for the diligence he has shown in hunting up the history of this northern country and the waters thereof. I do not see how anybody can assume that Hudson bay is not navigable, when you take into consideration the fact that it has been navigated since 1610. Since 1600, vessels have gone in and out of the bay once every year except two years. The Hudson Bay Company keep regular vessels on the route. For the last sixty or seventy years whalers from the Atlantic coast have been making periodical trips in pursuit of their calling. We have the record of trips made into the hay by all kinds of vessels. In the service of the Hudson Bay Company 750 vessels, ranging from seventy gun ships to ten ton pinnaces, have crossed the ocean and passed through the straits and sailed into Hudson bay and only two of them were lost. We have the record of men-of-war going into Hudson bay in 1782. La Perouse. with three French war vessels sailed into Hudson bay, took Fort Churchill, dismantled it, took Fort Nelson, looted the supplies and sailed out successfully in 1697. Commandant d'Iberville sailed into Hudson bay, fought an engagement with English battleships and got out quite safe again. From time, to time during the wars between France and England, it was necessary for the Hudson Bay Company when their ships sailed into Hudson bay to have a convoy, and it was quite a common thing for a British warship to go with a trading vessel into and out of Hudson bay. If it was possible to carry on this navigation with the vessels of a couple of hundred years ago. when they did not have the advantages of navigation of to-day, when they had no steam vessels and none

of tire alls to navigation such as lighthouses the route must have been a pretty easy one to navigate or we should have heard of more disasters. Our own government has sent in several parties to make investigations. Dr. Robert Bell travelled in and out from 38SO to 1897. making nine complete trips. He gives this as his experience :
The bay is open all the year round and there does not seem to be much evidence thqt the strait is closed at any season. The great width and depth of the straits with the tides, probablv keep it open. He thought it navigable for four months each year, or from the middle of June to the end of October.
And Commander Low says:
Really prepared steamers could navigate Hudson bay and Hudson strait longer than the period he had mentioned; you could navigate the straits all winter if you had a specially prepared vessel, but it would be a long voyage. . . . Altogether, the witness considered the Hudson bay route, when it was clear, as even a clearer one than via the St. Lawrence. There is at least two months when there is no trouble from the ice at all, and when you do meet loose ice in the summer time there would be no trouble. There would have to be several lights established. There would have to be lights at Nottingham island and probably at Cape Diggs. Charlatan island would probably have to be lit at both ends, because it is practically in the middle of the channel and then there would have to be lights at Cape Chigney and on Resolution island. Lights would also have to be placed at the mouth of Churchill harbour.
I think we have ample evidence to show that the navigability of this strait is sufficient to warrant the government coming to the conclusion that, for a certain period of the year, this route will afford a means of transportation of the greatest benefit to the western country. In addition to the benefit to be derived from the improved transportation facilities afforded toy the construction of this road, it will mean the development of a portion of our northern country which we never could have developed without a railway. Immigration to the west during the last 11 years has given us our prosperity in that country. According to the returns, nearly 1,200,000 people have been brought in by the Immigration Department during that period. The impetus to trade given bv the influx of that number of people and the amount of money spent in railway construction has produced our good times in the west. To stop immigration would be to decrease the volume of our business, and the only way to keep up the stream of immigration is to develop the northern country where we have land on which to put our settlers. Until the present government undertook to build the Grand Trunk Pacific, no determined effort had been made to develop our hinterlands. At the time they launched their scheme many people objected on the ground that the country through which
the road was to be built was not fit for settlement. Even to-day, in talking to a a Conservative member of this House, he expressed the opinion that it was a great mistake to build north of the height of land in Ontario and Quebec, because the country was not fit for settlement, and it was said that the Grand Trunk Pacific would be a great mistake. I think the majority of the people of Canada have only one opinion on that subject: that is that we have a great big country to develop and we never can develop it unless we get railway construction to the most remote parts.
With regard to the method of construction, I believe the road should be built and owned by the government, and inasmuch as there is in eastern Canada considerable objection to voting sufficient money to build a road of that kind at the present time, I believe that it will have to be constructed by obtaining money from the sale of lands in the west. The people of the west are a unit in regard to the construction of this road, and I do not think any objection will be raised to the government of Canada using the proceeds of the sale of land to create a fund for the building of this railway. The expenditure on the road itself will not be very large, but the incidental expenditures for the building- of docks at Port Churchill, for terminals, for lighting the straits and probably giving a subsidy to a steamship line, will be considerable in addition to the actual cost of construction of the railway. The road will be an easy one to build and when built to operate. There is a gentle downgrade from the Pas to Hudson bay and a fall in 450 miles of about 1,000 feet. It will be down grade in the way the traffic will go so that trains loaded with grain will be going down-hill on their way to the harbour. I think it is very important .that this road should be built at once. Any one familiar with the western country knows that two years ago we had a very large crop of wheat, about 200,000,000 bushels of grain ; and before the commencement of the snow blockade to which the railways attributed all their difficulties, there was* a complete tie-up of the railway systems, a complete grain blockade. At that time we had in that country some 800,000 people. If 800,000 people can grow enough grain to blockade two complete railway systems, what will occur when the population increases in that country as it is bound to increase ? To-day in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, we have about 1,000,000 people and I do not think I am over-sanguine when I express the belief that within the next four years that population will be doubled. In 1901 the population was a little over 400.000. In 1906 it was over 800,000, and, judging from the way immigration is going in there, it is safe to say that in four years we will have 2,000,000

people west of the Great Lakes. When that time comes, probably we will have another railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific; but by the time the Grand Trunk Pacific is built we will find that the trade has so increased that it will tax the powers of the three great railway systems to haul out the grain. The road should undoubtedly be built at once. If the government were to undertake the construction of this road at once, it would be four years before they could expect to have it built to the bay and it will be urgently needed before that time. If the government were to build the road they could easily entrust its construction to the present Transcontinental Railway Commission; they have the machinery at hand for looking after work of that kind and could superintend the building of the Hudson bay railway without very much extra general expense. If this road is built it will facilitate the opening of the country; that country has to be surveyed and this will require some time, and the building of the road will facilitate the surveying, exploration and development of the country. I do not think the government could get any railway company to undertake the construction of that road unless they gave a bonus equal to the cost of building it. I do not think the people of Canada would favour giving any bonus of that kind. The day of large bonuses or land grants is past, and it is the fixed policy of this government not to give a land grant to any railway. I am therefore strongly of opinion that the government should at once address itself to the question of finding some means by which this railway could be built, and I am in favour of the policy which was enunciated by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), that is to set apart certain lands in the Northwest, two sections or so in each township, preserve them until they become of sufficient value, and then sell them just as the school lands are sold at the present time to create a fund to pay the cost of construction of this road. The government could borrow money by the issue of bonds and by the time the bonds fall due the proceeds of the sales of these lands could be applied to paying them off. If you sold the lands to-day you would not get nearly what they will be worth in a few years. Objection has been raised to that scheme on the ground that reserving land is a detriment to settlement. However the amount reserved, two sections in each township, w'ould not be sufficient to affect the people in the district. You do not find that the present school reserves affect the people. However, whatever scheme is devised, whether the road is financed by means of a land grant reserve or by charging a fee of $3 for preemption, it is a question of policy which the government has to decide upon and so far as I am concerned the building of the road is so urgent that I Mr. BURROWS.
feel It should be constructed and constructed at once.
The public feeling in regard to the con-stuction of this railway has been so strong in the west that if the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan had owned land of their own they would not have hesitated to have given it towards the construction of this railway. I have no hesitation in saying that if Manitoba had owned land for the last twenty years the same as Ontario and Quebec do this road would have been built long ago. The little province of Manitoba did not have the resources to devote to a project of this kind. We have been coming year after year to Ottawa asking the Dominion government to undertake its construction. As soon as this road is built I expect there will be considerable development In the way of manufacturing along the Hudson bay route. The water-powers along the Nelson and Churchill rivers will become developed. There is a possibility of a great pulp industry being established along the Nelson and Churchill rivers. Pulp wood and water-powers are available and as soon as this road is built Industries of that kind will crop up that are not thought of at the prestent time.
I do not know that I have anything further to say on this subject except that I think that the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway is one of the most important projects which the government have before them at the present time. By the construction of this road they will not only give us a new outlet for the products of the western country but they will be establishing another port which will in time become one of the chief ports of the Dominion of Canada, and they will be turning the trade to our own ports instead of allowing it to go, as a great deal of it goes now, through American ports. I trust therefore that the government will see their way clear to adopting some policy this session which will result in the construction of this road and that they will go on and build the railway to Hudson bay as quickly as possible.


Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: favour of tlie building of a railway to Hudson bay and definite pledges were given by them to the people of this country that this railwav should be constructed. Sir Charles Tupper, then Prime Minister of Canada, speaking at Winnipeg on the Sth of May, as reported in the Manitoba ' Free Press,' said:
One of the great factors in the future development of Western Canada would he an outlet to Hudson bay, the natural pathway from the prairies of the great west to Great Britain, and it was his firm conviction that the prosperity of the west and of the whole Dominion called for the speedy construction of a road to the bay. The Liberal party had persistently though most inconsistently opposed this great national undertaking at every stage since the question of its construction was first mooted. The Conservative party had given to Canada the Intercolonial railway and the Canadian Pacific railway and he could now assure the people of Manitoba and the Northwest that that same party would give them the Hudson bay railway. The government was a unit on the policy of a road to the bay. They are publicly committed to that policy and he could assure them arrangements had been made which enabled him to state that the first link of that railway from Saskatchewan river would be built before the close of 1898.
Further on the Manitoba ' Free Press ' in an article states:
Speaking in the evening at an immense mass meeting in the Brydon rink the Premier returned to the subject and after challenging any man living to bring him face to face with a pledge he had ever broken he again declared in unequivocal terms that it would be the policy of his government to give the Northwest an outlet to Europe via the Hudson bay.
They go on to state:
Of the friendly intentions of Sir Charles and his colleagues there can be no doubt and after these explicit declarations the people of the country may reasonably expect to get the Hudson bay railway within the next three or four years.
Now, Sir, the statement made by Sir Charles Tupper and his bona fides were called in question by the Liberal candidates in the campaign, and in order to give an assurance of the bona fides of the statement, the Hon. Hugh John Macdonald, then Minister of the Interior, put himself on record before the people of Manitoba and in a speech delivered on the 18th of June, 1896, as reported in the Manitoba 1 Free Press,' said:
His breath was almost taken away at the first joint meeting when Mr. Martin said this promise of Sir Charles Tupper's was merely an election dodge. He could not understand how a man like Mr. Martin, who was once a member of the provincial government, could think that his leader would deliberately deceive his followers. However he remembered a trial here in Winnipeg when it came out that Mr. Martin had called Mr. Greenway a colossal liar. He might tell them that if these promises were not carried out he would resign Mr. LAKE.
at once from the cabinet. Some think that he should not resign from the cabinet, but rather stay there and fight it out. This could not be done under our system of government, if, as a member of the cabinet, he could not introduce a measure of this kind without the consent of his leader. If he should decide to introduce it, he would have to leave the cabinet and step down to the floor of the House, and this is the course he would follow in the event of Sir Charles breaking his promise. If he were forced to do this, do you think that there would be found a single man from the Northwest mean enough to accept his vacated seat in the cabinet, and even if one were found to do this, did they think any constituency in the west would return such a man?
Now, Sir, it will be seen that this is an old policy. It is a policy which was formally and definitely announced by the Conservative government in the year 1896 and which no doubt would have been carried into effect long before this had they been returned to power at that election.- I am glad that after 11 years of power the Prime Minister of Canada ha's finally come to the conclusion that the Hudson Bay Railway ought to be built, although he has not given us a statement as to when and now lie intends to build it,. I have no hesitation in saying, and it has been already said this evening, that in the near future the products of the Northwest will be such that all the existing lines of railway will not be able to handle the business. As a matter of fact the railways cannot cope with the situation now and so a new outlet must be found. As has been pointed out this route will result in enormous economy in transportation and consequently enhanced value to the producers of cattle, grain, and other commodities in the Northwest. As has also been pointed out it will save a double transhipment, and a thousand miles of lake and rail transport from the principal grain centres to the markets of the world. Further than that it has been shown that the Hudson Bay Railway will in itself prove a very profitable trade route, convenient as it will be not only to our own Northwest but to a large portion of the northwestern states of the union. Keeping along the northern lines of latitude, it will be an extremely short route across the continent, and it will be the most economic route that can be found between the western countries of Europe and the far eastern countries which are now coming into prominence. Let me also say that which I think has not been called attention to this evening, viz., this route will be most useful from a military standpoint. Should unhappily we ever be in a state of war in Canada such a line of railway would be most invaluable to Canada and to the empire, and it would also be invaluable as affording a safer trade route than any now. existing for the food supplies of the mother country. Even if we look at it from a selfish point of view it would give us an

immense advantage over any rivals we may have in the furnishing of that food supply because there can be no doubt that the northerly route would be the safest for the transport of food products to the United Kingdom. It would afford a short route also, the shortest of all routes by which imperial troops could be quickly and expeditiously and safely conveyed to the far east. This has all been gone over time and again and I do not think I need dwell further on it to-night. I believe, however, that it is time that we should stop playing with this question and if we are agreed as we all seem to be agreed that the route is necessary we should undertake its construction promptly. It is no use to go skating around it and saying for instance we will create a fund by the sale of pre-emptions or by reserving lands in the Northwest for the purpose. This is only postponing the fulfilment. Even if we start now, the need will be urgent before the railway is completed. The Finance Minister told us in his budget speech that this is a time for caution, and that large new enterprises may be laid aside for a while. I do not think, Sir, that caution ought to apply to the building of the Hudson Bay Railway. We do not look upon that as an enterprise in the ordinary acceptation of the term; we look upon it as an absolute necessity to the continued development of our great provinces in the Northwest. I am firmly convinced that unless it is provided that development will be cheeked in the near future.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I think * this road of all others should be owned by the government. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Burrows) has taken the same position; but he has not gone so far as I go. I say that it should be not only owned but operated by the government. This Hudson Bay Railway will offer a route to the bay to three great competing lines of railway-the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I do not see how it will be possible to have that road operated by a private company in a way that will be fair to all these great roads. Therefore I think that this of all others should be operated by the government. It will also be absolutely necessary for the Dominion government to provide the great terminal elevators which will be required for the storage of the grain of the Northwest for considerable periods when navigation is not freely open. I hope and trust that the government, even at this late moment, will come down with a definite policy during the present session and provide money for the commencement of this great undertaking.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (East Assiniboia).: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the evening, after this question has been so ably discussed by members on both sides of the House. I do-not intend to take up more than
a very few minutes. My principal object in saying anything at all on this subject is to state most emphatically as a representative of a western constituency that I believe that the Hudson Bay route in not only feasible, but is to-day a prime necessity of the west. I have heard it stated here during the present discussion that there had been a certain amount of opposition to that road from the east. I think that was the case some years ago, but at present we do not hear of any opposition whatever from the east to any-thiifg that will promote the development of the western country. All the people of Canada now realize that the success of Canada is as much dependent on the west as on the east, and that anything that promotes the development of the western country must of necessity tend to the prosperity of the eastern part of Canada as well. Therefore I do not look for any opposition whatever at the present time from eastern Canada to the opening up of the Hudson Bay route. If that is not opened up, I think there is no doubt that the first year in which we shall have a large crop, there will be the biggest blockade that has ever taken place in the western country. We have heard it stated that the cause of the blockade two years ago was the heavy winter- the cold weather and the deep snow. That may have had something to do with the difficulties of the railroads in handling the traffic; but the blockade of wheat was not caused by the storms. It took place long before we had snow storms, at least a month before the severe winter set in. On some of the roads there was no blockade at all. The line from Portal to Moosejaw was not blockaded during the whole winter. Wherever the railway authorities were in a position to look after their roads and take precautions to have them in order they were not blockaded. What would be the result of a blockade such as we had two years ago, with almost double the acreage, and this increasing rapidly? During the past year some 270,000 immigrants have been brought into the country, and the statement has been made by one of the speakers today that during the first two months of this year the immigration has been 60 per cent greater than that of the first two months of last year. I am satisfied that the immigration is going not only to keep up, but to go on increasing, and that in all probability for the next five or ten years from 300,000 to
500,000	people a year will be going into that country. Where can we put all these people? We cannot for many more years put them in those parts of the country which are now opened up by railroads. They will have to be put in the northern part of the country, and a great many can be settled on the lands that will be opened up by the Hudson Bay Railway. It has been pointed out that the surveyors who went over that country last year, reported that in the Burnt River district there is an area of 10,000

6376.
square miles which is suitable for agriculture. That is about 6,000,000 acres, which is almost as much as we have under cultivation to-day in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta producing something like 200,000,000 bushels of grain. If that large area can be opened up for settlement and be made tributary to the railway to Hudson bay for a distance of 475 miles, is there not sufficient justification in the government coming to the point at once and taking hold of this work as a government undertaking and carrying it to a successful issue in-the shortest possible time? The development taking place in that western country is greater than the three existing roads can handle, and therefore, another outlet is necessary. I was rather amused to hear my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) make the statement that if the late government had remained in power, the Hudson Bay Railway would have been an accomplished fact long before this. Well, I went to that country a good many years before the hon. gentleman. I went in 1878, and from 1878 to 1896, at every general election, the building of the Hudson Bay Railway was promised by the late government just as emphatically as it was promised by Sir Charles Tupper in 1896. In no case did any results follow. It was simply an election dodge all through, and had the late government been returned to power again in 1896, we would not be any further ahead to-day than we were eighteen years before that. I quite agree, however, that there is no use harking back to these old matters. Conditions have changed very much. The railroad is needed, and it is now up to the present government to take hold of its construction and build it at the earliest possible moment.
Some reference was made by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) to the land grant. He said that we on this side could no longer make the statement that the present government have not given any land for railway construction. My hon, friend is altogether wrong. I make the statement, without fear of successful contradiction, that this government has not given one acre in the west for the construction of railways. It is quite true that they carried out the undertakings which were entered into by their predecessors. Does any one suggest that they should not ? Does any one suggest that when the extending time for the construction of what is now called the Canadian Northern for two years, the Liberal government should have cancelled that order in council ? You might as well say that they should have cancelled all the contract for the construction of canals in this part of the country. The Canadian Northern Railway Company in 1896, during the life of that order in council, built over 100 miles of railway, and then came at the end of the two years and asked for a further exten-Mr. TURRIFF.
sion of time. That further extension was granted them simply because they were living up to their contract and carrying out the work they had undertaken. But from 1880, when the charter was granted, to 1896, when our friends opposite were in power, they granted a renewal every year or so although not a mile of the road was being built. When, however, this government took office, they undertook to see that the company went on to construct the line. So that we are perfectly right when we say that this government has not given one acre of land for the construction of railways in the west or any place else. And yet, during the eleven years they have been in office, there has been double the railway mileage constructed in the west that there was in the previous eighteen years, and save in the cases of roads to which land grants had been promised by the late government, these roads were constructed without land grants at all. In a good many cases they were built for a cash subsidy and in some cases without any subsidy at all.
The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) also said that this Hudson bay land grant had been diverted from its destination and used for the building of roads going away from Hudson bay. That is not a correct statement in any sense. The government, under the present Dominion Land Act. had the authority to give a grant of 6,400 acres per mile within Manitoba and 12,800 acres outside Manitoba to secure the construction of a railway to Hudson bay, and they passed an order in council setting apart a land grant for the construction of that railway, the charter for which had been acquired by the Canadian Northern. The land grant which was set apart for the construction of that portion of the road between the Pass on the Saskatchewan and Port Churchill provided that all that land should be north of the Saskatchewan river, and not one acre has ever been given to any other railway company or to the Canadian Northern for the construction of any other road, so that the statement of the hon. gentleman is altogether misleading. I would point that the government has power, under a clause in the Lands Act, to set apart a land grant of 12,800 acres per mile for the construction of a road from the Pas to Port Churchill. It is altogether a matter of policy whether they should do that or not. It might possibly be the best way to secure the construction of that road. I do not know that it would be, but it is open for the government to do that if they think it advisable. But nothing has been done in the past towards giving away the lands set apart at one time for the construction of that road to any other road or to the same company for building any other branch lines.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Were there special lands set apart for this?


John Gillanders Turriff: There was a large block north of the Saskatchewan river set apart by order in council, within which this company, if they built the road, could select their land. But the company did not build the road and the land grant lapsed and the government did not renew it. Under the Dominion Lands Act, however, the government have the authority to set apart 12,800 acres per mile in any part of the territory for the construction of that road. The clause in the Dominion Lands Act does not define where the lands should be taken. The old order in council did define it but that went out of existence by the fluxion of time.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The government can take any lands not disposed of.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) spoke about the building and operating of the road as a government road because he did not think that the traffic of the three different roads in that part of the country could be accommodated over this line provided it was built by a company.


Richard Stuart Lake: I consider it would be very much better to have it operated by the government.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would like to point out that my hon. friend took a different view a few years ago when the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway proposition was before this House and when his leader proposed, as an alternative plan, a patch work railway, one part of his scheme being the leasing of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Fort William to Winnipeg and giving other companies running powers over it.


Richard Stuart Lake: The hon. gentleman is wrong. I advocated government operation at that time, and do still.


John Gillanders Turriff: In that case, I withdraw my statement. But the great majority of members on the other side of the House endorsed the plan of their leader, which was to lease the road from Fort William to Winnipeg to the Canadian Pacific Railway, assist in having it double tracked and allow all companies running powers over it. If that were feasible in that case, it would be as feasible to have traffic running arrangement over the road to Hudson bay though that road was owned by one company.


Richard Stuart Lake: May I ask a question? Would the hon. gentleman have the road to Hudson bay owned by a company or by the government?


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it most important that we should get the road. And I
would be perfectly satisfied to have the government build and lease the road giving all other companies running powers over it, or make arrangements with one of the companies to build the road and make provision, by placing the road under the Railway Commission, that every company should have running powers. But I have not seen anything in Canada, so far, to make me very much disposed to continue in the future in the line of government built and government operated railways.
I think the road should be built as a main line, as another outlet and inlet for the trade of the country. I think one good result of its operation would be to bring us into closer communication with the mother country. I think it would do a good deal to increase and foster the business between Canada and Great Britain, for it would furnish a short and direct route the western terminus of which would be light in the heart of the great western country. I believe also that it will pay for itself as a colonization road. Let me just point out the change that has taken place in a few years. I can remember very well-and it is not so many years ago-when none of us thought that great country north of the Saskatchewan river right up to near Edmonton was of any value. But the more we explore that country and the more we learn concerning it, the more we come to the conclusion that in that country which at one time, was thought of little value, we have vast stretches of rich agricultural land. The construction of this Hudson bay road would not only develop 475 miles of a colonization road, but you must remember that the sea line on the west side of Hudson bay will be made tributary to the railway which would assist in the development of that whole country and assist very materially in having it thoroughly prospected. And l think there is no doubt that when ft is prospected you will find it a country rich in minerals. I believe that until you go away beyond where it is possible to grow anything in the far northern country, there is no part of this Canada of ours where, if you build a road for 500 miles, it will not of itself produce traffic enough to make that road a paying business. In every other part of the country we find we have vast resources not only of agricultural lands but of timber and minerals. We have a very good example of that in New Ontario, a country which, at one time, people thought was too rough to be any good, but as soon as they built a railway into it they found it was all right, making the railway a paying concern from the start.
At this late hour, it is neither desirable nor necessary for me to speak longer. I trust the government will take this important matter of the Hudson Bay Railway at once and will give us some definite pronouncement on the subject. I do not very much care how the road is built. I do not care very much whether the land is

sold oil pre-emption for $3 per acre or a certain quantity of land set apart to build tlie road. We are not concerned very much about the details; what we want is to have the road started. For it will take three or four years to build the railway, as we can work with advantage, probably, only from one end. The sooner it is begun the sooner it will be completed. I am satisfied that, before it is completed, every one of the roads now existing will be taxed to its uttermost. Though, by the Hudson Bay route, we may not be able to get out a great deal of wheat the same fall it is grown, we shall be able to get out many millions of bushels, and, for the rest, it is only a matter of storing it a month or so longer than it is stored at Fort William. And, as a route for cattle, there is no comparison between this and any other. It is so much cooler and the land haul is so much shorter that the cattle can be landed in better shape than if sent by the St. Lawrence, by New York or by any of the Atlantic ports. So, in conclusion, I trust that the government will give us some assurance at an early day that this matter will be taken hold of at once and carried to a successful completion in the course of the next few years.


Mr. W. D. STAPLES (Macdonald).: I understand how unkind it would be on my part if I were to inflict a long speech on the House at this late hour. But I feel that I should not be doing my duty to the constituency I represent in this House, or to the province from which I come, if I did not at least say a word or two to show ' that I am most desirous that this road should be constructed at an early day. We have listened to many good speeches this afternoon. Some of the speakers have introduced some new thoughts; others have resurrected a great deal of old thought, but while it is old it is good, and upon a question of this kind we do not lose anything by refreshing our minds with what is already in ' Hansard.' The feasibility and the practicability of this road, as well as its great necessity, have been thoroughly established by what has been said to-day. Therefore, I shall not deal with that phase of the question. It has now come down to a matter of policy-it resolves itself into this: where are we going to get the money to construct this road ? We heard the policy of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) when he madfi a speech in this House a few days ago. I listened to that speech, and I want to ask hon. members what is there in it after all? What was there in that speech more than has been presented to this House time and time again? That speech was published in the daily papers throughout Canada and in the United States and even abroad-for what purpose I am not at this moment going to say. I believe it was all prearranged. And as to what it cost to get this great publicity Mr. TURRIFF.
through the press of the world, I shall not say anything at this moment. But I will say that if one of the new members of the House, or one of the members who are not in the habit of speaking often had made the same speech that the hon. member for Brandon made, it would simply have been thrown in the waste basket.
As I listened to the policies enunciated by the hon. gentleman who preceded me this afternoon, I thought that, after all, there was another policy by which this government could very easily save the money necessary to build the Hudson Bay Railway. If they would only exercise a little more economy in the various departments, it would not be necessary for us to set aside any of our lands to provide for the construction of this road.
Take for example the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company deal. If the people of this country had received value for that land for which the recipients received $1,-
750,000	that would have gone a considerable distance in constructing the Hudson Bay Railway. If the government had pared down the unnecessary and gorgeous expenditure in equipping the ' Montcalm,' if those on that boat had drunk out of a ten cent cup Instead of a $12 cup and that money had been used for the construction of this railway it would have built a few miles. It has been proved over and over again in this House and In the Public Accounts Committee that the government have been building wharfs throughout this country where there were no people, where there was no water and where there was no business. If they had used this money to construct the Hudson Bay Railroad they would have found lots of produce and many people there, and the money would not be lying idle as it is when used in the construction of such wharfs. If they had even used the $400,000 expended on the North Atlantic Trading Company for which the people received no value, it would have been some assistance. They might have used the money that has gone to the middleman in the Moncton land deal, or the large sums that have been made out of the Robbins Irrigation Company. Mr. Knowles stated this afternoon that the government had not sold any of the people's land for $1 an acre, but if he investigates he will find that 9,450 acres were sold for $1 an acre. 380,000 acres were sold on long credit to other irrigation companies, and in this case alone the middleman got $1,145,000. Why should that not be taken for the Hudson Bay Railway ? We have also the Galway Horse and Cattle Company deal. Here the people of Canada received only $600, but the man who got the land turned it over within a few days for $20,000. That would build at least a mile of the Hudson Bay route. Take the Blairmore townsite for which the people of Canada received only $480, but the persons who got the townsite to-day value
63S1

it at over $200,000. That would Have built 10 miles of the Hudson Bay Railway. We find that the Militia Department is to-uay spending $6,000,000 for a service that used to he carried on for $1,000,000. i womu suggest to the hon. the 1'rirne Minister that we should have a little less war and a tew more miles of Hudson Bay Railway. I am one ot tlie eleven who voted against the appropriation of $300,000 to get in the tn.u end of the wedge committing this country to $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 for the reclaiming of the Plains of Abraham. If they had taken even that $300,000 and used it in the construction ot the Hudson Bay Railway instead of blowing it up in fire-crackers, as some of my hon. friends say, the people of the western provinces at least would have been very mnch more pleased. Then we come to the Marine Department. If you took some of the money you have been paying to those Americans who have been coming here at $75 a day and used it to bund the Hudson Bay Railway, the people would have been much better satisfied and the gov: eminent might have used a portion of it to pay Canadians who could very well show the Minister of Marine and his officials how to change a single entry system of bookkeeping to a double entry system. It is only a few nights since we had in the House a vote for a ten-year subsidy of $200,U00 per year for a steamship line running to Prance. For what purpose V As far as I can ascertain from tne French treaty, we as Canadians, especially we farmers, get no great value lor that $200,too a year. It will simply be paid into the cotters of the company operating the service, and this for the purpose of assisting France to place her goods on the Canadian markets, if this had been used for the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway, it would have been of much more benefit to the farmers of the west.
Hon. gentlemen say we have not given away any of our lands. What have we been doing with our timber ? Where has it gone ? Imagine yourself taking a train at Halifax and riding to the city of Vancouver, a distance of 3,000 miles and seeing on one side of the track for a distance of half a mile, a belt of timber and you will have some idea of the quantity of timber owned and controlled by the hon. member for Dauphin and the Imperial Pulp Company, the president of which is the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Manitoba. But they are not satisfied with giving away the land and timber, take our fisheries for example. If you can imagine yourself riding from Halifax to Vancouver, and viewing for that distance a lake twelve miles wide, you will have some idea of what has been given away to a few persons for a mere pittance. If these national assets had been so dealt with that the people received a fair value for them instead of their being given away, we would have more than enough 203
money for the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway. The policy that I would suggest to the government for the raising of the necessary funds for the construction of the railway would be to cut out the middlemen, do away with the graft system and give the people value for the money collected from them In taxes.


Mr. JOHN CRAWFORD (Portage la Prairie).: No question is of more interest to the people of the whole country to-day than transportation. That question is at the bottom of practically all the agitation there is, particularly in the western country today. It affects not only the movement of our crops but every other line of business. It not only affects the farmers and the labourers on the farms, but it affects every line of business throughout the whole country. I consider this is a more important proposition at the present time than anything we have to consider. I do not wish to speak at any length but I think it is only right that I should at least make some correction with respect to some of the remarks which have been made by previous speakers. I noticed that the hon member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) and the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Lake) tried to misrepresent the conditions which surround this undertaking with reference to the acts of the present government. One hon. gentleman undertook to say that the mileage was increased more than it ought to have been owing to the route which was taken in the direction of Hudson bay, or owing to Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann not trying to get to Hudson bay. I notice that it was suggested in the order in council of 1882 that the proposed road would be about 800 miles long and if you will look at the route of the Canadian Northern Railway you will find that, in reaching Hudson bay, it covers a distance of about 800 miles. I have just one complaint to make. In all the business which has been done in connection with the matter they seem to have lost sight of the fact that when the land grant was originally given in connection with this road it was given for the sole purpose of getting a completed road. The orders in council one after another bear that out. The complaint I have to make is that no provision has been made in that direction. The present government may not be so much to blame as their predecessors in that regard owing to the fact that the arrangement provided that so much of the land grants should be handed over as every twenty miles were constructed. Whenever twenty miles were built a proportionate amount of the land grant was handed over but there was no provision made for the completion of the road. Messrs. Mann and Mackenzie or the Canadian Northern people should go on and complete the road. They have had sufficient to do it and I think it has been a great mistake that proper and sufficient provisions were not made surround-

ing the contract. In 1885 an order in council was passed providing that this road could be built practically anywhere the company chose to locate it. They could start anywhere and tap the Canadian Pacific Kailway. The order in council provided that in so far as that portion of it in Manitoba was concerned, the builders of the road were entitled to 6,400 acres per mile and that they should also receive 12,800 acres per mile in the Northwest Territories. The land grant would not have been along the line of railway if it had run in the direction that hon. gentlemen opposite have been talking about to-night. Throughout the different orders in council they make provision for the giving of the land grant to be selected not particularly along the line of railway, but the order in council passed in 1885 provides that in so far as the location of the land is concerned it is entirely at the disposal of the Minister of the Interior. Then having regard to the fact that they could start anywhere, build anywhere that would be advantageous to the company and that they could get into the Northwest Territories and select the land grant anywhere they pleased, goes to prove that the argument of my hon. friend's opposite, in so far as land grants are concerned, are not in keeping with the facts.


Mr.  M. S.@: McCarthy. What is the date of that order in council?


John Crawford: May 11, 1885. The order provides that they can build from any point and in any direction that may be considered advantageous to the company and that the minister is to he sole judge as to the selection of the land.
Now, I will leave that feature of the situation. This proposed railway is the foundation of practically everything in connection with the business of the west at the present time. Its construction not only affects the moving of our grain but it affects the marketing of it as well. During a discussion which took place in connection with the working of the Grain Inspection Act the other day the bankers of the country took the position that owing to the condition of transportation they were not prepared to make advances and they gave that as a reason for cutting off credits to the grain dealers. The grainmen stated that before my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) made his announcement at the beginning of the session with reference to the assistance which the government had given to the banks the whole grain trade of the country was practically tied up because the grain dealers who were buying grain throughout the country could not get a dollar from the banks on account of their inability to get the grain which they had purchased and stored in interior elevators moved. When the announcement was made by the Finance Minister that he had made certain arrangements to assist the banking institutions to provide funds for the removing of Mr. CRAWFORD.
the grain.it relieved the situation immediately. Anything that is going to bring about better transportation facilities is of the greatest importance to the people of the country. As to the question of what advantage we may derive from the construction of this road it does not appeal to me from the point of view of dollars and cents quite so much as it may to other hon. gentlemen. It may present itself to them in that light owing to the parts of the country from which they come. I cannot see that we are going to derive an advantage even of 10 or 15 cents a bushel in connection with the shipping of our crop. I speak of the Manitoba part of the situation.
To the more western part of the country it would be of greater benefit but taking it on the whole I do not think the project would result in as large a gain in the matter of reducing freight rates as has been represented by some hon. gentlemen. The fact is that at certain periods grain is being taken from Winnipeg to Liverpool for about fifteen cents a bushel and it is not at all probable that it can be carried much cheaper than that by the Hudson Bay route. It is far more probable that when the Grand Trunk Pacific is in operation the result will be that the eastbound freight rates will be lower than they are to-day. I see that the rate quoted from Chicago to New York, a 900 mile haul, is sometimes as low as ten cents a hundred pounds when navigation is open, and there is water competition, and fourteen cents per hundred during the winter months which is about the highest rate charged for that 900 miles of railway transit. If they can haul wheat from Chicago to New York at a rate of about 8 -40 cents a bushel it would seem that the railway rates in wheat in this country should be lower than they are to-day. When we remember that the Grand Trunk Pacific will have practically a level grade, especially going eastward, there is no doubt that the cost of transportation will be reduced, and it is therefore not likely that the construction of the Hudson Bay route will give us the advantage in the reduction of of about 8'40 cents a bushel it would seem to anticipate. At the same time the construction of this railway will be of great advantage to us, for it would give us more facilities for moving our crops and that is a most important feature. It would seem to me that if the road were constructed from Calgary to Edmonton or any other point in the west to Churchill, the grades obtained would be such that the cost of operation would be extremely light, and the freight rates would be as lowr as you could possibly expect in any railway haul. No doubt there are certain seasons when the navigation on Hudson bay will not be as favourable as in others, but undoubtedly in some seasons the weather will be so open as to allow our moving the greater portion of the season's crop by this route. I believe the undertaking to be feasible and that the country need have no hesitation in assuming

the responsibility for it. In fact the whole western country demands it and the people will not he satisfied until it is carried out. As to providing the means for constructing the railway, the idea suggested last year by the Minister of the Interior when he was discussing his land Bill is nearer to my view than the scheme suggested by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton). I am not in favour of tying up the lands in this country from settlement in any form, and in my opinion the sooner we get settlers on the land the better. If there is one thing more than another which in former years retarded the progress of the west it was the fact that the Conservatives adopted the policy of reserving the odd sections for these railway grants, thus necessitating sparse settlement and driving out many of the early settlers who would otherwise have remained in the country. I am inclined to favour the policy of the Minister of the Interior under which the sale of lands at so much per acre would create a fund to build this railway; I would certainly prefer that to reserving large tracts of lands for railways for any length of time. Then I am of opinion that the government should construct the railway and own it. However, I am not in favour of government operation and I think the line should be leased and running powers reserved so that it may be kept practically as a highway for the people of Canada. As to the terminals at Fort Churchill, I think they should be built and maintained by the railway companies who interest themselves in the trade there. I would remark that the conditions in western Canada have a direct effect upon the conditions in all other parts of the country. The manufacturers of the east suffer if the farmers in the west are depressed, as we could see last year when the little damage caused to the crops was so exaggerated as to bring about financial stringency in the country. . The fact is that there was more money made out of the crop in the west last year than any other year's crop we ever had. There was more money made to the acre than was ever made before, but the slight damage done to the crop was made use of to the detriment of the whole country. There are no hard times in the west to-day, and if you consult the loan companies there they will tell you that they never had their interest paid as well as it was paid last year. I have a statement taken from a Winnipeg paper to the effect that two or three loan companies collected 90 per cent of their interest before the first of March this year much better than they did last year. When I was in the west a short time ago I was told by some of the bank managers that their accounts had never been in as good shape as they are at the present time. There is no danger for the future, conditions vary so much in different sections it is hardly possible to expect any reverse affecting the 203i
whole country. I think the future of the country is assured, and we cannot too soon meet the necessity of providing for that future. It is coming faster than we can provide for it, and nothing that we can do will go further to serve the people than increasing the means of transportation.


Mr. J. HERRON (Alberta).: Mr. Speaker, I had contemplated speaking at some length on this important question ; but owing to the lateness of the hour I will not occupy more than a minute or two merely to place myself on record as being in favour of the project. But before sitting down I wish to refer to a remark made by the last speaker (Mr. Crawford) with regard to the odd numbered sections. He asserted that the late Conservative government had been largely responsible for keeping back settlement, and otherwise retarding the progress of the country by failing to throw; the odd-numbered sections open to homesteading or disposing of them in some other way. I think that statement comes with very bad grace from a supporter of the present government, which, although they have been in power for twelve years, during which they have had full power to deal with that question, have taken no steps towards throwing the odd-numbered sections open to settlement, or dealing with them in any way. With regard to the Hudson Bay Railway, I do not think that at this late hour of the night it is necessary for me to urge the importance of that great work. The subject has been very ably presented to the House by several gentlemen on both sides of the House, particularly by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) and the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. M. S. McCarthy). I would like, however, to say that one phase of the Hudson Bay route which especially commends it to the favour of the people of southern Alberta, lies in the advantage that it will offer in connection with the shipment of cattle from that range country. Our wild stock raised on the prairies do not take kindly to transportation by rail. It is the long railway journey from Alberta to the sea-coast that takes practically the cream off the business of cattle raising on the western plains ; and if we had a railroad to Hudson bay, it would give us the advantage of a shorter railway journey by 1,000 miles. For that reason alone the people of southern Alberta are specially interested in the building of that railroad. I would be glad to see the government take up the question in a practical way and carry it to a termination, instead of simply using it for political purposes from year to year, and letting it end at that. With these remarks I merely wish to state that I will support the resolution.


Mr. S. J. JACKSON (Selkirk).: Mr. Speaker, on this very important question, that of the Hudson Bay Railway, I desire to

-occupy the attention of the House for a very short time. In the session of 1880 chapter 69 of the Statutes of Canada shows that a charter was passed for the Winnipeg and Hudson Bay Railway. After this charter was passed the promoters made application to the Manitoba government for assistance to the road. After several years of negotiations, finally in the year 1886 the legislature passed a Bill guaranteeing the bonds of the road for the first forty miles from Winnipeg at the rate of $6,400 per mile, taking the land grant as a security. I might say here that the Dominion government had given a land grant to the company providing that for that portion of the line which was in the province of Manitoba, about 200 miles, the company were to get 6,400 acres per mile, while for that portion outside of the province of Manitoba, about 500 miles, 12,800 acres would be granted to provide for extra difficulties supposed to exist In the construction of the road. The company went on and built the first forty miles. They did the grading, laid the ties and rails, but put on no ballast, and never operated any portion of this section. The ties rotted on the ground, the culverts and bridges were destroyed by fire and weather, the rails lay along the dump, and the only use made of them for about fifteen years was by the farmers along the line who occasionally hitched on to one and used it as a weed killer on their summer fallow. This forty miles remained from 1886 to about the year 1C00 in the condition I have just mentioned. About that time Mackenzie and Mann got possession of the charter and started to reorganize and complete the line, already graded. They also added about twenty miles, taking the line to Oakpoint, a settlement on the east shore of Lake Manitoba which is now the terminus of the Hudson Bay Railway in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, and I think I speak for a very large number of the people of the province of Manitoba, the present location of the Hudson bay road from a point on the Canadian Northern Railway Prince Albert branch, to the Pas on the Saskatchewan river, will never be a satisfactory route for the province of Manitoba. This line starts about thirty miles west of the western boundary of Manitoba, and if completed to Churchill on the Hudson bay would have its terminus to the east of the eastern boundary of the province. In other words, taking Portage la Prairie as the centre of the province our grain and other exports would have to go 170 miles west to this point and then come back east to Port Churchill, about 300 miles, an extra haul for the province on all its exports and imports of 235 miles. If Manitoba is to get any benefit from a Hudson Bay Railway a line will have to be built from Winnipeg .north between Lakes Winnipeg and Mr. S. J. JACKSON.
Manitoba or the east side of Lake Winnipeg which is the best route of all for Manitoba as well as being 200 miles shorter than any other route. In addition either of these two routes would open up a large extent of new and unoccupied territory which is capable of carrying a large population when the land is cleared. Most of this territory is covered with bush which would help the farmers to clear up the land by enabling them to take'out pulp wood and ship it by this railway.
There has never been any doubt in the minds of the Manitoba people as to the benefits of a Hudson Bay Railway to that province but the difficulty in the past has been the owning of the charter by people who could not convince the capitalists of the feasibility and profit of putting money into this railway.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition seems to doubt that any pronouncement has been made by any member of the government on the question. Let me refer him to what the hon. Minister of the Interior said during last session when introducing his Lands Act:
The government is fully convinced of the propriety of giving the Northwest an additional railway outlet by way of Hudson bay at the earliest possible date. The government believes that with the increase in production of the west now in progress, such an additional outlet will be urgently needed as soon as the railway can be built, even if it were commenced at once. At the same time it realizes that public opinion throughout Canada could scarcely be expected at the moment, in view of the great obligations already incurred in connection with railway enterprise, to sanction the additional obligation that would be incurred by the construction of a railway to Hudson bay, unless special provision were made to meet that obligation. It believes however, that there will be no objection from any quarter if the funds acruing from the disposal of preemptions in the three prairie provinces, under the terms of the proposed land Bill, shall be considered as a provision in place of the land grant stated in the Act to meet the burden upon the credit of the Dominion as a whole that must be assumed at an early date-if not immediately-if a railway is to be in operation to Hudson bay in time to meet the urgent need which is now in plain sight for an additional and shorter railway route from the prairies to tide water.
Now, if this should be agreed to by the government, there is nothing to hinder surveys being made during the coming summer and operations commenced and contracts made in the spring of 1909. This road could be finished in two years as there are no special difficulties along the route. This would help the situation a good deal
63S9

as it will most likely be five years before tbe Grand Trunk Pacific is finished. While the line is being built, I would suggest that the government put up elevators with a capacity of say twenty millions so that when the line is finished it would at once become useful in relieving a situation which must become acute every fall until relief is furnished in this way. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, even after this line and the Grand Trunk Pacific are finished,, there will be enough business to keep all the roads busy for twelve months in every year.
I might say further that my idea would be to give every railroad in the west running rights (under the Railway Commission) over this road from some fixed point, to which they would have to build as soon as this is done, and not before, will the relief for which the west is looking be provided. I would point out another fact, Mr. Macoun of the Department of Agriculture, in giving evidence before tbe Committee on Agriculture, a few days ago, told us of a belt of good land north of the province of Manitoba, through which the Hudson Bay Railway must run on its way to Churchill, of about 100 miles square or 6,400,000 acres. This belt will support 20,000 farmers giving each 320 acres. A few years ago 20,000 farmers in Manitoba raised 50,000,000 bushels of wheat, so it is easily seen what this belt when settled will do for the Hudson Bay Railway. As tbe government are likely to appeal to the people in the near future, I would like to see a plank for the building of this road along the lines I suggest, put in their platform, and from what I know of the people of the county of Selkirk, my majority instead of 500 as at the last election, would, I am sure, reach 1,500. At this late hour, Mr. Speaker, I will not at any further length discuss the subject under consideration.


Mr. A. A. McDEAN (Queens).: It really seems to me in looking at the map that every man east of the Bay des Chaleurs ought to hold up his hand for the construction of a railway to Fort Churchill, provided they are convinced of the navigability of Hudson straits for even five months in the year. The industrial communities of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island would thereby secure easy access to the northern part of this continent for their manufactured products by securing direct water shipment and avoiding the heavy tolls charged on the different railways, while so far as regards the agricultural interests of Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton, contiguous to the route, there is every reason to suppose that they would be able to find a ready market among our own people for all they have to sell. Take for instance this present year, the parliament of Canada has voted over $2,000,000 to supply seed for the west and the only difficulty that came to public notice in the way of securing oats from Prince Edward Island, was as to the procuring of freight rates. If the people of Prince Edward Island were convinced that they could supply even a proportion of the needs of the west, they would be perfectly willing to pay their quota towards the construction of a railway to Hudson bay, provided always that the people of the west would be wiling to pay their quota of the cost of a tunnel under the straits of Northumberland and thereby securing a complete circle of inter-communication between the Island province and Central Canada.
Mr. WILBERT MeINTYRE (Stratheona). At this very late hour, I do not propose to take up time discussing this question at any length. I had intended giving some statistics, but former speakers have used most of them, and I do not intend to repeat them to the House which must be somewhat weary of listening to statistics to-day. The question of transportation is one of the most important questions with which the western country has to deal. For the last five or six years we have had every year to suffer to a greater or less degree from what is knows as the transportation blockade. The acuteness of that blockade was not so great this season for various obvious reasons, but it does not require any prophet to foretell that the first abundant harvest will again bring on this transportation blockade in a much more acute form than we have ever experienced it in the past. The conditions this year were very favourable to the railway. The crop in some part was injured, the prices were very materially lowered, and consequently the export of the grain was not great. But I say again that' it does not require any great reflection on the part of anybody to see that, with our present conditions of producing grain, we shall have another transportation blockade just as soon as any very great quantity is prepared for export.
Now, another feature that we have to reckon with in tbe west is this : whereas we have already had these blockades, we have only begun, one might say, the occupation of raising grain in that country. We have alienated from the government somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80,000,000 acres of land, and we had in cultivation in 1906
8,000,000 acres. We have over 40,000,000 acres of land occupied by settlers. With these facts before him, any one on a moment's reflection will see that an enormous output must necessarily follow when we begin operations seriously.
Now, as to the method of building this road, I am not going to go into that in detail. But I believe we have had amply proven here to-day the feasibility of building tbe road, the suitability of the country through which it is to run, the availability of the port which it reaches, the possibility of storing tbe grain there, and the feasibil-

[DOT] ity of tlie water route from that point to the European market for a reasonable number of months in the year. I believe that these facts in the main are plain to every member of the House. It is the duty of this government to see to it that that road is constructed and that the government has absolute control over it. I could go very much into detail in this matter, but all I wish to do is to add my expression to that of others and to statements that I hope the government at the earliest opportunity, will have this road constructed.


Mr. GEO. W. FOWLER (Kings and Albert).: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the House upon the very lively interest they seem to take in this very important question-I think it would require some stretch of imagination on your part to see a quorum in the House at this moment. That is regrettable. This is a question of great importance not only to the west but to the east as well. And notwithstanding the insinuation made by the hon. member that the east does not take the interest it should in western questions, I must say that the eastern part of Canada has in every case shown a very great interest in the west and all that pertains to the west. Sacrifices have been made ; they were not deemed sacrifices because of the overpowering interest which the east had in the west. From the very foundation of our confederation, the eastern provinces of Canada have been interested in the west. We in the maritime provinces do not fix the western boundary of Canada at the St. Lawrence river, nor do the older provinces ns a whole fix their boundary at the great lakes. We extend our boundary to the Pacific ocean. It was the. dream of that great statesman. Sir John Macdonald, and of the statesmen who surrounded him, as soon as confederation was formed, that the Pacific ocean should be the western boundary and the Arctic ocean the northern boundary of this great Dominion of ours. I say that we of the east are and ought to be interested in the questions of the west. And the question of the Hudson Bay Railway is a very important question to the people of the east and the west. There can be no doubt that the time is not far distant when the means for carrying the products of that great country will be found insufficient, even with the new Transcontinental road which is now under construction. And I do not believe that a more feasible route for a new transportation line can be found than by way of Hudson bay. For my part, though coming from the extreme east, I am very strongly in favour of the construction of this road, and the opening of another outlet for the products of our country. The government that was in power in '1881 had the same idea-I believe it_ was in 1881 that the first order in council was passed in respect to this matter. Then there was to be an alternative route, as has been pointed out. Mr. w. McIntyre.
Changes have been made which have altogether changed the idea of the men who passed that first order in council. As has already been pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. S. J. Jackson) the route that is adopted at the present time going to Erwood and thence by Ee Pas towards Churchill is not the shortest route to Hudson bay. The first route intended, by the order in council, the route that obliges them to pass east of Lake Manitoba, would be, as I understand it, the shortest route between Portage la Prairie and Churchill. I was somewhat amused at the statement made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Crawford) that, as far back as 1885, by order in council, the Minister of the Interior was given power to place this land grant where he pleased. I can understand how hon. gentlemen opposite after the assertions we have already made with respect to the conduct of this government regarding land grants for railways, would make very strenuous efforts to get out of the hole in which they were placed by the conduct of this government toward this particular railway proposition. They have stated again and again that not an acre has been given by this government as land grant. But they are met with the statement that the government revived a land grant, which was the same as giving it originally, because the grant had expired, and they were not obliged to renew it. And not only had the grant expired, but the object for which it was given had expired, the object being a railway to Hudson bay and they had changed the route so that the object no more existed than did the grant itself. They revived the land grant for another purpose. Not only did they revive the grant, but they increased tremendously the area from which it was to be selected, so as to allow the company to choose land not necessarily more fertile, but infinitely more valuable by reason of the large settlement that had already taken place in the vicinity. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie says they were authorized to do this by reason of the order in council which was passed by the Conservative government in 1885. Now the only section which gives the Minister of the Interior any discretion with respect to where these lands should be located is section 7. I have a certified copy of the order in council before me. The sections preceding sections 7 state in detail where these lands shall be taken from; section 7 goes on to say :
And any deficiency in the area of the land which the company may be entitled to receive arising on account of any portion of land hereinbefore described being occupied by actual settlers

Mark the condition:
-establishing legal rights thereto or which might be set apart by the government for Indians under any treaty, or arising from

any other cause, of which the Minister of the Interior shall be the sole judge, shall be made up from such lands as the Minister of the Interior may from time to time designate.
That is the deficiency shall be made up. But there are some eight and three-quarter million acres of land from which the selection shall be made, provided for by the preceding sections. We find that instead of confining themselves to the lands originally set aside for the purpose of selection they go over 200 miles west of that to the extreme western boundary of the province of Saskatchewan. I have here a map which shows that and you will observe, Mr. Speaker, just how far they have gone from the area originally set apart. This was done not because there was not suflicient land of good quality, ' fairly fit for settlement,' in the terms of the order in council, but because settlement had already taken place in this particular district and those lauds were very much more valuable and much more saleable on that account. So gentlemen who had this railway to build were able to get 6,400 acres of the best land in the country in districts in which there already was settlement in sections not set apart. $6 an acre would be a fair value for this land and on 6,400 acres this would make a very acceptable subsidy indeed. in addition to the $40,000 a year for 20 years which was also guaranteed for the construction of this road. Such a good thing was this, so valuable were these concessions to the Canadian Northern Railway, that they were not particular whether they observed the desire to cover the distance between the two points in the most direct way; they did not care how much the line varied from the straight because the variation would simply increase the amount they were to receive. I have here a map which shows the line, and you will observe how it is constructed. Did anybody ever see such a wobbly straight line as that? Every wave in that line cost this country from $250,000 to $500,000. Those were expensive wobbles, but you see the longer the distance the more land they get. In Manitoba they got 6,400 acres a mile and outside of that province 12,800 acres a mile. The actual distance they made in the journey to Hudson bay would be only 150 miles, but they had journeyed 320 miles in order to make that 150 miles. This was done because they were getting 6,400 acres per mile and were allowed to select that from the very best lands in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Taking the 12,400 acres allowed in Saskatchewan at $6 per acre, they would receive $75,000 a mile for building this road. It seems to me that this is a matter for which this government deserves the censure of the people of Canada. They have taken from the public lands, the public domain of this country, land to aid a company in the construction of what is simply a local line.
Then they have the nerve to stand up here and say they have never alienated one acre of the public lands of this country. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) might have added one or two other items to the list he gave of savings which the government could have made to procure funds for the building of this road to Hudson bay. He might have suggested that the government could have used the $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 that to-day lie at the bottom of the St. Lawrence river in the ill-fated Quebec bridge. If this had been devoted to the Hudson bay road it would have fairly well built the line from Le Pas to Hudson bay. It would have been much better for the country if it had been used for that purpose.
While this discussion has been mostly carried on by western members, it seems to me that at least one eastern man should state to the House that so far as he was entitled to speak for the east the east was in favour of anything which would make to the betterment of conditions in the western country.


Hon. PRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I wish to congratulate the House, the west and the country at large on the unanimous expression of approval of this project in which we are all, especially in the west, so deeply interested. It is very fortunate, I am sure, that after some four months of a strenuous session it is possible to hold a discussion on such an important question in the House and not have any division of opinion as to the merits of the main question. This is fortunate for the project and for the country. I do not propose to discuss the question myself as it has been discussed at such length and so ably during the day. I might, however, refer to one point suggested by Mr. Fowler, that the road had been lengthened very greatly from what was first intended. I shall not dispute that, but I would point out that the decision of the question whether the road has really been lengthened, depends on the points taken. If the initial point is to be Portage la Prairie or some point in the older part of the province of Manitoba and the usefulness of the road is to be confined to that district, then the road has been lengthened by being taken west of Lake Manitoba instead of between Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. But if the road is intended to serve the western country generally, then this change in the route has very greatly shortened the road. That is to say the route has taken a shortened dis-stance between the centre of the wheat fields and Fort Churchill as compared with the route which would go direct from Portage la Prairie to Fort Churchill. Last year, when this question was up for consideration, the premier informed the House that the government had the matter then under consideration and that lie hoped to

be able to make an announcement with regard to it before the close of the session. Unfortunately he was called away and did not return before the close of the session; therefore the government was not able to. reach any conclusion on the subject and he was not able to make any announcement. I am at liberty to say that the question is now under the consideration of the government and that a conclusion has not been reached is not because of any dilatoriness in regard to the question at the hands of the government. I think it will be agreed that the subject of transportation has been dealt with and is being dealt with very energetically on the part of the government and very satisfactorily to the country at large, and if no conclusion has yet been reached in regard to this question of the immediate construction of a railway to Hudson bay it is not because of any lack of sympathy with the project or any lack of intent on the part of the government to deal witli the question, but because other matters have hitherto been more pressing. However, it is again hoped that before the end of the session it will be possible for the government to make an announcement upon this question.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frank Oliver: I'1 regard to the general question, the subject is one of intense interest to the people of the west. That is perfectly apparent to any gentleman who has gone to the west and who knows how thoroughly the people of Manitoba and the two other provinces are convinced that the Hudson bay route will give to them an outlet which is absolutely necessary to the full and complete development of their country. It is only a question of the requisite information and we are informed that the government have in their possession at the present time information which justifies them in coming to the conclusion that the Hudson Bay route is a reasonably practicable and feasible route for a reasonable number of months in the year as the hon. member for Strath-cona (Mr. McIntyre) very well put it tonight. If that is the case why have they not effectively dealt with the matter during the last twrelve years ? Why is it that they did not take some steps to give a practical illustration of the sympathy which was dwelt upon so much here to-night by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) ? Sympathy is a very desirable quality, but action is a much more desirable quality on the part of the government in regard to a great transportation question of this kind. Let me point out to the minister one illustration of that. In 1904, four years ago, there was the same unanimity in this House in regard to the application of the British preference only to goods which entered Canada by Canadian ports. There were the same delightful expressions from even greater statesmen than the Minister of the Interior, from the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and from the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and we know very well that in so far as the application of that principle is concerned the matter is exactly in the same position as it was when that motion was passed by the House. If that is a fair omen of what the people of the west may expect from this resolution, 1 do not know that they have any very great cause for satisfaction after what has taken place. There was on that occasion in 1904, a unanimous resolution of the House and yet the government have paid absolutely no attention to it, except that the terms of that resolution have been incorporated in the statutes of this country to be brought into operation at some indefinite and unknown time in the future, described by the Prime Minister as dependent upon the completion of the National Transcontinental Railway. Four years have elapsed, we do not know how many more will lapse before effect will be given to that resolution, now four years old, and if the people of the wmst are to wait for a similar length of time before any action is taken by the government in regard to this railway, it does not seem that the hon. member for West Assiniboia has made quite so impor-

tant or great a stride towards the goal on the present occasion as some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House seem to imagine.
The subject recalls the discussion on the tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland which was alluded to by one of my hon. friend from the island ; it is simply a question of getting the requisite information as to whether or not this is a feasible route. This government have been in power for twelve years and assuming the worst default that you are entitled to assume in regard to their predecessors, I think that they long ago should have acted upon the information which has been available. Now, we are assured by the Minister of the Interior that the government have . it under consideration, and I suppose that we must content ourselves with that unless some other gentleman of the treasury benches is inclined to go a little further than the Minister of the Interior has done.
Motion as amended, agreed to.



ADJOURNMENT- BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We propose to take up a number of Bills on the Order Paper, as follows : Bill relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies ; second reading of Bill (No. 135) to amend the Immigration Act; second reading of Bill (No. 143) to amend the Inland Revenue Act, second reading of Bill (No. 113) to amend the Land Titles Act ; second reading of Bill (No. 118) to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners ; and Bill (No. 112) to amend the Railway Act as respect this constitution of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.40 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 8, 1908.