MICHAEL O'LEARY V. C.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the case of Michael O'Leary, who won the
[Mr. MeigheaJ
Victoria Cross at the front and who is, I understand, in gaol in the United States without trial, on some charge, not a very serious one, I believe. I understand that some of the municipalities along the Niagara frontier, or in that neighbourhood, have sent letters asking the Minister of Justice to do anything he can to have the trial expedited. I draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the matter and ask him, if possible, to do anything he can on behalf of this poor fellow to see that he gets a speedy and fair trial.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I will make it my duty to inquire
into the circumstances attending the case with a view, if possible, to meeting my hon. friend's wishes.



DEATH OF MR. A. B. HUNT, M.P.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Hon. members of the
House will have learned with feelings of sorrow and great regret of the death at eight o'clock this morning, at the Ottawa Civic Hospital, of one of our number, Mr. Aylmer Byron Hunt, member for the constituency of Compton in the province of Quebec. During the last year or two Mr. Hunt has been in ill-health, having had to undergo several opera-ations. He has, however, been regularly in attendance throughout the present session and was in his seat in parliament as recently as ten days ago, at which time he went to the hospital in order to undergo another operation. His impaired strength and vitality were unequal to the tax which the operation placed upon them, and I am informed, he died this morning from its effects.
Mr. Hunt was in his sixty-first year. In point of service he was one of the oldest representatives in the Commons. He entered parliament over twenty years ago, having been first returned as the member for Compton in the general elections of 1904. He continued to represent that constituency in all subsequent parliaments, save the one following the general elections of 1911, when he met defeat by a slender majority. At the last general election he was returned by a majority of something like 4,000.
Mr. Hunt was closely identified with the farming and commercial interests of the county he represented in parliament. Like many another hon. member of this House, he, in his younger years, took an active interest in municipal affairs, and was honoured by being elected mayor of the town of Bury in which he was born, and subsequently by being chosen warden of the county. In 1900, following in the steps

Deceased Member-Mr. Hunt
of his father who in the year preceding had represented the county of Compton in the Provincial Legislature of Quebec, he contested the riding in the Liberal interests. Though unsuccessful in this contest his popularity was such that he was chosen as the Liberal candidate in the federal elections of 1904, when, as mentioned, he was first returned to this parliament.
Just how significant was the part played by Mr. Hunt in the politics of the Eastern Townships and how considerable the measure of public confidence he enjoyed, may be gauged from the circumstance that it was in the general elections of 1904 that the county 6f Compton for the first time since the days of Confederation changed its representation from Conservative to Liberal; also by the fact that the majorities obtained by Mr. Hunt in the elections of 1919 and 1921 were the largest federal majorities ever given in the history of the county.
Mr. Hunt possessed the characteristics and qualities which inspire confidence and trust, qualities which in public life add to the number of a man's friends and leave him without enemies when his day's work is done. He was quiet and reserved in demeanour, genuinely sympathetic and public-spirited, loyal and steadfast in all the relationships of life. In these many relationships he will be greatly missed. Especially will his loss be felt by hon. members on this side and in the country by the Liberal party to whose principles he was so true, and of which he was so devoted a supporter. We in the House of Commons, who knew him best will greatly miss his kindly and cheerful personality. Our sympathy will go out at this time to the constituency which Mr. Hunt represented, in the loss of their member, and especially to Mrs. Hunt and to her sons and daughters in the overwhelming bereavement they have so suddenly sustained. I know that I express the common sentiment and desire of all here assembled in requesting, Mr. Speaker, that you convey to Mrs. Hunt and to the members of her family t'he heartfelt sympathy of all hon. members of this House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Once again parliament is
called on by the intervention of death to lament the loss of one of our members, and to pay to his memory a tribute of honour and respect. As the Prime Minister has said, Mr. Hunt was one of the oldest of our number in point of service in this House. He devoted most of his life to the public service, but throughout that period maintained an atti-

tude of quiet reserve and unobtrusiveness which made him not so well known among all the members of the House as otherwise would have been his fortune. With us on this side he mingled little, but was known to all as a devoted friend of his country, as a cheerful, good companion, and a faithful public servant. He did all that man could do within his means and capacity. He served his country ably. He took part in very many business activities, and was connected with much that was of advantage to his people, and served in every way with fidelity and with ability. His family is large and in that manner also he leaves behind him an inheritance for his country, the value of which we all appreciate. I am sure that hon. members on this side of the House for whom I speak desire permission to join in this tribute of respect to his memory, and we ask also to be allowed to unite with hon. members opposite in the message which you, Mr. Speaker, are requested to send to his widow and his family.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: On
behalf of the hon. members who sit in this part of the House, I should like to say that it was with deep sorrow and regret that we learned this morning of the death of Mr. Hunt. Though, as has already been stated, he did not take a prominent part in the debates of this House, yet I am sure he was respected by every hon. member. Manifestly he has been appreciated and respected by his constituents as shown by the long term during which he represented them in this chamber. He has served them honourably and well. I can only ask that our sympathy be expressed to those near and dear to him for the great loss which they have sustained in the death of husband and father.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: As requested
by the leaders of all parties in this House, I shall forward to the widow and relatives of the late Mr. Hunt tributes of sympathy which have been expressed for them in their bereavement.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, for the relief of George Thomas Grigor.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Ethel May Sherrill.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Max Arno Frind.

Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Elizabeth Burns.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Fred Herdman Ogden.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Marion Gooder-ham Smith.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Edith Maiy Wiles.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Annie Kate Winch.-Mr. Hanson.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Florence Kate Coutts.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of George Ken-Jess.-Mr. Hanson.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Thomas Aimer Shields.-Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Roderick James Ellis.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Florence Mann. -Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Samuel John Pegg, junior.-Mr. Preston.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Harry Hamble-ton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Izzie Klin-mentz (otherwise known as Izzie Climans).- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of John Hutchison Duraan.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 65, for the relief of Richard James Wright.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 66, for the relief of Mary Ellen Ayre.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 67, for the relief of Helen Marie Pritchard.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

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

Mr. WARD:: What was the amount paid, respectively, to the Canadian National Express Company and the


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.
Dominion Express Company by the following Departments, in 1924:	(a) Trade and Commerce; (b)
Customs and Excise; (c) Printing Bureau?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Trade and Commerce
	Canadian	Dominion
Civil government con-	National Express	Expresstingencies	$ 5 78	$ 1 00Commercial Intelligence	service	
Canada Grain Act, including Dominion	231 87	23 69government elevators Petroleum bounties ad-	1,067 52	597 11ministration	3 15	Motion Picture bureau	221 67	46 98Weights and Measures.	451 10	653 28Electricity and Gas..	607 71	215 20Bureau of Statistics..	175 56	24 40T otal	$2,764 36	$1,561 66
Department of Customs and Excise
(b)	Canadian National Express.. $13,667 84 Dominion Express Co	 7,773 26
Department of Printing Bureau For the calendar year ending December 31, 1924: the department paid to the Canadian National Express Company the amount of, $13,304.21; and to the Dominion Express Company the amount of, $4,639.91.


HORSE BREEDING
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	What amount has been spent in each province as federal assistance to horse breeding, under the breeding law?
2.	Does the special railway freight rate apply to the western shippers on the transportation of horses to the east ?
Statement showing amounts paid by the Dominion Stock Branch, Department of Agriculture, Ottawa to Horse Breeders' Clubs under the Federal Assistance to Horse Breeding Policy since the Inception of the Policy, 1915
It will be noted that, throughout the statement, the amounts shown as having been paid to clubs are in connection with clubs
organized for that year
Province	1915	1916	1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 419 44 3,701 20 -12,798 31 -13,342 93 5,225 71 2,298 04	$ cts. 397 22 2,158 79 14,711 09 10,484 74 4,422 83 2,295 49	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts. 816 66 51,795 02 136,120 00 89,731 91 38,095 39 7,290 75Alta	
Sask	380 00 1,410 26	446 56 2,637 37	8,092 18 18,827 30 7,890 78 5,750 11	16,939 90 28,340 95 19,756 62 5,941 00 288 00	9,271 26 20,695 38 14,256 37 6,417 78	6,097 80 13,972 34 12,802 79 6,526 39 250 00	2,i30 93 14,731 41 8,195 07 2,825 65 1,750 73	2,576 40 7,995 59 3,002 61 880 92 308 49	105 00	100 00	
126 40							1,253 32
P.E.I	351 67	386 66	359 99	155 00	Total.	1,890 26	3,188 93	40,560 37	71,392 87	50,992 46	40,035 98	38,145 62	34,625 16	29,633 79	14,764 01	325,229 45

- MAY 4, 1925
Questions
2.	The Canadian National railway officials advise that there are special freight rates from western to eastern Canada on horses in carloads, whidh apply for either breeding or general purposes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PRIVATE CARS
Mr. WILSON:: 1.	How many private cars are in the possession of the Canadian National Railways for the use of officials?
2.	How many of these have been secured in the past two and a half years?
3.	How many were used to carry officers of the company to Portland on the occasion of the departure of Mr. C. J. Smith for England?
4.	Who were the officers who used these cars for this purpose ?
5.	How many cars were on this same occasion sent around to Halifax and for what purpose were they so sent?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The hon. member
is not in his seat again and I suppose we had better let this question stand. I am prepared to answer the part of the question that I think ought to be answered.	,


MR. A. PETTIGREW
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. A. Pettigrew, counsel for returned soldiers, at Quebec, do any active service with the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, from August, 1914, to November, 1918?
2.	If so, (a) with what battalion; (b) what was his number; (c) in what battles did he take part?
3.	Did he not receive his exemption from military service during the war?
4.	If so, for what reason?
5.	Since the war, did he join the Canadian navy?
6.	If so, (a) on what date; (b) what is his rank;
(c)	what is his pay; (d) is he also acting as recruiting officer; (e) is he receiving a salary for said service?
7.	On whose recommendation was he appointed counsel for returned soldiers, at Quebec?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	A Mr. Achille Pettigrew of Quebec was
exempted.
4.	He was placed by the medical board in class "E."
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) 31st March, 1923.
(b)	Acting Lieutenant.
(c)	Officers of the R.C.N.V.R. serve without remuneration except whilst attending two weeks' annual drill when they are paid at R.C.N. rates of pay.
(d)	No.
(e)	Answered by (d).
7.	All soldiers' advisers, including Mr. Pettigrew, were selected by veterans' organizations whose nominations were communicated to the government by the Dominion Veterans' Alliance.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ANSWER DELAYED
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the name of the person or persons who sold to the government the land on which are located the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at St. Malo, and what was the sale price?
2.	What is (a) the amount and (b) the value of the machinery transferred from the workshops of the Canadian National Railways, at Riviere du Loup, to those of St. Malo?
3.	What is the number of employees of the Canadian National Railways who were transferred from Riviere du Loup to St. Malo?
4.	Was this transfer optional?


Mr. POULIOT:: What was the total yearly amount of business of the Canadian National Express Company branch at Trois Pistoles, county of Temiscouata, Quebec, during the last two years, respectively?


George Perry Graham: One of the difficulties of getting information rapidly now from officers of the Canadian National Railways is that we have so many of the officers here attending committees. I had a letter from one of them this morning stating that it would be impossible to get these answers until they were relieved here.
ROYAL CANADIAN MINT Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
1.	Why is the Royal Canadian Mint idle?
2.	Why is no Canadian silver coin being minted at the Canadian mint?
3.	Why is the large amount of United States silver coin now in circulation in Canada not shipped out of the country and replaced by Canadian silver coin?
4.	When was the last Canadian silver coin minted in Canada?
5.	Is there any advantage to Canada in having Canadian silver coin in use and circulation in Canada instead of United States coin?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1 and 2. The operations oif the mint are dependent upon the circulation requirements of the country. Owing to the large amount of silver minted during the war and demobilization period to meet the then current and anticipated demands, there has been a sufficient supply available since 1922-23 to meet all requirements. Consequently, no silver coin has been minted since 1923, but the mint has been engaged on bronze and nickel coinage and the refining of gold.
3.	Trade returns for the last year show that $957,684 of silver coin was shipped out of Canada to the United States.
4.	1923.
5.	There is a profit to the government in the issue of silver coinage.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-STATISTICS
Mr. MORIN:: What were during the year 1924 on the Canadian National Railways: (a) The number of tons of freight

Questions

carried; (b) The number of tons carried one mile; (c) The earnings per ton mile from freight traffic; (d) The number of passengers carried; (e) The number of passengers carried one mile, and (f) The earnings per passenger per mile?


George Perry Graham: (a)	Revenue freight, 52,498,614 tons.
(b)	16,932,406,010.
(c)	1.010 cents.
(d)	Revenue passengers 22,707,880.
(e)	1372,335,263.
(f)	2.713 cents.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY-GRATUITIES TO OFFICIALS
Mr. WARJD:: 1.	Have the officials of the Grand Trunk railway returned the gratuities given them by the former management in accordance with p statement made in this House by the Minister of Railways in 1923?
2.	If so, when?


George Perry Graham: I can answer this
question orally.
1.	They have not.
2.	No. 2 is answered by No. 1. A com-mision was appointed to investigate all the gratuities etcetera of the old Grand Trunk. That commission found that all these payments had been legally made and that the company had a perfect right to make them. It intimated, if I remember correctly-and I think I do-that in the opinion of the commission it would not be in the interest of the railway operation itself to insist that these moneys be refunded.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the opinion of
the government?


George Perry Graham: I have not said that.
WEMBLEY EXHIBITION Mr. DOUCET:
1.	Was any person sent by the government to act as hostess at the Wembley exhibition?
2.	If so, who is the person, and what is her place of residence?
3.	For what length of time was she on duty?
4.	What is the amount paid and to be paid to her (a) for services, (b) for travel and living expenses, (c) for other outlay?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.
CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION Mr. McQUARRIE:
1.	Is the Minister of Finance aware that the effect of subsection (a) of section 5 of the Superannuation Act of 1924, is to confiscate the contribution of a civil servant who should voluntarily retire before having ten years' service?
2.	What is the justification for this policy of confiscation ?
3.	What becomes of the contribution of the civil servant so confiscated?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	The minister is aware that under the
Superannuation Act, 1924, no benefit is payable in the event of the voluntary retirement of a civil servant having less than ten years' service.	[DOT]
2.	This feature of the act is not properly described as confiscation. The principle involved has been contained in both previous Superannuation Acts.
3.	The contributions of civil servants so retiring remain a part of the superannuation fund.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR BUREAU-GENEVA
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	Did the Minister of Labour advertise in Canadian newspapers that the position of Assistant Legal Adviser in the International Labour Bureau, Geneva, was vacant and that applications would be received from Canadians?
2.	If so, how many applications from Canadians were received ?
3.	Has any appointment to this vacancy been made?
4.	If so, what is the date of such appointment and the name of the person appointed?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Announcement was made in the Canadian press on January 19, 1925, that the position of Assistant Legal Adviser in the International Labour Office, Geneva, was vacant through the retirement of Mr. Corbett, of Montreal, and that applications would be received1 from Canadians. The Minister of Labour was asked to nominate a qualified person to act with Mr. Corbett in preparing a report on the candidates' qualifications for transmittal to the International Labour Office, with whom the final choice would lie. Professor Jean Desy, of Montreal, was nominated for this purpose by the Minister of Labour, and the report of Messrs, Corbett and Desy was submitted to Geneva towards the end of March.
2.	Twenty-three.
3.	Yes.
4.	The Minister of Labour was advised from Geneva on, April 24 that Mr. Norman MacKenzie, one of the applicants from Canada and who is at present studying at Cambridge University, England, has been appointed.


SPRAY LAKES POWER SCHEME
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	During the past year, have any further negotiations been held regarding the Spray lakes power scheme? If so, with whom?
2.	Has the government under consideration any proposals for the transfer of the National parks to the governments of the various provinces where located? If so, by whom have such representations been made?

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Knox
3.	Have any engineers representing (a) the Department of the Interior, or any Do-minion governmental department; Cb>) any provincial government; (c) any private corporations or persons, made any surveys or investigations of the Spray lakes -power scheme during the past year?
4.	If so, who are the said engineers or persons?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	The government of the province of Alberta has made certain inquiries but has not filed formal application.
2.	No, but it is to be expected that the matter of the administration of national parks in the province of Alberta will receive consideration when the details of the transfer of the natural resources to that province are being discussed.
3.	(a) No. (b) It is understood that engineers of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission have made a report on the project to the Alberta government, (c) It is understood that engineers of the Montreal Engineering Company under an arrangement made with the government of the province of Alberta have carried on field investigations during the past year.
4.	Answered by No. (c) above.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Does the Dominion government own a block of territory in British Columbia known as the Peace River block? If so, what is the total area?
2.	What were the considerations given to British Columbia in return for the surrender of the said area to the Dominion government?
3: Has any of the land in the said Peace River block within the boundaries of the province of British Columbia been sold or leased? If so, (a) how much; (b) in how many separate parcels; (c) what is the total amount received from the sale price of the property or in return for lease, or in rentals, if leased?


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence, statements of investigation, court proceedings, reports, documents and other papers in the possession of the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Justice relating to alleged violation of law in regard to intoxicating liquors in or upon any bonded warehouse at Halifax, Nova Scotia, which the Franco-Canadian Import Company is permitted to establish and conduct, or by any person interested or engaged in the business of said import company.


Ernest Lapointe: In the absence of the Acting Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Cardin), I would ask that this resolution stand.
177i


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that more effective consideration and recognition be given to the resolution adopted by parliament on March 12, 1923, recognizing the priority of the Hudson Bay railway, with reference to other transportation projects started subsequently.
He said: This matter has been before the House on a number of occasions, and in bringing it forward again I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that those of us who are interested in the Hudson Bay railway will offer no apology for discussing the subject. Wle who are pressing for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway balieve implicitly in the feasibility and in the future success of that project and in that conviction we have no need to fee! apologetic. We represent hundreds of thousands of people in the west who to-day are equally confident of the feasibility and the successful operation of this railway; and they believe in it as a possible outlet for their produce and as an inlet for their purchases. These people believe that it would overcome the great handicap under which the west is to-day suffering by reason of high transportation costs. The peop!e whom I represent and among whom I have lived for the last thirty-odd years have great faith in the outcome of the undertaking. Some of these people have entered Canada by this route, while others have worked on the railway as well as on the terminals, so that they are intimately associated with the whole thing and know whereof they speak. And it is because of this intimate knowledge of the Hudson bay proposition that they believe so firmly in its ultimate success if the work is carried to completion.
The people of the west, however, believe in the justice of completing the Hudson Bay railway; and more than that, they believe in the righteousness of it, if I may put it that way: many of them believe that the Hudson bay was placed as it is by an all-wise Creator for the purpose of serving as an outlet for the great agricultural plateau of the middle west. The people in that part of the country are of the opinion that it would do more towards bettering conditions in the west if this railway were completed, than any other transportation project could accomplish. The result of all this is that those who inhabit the three prairie provinces are practically a unit in their request for the im-

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Knox
mediate completion of the Hudson Bay railway; and requests come from organizations representing every phase of western activity -from our legislatures down through our farmers' organizations, our labour bodies and our boards of trade. I have here a copy of a resolution passed by the United Farmers of Alberta which I shall read to the House. It has been suggested on former occasions that the province of Alberta was not very strong in its attitude towards the railway; but the following resolution would not be passed by the organization to which I have referred- which certainly represents the thought of Alberta-if the province did not favour the completion of the road. The resolution reads:
Resolved that we go on record as being strongly in favour of the early completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
This was adopted in January last. The thought has occurred to me that it is rather a strange situation that the people of the prairie provinces, living in close proximity to the Hudson Bay railway and having every reason to know something about the matter, should be almost unanimously in favour of its completion, while people living at a remote distance who naturally, one would think, would not be expected to know so much about it, are very largely opposed to the undertaking. I have in mind the section of the east particularly centering around Montreal. We in the west feel that this opposition is not justified; we look on Hudson bay as our natural outlet, and we feel that we have contributed to the expenses of this project up to the present time, besides possibly having something left over from the sale of some of the western lands.
As to the history of the Hudson Bay railway undertaking itself, I shall be very brief. This matter has been a source of agitation on the part of the west for the last forty years or more. The railway was first begun by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1910 and the work was carried on by the govern-' ment of Sir Robert Borden, closing down in 1918 without any apparent reason, after there had been spent on the railway and the terminals some $21,000,000. The total length of the line is 424 miles, and! this has all been graded; the steel has been laid on 332 miles, all the bridges having been built. It will be seen from this that only a distance of 92 miles remains to be laid with steel, and it is hard to understand why this stretch has not been completed after the construction has got to that stage.
A number of hon. gentlemen sitting around me have made personal trips of inspection

to the bay and no doubt they will tell the House what they have found on these trips. I have not personally visited the locality, although I hope to do so some time in the future. But those who have made the trip report that the work already done is still Standing up well and is in good condition. Since these trips were made it has been reported through the press that as the result of a very severe storm that swept over Hudson bay a good deal of damage was done; and I have been informed by people who think they ought to know that sections of the bridging laid over to the artificial island in the harbour have been carried away. In consequence of this information I made a point of consulting the chief engineer, Mr. McLachlan, this morning; I asked him what the reports showed in regard to this alleged damage, and he assured me that the bridge is standing there in perfect condition, no damage having been done, except for the fact that much of the gravel which had been placed on the piers when work ceased, has been swept away. He tells me too that some of the barges and dredges were swept from their moorings. The House will of course readily understand that as there was no protection from the storm it was only to be expected that to this limited extent some injury would be caused by so severe a storm. Some of these barges were carried across the estuary and stranded on the other side; but the engineer assures me that no great damage has been done, the work still standing secure. This information was very reassuring after the reports that had gone out through the press, as it is just possible that some one may see fit during the debate to-day to mention this storm. I had an opportunity of discussing the storm with an officer of the Hudson's Bay Company who is in charge of a post in the northwest extremity of the bay. He assured me that it was of extreme severity. In fact he said that the oldest Eskimos had no remembrance of anything like it ever having happened before. Port Nelson having in its present unprotected condition come through that severe storm without any serious damage to the uncompleted works there, I do not think we have much to fear on this head. It is significant that this storm happened in November, which is one of the months w'hen opponents of the scheme tell us the bay and port are frozen solid. I think we now have sufficient proof to the contrary.
On March 12, 1923, Mr. Speaker, I moved the following resolution:

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Knox
That in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada give further consideration to the report of the Senate committee on the Hudson Bay railway with a view to safeguarding the investment of public moneys made in the construction of that portion of the work completed to date, and that the government recognize the priority of this undertaking with reference to other transportation projects started subsequent to the Hudson Bay railway.
I would point out that after considerable discussion this resolution was adopted by the House. Although so adopted, and therefore representing the decision of this House two years ago, it is significant that no effort has yet been made to give this transportation project priority over other transportation projects started subsequently. Some work was done in the summers of 1923 and 1924 to rehabilitate the portion of the road over which trains run. An estimate of $350,000 was voted in 1924; another $300,000 had been voted in 1923, but only some S60,000 odd was spent in that year. So that altogether during those two years only about $413,000 was spent in an effort to rehabilitate that portion of the road over which trains are run. During that time the money spent, for instance, on the Welland canal, has run into millions of dollars. I might say that the Welland canal was started subsequent to the Hudson Bay project. In 1923 a vote of $11,800,000 and in 1924 a further vote of $11,000,000 was passed for the prosecution of work on this canal, making a total for those two years of $22,800,000 as compared with the $413,000 spent on the Hudson Bay project. This year I find in the estimates an item of $15,000,000 for the Welland canal. As yet we have no intimation of what supplementary estimate will be brought down for the Hudson Bay railway, but if it is to have any priority over the Welland cana'l project, this estimate should surely be for a sum sufficient to complete the work. I would impress on the House that the resolution passed in 1923 has not been observed by the government; certainly no priority has been given to the Hudson Bay railway.
Is it any wonder that there is a feeling of distrust, suspicion and disappointment in the prairie provinces on this matter? We in the west are suffering more or less by the discrimination-if I might use that term- against us in respect of the customs tariff, and it is bearing heavily upon us. But when it comes to a refusal by a certain portion of eastern Canada to permit the completion of a project, the funds for which were raised by the sale of western lands, then, Mr. Speaker, we certainly feel like crying "How long, O Lord, how long!" This project was supported and endorsed by both the old political parties, parliament has sanctioned it time and again, settlers have gone into that country on the distinct understanding that the Hudson Bay railway would be completed, and those already there have extended their operations and investments on the strength of the repeated promises that the line would be built through to the bay. Evidently these people had greater faith in the governments of that time than they could be expected to have in the government of to-day.
It has been said that the Hudson Bay railway is the child of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). Undoubtedly he turned the first sod, thus giving the project his blessing and, I have no doubt, his sympathy. I do not think that to-day down in his heart he has changed one particle, but it is impossible for him to carry the project through without the support of his colleagues in the cabinet, which evidently he has not got. As I said a few days ago when speaking on the budget, at one time we had great expectations of assistance from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). While speak* ing on this subject in the West during the recess he certainly gave us to understand tha* he was an out and out supporter of the completion of the railway, and the west was looking forward to something being done this session through the efforts that he was likely to put forth to assist us in getting the project completed. But we got a rude shock a few days ago when, in his speech on the budget, he showed that he had changed his attitude somewhat, because instead of urging the immediate completion of the road he advocated a further investigation as to which was the better terminal. Port Nelson or Fort Churchill. As I said at the time, it looked to me very much like drawing a red herring across the trail-in other words, another excuse for further delay.
Now, Sir, if the government wish to retain, or possibly I should use the word obtain, the respect and confidence of the west, my suggestion and advice to them would be to consider what we are up against in regard to the customs tariff, and also what we are up against in regard to our transportation problems. Apparently the government could not see their way to give us any consideration when framing their budget, but they still have another opportunity to partially set themselves right with the west, and my proposal is that to this end they take half of the $15,000,000 which appears in the estimates for the Welland canal and apply the money to the Hudson Bay project, for this amount would be far

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Knox
more than sufficient to bring it to the stage where it could function successfully. By so doing they would help allay the present distrust of our people in the west and forever end this annual controversy.
I have here a copy of a letter which I would like to read to the House. It is from Mr. 0. D. Hill, of Melfort, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, wTho made a trip up to the bay last summer. I should have referred to this letter earlier in my remarks, but I will put it in now, as it gives an idea of what the condition of the road is. He says:
I was out to Port Nelson this summer in company with Colonel James of Regina, and both of us came back far more enthused over the project than ever. I am sending you, under separate cover, some pictures taken of the road. We were agreeably surprised with the condition of thp roadbed. And I make this statement without fear of contradiction, having been over every transcontinental road in Canada and over some in the United States, that there isn't a natural roadbed in North America that can compare with that of the Hudson Bay railroad.
There are stretches of this road running for miles and miles in a straight line where there is very little dump at all, the land being so level that there is only ballast underneath the rails. Some of the pictures that I am enclosing will corroborate this. When you consider this and the fact that the heaviest gradient is only four-tenths of one per cent, that there are no long fills, or long cuts, it would make you think that Providence had provided this natural way to the sea. Any gradients are in favor of the out-going traffic, which will be the heavier for a long time. There is nothing on the road which would approach my conception of a muskeg. The road for the whole way is on solid ground. There is no place where there is any mud or water coming up through the ties. The longest dump is at Armstrong lake and it is wonderful the state of preservation that this is in.
The road from Le Pas to Mile 214 has had a considerable amount of work done on it this summer. One of the pictures which I am enclosing shows this, where the ties are taken up and put out on the side cut, and is	as good	as	any branch	line	in the west.The road from 214	to	332, which is	the	second crossing of the	Nelson,	it	is estimated	by	a competentman, can be rehabilitated for half a million dollars. It is only	natural	to	think that	this portion of
the road, which has had nothing done on it for eight or nine years, should be considerably damaged by the elements, but this has nothing to do with the roadbed.
From 332 through to Port Nelson the dump is all complete and whilst we only saw both ends of it, we have spoken to men who have gone over the whole dump and they claim that it is just as good on the average over the whole grade as at the ends and we should say from this that there is very little which has to be done with the dump before the steel could ~be laid on it.
I am safe in saying that any loyal, reasonable unprejudiced citizen of Canada, come from where he may, taking the trip over the road to the bay as I did, could not help but become an enthusiastic supporter of the project.
I have no wish to speak at any great length on this matter, because it has been put before the House so often that to do so would be to repeat what has already been

said. My object is to draw to the attention of the House and particularly of the government, the fact that they have 4 p.m. not carried out the wishes of parliament as indicated by the adoption of that resolution on March 12, 1923, in regard to giving the Hudson Bay railway priority over other transportation projects started subsequently. I ask the government to give us some reasonable assurance that steps will be taken to carry the expressed wishes of parliament into effect.


Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I want, if I may, to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) upon having again introduced a resolution dealing specifically with the Hudson Bay railway project, with due insistence upon its priority as a national undertaking. I cannot hope to add to the information already available on this subject, information which is very complete and easily accessible. It is not my desire unduly to prolong the debate, but in view of the fact that I visited Port Nelson last autumn, it occurred to me that it might be interesting and not wholly unprofitable if I were to convey to the House in a few sentences the impressions made upon my mind by what I saw and experienced in the northland.
The party of which I was a member left the Pas on the 28th of August last. We went north actuated by-shall I say?-a two-fold desire. The first was a desire to determine for ourselves the actual condition of the roadbed already constructed. There were those who contended that the road was in an excellent state of preservation, and there were others-pessimists of course-who informed us prior to our departure that the roadbed had long since disappeared into the muskegs; that only the tops of the telegraph poles were visible, and that even they were covered with snow for at least eleven months out of twelve. We wanted to determine for ourselves just what the actual conditions were. In the second place we wanted to determine, so far as amateurs could determine, what the facilities were at Port Nelson for the loading and unloading of cargoes. We decided to travel the 332 miles from the Pas to Kettle rapids by open gas car, in order that our inspection might be intimate, thorough, and satisfactory in every sense. It enabled Premier Bracken, who is a scientific agriculturist, to make soil tests on the way up and also to interview the many settlers and to inspect their gardens, in which we found vegetables and grains growing abundantly.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hoey
With respect to the condition of the road,
I think I can make this statement without fear of contradiction that the first 100 miles is in my judgment in as good condition at the moment as any branch line in the Dominion of Canada over which I have travelled. The territory itself is monotonously level and prairie-like. At Herb lake, 12 miles west of mile 81, there is a village, which we visited, of about 300 people who have gone in there awaiting the completion of the road, but who in the meantime are doing all they possibly can to develop the country. From mile 100 to mile 214 the roadbed was in process of reconstruction at the time of our visit. Old ties were being replaced with new ones; rails were being straightened; gravel trains were travelling to and fro supplying ballast; so that by this time the road up to mile 214 is in splendid condition for heavy traffic. From mile 214 to mile 332, where the road crosses the Nelson river for the second time, it is not in an ideal condition, and one could hardly expect it would be. We encountered, however, only one washout. Hon. members will realize the condition of that part of the road when I tell them that we travelled over it in an open gas car at a rate of 30 miles an hour without any mishap and without any serious inconvenience.
We went from Kettle rapids to Port Nelson by canoe. One could not but be profoundly impressed by the turbulent and swift-flowing waters of the Nelson river. The Nelson river is one of the great rivers of the world; it drains more territory than any other river of which we have any knowledge anywhere, and is capable of developing three million horsepower of electrical energy. It took us exactly two days to make the trip from Kettle rapids to Flamborough Bead. There we left our canoes and waited the outgoing tide that was to take us down to Port Nelson harbour itself. While at Flamborough Head we could not resist the temptation-although it was the first week in September-in view of the absence of ice and snow, to bathe in the tide water, remaining in about thirty minutes and enjoying a very refreshing swim.


George Perry Graham: Only an Irishman would
enjoy that.


Robert Alexander Hoey: There were, unfortunately or
fortunately, three of us, two native bom Canadians and one Irishman. It is difficult for me to convey to the House the sensations that passed through me as I stood in that northern tide water. I could not
help but think of the words written across the front entrance to this building:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
Standing there I asked myself, why was this northern sea, with its stories of heroism, perhaps the most wholesome of them all-why was it overlooked, nay forgotten? And standing there I suggested to my associates that the words be changed to read something like this:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
North, east and west this giant state.
That may not be good poetry, but it expressed to me on that occasion a great soulstirring-shall I say? ennobling-truth. We drifted down from Flamborough Head to Port Nelson itself on the outgoing tide, and the first impression made upon my mind was profoundly disappointing. It is not a harbour, it is rather a roadstead. It is V-shaped, narrow to the south and wide toward the north. It is exposed to the northern storms; and I was of the opinion when I gazed upon it at first that no steamer could lie side by side at the artificial island without being seriously disturbed by the violence of the storms. The artificial island which is constructed there-at least the half-mile which is constructed-is about five hundred feet wide, and it is connected with the shore by a bridge of seventeen spans of two hundred feet each, or approximately so, with the cribwork. We walked over that and inspected the island. Then one of my associates pointed to two ships, two derelicts, the appearance and presence of which changed my opinion somewhat-one about two miles south of the artificial island, or approximately so, and the other about two miles north. Both, I understand, were beached about the year 1913, and these ships to-day are just as symmetrical, both as upright and in almost as good a state of preservation, as if they were wrecked yesterday; and I expressed the belief that if those ships had been beached, say, on the Antrim coast, or some other coast I had previously visited during my brief career, they would have been smashed into matchwood in less than three months. The fact of importance is that the violence of any storm there has long since spent itself before it reaches the harbour of Nelson at all, so that ships lying parallel with the artificial island and in harmony with the current are perfectly safe. In this connection I want to read just a brief excerpt from the evidence given by Mr. McLachlan before the Senate committee:

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hoey
A ship in going from deep water to Hudson bay must weather any storms that may come during her stay at Port Nelson while tied to the wharf, but the 20 miles of relatively shallow water from deep water to the port cause the deep sea rolls or waves to be broken uip, and while serious so far as small light vessels were concerned, would not affect a large vessel.
Now you may ask: What did you see at Port Nelson apart from the artificial island and the bridge? I think I could answer that question more intelligent'y if I were asked what did I not see? Because I saw almost everything except people; there are very few people there. I have heard during the last few days that the reason why the Minister of Agriculture did not make the complete trip on the occasion of his visit that they could not assure him there would be an audience at Port Nelson when he arrived there before which he could display his undoubted oratorical powers. They have at Port Nelson a dry dock two hundred feet long and forty-six feet wide. They have there also almost everything necessary for the maintenance of an up-to-date construction camp. They have a wireless station there which has been dismantled, but the equipment of which is in a splendid state of repair. They have six or seven sea-going tugs. They have a Mounted Police station, and I was given to understand that the complete townsite, which is rather an attractive one, is owned wholly and exclusively by the Dominion government, so that whatever may be said for or against Port Nelson no private monopa'y has got a foothold there so far. The people of western Canada-I wish this were given publicity -are not asking to-day for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. That railway is already constructed, not in part but in its entirety, from Hudson Bay junction to tide water at Port Nelson. To ask then for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway, in view of the fact that it is already constructed, would be meaningless and absurd.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member mean that the rails are laid all the way?


Robert Alexander Hoey: No, I will explain that. What they are asking for is that rails and ties be placed on the ninety-two miles from Kettle rapids to the bay which part of the road is already graded. Now we did not walk on our way back the ninety-two miles from the port to Kettle rapids; the distance was too great. But we did walk five or six miles in an attempt to determine just what condition the grade was in, and we found at in almost perfect shape, some members of the party expressing the belief that it was in as good

shape as during the first month of its construction. There are no more bridges to be constructed. There was one small bridge over the Limestone river, I understand, a wooden structure, which has fallen into a state of dilapidation. This would' have to be repaired. But the great bridges, one over the Saskatchewan at Le Pas, one over the Nelson, at the Mani-tou rapids, one over the Nelson again at Kettle rapids, have all been constructed and are in a splendid state of preservation. You ask what would be my recommendation. My recommendation -with respect to the Hudson Bay railway would be simply this: that the government undertake to lay the rails from Kettle rapids to the bay almost immediately. The rails for 332 miles are 80-pound rails. I think it might be possible to have those rails on the Canadian National roads which are not in operation-if there are such-removed and placed there. Surely that could be done without involving any considerable expense. Yon ask what would be my recommendation in respect to the harbour. I would not at the present time spend any considerable sum at Port Nelson. I would put down the ties and rails and I would say to the owners of the tramp steamers, "Here is an almost unlimited amount of cargo provided you can prove that the navigation of the straits is commercially feasible;" and I would allow the expenditures on Port Nelson to be determined by the amount of trade developed there during the next three or four or ten years. If no trade develops no expenditure will be necessary, I cannot see any reason in the world, in view of the new channel that has been discovered, why tramp steamers could not come in now and unload grain at the artificial island, provided elevators are erected there, and I understand one company has promised, and guaranteed in fact, that they are prepared to go ahead with the erection of an elevator there provided the government lays down the steel to the port itself.


Robert James Manion: Just for information, would the hon. gentleman be willing to tell us what company is willing to build the elevator there?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Yes, the Patterson Company.


Robert James Manion: The N. M. Patterson Company of Fort William?


George Perry Graham: That was stated before
the deputation.


Robert Alexander Hoey: In conversation with some of the people at Port Nelson I learned that their attitude towards us when we asked about the frozen nature of the territory was strikingly

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hoey
similar to what our attitude would be if one went down to Kansas City, and were approached there by a resident of that city and asked if it would be safe for a woman to visit the city of Winnipeg in November, or if it would be too cold for her to remain in that city during that period of the year. The questions with respect to the frozen territory and the dreadful storms that attack it are so absurd that the people refuse to answer them and simply smile. They remind us of something that we are too prone to forget, and that is that all the charges directed against that north country were years ago directed against the prairie provinces. I want to read a statement which should be of considerable interest to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and others who come from British Columbia. It was published in London Truth, in 1881, several years before I was born, and re-published in the Manitoba Free Press June 27, 1924. It reads:
The Canadian Dominion Bubble
The article reprinted below appeared under the above heading in the issue of London "Truth", September 1, 1881.
A careful perusal of it is recommended to the various " knockers " of the Hudson bay route resident in Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and elsewhere-not to overlook a few right here in Winnipeg.
Forty years from now their lugubrious predictions about the northern route will read as curiously as this extract of the year 1881 from "Truth", which was then one of the most influential weeklies published in London. The article from "Truth follows:-
"The Canadian Pacific Railroad Company" has begun, I see, to launch its bonds. "A group of Montreal and New York bankers" has undertaken to "float" ten million dollars' worth of the Company's land grant bonds, and the Bank of Montreal, with its usual courage, has taken one-fourth of the entire loan. This announcement looks as if the Canadians were going to raise the necessary capital on the other side of the water, but I have a shrewd suspicion that they have no real intention of doing anything of the kind. The New Yorkers are keen enough gamblers, and reckless enough at times, I admit, and yet it is impossible to believe that they are such fools as to put their money into this mad project. I would as soon credit them with a willingness to subscribe hard cash in support of a scheme for the utilization of icebergs. The Canadian Pacific Railway will run, if it be ever finished, through a country frost-bound for seven or eight months of the year, and will connect with the eastern part of the Dominion a province which embraces about as forbidding country as any on the face of the earth. British Columbians, they say< have forced on the execution of this part of the contract under which they became incorporated with the Dominion, and believe that prosperity will come to them when the line is made. This is a delusion on their part. British Columbia is a barren, cold mountainous country, that is not worth keeping. It would never have been inhabited at all, unless by trappers of the Hudson's Bay Company, had the "gold fever" not taken a party of mining adventurers there; and ever since that fever died down the place has been going from bad to worse, Fifty railways would not galvanise it into prosperity.
Nevertheless the Canadian government has fairly launched into this project, and I have no doubt the
English public will soon be asked to further it with their cash. The parade of selling bonds in New York and Montreal is- the new way of doing business that "syndicates", "bankers", and loan contractors have adopted in order that it may seem that they have faith in the schemes they father. I doubt if ten million dollars of ready cash could be found in all Canada for this or any other work of utility at a pinch; -


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the hon.
gentleman tell us who is the author of that interesting document, whether it was the late Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, or the late Hon. Edward Blake. It sounds so familiar.


Robert Alexander Hoey: The article is a reprint. It
appeared in London Truth September 1, 1881.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is the correspondent? How did it come there?


Robert Alexander Hoey: It is an excerpt taken from
London Truth. The name of the correspondent is not given. I am quoting it from a reprint in the Manitoba Free Press. The article continues:
-but the Canadians are not such idiots as to part wiitth one dollar of their own if they can borrow their neighbours'. The Canadians spend money and we provide it. That has been the arrangement hitherto, and it has worked splendidly-for the Canadians-too well for them to try any other plan with a scheme like the Pacific railway, which they must know is never likely to yield a single red cent of interest on the money that may be sunk in it. A friend of mine told me-and he knew what he was talking about-that he did not believe the much-touted Manitoba settlement would hold out many years. The people who have gone there cannot stand the coldness of the winters. Men and cattle are frozen to death in numbers that would rather astonish the intending settler if he knew; and those that are not killed outright are often maimed for life by frostbites. Its street nuisances kill the people with malaria, or drive them mad with plagues of insects; and to keep themselves alive during the long winter they have to (imitate the habits of the Esquimo. Those who want to know what it is like should read the not-yet-forgotten books of Colonel Butler. His "Great Lone Land" is the land of which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has as yet five-and-twenty million acres to sell, and it is through a death-dealing region of this kind that "The new railway is to run."
Might I add to that a statement taken from Stefansson's book, the Northward Course of Empire:
On the basis of reliable testimony which fills a hugh volume, the British committee concluded in substance that the climate of southern Manitoba and the Saskatchewan is unsuitable for colonization by average Europeans and that in such a country no people will live permanently except fur traders because they are eccentric, missionaries because they are self-sacrificing, and Indians because they do not know' any better. But since then there has grown up in the country which was the very centre of all the testimony the city of Winnipeg, with its 300,000 inhabitants, the third largest city in Canada, the Chicago of the Canadian west, and growing as rapidly and substantially as any city in Canada.
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hoey

In January of last year I visited the Prince Albert district, which is one of the most prosperous districts in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and myself drove by automobile from his place, which is about eight miles east of the town, into the town every day during the month of January, without any serious inconvenience, and indeed, without any inconvenience at all. Yet, what was said, indeed, what was written from the very site of Prince Albert a few years ago by Sir William Butler? He said:
Those who, in summer or autumn visit the great prairie of the Saskatchewan can form but a faint idea of its winter fierceness and utter desolation. They are prone to paint the scene as wanting only the settler's hut, the yoke of oxen the wagon, to become at once the paradise of the husbandman. They little know of what they speak. Should they really wish to form a true conception of life in these solitudes, let them go out towards the close of November-
November, mind you.
-into the treeless waste; then, midst fierce storm and biting cold, and snowdrift so dense that earth and heaven seem wrapped together in indistinguishable chaos, they will witness a sight as different from their summer ideal as a mid-Atlantic mid-winter storm varies from a tranquil moonlight on the Aegean sea.
Mr. Lonsdale Green, of Chicago, writing to Stefansson, comments on Sir William Butler's report as follows:
Butler was a good writer and the above is a good description, but there is quite a large city right at the place where the above was written and as Sir William died only eleven years ago, he lived to see it.
I look upon the completion of the Hudson Bay railroad, the laying down of ninety-two miles of steel, as the challenge of the northland, that has been misunderstood and vilified by ignorant persons, for due recognition and for an opportunity to make a contribution which it is capable of making to the cause of Canadian development and unity. I look upon the Hudson Bay railway as the challenge of those restless northern tide-waters to the restless and adventurous spirits of this country, to the resourcefulness and enterprise of the Canadian people. If the Hudson Bay railway was being launched to-day, I say frankly that I do not think I could without hesitation endorse it in view of our financial condition. But in view of the fact that this railway is four-fifths completed, why not, by the expenditure of a little more money, make the greatest experiment that has ever been attempted in the history of this country? Speaking for the people of western Canada with whom I am more or less intimately associated, I say that the people of the west are prepared to leave this project in abeyance, provided that the people of Canada are prepared to leave in
[Mr. Hoey.)
abeyance or to set aside other public works for a term of, say five or six years. But the people of western Canada, in their present temper, are not prepared to leave this project in abeyance while we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on golf courses, while we are making provision for the construction of a second bridge across the St. Lawrence at the city of Montreal. The people of western Canada are not prepared to leave this project in abeyance in view of its history and the promises made, while we continue to spend millions of dollars annually on the Welland canal.


Mr. DECHENE:: How many millions were voted by this parliament in the last two years to build railroads in Canada?


Robert Alexander Hoey: I have not the figures at my
disposal.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: It is over $22,000,000, and that is more than was spent in eastern Canada for anything the hon. member might mention.


Robert Alexander Hoey: I do not know if they would
be relevant, if I did have them at my disposal.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: It is western Canada's
share.


Robert Alexander Hoey: There are in this chamber still a few men in whom I have confidence, despite the somewhat demoralizing experiences through which we have passed during the last few days. One of the few men in whom I have still a considerable measure of faith is the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). He turned the first sod on the Hudson Bay railway. What could be more appropriate than thalt he should drive the last spike? Surely that is a consummation devoutly to be wished. I look forward to his pronouncement on this occasion with considerable confidence. Taking all the facts into consideration and in view of the small expenditure that we are demanding, I hope he will be able on this occasion to make a statement that will encourage the people who have been fighting for the completion of this railway very persistently and, I think, consistently since the work was abandoned.


William John Ward: Mr. Speaker, we are again discussing this hardy perennial, the Hudson Bay railway. I rise to make a few remarks on this subject, because I believe it is the greatest economic and fundamental issue facing western Canada. I believe further it is an issue into which the whole future of the confederation of Canada is woven. I think

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward
it was the hen. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who referred some time ago in this House to an address delivered by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in the city of Brandon. He made some reference to secession. He also referred to another gentleman who had stated that in certain sections of this country, if a plebescite were taken, it woulld be discovered thalt two-thirds of the population would vote for secession. He went on to picture what a horrible thing that wouild be. I wondered at the time if the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River realized to what extent the party to which he belongs is responsible for that very condition. And I say with a great deal of regret that that is absolutely true. There are whole constituencies in western Canada where, if a plebiscite were taken to-morrow, I am convinced that sixty or seventy per cent of the people would vote for secession. That is a most serious state of affairs if we intend to perpetuate the present confederation. But in order to inform ourselves fully as to the cause, the fundamental cause, of this state of mind of the people we must go back at least to the reciprocity pact of 1911.
I believe it was the hon. member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Woods) who referred to a certain caucus he had attended prior to the election of 1911, wherein he told us that the Conservative party of that day had hoisted the British flag to the top of the mast. I want to say to him and to the House that this is exactly what they did not do; probably at no time in the history of the British Empire was that grand old flag of liberty trailed through the filth and mire of the Canadian political slough to a greater extent than in the election of 1911. They pulled the British flag down and wrapped it around Sir Robert Borden; and all the little Bordenites went up and down this country with that flag wrapped about them, declaring that we should have no truck or trade with the Yankees. And so they defeated reciprocity. Then coming down a little further we reach the year 1917; and I would direct this very pointedly to the attention of the ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and his party. They again are very largely responsible for the economic condition which prevails in western Canada as a result of the cessation of the work on the Hudson Bay railway when it was almost completed. Furthermore, I venture to say that not one quarter of one per cent of the people of eastern Canada knew that the work on the Hudson Bay railway had been carried to the stage it had reached; nor do they know, that all the
material was on the ground for its completion, at the time that work was stopped and that the grade had all been built. Those men who now appear to be so solicitous of the economic welfare of Canada-we find them in the cities along the St. Lawrence and around the Great Lakes-were the men who sold the government the material that went into the Hudson Bay railway. They were quite satisfied that the project was all right so long as they were getting orders from the government; but the very day that they had sold the government the last contract, then the project was no longer feasible and the work ceased on the road. I am convinced of the truth of this.
I think the late government owes an explanation to the people of the country why work was stopped on the Hudson Bay railway in 1917. I think the western members at that time, I care not to what party they belong, whether to the Progressive party, the Liberal party or the Conservative party, all acquiesced, and therefore they all owe an explanation to the people of western Canada for allowing the work to be stopped. If one is curious enough to examine Hansard of 1921 he will find a discussion on the Hudson Bay railway, in which the government explained how lack of money and inability to obtain supplies and labour were responsible for discontinuing the work, sandwiched in between two sections of a debate on the Canadian merchant marine, on a vote of 88,000,000 for the building of vessels on which S64,000,000 had already been expended, most of it subsequent to the war. These vessels were built at a cost of $194 per ton, patently an impossible price if the ships were expected to earn dividends; and the defence of the expenditure, which was boldly made on the floor of the House, was that this outlay was necessary to cope with unemployment in and about Montreal. The government's remedy of strict economy was apparently designed purely for local application; and certainly the west got a good stiff dose of it.
I wonder sometimes if eastern members and easterners generally appreciate the extent to which the solvency of western Canada is dependent to-day upon the completion of the Husdon Bay railway. One of the largest business men in the city of Winnipeg, a man who has been in business in Winnipeg for thirty years and who is rated in Bradstreets at over $3,000,000, said to me only a short time ago, "Ward, in my business it is no longer a question of prosperity or of making dividends; it is a question of its solvency. And unless you complete the Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward

railway within a very reasonable time I fear the effect of present conditions on my business.', I believe that can truthfully be said of two-thirds of the business men of western Canada.
Now, all we ask is a fair show; we are not [DOT]asking for any special privilege. I have here a statement which I have prepared and which I think probably will be of interest to the House as well as to eastern Canada. In it I have attempted to show that not one dollar of the cost of the Hudson Bay railway has been assessed against the people of eastern Canada; nor will it be necessary to assess one dollar for its completion. I think this outstanding fact is lost sight of by the jealous champions of "economy." who are anxious to see the whole scheme relegated to the limbo of past and forgotten undertakings, that as far back as 1882 the Land Act provided that the cost of the Hudson Bay railway should be defrayed by grants of public land in the northwest, and that in 1908 when the government had decided to build the railway to the bay the Dominion Lands Act was amended by Hon. Mr. Oliver, with the consent of parliament, to provide that the cost of the undertaking should be met by proceeds from the sale of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads in certain western areas particularly interested in the completion of the route. And while it is true that the amendments to the act did not specifically provide the earmarkings of the fund for this purpose, yet Mr. Oliver made it plain that the object was to create a new source of revenue which would not add anything to the eastern burden of taxation, nor constitute any additional drain on the treasury. Mr. Oliver, speaking in the House of Commons on June 23, 1908, said, as reported in Hansard at page 11,152:
There is I believe sufficient to achieve the purpose we have in view and not sufficient to warrant the anticipation of injury which seemed to lie heavy on the minds of some of our friends this time last year. At the same time we propose to relieve the mortgage, so to speak, which to-day lies against the 6.500,000 acres of land of the northwest in respect of the Hudson Bay railway. As long as that provision remains in the statute books, it is a notice by parliament to the world that, in the estimation of parliament, it is a proper policy to grant 6,500,000 acres of land in order to construct a railway from the Saskatchewan to the Hudson bay. That is not in accord with the policy of this government nor is it in accord with its administration, but by passing this bill, we relieve ourselves of any claims, past or present or future, against that 6,500,000 acres. The difference between the proposal in this bill and the provision in the Lands Act is this:
That if the provisions of the Lands Act regarding a grant to the Hudson Bay railway were implemented under the practice that formerly prevailed, whatever company should build that road would have the right to select 6,500,000 acres wherever they might see fit throughout the Northwest Territories and upon the 
completion of the road this land would become their absolute property, to be held by them until they could secure such prices as they might see fit to exact.
It was under this policy that 32.000,000 acres which have been alienated were held and a large part of it is being held to-day, a burden which has to be carried by the settlers of the west-
I hope the House will notice this:
-who will ultimately have to buy the land and dig the price out of it by their toil, enterprise and saving. Instead of taking that course we propose to allow the purchase by actual settlers, on settlement conditions of, say, 5,000,000 acres of land, realizing thereby out of a fixed and moderate price per acre sufficient money to meet the requirements of the government in respect of the Hudson Bay railway. Under the system that prevails of land grants to railways which we are displacing by this bill, the enhancement in values by reason of the settlement and improvement of the country enures to the benefit of the settlers. This is radically different to the Lands Act as it stands. There is no money which a settler who builds up a home on the prairie can make out of his land which he does not earn, and who, I ask, is better entitled to the enhanced value of the land by reason of settlement than the man whose settlement gave enhanced value? It is because the settler will have the benefit of the enhancement in value of the land that I ask the approval of the House to this bill.
The House did approve the bill, Mr. R. L. Borden, then leader of the opposition, however, remarking:
And, if not an acre of land is sold in ten years, I trust, and am led to believe, the Hudson Bay railway project will still go on in the meantime and without delay.
It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal of Mr. Oliver made it necessary for actual homesteaders or bona fide settlers to provide the revenue required for the project. Homesteaders in the area through which the railway would run could pre-empt an extra 160 acres of land for S3 an acre; in other words, those who contributed to the fund were those most directly interested in the Hudson Bay railway enterprise. Mr. Oliver estimated the cost of the 500 miles of road at, roughly, $15,000,000, and in this he made a wonderfully accurate calculation, for we find on examination of the records that a little over $14,000,000 has already been expended, and according to the evidence given by Deputy Minister Bell-and I hope the House will get this very clearly-in 1919 $1,000,000 would have completed the road. I think it is an awful indictment, an indictment that will stand against the government of that day for all time to come, that they did not go ahead at that time and complete the road. It will be seen that the proceeds from the sale of these lands amounted to about $28,000,000, or sufficient, even at this date, to complete the road and put the whole enterprise in first class shape, and in addition provide for thp construction of some grain elevators.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward
I am tempted at this point, Mr. Speaker, to remind the House how much more carefui and accurate was Mr. Oliver in his estimate than were some of his predecessors. In 1895, and again in the general election of 1896, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his colleagues stumped Ontario in the interests of the National Transcontinental railway, informing the people that that enterprise would cost not more than $13,000,000. Years later, when the people of Canada were compelled to take over this same railway, which in the meantime had passed from political propaganda into an actual railway, it cost them the great sum of $357,000,000.
Under the act of 1908 the following sales of pre-emptions and purchased homesteads were made-and here is proof of what we have ahvays contended, that there has never been any assessment whatever upon eastern Canada for the construction of this railway: Saskatchewan:	Acres	Acres
Pre-emptions.. .. 4,371,200 Homesteads.. .. 776,320 Alberta :
Pre-emptions.. .. 2,573,600 Homesteads.. .. 329,600
In other words, a total of 8,050,720 acres of land was dealt with. It would be found by anyone who cares to look up the records that a great deal more land than the actual amount set apart by Mr. Oliver was sold. He valued the pre-empted lands at $15,290,059, and the homestead lands at $3,269,102; but as a matter of fact, as I say, they sold a great deal more than that. On the basis of Mr. Oliver's estimate the pre-emptions alone would have amounted to $20,834,000, or a little more than has been expended on the railway and harbour up to date.
Mr. MeMASTER:	The hon. member has
cited a most illuminating epistle in the course of his interesting observations, but I do not know whether he gave the author.


William John Ward: I was quoting from a speech
delivered by Hon. Frank Oliver. At the time he presented his bill to the House he was Minister of the Interior in the Laurier government.


George Perry Graham: That was a good government.


Robert Forke: They have been living on
their reputation ever since.


William John Ward: Now, Sir, the hon. member
for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) referred to the possibilities of the two ports. I think I told the House last session that I had visited Port Nelson myself, and while perfectly ignorant of what is required to constitute a harbour, yet I do claim to have some horse sense.
On that occasion we could see no particular obstacle in the way of making Port Nelson a safe harbour. In my own constituency there is a little lake twenty to twenty-five miles long by ten miles wide, and almost every day in the summer you will observe a much heavier sea there than any that prevailed in the harbour during the week we were at Port Nelson. I would say that at no time would a large canoe not have been quite safe in the harbour during that period, and that it was probably the most dangerous of the year, from the 17th to the 23rd of September.
A criticism that has recently been directed against the Hudson Bay project is that the grain movement of western Canada would not coincide with the period of safe navigation of the Hudson strait. That probably is to a certain degree true, but not any more so than it is true in respect to the period of navigation of the Great Lakes. For example, there were only 48,000,000 buhels of grain shipped from the head of the lakes last year before the close of navigation. I would say that, roughly speaking, the export of grain from western Canada that will have to pass through the ports of Fort William and Port Arthur will probably be 200,000,000 or 250,000,000 bushels. So it will be seen that as it is, only a very small percentage of the grain passes out through those ports before navigation closes. It has been estimated by shipping experts that if a farmer living in the district of Saskatoon were to bill two cars of grain, on the same date to Liverpool, one via Hudson bay and the other via Montreal, the car billed via Port Nelson might very well be in Europe- in Liverpool, if you like-ground into flour and baked into bread before the other car had reached Montreal. It takes an average of one month between the time a car of grain is billed at the local elevator and the time it is discharged from an elevator in Montreal to an ocean-going liner, and it is estimated that grain can be delivered in any port in Europe via Hudson bay in less than a month from the time it is shipped out. It would be of infinite value to western Canada if we could deliver our grain on the European market two weeks earlier than we are doing at present. I have been told by some of the older millers of Canada that the mills all over the world are short of Canadian hard wheat from April right through until our hard wheat starts moving to the market. The reason why there is a premium on Canadian hard wheat at that period of the year, is because of the competition for the securing of that hard wheat. to mix with the softer wheats
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward

that are obtained from the more southern countries during the winter months. So that if the Hudson bay route will give us an advantage of two weeks; if we can deliver our grain in the markets of the world two weeks earlier via that route than we can via Montreal, that is a benefit which would be incalculable.
My own impression after having visited the bay is that the opinion held by many men that the route would not be safe for navigation for more than three months in the year is entirely preposterous. I was at Port Nelson about the 20th of September. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) has told the House what the weather was like when he was there. I do not remember what he said the date was, but when I was there the weather was just as warm, I am sure, as it would be on the Niagara peninsula at that time of the year. During our entire trip, which extended into October, I kept a record of the mean temperature, and when I got back home and summed it all up I was amazed to find that it averaged, day and night, 55 degrees faren-heit. I venture to say that it is doubtful whether in any other part of Canada the temperature at that time of the year would be as high as it was on the shore of Hudson bay. I cannot believe for a minute that with the weather such as it was at Port Nelson, there would be huge ice floes and so on 400 miles up the bay, or at Hudson straits, and that the whole thing might be frozen up. Nor do I think that the Almighty placed a great inland sea in the heart of the American continent without a purpose, and I believe that purpose was to serve the great western country.
Only a few days ago I had an interview with the chief of the Geological Survey here in Ottawa and I asked him what he knew about the iron ore of the Belcher islands. The Survey branch have sent men to those islands to study the quantity, quality and
5 p.m. value of that iron ore, and he tells me that it is by all odds the most extensive and valuable deposit in Canada. The ore averages about 45 per cent high grade iron, which is as high as anything else we have in Canada. In extent we have nothing else to compare with it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I could go on for another hour in dealing with this matter, but surely enough has been said. We have shown that the Hudson Bay railway has not cost eastern Canada one red cent. It is purely a western project, But while it is a western project, I claim that it is also a national project. We have frequently been asked why western Can-
ada did not build the Hudson Bay railway itself and not be calling upon the federal parliament to deal with the matter. Well, in reply to that I would say that when the west is given a reasonable deal in connection with the control of her natural resources; when British Columbia assumes the responsibility of the development and maintenance of Vancouver harbour; when Prince Rupert harbour and dry docks are maintained by the province of British Columbia, and when Ontario does likewise for the port of Toronto and also takes over all liabilities in connection with the Welland canal and the Trent canal; when the province of Quebec charges itself with the task of maintaining and developing the St. Lawrence route, the port of Montreal, and a score of other national undertakings in that province; when it is agreed that the Canadian cost of developing the St. Lawrence waterways from Montreal to Toronto is to be met by the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; when these things are done it will be high time for eastern Canada to expect the west to develop that great national undertaking, the Hudson bay route. But I venture to say that none of these things will be done. The west is paying more than her fair share of the development of these enterprises, and for that reason the east is not likely to adopt any other policy than the present one.
I have mentioned in this connection the Welland ship canal, and I wish to make just a reference to that undertaking. I stated a year ago, Mr. Speaker, and I want to repeat it now. that neither the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) nor anyone else in Canada can prove-and I challenge them to do so-that the Welland ship canal is worth fifteen cents to the public of this country. The Welland ship canal will never reduce the carrying charges of grain by one-thirtieth of one per cent,-and I want this to be on record. Nor will it ever reduce the carrying charges of goods into western Canada, The Welland ship canal will benefit no one except the lake carrying companies, and probably the cities of Toronto, Port Arthur and Fort William Immediately the Welland ship canal is completed, if it is of any value, what will we find? We will have the Port Colbome elevators scrapped; they will become a pile of concrete. We will have the members from Toronto down here demanding another $20,000,000 for the building of grain elevators at Toronto, and we will go on paying exactly the same that we are paying to-day in carrying charges.
I was astonished when I saw in the estimates this year another $15,000,000 for what to me

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward
is a most unjustifiable expenditure. The only other expenditure made during the last thirty years in Canada that compares with it at all, to my mind, is the expenditure on the government merchant marine. The minister might very well have foregone the expenditure on the Welland ship canal for this year and spent a little of this money on the Hudson Bay railway. Of course, that may be his intention in any case.
The government is being urged to inaugurate an aggressive immigration policy. With this I am largely in agreement, as I believe the future of this country depends in a very large degree upon our ability to attract, retain and maintain settlers in this country. But that can only be done, Sir, by the adoption of policies that will make it reasonably possible for people to succeed when they come here. The one great stride that could be made in that direction would be to complete the Hudson bay route at once and thus with one stroke reduce the cost of living in the three prairie provinces by anywhere from $100,000,000 to $200,000,000. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) smiles. I may tell him that I delivered an address at a certain town in Saskatchewan a year ago during the course of which I made that same statement. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from the Toronto Saturday Night stating that a reporter who had been at the meeting had reported me as having made that statement, and it appeared to them so preposterous that the editor hesitated to publish it without first sommunicating with me.
I took the Canada Year Book, and in reply gave figures absolutely proving my statement. 1 worked out a rather comprehensive statement showing that $175,000,000 per year is being lost through the non-completion of the road and sent it to the Toronto Saturday Night and requested them to publish it but, of course, needless to say, they never did publish it. It can be proven absolutely that western Canada has been losing for many years a sum ranging anywhere from one hundred to two hundred millions of dollars through the non-completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Take the grain trade alone, and it costs western Canada on the average $82,000,000 per year-or has done since 1920-to transport our grain crop from the head of the lakes to tide water, to say nothing about all the other exports and imports from or into western Canada. And it must also be remembered that the head of the lakes is one hundred and thirty miles farther from the average railway station in western Canada than is Port Nelson. So
upon the basis of the present railway freight rates you could add another $15,000,000 to the figures mentioned, which brings the cost of transporting our grain from the head of the lakes to tide water, to practically $100,000,000. That charge would undoubtedly be saved if the grain was carried out via Hudson bay. I do not contend for one minute, I am not sc foolish as to entertain the view, that we could in one year, or ten years, or probably in twenty years, develop the Hudson bay route to the extent that would enable this large percentage of our grain to be carried out by the Hudson bay route. But that route would certainly be a leveller in the matter of rates and it would remove the need for some magna charta such as the Crowsnest pass rates in the west. Western Canada can never relinquish its claim and its hold upon the Crowsnest rates, it matters not what the consequences may be without some proper equivalent. Out there we are marooned in the heart of a great continent, fifteen hundred to two thousand miles from tide water. We have not the advantages of water competition such as you have in eastern Canada, and there is no limit to which western Canada will not go to retain the Crowsnest pass rates -at least until we get the Hudson bay route in operation and it has proven a success. The opening of this great national route to the north would bring the average settler of western Canada anywhere from one thousand to twelve hundred miles closer to the markets of the world; and it would remedy the situation which the government is now facing of establishing a new -freight rate structure such as will be acceptable to western Canada and all parts of the country.
We hear a great deal about the feasibility of the route, and in that connection some very extravagant statements have been made. I think the Minister of Railways himself made the statement last year that it would cost approximately $20,000,000 to complete the road. I am very largely in agreement with the views of the late W. A. Bowden, chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, who, when giving evidence before the Senate committee, said:
The feasibility of the route might well be determined by the operation for a few years of vessels by the government. I think twelve vessels; six to be owned by the government which might have 50 per cent extra for ice strengthening, and six ordinary tramp steamers would be chartered. This would be the basis on the experiment.
In my opinion that would be a very excellent experiment to make. I would be entirely opposed however, to any huge ex-
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Ward


Mr. CAHILL:: If the government does not undertake the development of the ports of the country how would those ports be developed to the extent necessary to take care of the shipment of grain or cattle from western Canada, or the rest of the import or export trade? If the government did not provide for this expenditure who would undertake the work?


William John Ward: I am not complaining of the development of the ports in question. But what I do say is that these works are not so necessary or so pressing as the Hudson Bay railway which stands in a class by itself. As to the need of the latter enterprise I can take my hon. friend to my own district where eighty-six families left one section,. a section of about eight miles square, last year owing to the lack of needed transportation facilities. We hear hon. gentlemen to my right talking about the troubles that our Canadian manufacturers are having, and how they are becoming insolvent and that sort of thing. They do not know what they are talking about. Premier Bracken made the statement a little less than a year ago that he believed 90 per cent of the farmers of Manitoba were hopelessly insolvent, and I do not think he is far out. When you consider that it costs an average of 63 per cent of the value of production in western Canada to ship to tidewater, you will understand why they are insolvent. That is what is the matter with the manufacturing and the mercantile business at the present time. The farmer has no purchasing power. He cannot pay out 63 per cent of the value of this product and have any money left to purchase material.
I would like to make a final reference to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and to that famous speech on the budget that he delivered the other day. I would call it a herring speech. I visited the market the next day after be had spoken, I wanted to

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Lovie
buy some fish. I went to a fish vendor and he had nothing but suckers, and he wanted- fifteen -cents a pound for them. I complained about the price, and he said, "Yes, it is high, but (the Minister of Agriculture -has cornered ail the red herring and it affects the price all along the line". I am not in agreement with some hon. members who have spoken before me in congratulating the minister on his conversion to the Hudson Bay project. I am quite sure that if the electors of the constituency of Regina had known that the minister was not a convert to the Hudson Bay railway and to the port of Nelson proposition he would not be occupying a seat in this House to-day, and I venture to say that unless he is a convert to the Hudson bay route and the port of Nelson he will not occupy a seat in the next parliament. I am not given to prophesying, but I think that is a prophecy very easily made. I hope we will not go away from this parliament disappointed this year. In -common with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), I -have a very great regard for the .Minister of Railways (Mr. -Gralham), and I believe hie .is absolutely sincere when he tells us that he is desirous of seeing the road completed. I believe he would like to seie it completed- and I Ithi-nk he would like to drive the last spike in the road himself, and would like to drive it this year. If he has the interests of confederation at heart,, and if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has the interests of confederation at heart and wishes to see it continued, I would suggest to him (that he also be a convert to the immediate completion of the road. I hope that we will have the pleasure of seeing a very substantial estimate in the su-pp-lementaries for the Hudson Bay railway this year.


Mr. W. J. LOVIE (Macdonald):: In the
second week of January, 1925, at the annual banquet of the Shorthorn Breeders' Convention in the city of Brandon, in the after-dinner speeches, the ball was set rolling by Dean McKillican of the Manitoba Agricultural College, and the line of the shorthorn dairy cattle breeding was taken up, and following that line there was a discussion as to the export of cattle to the British market. Naturally the question came up as to how the expensive rail haul between the prairie provinces and Montreal could be eliminated, and along with that the depreciation in weight of live stock when carried on the railways, which was very great. No one seemed to be able to answer the question until it came to my turn, and I was pretty nearly the last speaker. Present at the meeting were Mr. Atcheson, representing the Canadian Pacific Railway, and Mr. Watson representing -the Canadian National, and when I mentioned the feasibility of the Hudson Bay railway as a means of transporting cattle to the ocean ports with about five or six hundred miles of rail haul, the gentlemen from the railways deprecated the proposition, threw cold water on it, and said that the Hudson bay was ice-bound and consequently would not be feasible for such a purpose. But the men who were raising the cattle-and there was a large number of them at the banquet-immediately started to cheer; that is what they had been waiting for, and that is what they are waiting for to-day. If the stock raising interests of western Canada are ever going to amount to anything some means must be found of eliminating the long rail haul between the stockyards in St. Boniface and tidewater, and the shortest route for the transportation of cattle is by a railway to Hudson bay. It is a well known fact that cattle lose weight rapidly when carried on the railways, but when they are transported in vessels on the ocean they are just as apt to gain weight as to lose it. They will certainly hold their own. We want to develop the British market, just as we want to develop all available markets, so that Great Britain will take an unlimited quantity of high class cattle. They do not want anything else but high class cattle, and Canadians have not yet been educated along the line of raising a class of cattle fit for export. The American market will take all the cattle of inferior grades at a price. If we raised high class cattle we would certainly be able to find a market for them.
In reference to the statement that Hudson bay is ice-bound, I might say after listening to the debates tvhich have been held in this House, I am convinced that such is not the case. I quote now from Hansard of June 29, 1923, and I find the following opinion expressed :
As far as I can see it with the icebound bay-
That is in reference to Hudson bay. And now in contradiction of that let me quote here, a speech by John A. Campbell, Commissioner of Northern Manitoba, a man who has travelled all over the country and who knows. He says:
Hudson Bay
This is a vast inland sea; a body of salt water eight hundred miles long by five hundred miles wide. It does not freeze over.
I have here, reproduced from the Manitoba Free Press of June 14, 1924, -a photograph taken of Port Nelson on January 24, 1919-midwinter. It shows open water in the bay on that date. So that must certainly dispel the idea that Hudson bay is a frozen body

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Lovie

of water. It is a vast inland sea eight hundred miles long and five hundred miles wide.
Mr. Campbell stated further:
The water is deep, and there are no obstructing rocks or islands and practically no icebergs to interfere with navigation. There are no special obstacles to be overcome by navigators, and all reports go to show that this immense body of water can be as readily and easily navigated as almost any other.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) in his address this afternoon, mentioned the fact that people were apt to form erroneous opinions of western Canada, and that brought to my mind an incident that happened to myself personally about twenty-two years ago on board ship on the Atlantic when I was accosted by a gentleman whose home was in the city of Milwaukee. He said, "I hear you come from Manitoba?" I said "Yes." He said, "I would like to find out what the country is like. I have some friends who are talking of going to that country. Is it possible for a woman to live there and js the climate such that people can live there during the winter?" I said: "I have been twenty years in Manitoba and I have a wife and my two eldest youngsters with me. I will let you see them so that you can see whether they can live through the winter." He confessed that he was very much surprised. He had heard that the country was not fit for white people to live in. Some people have the same idea regarding the Hudson bay country. When the Hudson Bay railway is completed to tidewater, the hardy British sailors are going to bring their steamers in there and take out cargoes of grain. They are going to prove that that port was placed by the Almighty in the heart of the American continent, not for nothing, but to be the gateway of the great granary of the empire, and also for the grain of North and South Dakota and probably the eastern half of Montana. That is the nearest point to seaboard they can have.
As regards shipping wheat from there, we must always remember that there is no part of the country where wheat is grown as a commercial proposition that is further from the seaboard than the prairie provinces are from the Atlantic seaboard. That makes it harder for the people of the prairie provinces to produce wheat at a profit. We are looking forward to the utilization of the port of Nelson as the means of having our grain reach the seaboard with as short a rail haul as possible.


Mr. C. WALLACE STEWART (Humboldt) :: Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time that I have risen in this House to speak on this subject, and I do not propose at this time
[.Mr. Lovie.]
to repeat the arguments that I have presented in the sessions immediately preceding. I along with my colleagues here have attempted to place before the members of this House almost innumerable arguments why this project should be taken lip and proceeded with in its proper order. I recall that I have myself attempted to point out the advantages of this road and particularly its directness to the European market. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Lovie) has just pointed out its advantage to the stock raiser and grain grower. Last year, I think it was, I placed on Hansard certain figures which, on later consideration, I found to be very conservative as to the quantity of grain that was immediately tributary to the line leading in the direction of and almost to Hudson 'bay. I have also placed on Hansard reports of various men whose opinions are worth while and deserving of consideration as to the feasibility of this route. I do not think there are many arguments that have not been canvassed and presented.
I want, however, at this time to call the attention of the House again to the very moderate language of the resolution which we are debating this afternoon. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) is asking the House simply to reaffirm a decision which it made some two years ago when it was decided that the Hudson Bay railway should be proceeded with in the proper sequence of public works that are under way. All that we are asking, at the present time is that the House should decide that this work of great national importance should be proceeded with in its proper sequence. I agree heartily with the statement made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) as to what would be proper and acceptable in the way of furthering this scheme. The people of western Canada are demanding in no uncertain tones, that it must be proceeded with, but it is unnecessary, I think, for me to say that the people of western Canada are not unreasonable, that they realize that neither this government nor any other government can or should expend huge amounts of public money at one time, and that time the present. But they demand that this work slhall be continued, and that a reasonable share-may I so put it-of the money that is expended on public works should be expended on that project which is dear to them and which is apparently, in their estimation, going to be of great value to them. If the laying of the steel on the grade that is already there were continued, no complaint, no grumbling would come from the people of western Can-

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
ada as to a lack of money being spent on the port.
The development of our ports, as has already been pointed out, is an expensive matter, and a matter that, not only because of the expense but because of the use of our ports, is pre-eminently a national affair. It is not something that can be done in a day. It is very easy for us. viewing the ports of our country and the state of comparative completeness to which some of them have attained, to say that they are entirely satisfactory, and then, pointing to a port such as Nelson which, in the barrenness and openness of the very beginning of the work, there, does not compare very favourably with a port such as Montreal, or Halifax or Vancouver, to say that it is altogether impossible that the port of Nelson should ever compare with those ports. But any person who would make such a statement is not giving due consideration to the history of the ports of this country.
I want for a few moments this afternoon to direct the attention of the House to the development of one of our great water routes which has at least two very important ports upon it. That is the St. Lawrence route with the ports of Quebec and Montreal served by it. I do not want anything that I may say to be taken as casting any reflection upon the wisdom of the expenditure, nor to make any statement as to the amount that was spent having been too great. I point out simply that it cost many millions of dollars and it took may years to develop that route to the comparatively perfect stage in which we find it to-day. That route was used, I suppose, nearly three hundred years ago as a route for commerce, and because for the life-time of this generation it has been looked upon as a safe route, we have, I think, as Canadians, almost forgotten that at one time the St. Lawrence river route was not considered a safe highway for the larger boats of commerce and that it was never expected it would develop into a highway for the trading vessels of the world. For two hundred years that route was used by the smaller vessels and used even by them with great danger and loss. During those very same years the Hudson Bay route was in use with less loss than the St. Lawrence route. At the time of confederation no great sums of money had been expended in developing the St. Lawrence waterway up to the port of Montreal. It was considered a highly perilous highway for large vessels to take, and reports that were made to parliament shortly after confederation bore out that statement. I have a few notes as to some of the figures that were given.
178i
The report I have in my hand is one made to the Minister of Navigation in the year 1867 by the Quebec Board of Trade, and I want to quote just a few words from that report:
The most urgent and important requirement is the removal of the lighthouse (with its miserable light) from the centre of Red island, and the substitution of a Lightship at the east end of the Red islaad reef, with a steam whistle for thick weather. The report upon the wreck of the Ellen in 1866 (when the whole crew perished) will show that at present the reef extends fully two and one-half miles southeast of the lighthouse and that in foggy weather a ship is ashore before the island light can be seen. During the present season-
That is 1867.
-no less than five ships have struck upon this island.
The report goes on to demand another lightship, declaring that there was sufficient proof of the necessity for it. This proof, it says, is to be found in the fact that in 1864 four vessels were lost at that particular point. In the year 1869 a total of 600 vessels used tihe ports of Quebec and Montreal and of these twenty-six were wrecked either on the inward voyage or on the outward course. Compare that with the figures in relation to Hudson bay. The Hudson's Bay Company made use of the bay as well as of Port Nelson for a matter of some two hundred years, and in that two hundred years, with 750 sailings, only two vessels were lost. A judicious ejqjenditure of money over a considerable number of years has brought tihe St. Lawrence route up to a state of development in which, we no longer consider it dangerous. As a matter of fact, I do not recall having heard of a vessel being wrecked on that route, in quite a number of years, from any other cause than collision. All the dangers have been removed and the route has been developed to a state of perfection by the expenditure of very considerable sums of money which, if they were totalled up to tihe present time, including the cost of maintenance from year to year, would be far in excess of $100,000,000. The capital expenditure alone is now something over $90,000,000 over that 200 miles. Perhaps hon. gentlemen may think this comparison has little to do with the route into Port Nelson, but I hold that it has. It has been by means of modern navigation aids that the St. Lawrence has been made a safe highway for the largest vessels that travel the Atlantic ocean, and the same aid applied to Hudson bay would place it in a fairly favourable position to compete with the S't. Lawrence route.
It has been brought to our attention at various times, and recently by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), that there
2796	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Stewart (Humboldt)
are certain mud flats at the mouth of the Nelson river and that it will probably be a quite expensive matter to make a thoroughly satisfactory channel through those mud flats to the open bay. But I think that if we accept that statement seriously we are overlooking the fact that there is through these mud flats at the present time a channel which gives a sufficient draught of water for ordinarysized vessels; in fact, it gives the same draught of water to-day as there was on the St. Lawrence for fifteen years after confederation.


Mr. McMASTER:: What is the depth of
water in the channel?


Charles Wallace Stewart: About seventeen feet; no, an hon. member corrects me and says it is nineteen. And I believe that is correct. But that of course is at low tide; the tide at that point would add another four or five feet. On the St. Lawrence route today -there is a draught of thirty feet, but we must not forget that this has been made possible by considerable dredging in lake St. Peter; and it has cost in that particular area alone, I am told, something like $15,000,000 to achieve this result. Nor was this condition brought about without many disappointments; it was only after many starts had been made and the work had been abandoned and resumed that the route as it is to-day became possible. Now there is a highway through the flats of that lake 450 feet in width and thirty feet deep, all the result of work done during the last fifty years.
If, as has been suggested this afternoon, the present government would undertake to lay the steel on the graded roadway to the port of Nelson and make even sufficient provision there for tramp steamers to find their way in, I for one, having advocated1 or pleaded, if you like, for the completion of the route, would consider that a satisfactory step to begin with, and I should be willing to leave it to possible developments, in the way of navigation and in the traffic that would be available, to prove whether the port were worthy of further consideration and whether, in the case of that port as with otheT ports that we have developed, we should continue steadily to expend money to improve it and make it safer and more convenient than it is at the present time.
I contend that we need to-day men who have something of a forward vision. Too many of us are looking back over the past; we see what has been accomplished and when we contemplate the things that lie ahead of us awaiting development we are fearful. Had

the men who undertook to develop the port of Montreal or the port of Quebec, or foT that matter any great port in Canada, looked at the matter with the fear and trembling which some hon. gentlemen profess to have in regard to the port of Nelson, we should have had no Maritime connections at the present time; we should have been isolated. We want forward-looking statesmen who are willing to take a chance on the future just as our forefathers took chances on a country which *was held up to them as rocky and ice-bound but which they made productive, a country which is now clamouring for greater outlets than it has.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I
feel I am going to introduce a jarring note into these paeans of praise in favour of the continuation and the finishing of the Hudson Bay railway. What I should like to impress on members of the House, if I could do so, is a feeling of responsibility in regard to the financial condition in which this country finds itself. The last speaker, Mr. Stewart (Humboldt), with his glowing periods of appeal to us to look forward and to take broad views and be hopeful, really needs some corrective, and I propose in all humility and modesty to apply that corrective in the few brief minutes that remain before six o'clock.
One thing I want to know about the Hudson bay route, before we spend more money on it, is this:	How many months of open
navigation have they there year by year? How many months of open navigation have they, not in the bay itself, which is open the year round, but in the body of water leading into the bay known as Hudson strait? How many months is the strait safe for navigation? I should be glad to think that this was a good route: I have never in this House shown myself either parochial or provincial. There are some who think that those who come from Montreal are against this route because they come from Montreal. I am not really affected by that supposition in any shape or manner; but I want to know how many months of open, safe navigation there are through Hudson strait. I am told that it is not open for more than six weeks or at most three months. If that is true, is it wise-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Who told you that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have been told that
by every person with whom I have discussed this question and who is familiar with the situation. One of my informants is a man who comes from Prince Edward Island-in itself a recommendation for respectability and

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. McMaster
truthfulness. He took a ship up to Hudson bay. He let me examine the ship's log. He started from Halifax some time in early July, and it took him one whole month getting through the ice in the straits.


Andrew Knox: Was he not taking a dredge that was not supposed to 'be a seagoing ship at all?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, he was taking one of the government steamers, and he had on board lighting appliances to be set up in different portions of the straits. He was running a perfectly well-found steamer.


Mr. HUGHES:: An ice-ibreaker?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, I do not think so. At any rate, it was a steamer perfectly suited to navigation anywhere, not a dredge. This man allowed me to look at the ship's log. I traced her course on the map day by day, and I found it took him about four weeks to get through Hudson straits. Then it was all plain sailing and it took him only two days to get across from the top of Hudson bay down to Port Nelson. I believe from the best information I lean get that you cannot count on more than three months open water at the outsidte.


Charles Wallace Stewart: 
Andrew Knox: I do not want to delay the hon. gentleman, but I think we should have the mystery of this long-delayed1 trip cleared up. I presume the mariner to whom he refers was Captain Read?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


Andrew Knox: He was in that "miLlion dollar mystery dredge" which has been often referred to, and he had a very slow trip_ in. I wonder if that was the boat?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, it was not that boat. I forget its name.


Mr. DUFF:: Was it the Minto?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: That is one of the best ice-hreakdng boats we have.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We get confirmation from a gentleman from the island that the Minto is one of our best ice-breakers.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Will the hon. member
contend that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) and others who were connected with the Liberal government at that time went into the project blindfolded?


William Duff: Pretty nearly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I will answer the question in this way. Unfortunately for the taxpayers of Canada the Hudson Bay railway has been a political football, kicked by both of the old parties for the last fifty years, and it is now being kicked by the Progressive party.


William John Ward: Is not that true of most of our transportation projects?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am sorry to say that I think this project has been viewed rather in a partisan way than in a common sense, practical way.


Mr. BIRD:: What date did the captain of the Minto clear the straits on his way out?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I cannot tell my hon. friend. He started from Halifax early in July, if I remember the entry in the log.


William Duff: Do you want to read the log again? I have it *right here.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have a copy of the log. He left, from Halifax, I think, about the first of July, and he was a month getting-through the straits.


Thomas William Bird: When did he come back?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Quicker than he went- I think some time in September.


Thomas William Bird: Then how could he tell navigation was only open for three months?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The point I make is, that I do not think anyone has ever pretended that there is more than three months of open navigation through the straits.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


William Duff: There is not three days.


Andrew Ross McMaster: After all, those who
know about the length of navigation through the straits are largely people from our Maritime provinces. Through their sealing and fishing business they are more conversant with
2798	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. McMaster
conditions in the north Atlantic than are people in the prairie provinces, no matter how well informed the latter may be as to their local conditions. My first point is this, that you have a short period of navigation. My second point is, that you have a dangerous period of navigation. I have never had any apostle of this Hudson Bay railway tell me what the insurance rates are going to be. For years and years the St. Lawrence route has been prejudicially affected, in fact it is to-day, by high insurance rates compared with similar rates from the United States Atlantic ports.


Charles Wallace Stewart: The St.
Lawrence route is doing very well, though, is it not?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, it is doing better, and we have spent millions and millions of dollars in bringing it to its present standard. When I consider what the probable insurance rates would be on boats going through the Hudson straits, as far as I can judge the situation I am afraid that those rates would be so expensive as to render the route impracticable.
Now, what businesses will be helped by the completion and operation of the Hudson Bay railway? The grain business will not be helped. You will not have any ships sailing out of Hudson bay ports after the middle of October. How much of your grain are you going to get down to Hudson bay ports before the middle of October? You will get mighty few bushels, and if you send your grain down there it will have to remain in storage until the spring. And spring does not open up there as it does on the St. Lawrence, in the last days of April.


Andrew Knox: Does the hon. member know
what time of the year our grain first reaches Montreal?


Andrew Ross McMaster: No.


Andrew Knox: An engineer says it reaches
there in the latter part of August.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I presume it would. I imagine your early grain would be down in Montreal ten days or two weeks after it is reaped. Some of it will go out through that port, some through Buffalo, and some .through Boston; there are lots of debouches, as we say in French, a lot of outlets; but if your grain is marooned up in Hudson bay it will not get out until next spring. Now as to cattle. Certainly it would give a splendid route for cattle, if you can count with any degree of certitude 
on having a speedy trip; but if you cannot, supposing a cattle boat that had taken on provisions for a two weeks' voyage was tied up for six or eight weeks, you would have to slay your cattle in order that they should not starve to death.


Robert Forke: That is, supposing.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes; but I am asking you to consider merely the eventualities that may happen by reason of climatic conditions over which you have no control, and which you must face. Now, the west wants better railway accommodation. Quite true; and it should have it as soon as practicable and possible. But is it wise to spend more money upon a project with the tremendous and certain disadvantages of the Hudson bay route, when the great outlet of the grain from the westward plains is not eastward but westward? What you need is better railway accommodation to bring a lot of your grain to the Pacific ports and not to Atlantic ports at all. That is what you really need.
Now, there is the question of this port, Port Nelson. What I am told is this: The Nelson river is a tremendous river; it runs through a lot of arable land and brings down every year an immense amount of silt. Although it is quite true that the current scours a certain channel at Port Nelson, that channel is more or less a narrow one and if you are going to have a large port there you will have to spend millions upon millions of dollars on it and you will have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars year by year to keep it dredged out. I was told while. I was in the west the winter before last that the proper port was Fort Churchill. I was told that at Fort Churchill there was a good natural harbour and that it was not exposed to the disadvantage of being filled up with silt.
Now, this project may come in due time, Mr. Speaker, but I would ask you, .'and through you the members of the House, not to regard this matter as a matter of faith and doctrine. This has become an obsession on (he part of some hon. members of this House; they seem to regard it as a matter which must be accepted as a cardinal principle of western Christian belief. It should not be regarded in that fashion. It is true governments may have committed themselves to it. It is true a certain contract may have been entered into. If it is thought wise to carry out that contract equitably it should be done; if not an adjustment of accounts should take place. But some of us have the idea that it is going to help us, in spite of the evidence placed

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bancrojt
before us, we should support a proposal which those best informed regard as a very doubtful desirability, or if not doubtful desirability, certainly doubtful practicability. With the finances of the country in the shape they are in, I want to see economy all along the line. I do not ask hon. members to give up the Hudson Bay railway idea without being prepared to advocate the giving up of many propositions nearer home. My voice as long as it is to be heard in this House will be heard for economy all along the line, ancl I do not think the present project is one which will appeal to the economic sentiment and feeling which I would like to see mobilized in the entire country, a feeling in favour of eliminating every expense we can get along without.
At six oclock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) was speaking against the resolution which is under discussion at the present time. He raised several objections to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, one being that no ships could pass out of Port Nelson after October, and because of that it would be of no use for handling the crop of that year. I am afraid the hon. member is not very familiar with the methods used in moving the crops of western Canada or he would not have made that statement. The knowledge of all the people in eastern Canada in regard to the handling of the crop is not so limited as that of the hon. member, but I will quote in reply to his statement from a paper read by Frederick William Cowie, B.Sc., M.E.I.C., before the Montreal branch of the Engineering Institute of Canada on April 19, 1923. Dealing with this very objection which my hon. friend mentioned he said:
What about the argument that " relatively short period of safe navigation does not coincide with the period of crop movement "? The writer has seen time and time again, new crop from the Canadian west, at Montreal elevators, from August 20 to 25. This grain could be at Nelson a full week earlier.
That leaves considerable time, Mr. Speaker, to get the grain loaded and out When it can be in Nelson a week earlier than August 20 or 25. He goes on to say:
Neither the Hudson bay route nor the St. Lawrence route provides an ideal season of navigation, but there is a great similarity, the critical period of each being September, October, and part of November.
Then the hon. member raised objection to the port of Nelson, saying that on account of the silt which was carried down from the prairie country bars formed in the channel, and it was not a very good harbour for that reason-the channel, he said, was very narrow. In reply to that I want to read an extract from the evidence of Mr. McLachlan, the engineer, regarding the channel at Nelson. Engineer McLachlan in a sworn statement before the Senate committee in 1920, said:
This new channel is a natural channel without any dredging. The depth is 20 feet at low tide, 33.7 at high tide and about 40 feet at spring tide. The width of the channel at the narrowest point is 1,200 feet.
Then my hon. friend passes on to the straits. He said he could support the whole project if the straits were only navigable for any length of time during the year. Well, in connection with that we have the evidence of Mr. J. W. Tyrell who spent considerable time on the strait making observations. He says:
We had an observation point 400 feet above the sea, and I had a telescope built into a cairn on top of that cliff, and I used to go up every day to look at the conditions through the telescope. I could see a long distance, clean out to the middle of the straits. The ice was almost constantly on the move as in the tidal current, the maximum of which was eight miles an hour.
Outside of two months there were open leads all the time. They were the months of January and February, I think. My belief is that the straits are navigable for about five months in the year, figuring on aids to navigation-July, August, 'September, Octobejr, and November. I think the ice at the eastern and western extremity of the straits would not interfere particularly during those five months.
I need not go into the history of the work done in connection with the Hudson Bay railway. That has been gone over many times in this House, and I do not think it is necessary to take up more time by repeating it. From the year 1910 until 1918 work was carried on continuously on this railroad and at the harbour of Port Nelson. During that time 332 miles of road were completed and laid with eighty pound steel rails, mile long sidings were constructed at various short intervals along the way to facilitate the handling of grain, and three immense steel bridges built. I think these structures are amongst the largest of the steel bridges that have been built in western Canada. Now, the government were going on laying steel until 1918 when the work was mysteriously stopped. The general impression in western Canada is that powerful interests who feared the competition of this route brought pressure to bear upon the government, with the result that the work was stopped and the whole project abandoned. This went so far that an order was actually issued to tear up the rails. From
2800	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.

Mr. Bancroft
the beginning of this process right up to the present time a campaign of false and misleading statements has been carried on in many of the leading papers in eastern Canada. The only excuse that was ever offered for abandoning this work was the excuse of economy-economy in national expenditures. Having embarked upon this policy of national economy in 1918 we should have made some very substantial savings in the seven years that have passed since then. We abandoned the Hudson bay project which offered the greatest economic possibility of any of the public works under construction at that time, and we saved $2,000,000 by so doing. This policy of economy was apparently confined to the Hudson Bay railway. If you peruse the records of this House you will find that since 1918 we have spent over $97,000,000 on eight public undertakings in this country, none of which offers the economic possibilities of the Hudson bay route. During the period from and including 1918, including also the estimates before the House for 1925, the expenditures on the following eight undertakings were as follows:
New Welland ship canal (approximately). $48,797,000
Trent canal	 2,733.000
Victoria dry dock	 9,000,000
Quebec harbour	 2,400,000
Montreal harbour	 11,110.000
Vancouver harbour	 9,595,000
Toronto harbour	 6,972.000
St. John harbour	 6,712,000
Total	 $97,319,000
The Trent canal project I believe offers little in the way of economic possibilities. As to the Quebec harbour it is reported there is going to be a substantial grant this year.


George Perry Graham: Would it not be fair to
say now that several of these harbours to which my hon. friend has referred pay interest on the money? These advances are only loans to the harbour under the act and if they pay interest every year it does not cost the country a cent for carrying charges.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I know of only one that is paying interest. I have not heard of any other than the Montreal harbour.


George Perry Graham: What about Vancouver
harbour?


Leland Payson Bancroft: If the minister says
Vancouver harbour is paying interest I will accept his statement.


George Perry Graham: I think I am correct in saying that.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I think the Hudson bay project would pay interest on the investment
TMr. Bancroft.!
too. I say further that if I did not tlhink so I would not be here advocating it. Now in addition to these large expenditures that are being carried on at this time, we must not forget that a great deal of money has been spent to make this St. Lawrence ship channel more navigable than it is at the present time.
I have before me an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press headed:
When millions did not count.
That- article says in part:
When the ocean greyhounds of to-day pause in their race across the Atlantic, and pick up at Father point, a pilot to steer them through the St. Lawrence to Quebec and thence to Montreal, the passengers forget the dangers which lurk beneath the blue waters in the glorious prospect of the shores.
If they stopped to consider they would realize thaf their pathway has been made safe because of scores of millions of dollars which have been expended in the erection of lighthouses, the placing of buoys, and the dredging out of dangerous reefs and shoals. Figuratively their ship is sailing smoothly on a river of gold.
Later on this article says:
The capital expenditure on this route as disclosed in the official reports of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa, may be tabulated as follows:
Dredging	 $16,326,206
Montreal harbour	 36,330,000
Quebec harbour	 11,990,995
Aids (such as buoys and lights) 4,147,113 Radio, wireless and similar equipment	 1,000,000
Total	 $69,794,914
These figures do not include the current year when an additional $5,000,000 was voted for the Montreal harbour.
That was last year.
Neither do the figures contain the vast total of the upkeep charges which this year total more than $700,000 and last year more than $800,000. The Quebec harbour this year requires $500,000 which parliament has given. At the very least these figures would swell the total to $90,000,000.
Then the article proceeds to give some figures in regard to the route which my hon. friend from HumboMt (Mr. Stewart) referred to this afternoon, and among other things it tells how the difficulties were overcome to make it the great waterway that it is to-day. It- says:
Judicious expenditure of money, however, has brought about a vast change in the navigability of the river until to-day it is rarely the case that ships are injured from any cause other than collision.
From Quebec to Montreal by river is a little better than 180 miles, and the dogged determination shown by the federal government and the harbour commission of Montreal in carving out of the river a passage which would enable the city to become an ocean port, has never been excelled in the history of Canada. To give a detailed account of the struggle of those years would require too much space, but there were many failures, many partial successes before the final triumph. Lake St. Peter presented the greatest obstacle with its

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bancroft
mud flats. Here the work of years was abandoned and a fresh start made, not once but several times.
In the end, however, nature yielded and to-day the great liners steam along a highway-not many times wider than Portage avenue-which has been made by man. When it is considered that there is more than 100 miles of dredged channel and that throughout ail that distance the passage must be marked out carefully and gone over each year with dredges, then the magnitude of the achievement may be realized.
I quote that to show that while there are difficulties to overcome in the Hudson bay route, we have difficulties to overcome in the St. Lawrence route and our information is that it will not take nearly as much expenditure to make the Hudson bay route feasible as has been spent on the St. Lawrence route. The people in western Canada are unanimously behind this project; but the friends of the Hudson bay route do not all live in western Canada. I have in my hand a copy of the Scientific American of June, 1923, and on the front page of that journal I find an article headed:
Hudson's Bay, the "Neglected Sea"_ by John T. Rowland.
And he tells us how he cruised the straits in a 30-foot auxiliary yawl in the summer of 1913, and he says the only difficulty he found was in taking the bearing of the ship, because the magnetic points of the compass would not work, on account of being so close to the magnetic pole, but he goes on to say that this has been overcome.
But this difficulty has since been almost magically removed by the .perfection of the gyro-compass. A ship equipped with one of these can dispense with the old-fashioned magnetic instrument entirely and steer across Hudson's bay as readily as across the Atlantic ocean.
In addition to this we have a gentleman in Montreal who is very much in favour of the route, and I am sure hon. members will be surprised to hear that. I refer to Mr. F. W. Cowie, who is engineer of the Montreal Harbour Commission.


William Duff: That is the gentleman who
laid out the Halifax terminals.


Leland Payson Bancroft: He picked out a good
harbour, then.


William Duff: Yes, he did that all right,
but he made a mess of it.


Leland Payson Bancroft: It was a good harbour before he started.


William Duff: Yes.


Leland Payson Bancroft: He says in this paper
read before the Montreal Institute of Engineers :
The writer dares greatly in "risking a fall " with the editor-in-chief of the Gazette, of Montreal, who so fittingly voices, and even leads commercial opinion in the east.
After no superficial study, however, the writer dares the statement, that the Hudson's bay route offers much more than "a gambler's chance of success". He has personally experienced every phase in connection with St. Lawrence river navigation, its failures and its successes.
The late Sir John Kennedy, past president of this institute, in no casual school, taught the writer that while one cannot force the mighty St. Lawrence one may make terms with it. And where in the world such prodigious difficulties, where such successes, as in the making of the artificial harbour at Montreal ?
There is only one St. Lawrence, and Canada may thank God for it. It can have no enduring rival, but is it wise and sufficient that it be relied upon alone? Those who know, will accept, that no one may be more, or even equally loyal to the St. Lawrence route, than the writer, who has given his best towards its success, in the last thirty-seven continuous years, and based on mature experience, he is of the opinion that the Hudson's bay route, under accepted limitations, offers a prize, in favour of production, worthy of fuller investigation and a better attempt to demonstrate it.
Further on in his paper he says:
The Hudson's bay route is now over three hundred years old and for over two hundred and fifty years a company of hard-headed merchants, operating for gain, with distinct success; year after year, sent one or more ships to Hudson's bay, and the records of loss are very few.
Then later on he dealt with its relation to the time problem, which I read a few minutes ago, showing that the period during which Hudson bay is open and the straits are known to be navigable is a period that fits in very nicely with the crop movement of western Canada.
The people of western Canada are practically a unit in their demands that this railway be completed. It is not only the hon. memibers who have the honour of representing western Canada in this House who are demanding it, but I think all three provincial legislatures have passed unanimous resolutions, supported by all parties, demanding the completion of this road. In addition to this the farmers' organizations of the three provinces have endorsed the project and want to see it completed immediately. Furthermore, I think every board of trade in the three prairie provinces has passed resolutions to the same effect. I have no doubt the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways and Canals have had many resolutions sent to them along this line. These people have some excuse for sending these resolutions to the government because, just prior to the election of 1921, the people of that district made it their business to find out where the leaders of the different parties stood in the matter. The secretary of the Pas Board of
2802	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bancroft
Trade wrote to the Prime Minister and he replied in December, 1920, as follows:
With respect to the particular project of the Hudson Bay railway, such expression as there has been on behalf of the party was given in parliament at the time the project was inaugurated.
I would interpret that to mean that because the Liberal party had started this project in 1910, they were going to go through with what they started.
In November, 1921, they wrote to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and this was his reply regarding the completion of the Hudson Bay railway:
I have several times stated the policy of the government towards the Hudson Bay railway. I regard its completion as essential, and not only that but am most anxious that the least possible delay be allowed before its completion is finally undertaken.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was at that time leading the party to which I belong. They wrote to him also, and these were his views on the matter:
Expressing imy own personal view, I have no hesitation in stating this road should be completed to the bay at the earliest possible moment, and I hold the further belief that eventually it will become one of <the great trade routes of the world.
In view of the unanimous demand from western Canada for the completion of this road, in view of the vast expenditures that have been carried on in other parts of the country since this project has been abandoned, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister practically pledged himself to it before the last election and that the Minister of Railways and Canals turned the first sod and has been a strong supporter of the project, we should have this resolution accepted tonight and the work gone on with as speedily as possible.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure my hon. friends from western Canada that I have not the slightest antipathy or ill will towards that part of the country or to the hon. gentlemen who come from there. If there is anything practicable that this country can do that will benefit the western provinces, they are entitled to consideration along that line. They have their difficulties, many of them. We have our difficulties also, and we can sympathize with them. If I thought this project was feasible or practicable, I certainly would be pleased to support it. But viewing it as I do and considering it to be, commercially speaking, impracticable, having regard to my duty as a member of this House, I shall have to vote against it. I will give my reasons for doing so. Captain Read's name was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for

Brome (Mr. McMaster), and I do not know that I would have mentioned his name if it were not for that fact. Captain Read is, I think, the most experienced man in ice navigation in the Dominion of Canada at the present time. He has certainly no ill will towards the western provinces. He is not influenced by any unworthy considerations whatever. He has been in Hudson bay and Hudson strait for two years and, I think, three, placing aids to navigation in those waters. He was a ship owner and he is a master mariner. He sailed the seas with his father who was also a ship owner and a master mariner.' During the war he took at least two ice-breaking ships through the White sea to Archangel and delivered them faithfully. He has been for years operating an ice-breaking steamer in the strait of Northumberland. He knows all about winter navigation in the strait of Northumberland and the gulf of St. Lawrence. Therefore, I think his views are entitled to some consideration and he has given his views, stating his reasons for them. In the ship's log he gives the dates and actual conditions that he found in those waters during the time he was there, and anybody reading those records will come to the conclusion that the proposition is an impracticable one.
I listened this afternoon to the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), who always makes a nice address and is careful of his words. He is a responsible man; anything he says is worthy of consideration; but while commending this project, he actually condemned it. I think he said there were two vessels, there were some vessels at all events, that had been beached some years ago in or near the harbour at Port Nelson and that they were still intact. They had not been broken up by the action of the sea, the waves and the wind. Why? He gave the answer himself, that the sea broke some fifteen or twenty miles-he did not say this-oS the mouth of the Nelson river. The force of the waves was broken on the sand bars before they could reach the harbour at the mouth of the river. Any man who knows anything about navigation will say that that condemns Port Nelson as a harbour.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Has the hon. member
read engineer McLachlan's report given before the committee stating that there was a permanent channel there in which sand bars never formed?


James Joseph Hughes: I will come to that. There is nothing that a master mariner or mariner so much dreads as approaching a low coast where sand bars reach a considerable distance out into the sea.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hughes


Leland Payson Bancroft: They get into St. John harbour pretty well.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend is quite
mistaken. It is the tide he is speaking about and that is quite a different thing.


Leland Payson Bancroft: It is a tidal harbour
and there are mud flats.


James Joseph Hughes: It is a tidal harbour, but
there are no sand bars there. I will tell my hon. friend where there is a sand bar. There is a sand bar about three-quarters of a mile wide at the mouth of the Mersey river leading to Liverpool. I have the distance in yards and I think it is about 1,200 yards. I have this from men who have sailed in and out of Liverpool for years, and it can be verified. They say that it requires three of the most powerful sand-suction dredges in the British Empire to keep that channel open, and they are working twenty-four hours a day, 365 days in the year.


Leland Payson Bancroft: Does the hon. member think that they made a mistake in developing that port?


James Joseph Hughes: My gracious, what a foolish question! If the hon. member will have patience I am sure he will see the point of my argument. There are other dredges kept in reserve which can be brought into service if one of these regular dredges becomes disabled or is being repaired. The immense shipping on that river passing in and out of Liverpool, and the tremendous tonnage involved, is justification for this enormous expenditure. Now, the sand formation at the mouth of the Nelson river, between the river and the sea, is very similar to the formation at the mouth of the Mersey.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is this crossing the
channel or outside the channel?


James Joseph Hughes: Wait a moment and you will see. The channel shifts.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, so it is stated by navigators who have been in those waters.


Milton Neil Campbell: I can show the hon. gentleman a couple of charts prepared by different engineers which might convince him that he is wrong.


James Joseph Hughes: The formation at the mouth of the Nelson is similar to the formation at the mouth of the Mersey. There is a little more clay and there are more pebbles in the sand at the mouth of the Nelson, and that is an advantage; but at the same time it is a
sand formation, and wherever there are sand bars out in the open sea the channel shifts. That is the case in every part of the known wmrld. Now, that is the situation. If it takes three dredges working twenty-four hours a day and 365 days in the year to keep open the channel leading into the Mersey, a width of three-quarters of a mile, how many dredges would it take to keep the channel clear at the mouth of the Nelson river?
The Hudson Bay railway and navigation of Hudson strait and Hudson bay are different things, although they are linked up with each other. At least in some respects they may be considered separately. About a year ago, I think, a delegation came here from Manitoba, possibly from Winnipeg; and I was anxious, as I have been anxious for years, to get all the information I could upon this question. The delegation desired to meet the members of parliament in the Railway committee room and I made it a point to be present because I expected some information from the men who came from that part of the country and who had studied the question. But I was sadly disappointed.


Milton Neil Campbell: The delegation assumed that the government had all the information.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know that any
delegation comes here that is not prepared to give to the government and to parliament all the information it can.


Milton Neil Campbell: Surely the government
had the information before it ventured on the project.


James Joseph Hughes: For that matter, I have
a good deal of information on the subject and I presume there are other members who have more than I have. And my information is in accordance with what I am stating tonight. I attended that meeting with an open mind, for I wanted to hear everything I could on the subject. But as I say, I was disappointed. Some members of the delegation quoted poetry, and all spoke eloquently; but without reflecting on any of those gentlemen, I do not think they submitted an argument. Premier Bracken, I must say, seemed to realize that it would be advisable at least to present some argument; and he did. In the course of his remarks I put this question: "If the navigation of Hudson strait and Hudson bay were shown to be impracticable from a commercial standpoint, would you still advocate the completion of the Hudson Bay railway to Port Nelson?" He hesitated; but although I cannot give his answer in his own words I think I can give the substance

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hughes
of it without doing him any injustice. He finally stated that if it could be shown, although he did not think it could be shown, that the navigation of Hudson strait and Hudson bay was impracticable from a commercial standpoint he would hesitate, for the time being at least, to recommend the extension of the railway.


Milton Neil Campbell: And that is the attitude of every hon. gentleman in this section of the House.


James Joseph Hughes: I am glad to hear that.
But I think I shall be able to show my hon. friend that the navigation of Hudson strait and Hudson bay is impracticable and I shall quote authorities who are not prejudiced, the men whose business it was to look into this question, having been sent into these waters for the express purpose. I shall quote from the log of the Neptune, and in the first place I want to point out what kind of ship the Neptune was:
The Neptune, the largest and most powerful ship of the Newfoundland sealing fleet, was chartered as the most suitable vessel for the cruiser work. The Neptune is a stout wooden ship, built entirely of British oak, sheathed with "iron-bark" and green-heart. Although built in 1873, she is quite sound throughout, and of amazing strength. Her sides are formed of an outer sheathing of four inches of greenheart, on top of four inches of oak, covering heavy oak timbers, with an inside lining of three inches; the space between the inner and outer skins and the timbers is solidly filled with rock-salt, so that the sides of the ship are practically eighteen inches thick in all parts where a contact with the ice is expected. The bow is further reinforced by a heavy sheathing of iron plates, and inside it is backed with deadwood, giving it a thickness of eight feet.
Surely that ship could withstand great pressure from the ice; she was wtell fitted1 to test the navigation of these waters. Now, we all know that the Hudson's Bay Company's vessels navigated) these waters, if not for two hundred' years, at any rate for a very great period of time. But let os remember that these were sailing ships, stout wooden vessels, converted frigates; and time was of no great consequence to them. If they made one or two,voyages in the year, indeed if they made onle, they did well; they would bring a cargo of supplies and1 take home a cargo of furs. The drift of the ice in Hudson strait is eastward', and if these ships were going home late in the season and they got into the ioe they could afford to wait and let the ice take them into the Atlantic ocean. That is an entirely different proposition from the operation of steel ships, tramp vessels, carrying grain and cattle through these waters. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), the cattle would have to arrive in

reasonable time, and the ships that would engage in this trade would necessarily have to make regular sailings. Time therefore would be of importance to them. I wilLcome to that later. But I wanted to make this reference to the ships of the Hudson's Bay Company that navigated these waters. Conditions to-day are absolutely different. Now we will continue with the cruise of the Neptune. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) stated that under the most favourable conditions three months in the year would be the outside limit during which these waters could be navigated. I think he was very optimistic, in fact according to the log of this ship he was incorrect even in giving that limited period, although hon. members opposite say that navigation could be successfully carried on for a much longer time. I might say that neither Hudson bay nor Hudson straits ever freeze over; I agree at once wth hon. gentlemen opposite who have made that statement. But the waters are full of floating ice every month of the year; and it is 'heavy northern ice, different altogether from the ice that is found in the gulf of St. Lawrence, the Northumberland straits or the river St. Lawrence. Here is what the log of the Neptune says in regard to Hudson bay, on September 13, the best month in the year for navigating these waters,-


Robert Forke: What year?


James Joseph Hughes: In 1903 and 1904. This was in 1903; he was going in:
Squalls of snow delayed us until the afternoon of September 13, when we steamed westward along the north side of Digges islands. A bear was seen climbing over the cliffs^ and a boat was lowered in chase, but animal escaped. In the evening, the course was changed to northward, up Fox channel. At daylight the next morning ice was met with some ten miles from Leyson point. Steaming slowly through it, Seahorse point, on Southampton island, was reached at noon, and a landing was made with the launch.
There was ice there; that is the western end of Hudson straits.


Andrew Knox: If my hon. friend will pardon me, this point was discussed last session, and it was then pointed out that Southampton island is not on the course to Hudson bay, it lies to the north.


James Joseph Hughes: I know where it lies.


Andrew Knox: She was not coming into
Nelson if she was going by Southampton island to the north.


James Joseph Hughes: We will go on.
On October 10 a heavy gale blew from the westward, accompanied by frequent, thick snow squalls.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hughes
The anchor was raised at daylight on the morning following, when, keeping well to the southward of the shoals beyond the mouth of the inlet, we arrived safely at Fullerton at dusk that evening.
He wintered in Fullerton harbour and came out next summer, 1904. He says:
The anchor was hoisted and the moorings to the ice cast off at two o'clock on the morning of July 18, when the Neptune proceeded to break her way out of Fullerton harbour, after having been nine months there fast frozen in the ice.


Milton Neil Campbell: Was he going in to
Port Nelson, or going further north?


James Joseph Hughes: He was examining these
waters to ascertain whether navigation was commercially practicable.


Milton Neil Campbell: If he was going further north he could not have been making for Port Nelson.


James Joseph Hughes: Is my hon. friend acquainted with the geography of that part of the country? If he is, he will know where Port Fullerton is situated; if not, I will tell him. Port Fullerton is on the northwest side of Hudson bay.


Milton Neil Campbell: But the point is-


James Joseph Hughes: If my hon. friend will
have a little patience.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but the Neptune could not have been in the track of vessels going to Port Nelson.


James Joseph Hughes: Going to Port Nelson
vessels must pass through Hudson strait. Is that established?


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Very well.


William John Ward: But not up Fox channel.


James Joseph Hughes: Now, they came out of
Fullerton harbour and they were in Hudson bay:
Beyond cape Prefontaane the ice became more plentiful-
They were steaming south now.
-and many large pans were met with. The ice had the appearance of being lately broken up, and owing to its smooth unrafted condition we judged it came from Fisher strait, rather than from Fox channel to the northward. During the night this ice forced the ship southward into the channel between Coats-
You know where that is.
-and Mansfield, so that the western shore of the latter was reached some twenty-five miles to the south of its northern end.
Open leads in the ice were found-
You get open leads in the ice.
-from three to five miles from that island, and no difficulty was experienced in gaining its north end. This island of limestone is somewhat higher than Coats and Southampton, rising inland in low broad terraces to an elevation of upwards of a hundred feet. Small patches of snow were seen under banks and along the faces of the terraces, but elsewhere the green colour showed that considerable vegetation covered the greater part of its surface. Similar lanes of water, between large cakes of ice, afforded an easy passage from Mansfield to Digges islands.
Digges island is at the entrance to Hudson strait. Now, this is on July 21:
A great amount of ice was seen to the southward, apparently completely filling the channel between Mansfield and the mainland.


Thomas William Bird: What kind of ice was it?


James Joseph Hughes: Hard, northern ice.
To the northward some open water occurred, but the patches became smaller and smaller as Digges was approached, and finally ceased to the eastward of these islands, the southern part of the western end of Hudson strait being completely filled with ice.
The southern part of the western end of Hudson strait being completely filled with ice on July 21, 1904.


Mr. LEWIS:: Was the evidence which the hon. member is reading in the possession of the government between 1908 and 1910?


James Joseph Hughes: What in the world has
that to do with the navigation of the straits?


Arthur John Lewis: If they were in possession
of the evidence at that time why did they spend $14,000,000 and promise to complete the project?


James Joseph Hughes: I am not apologizing for
the government of either party; I am quoting evidence which in my opinion proves that this project is commercially impracticable.


Mr. MORRISON:: Why didn't they give
this evidence at the proper time and so prevent this huge blunder? You were a member of the House at the time the alleged mistake was made. Do you not think you are a little bit late now?


James Joseph Hughes: Will my hon, friend ask
somebody else ?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Members in addressing the House must speak through the Chair.


James Joseph Hughes: I am reminded by my
hon. friend here-


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, might I
be permitted another question? I do not want to unduly interrupt the hon. member, but I should like to know whether the ice he refers to completely blocked the straits.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hughes
He says it was over on one side. Did it necessarily interfere with the passage to the west of the straits?


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend could not have been paying attention to me when I was reading this log. I am reminded by my hon. friend here (Mr. Duff) that even if a blunder was made-and I admit that-that would be no good reason why we should continue spending money in making the blunder still greater. I put that to my hon. friends opposite. I am sure they will not say that it is a good reason. I will read the sentence again:
To the northward some open water occurred, but the patches became smaller and smaller as Digges was approached, and finally ceased to the eastward of these islands, the southern part of the western end-
Now, that is the direct course for ships going into Port Nelson or coming out.
-the southern part of the western end of Hudson strait being completely filled with ice.
A strong southerly wind had been blowing all day, and it was hoped it had loosened the ice along the southern shore of the strait. The ship was taken under the land, but without success, so that after butting through the slowly closing ice all night, we were finally tightly beset in the early morning, about three miles from the eastern Digges island.
The 21st was foggy, with snow flurries in the morning and showers in the afternoon; the ice remained tight about the ship all day, and she drifted eastward with the ice, passing Cape Wolstenholme, and in the evening being about five miles to the east of Erik cove. At that time considerable open water could be seen about five miles from the ship to the eastward, with a few narrow lanes in the rear, and other small openings to the northward, where the dark sky showed considerable open water beyond our view. Persistent ramming-
Listen to this:
Persistent ramming forced the ship through about five miles of ice on the morning of the 22nd, when she was again tightly beset until the evening, at that time being about twenty-five miles to the eastward of Cape Wolstenholme, this distance having been made by the drift of the ice.
Those who are acquainted with ice navigation know that ramming ice is very trying work for a ship. Indeed, a ship must be of more than ordinary construction in order to do it at all. The ship has to back off from the ice, put on a full head of steam and ram the ice in order to make an impression upon it. No ordinary ship could think of doing that; no ship that was not specially and powerfully constructed could think of doing it. And yet these were the conditions under which this vessel tried to get through on the 22nd of July. Now, here are the conditions on September 8:
The weather throughout the morning had been bad, a strong northwest breeze bringing down frequent heavy blinding showers of snow. These showers became almost continuous, and towards noon only momentary glimpses of the land were to be obtained

at long intervals. The tides here are very swift, and when the sky cleared a strong ice-glint was to be seen ahead. It was considered dangerous to attempt to enter the ice in such weather, with the unknown Mill	islands	directly in	the course;	we	thereforeturned back to pass south of Nottingham island. This decision proved wise, for next day the whole mouth of Fox channel was found completely filled with	'heavy	ice drifted	south from	the	northern
parts of that channel. The condition of the Neptune's stem did not warrant any contact with the ice that could possibly be avoided.
The ship had been injured in the meantime, due to the efforts that were being made to get through the ice. I quote further:
On the 13th, having rounded Salisbury and Nottingham during the night, ice was met with at nine in the morning, twenty-five miles to the westward of the last-mentioned island. The course was changed to south of west to skirt the edge of this great pack, and as it continued unbroken to the westward, the idea of passing through Fisher strait was abandoned, and the course was laid to the southward of Coats island. The passage was encumbered by ice until dark, when t'he ship lay-to awaiting daylight.
Could -ordinary ships navigate in these waters under those conditions? I have only to ask tlhe question. I quote further:
The homeward voyage from Fullerton to Port Burwell was made in fine weather and the only incident requiring mention-
Sometimes you can get in and out, and sometimes you cannot.
-was that the ice from Fox channel had advanced southward and westward nearly twenty miles since we last saw it. This necessitated our keeping close to Mansfield island.
And so on. I need not read any more. It should be unnecessary to submit any further evidence.


Thomas William Bird: Would my hon. friend mind
reading the paragraph on page 39?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I will read any part
of it. This is from page 39:
The following summary of the condition and extent of the ice met with on the passage from Fullerton to Port Burwell may prove of interest and value. The northwestern part of Hudson bay was quite free of ice, and none to obstruct navigation was found in Fisher and Evans straits. Large quantities of ice were encountered between the mouth of Evans strait and Digges at the western end of Hudson strait, but without serious trouble safe passages were found through it, and there is no doubt that an ordinary unprotected iron steamship would have passed through it at that time without trouble or danger.
No ordinary iron ship would have passed through on the other occasion to which I referred; in fact, there was great difficulty in making progress at all. I quote further from the same paragraph:
This ice was evidently the product of the past winter, consisting chiefly, as has been mentioned, of large flat sheets that had only a short time previously broke in from the original position, for there were no signs that it had been subjected to pressure or to the action of a swell
280;

Hudson Bay Ry.

Mr. Hughes
There is the difference: it was ice that had come off the shoals-ice that has not been rafted or packed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Last year's ice.


James Joseph Hughes: Last year's ice. I quote
further:
The edges of these large cakes had not been crushed, and many soft thin spots were seen which would disappear with the slightest pressure or swell. Along with the predominating flat ice was a considerable amount of rafted ice of the same character, and also of portions apparently subjected to pressure during the past winter. All the ice was comparatively light and thin, which led to the belief that it had come out of Fisher strait, and from the southward up the channel between Mansfield and the eastern mainland, the meeting of these streams producing the blockade at the western end of Hudson strait. Owing to its thinness and rotten character, the greater part of this ice would melt a few days after we passed it.
Now, there are the conditions. A ship might get in; a ship might get out.


Mr. HUDSON:: Was this a report made
to the government of that day?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes-this is the log of the ship.


Albert Blellock Hudson: Was it a report made to
the government of the day for the purpose of enabling them to decide whether or not this railway project should be proceeded with?


James Joseph Hughes: Very probably. Surely
these men made reports to the government when they came back. They did not report it to me, but I should be surprised if they did not report officially to the government. Now, under these conditions, under conditions which have been described by a man who was qualified to judge, I ask again, is there any man who can honestly say that it would be wise to spend money on an experiment of this kind?


Mr. GOULD:: Since the hon. member
asks the question, I would call his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) did say so last fall in western Canada.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, I am very much
surprised. Now, if we were fifty millions of people; if the other parts of Canada were all settled and had all the railway accommodation they needed; if the population was overflowing into that part of the country at Hudson bay, it might be a reasonable thing to take up this proposal and extend this line to Hudson bay. Perhaps minerals might be found there; some parts of it may be useful for agriculture. I understand that-pulpwood suitable for paper making purposes may be found along these rivers.
Perhaps in time these northern districts may be opened up, and it may be advisable, necessary and proper to build railways into them. But under the present circumstances, in view of existing conditions, with our finances standing as they do at present, and settled parts of the country requiring railway accommodation, would reasonable men undertake such a proposition? I do not think so. Will it do our western friends any good to get money expended on a project that is not practicable? No, it will injure them because if the whole country is injured they must necessarily bear their share of the burden. That is the way it looks to me. I cannot see anything in this project particularly at the present time. It would be proper if anything could possibly be done to meet the views of our western friends, but I think they should be disabused of the mistaken notions that they entertain in this regard at the present time. They are intelligent men. they have given evidence, I believe, of their honesty of purpose, and of their desire to do what is right, not only for their own district but for the country as a whole. Therefore I am loath to doubt theii sincerity in this matter, but I repeat the statement which was made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) this afternoon- I think this question has been a political question rather than a commercial question in the past and I hope that my hon. friends from the west will not make a political question of it now.


William John Ward: Would my hon. friend object to the project if the western people undertook to carry it through to a successful conclusion, and the other portions of Canada were in no wise taxed in connection with it?


James Joseph Hughes: Is anybody holding the western people back from going on with this undertaking? I would think it was the worst kind of tyranny and coercion to prevent the western provinces from not only building this railway but constructing the terminals at Port Nelson and the ships needed to carry on the service.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is my hon. friend aware that the money has been provided already?


James Joseph Hughes: If it has, is it in the treasury of Canada?


Milton Neil Campbell: A considerable portion of it.


James Joseph Hughes: I was forgetting to answer the question of an hon. member who asked me if I had read Mr. McLachlan's report. I have read the most of it, I think, and if I remember correctly he said that it was almost

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Hughes
impossible to construct a harbour at Port Nelson, at all events extremely difficult. But difficult as that may be it is not so difficult as the navigation of Hudson straits, and it is not so difficult as keeping a channel open through the roadstead which the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) referred to-not so difficult as keeping open a channel sufficiently deep to enable ocean going ships to arrive at Port Nelson.


Andrew Knox: Does the hon. member think that both the old parties went into this project blindly without making an investigation?


James Joseph Hughes: What is the use of asking me a question of that kind?


Andrew Knox: I should like to have my hon. friend's opinion on it.


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend himself is as capable of offering an opinion on it as I am. But if, with the information that we have, we know the project to be impracticable what must we think of the party advocating it? In speaking on this question last year I offered a suggestion. I do not know whether it ds practicable or not, but it almost meets the views of my hon. friend (Mr. Ward) who asked if I would be opposed to the building of this railway and the construction of terminals at Port Nelson if the people of western Canada would provide the money. I replied to the hon. member at the time, certainly not. But so far as I have spoken to authorities on this subject they have declared that there is a natural harbour-a very good harbour, although not very large-in Hudson bay with deep water right up into the port itself, which requires no dredging. To enlarge that harbour would require dredging but as it stands no dredging is necessary-I refer to Fort Churchill. All the captains and commanders who have been up in that part of the country, to whom I have spoken, have stated that if this project is undertaken at all Fort Churchill should be the terminus. However I am not an authority on this question, and I give the statement to show that these men are not entirely opposed to the project. If it were at all practicable just imagine what a benefit it would be to our country. Just imagine what a benefit it would be if the central part of Canada could be brought as near to Liverpool as Montreal now is. It would give our country depth as well as length. We could hardly visualize the advantages which would result to Canada from it; no thoughtful person, no intelligent man, would be opposed to it-everybody would support the proposition.


Robert Forke: You always say "if it were
practicable." What would you be prepared to do under the present circumstances-just go on in this way saying it would be a fine thing if it were practicable?


James Joseph Hughes: I have read reports on the project and they nearly all agree. The opinions of ship captains that I have obtained -three men at least and very independent in their views-also agree.


Robert Forke: You have seen the charts
I suppose?


William Duff: The charts do not show the
ice.


Robert Forke: Has my hon. friend seen the charts? They have in the department charts prepared by the different ships that have made the trip, and the time they have taken and the points where they encountered ice are noted. I suppose my hon. friend has studied all these charts?


James Joseph Hughes: No I have not, but I have carefully digested what I have read.


Robert Forke: I think my hon. friend ought to study those charts before he attempts to speak in such an authoritative way.


James Joseph Hughes: I must tell my hon. friend that while I do not profess to know very much about the science of navigation I know a little, and I must inform him that the charts do not show the ice at all.


Robert Forke: I think the hon. member has probably misunderstood me. These charts showing the journey through the straits are marked in red lines. They disclose how many miles the ship made each day, where it saw ice, and how long it was delayed. They are quite intelligible; it does not require any seamanship to comprehend those charts when you see them.


James Joseph Hughes: Now, I wish to follow up
the idea alluded to by my hon. friend (Mr. Ward), and I have a suggestion to offer which may prove a solution of the problem. Hon. gentlemen from western Canada are enthusiastic on this matter, and they feel very strongly about it, there is no question about that. They think it is quite practicable, in fact I go so far as to say they feel sure that it is. Now, there is a good deal of money in the States in the hands of people who are anxious to invest it in any paying enterprise. I would also infer from the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Campbell) that there is some money in western Canada, perhaps a considerable amount, that could be invested in this enterprise.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Evans
I would make this proposal: That the government invite tenders from Shipping companies, people who might be in a position to tender, offering all the railway north of the Pas, all the work that .is done at Port Nelson free, asking them what bonus they would take to finish the railway, build the elevators, complete the terminals, construct the ships and carry grain and cattle to Europe. Ask them what subsidy they would take per bushel of grain or per head of cattle delivered in Europe, offer to continue the contract for fifty years and thus find out what offers they wouild get from people in western Canada, from the shipping interests of the world, and from persons who are willing to invest their money in such an enterprise.


Milton Neil Campbell: A grain company 'has
offered I understand to build a terminal elevator just as soon as the railway is completed.


James Joseph Hughes: If that company are not financially strong enough to carry out the whole enterprise, perhaps they could induce other people to associate with them and carry out the undertaking including the building of the elevator. Then the government could get an idea from the tenders they would receive, if they did receive any, what the shipping men of Great Britain, of the United States and of Germany thought of it. I heard the statement-perhaps I read it in a newspaper-that if we did not hurry and .construct the railway and carry out the project the Germans would do it. Well, I would "let George do it".


George Perry Graham: That is what they want.


James Joseph Hughes: We suffered so much.from the Germans in the late war that I would not object to letting them try this project, and they might find it more difficult than carrying on a war in Europe. However, I place this preposition before the western men. I observe the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) shakes his head. He does not think much of it.
Mr. MicCONICA: Has the hon. member any specific authority to make that offer?


James Joseph Hughes: I think I explained that I was merely throwing out the suggestion, and of course I am not in a position to go any further. It might be a test

I do not know whether it would or not-as to what the shipping interests of the world thought of the scheme.
These are my reasons, Mr. Speaker, for considering that it would be unwise at the present time for the government to spend any 179
more money on tlhis scheme. We cannot afford it and in my opinion it would be no benefit to the east, west, middle or any other part of Canada. It would simply be throwing away more money after the large amount which has been spent already. I will therefore have to vote against the resolution.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon):: In common with my hon. friend from Kings P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) I do not pose as an authority on this question, but I think some of my arguments will be quite as logicial as the contentions which the hon. member has presented. In fact my hon. friend made one statement which is completely at variance with the opinions of some of the engineers who have studied this question. One of the Tyrrell brothers lived on both sides of the straits for some years. The member for Kings, P.E.I. said the ice always travelled eastward. One of the Tyrrell brothers says the two currents are maintained continuously through the straits, one going out and the other coming in, and all navigators, for the last 200 years have known that; therefore they take one going out and the other coming in, whether they have ice or not, and they are sure to keep going.
But of all the mistakes we have made regarding the trade and commerce of this country, I think there is none more glaringly outstanding than our policy in regard to a provision for the moving of our products to the markets of the world. In the construction of the three transcontinental railways which we have built, we should have turned our attention earlier to the proposition of finding a port as near as possible to the district where our products are grown. The Hudson Bay ports present a solution of our transportation problem, but now that we have the three transcontinental railways built it is not reasonable that agriculture in western Canada should be hampered by the great deficit on our National Railways and to keep the other railways solvent all these years. This project has been advocated by politicians ever since confederation. Leading statesmen such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A Macdonald advocated it many years ago; in fact, many of our politicians of late years have expressed themselves in favour of the proposal being proceeded with as a national undertaking. In a discussion of the bill of 1908, in which the Hon. Frank Oliver sought to provide for the cost of the undertaking by the sale of pre-emptions in the arid portions of the province. Sir Robert Borden, leader of the opposition at that time, declared himself in the following manner:

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Evans

If not an acre of this land is sold in the next ten years I trust and am led to believe that the Hudson Bay railway project will go on in the meantime and without delay.
I take that from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 13, 1923. Surely it cannot be forgotten by those who so vigorously opposed the completion of this road, that the cost of the whole undertaking has been provided for out of the sale of pre-emptions in that part of Canada most interested in the project. This seems to have been lost sight of by all those great champions of economy in eastern Canada. Seemingly they would prefer that all of the work and materials already used should be abandoned in the future, than that the trifling sum needed to lay the steel on the remaining portion of the grade which is completed should be spent. The Dominion Lands Act was amended by parliament at the instance of Hon. Frank Oliver in 1908, with the consent of parliament, to provide that the cost of the undertaking should be defrayed from the proceeds gained by pre-empted and purchased homesteads in the central portions of the three prairie provinces. Mr. Oliver made it plain that his purpose was to create a new source of revenue which while not adding to existing taxation burdens or constituting any additional drain on the treasury would defray the expenses of the new government railway undertaking, and at the same time encourage at a moderate cost to the settlers the settlement of these areas in the three prairie provinces, and some 28,000,000 acres in these areas were set aside for this purpose. The fact remains that these lands in the portion of Canada most interested have been sold for this purpose. It may be argued that these lands belonged to the Dominion. They did not. The lands disposed of for this purpose belonged to those provinces. If the Dominion had anything to do with them, they were simply held in trust by the Dominion, and in this case the injustice becomes all the greater.
Under the circumstances, I cannot look on it in any other light than as an act of usurpation on the part of the Dominion government. Here again, the absurdity of our present system and the danger to confederation are plainly seen. Quebec and Ontario do not want to see the Hudson Bay railway completed, and as long as these two provinces dominate the House of Commons and the Senate, they deem it safe to override the rights of the people in other parts of the country. But even admitting that no breach of the constitution has been committed, the injustice to that part of Canada which furnishes by its industry, 60 to 70 per cent of the national income yearly, becomes an out-
standing and glaring exhibition of selfishness on the part of the eastern portion of the Dominion.
Under the Land Act of 1882, it was provided that a grant of land of 6,800 acres per mile would be given to any private company that would build the Hudson Bay railway to the Saskatchewan river. From there on to Churchill or Nelson a grant of 12,800 acres per mile was offered. The act of 1908 regarding the sale of pre-emptions relieved the country of the provisions of the act of 1882. It is an accepted principle in both private and public business that if you do not pay anything, you do not say anything. Yet eastern Canada, without a dollar invested in the Hudson Bay railway is making all the protest against its construction. The settlers have purchased these pre-emptions, and the whole of the population in that area were encouraged to stay and build up the country on the assurance of the construction of that road. Any individual who buys land and pays cash therefor, if he fails to get delivery, has recourse to the courts. I ask: Has the west any recourse in this matter? I wish to say right here that those three provinces do not intend to remain as a vassal state to eastern Canada or to continue in political servitude forever. The government of Canada have already sold 126,000,000 worth of these lands. They have received nearly $20,000,000 in cash and the balance will eventually be paid to .the Dominion treasury. Surely, in the face of these facts the government cannot longer ignore the call of the west.
That there is a deficit on the present government railways cannot lbe used as an argument in refusing a road to the natural outlet of so large a section of this Dominion as the prairie provinces represent. The west expects to bear its full share of the taxes of this country. Unless the government will recognize the, right of that part of Canada, serious complications are bound to ensue.
To me the argument of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has every appearance of being dictated by the interests of Montreal and other eastern cities. In fact, the whole Hudson Bay railway project is no longer a question of its feasibility, as regards either the navigability of Hudson strait or the revenue producing possibilities of the road itself to the bay, supposing that the strait is open only for a very short period. The project since 1918 has become a part of the great injustice practised on other parts of Canada by this tariff-fed, artificially created, industrial area 'between Montreal and Windsor.
I would like to ask:	Does the Minister of

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Campbell
Agriculture or ajny of the directors of industry or finance-and I will include politics as well -of eastern Canada believe that the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta can be so gullible as to accept the statement that the whole project is now to be held up because someone says that in his opinion, Churchill would make the best outlet? If that engineer, McLachlan, is sure now that Nelson cannot be made a harbour, why did he work for years at Nelson and not tell us so then, but delay his opinion until the demand from the west had become'imperative? If the work was stopped in 1918 because Nelson was found to be impracticable as a harbour, why have both Liberal and Conservative governments chosen to lie down under the difficulty without trying to find an outlet in some other place?
If, as the excuse has been given, Canada cannot afford the money necessary to complete the project, why, may I ask, is the Welland canal being proceeded with? That is a project that will entail a cost of, perhaps, $100,000,000 before it is completed. The Minister of Railways and Canals has told us in this House that the Welland canal is being constructed for the sake of the west. If that is so, one-half of the yearly appropriation to the Welland canal would suffice to complete the Hudson Bay railway and terminals, and it would offset the necessity of spending $100,000,000. Surely it would be worth the trial, seeing that the Hudson Bay railway is so near completion. Besides that, let me point out the fallacy of such an argument in the fact that the Welland canal is being constructed on such a scale that it cannot be used to its capacity until another $100,000,000 is spent on locks and canals both east and west of that undertaking. Yet we are told that the country cannot afford to complete the Hudson Bay railway. I repeat:	The
whole question is one of class privilege. They say in the east too that the bay and strait are not and never will be navigable, and the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) has been very brave to-night in throwing out a challenge to us to undertake this scheme ourselves or to invite some other company to construct the road.


James Joseph Hughes: It was the hon. member
for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) who told me that the west would finance it themselves.


John Evans: I was just wondering what
use the Hudson Bay railway would be to the farmers of western Canada without some control of the Canadian National system as it
179i
stands. To that let me reply that if the government will lay the ninety miles of steel needed and will construct wharves sufficient to facilitate the loading and unloading of boats on the Nelson, they can easily test the feasibility of this project by making Port Nelson a free trade port. We could have one free trade port for Canada, and if that were done I think the question would be settled within two years as to whether the straits are navigable or not. This surely will appeal to the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) as well. If the straits are not navigable, then the privileged interests of Montreal and Toronto surely cannot object to making Port Nelson a free trade, port. But I am convinced that unless this business is taken in some way out of reach of the directors of politics in eastern Canada the whole project will still be in danger even after the completion of the line and the terminals. Some of my statements may sound rather harsh, but speaking as one who has watdhed the shuttlecock game of all governments that have been in power since the prairies have been developed agriculturally I wish to serve notice that any party who wishes again to gain the confidence of western Canada and restore the respect in which the politics of any country should be esteemed must now drop any two-faced argument in favour of class privilege and treat westerh Canada not as a vassal of Ontario and Quebec but as an integral part of the Dominion.


Milton Neil Campbell: I
have no intention of making a long address covering the whole ground that has been gone over before in regard to the necessity for completing the Hudson Bay railway or of its feasibility. This latter has been proved years ago. I will rather confine myself tonight to a rebuttal of the arguments that have been advanced by the opponents of the scheme.. An hon. member on the Liberal benches referred to railways built in western Canada and he interjected a question in the course of the address of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). The implication of the question was that this government was spending a large amount of money on railway construction in western Canada. That is perhaps true, but not to the, extent implied by the question. Last year we voted $27,000,000 for railway construction work in western Canada, and $21,000,000 in eastern Canada; and I think that when we take into consideration the fact that western Canada is relatively undeveloped in comparison with
2812	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Campbell
eastern Canada, the east is getting its full share of railways. And in any case, when we ask ourselves the question why these railways are being built, we must admit that they are certainly no bonus to western Canada inasmuch as we must expect to pay for them. We are assessed to pay for these railways so that they cannot possibly be considered as a bonus to us, as some of the public works and canals built in eastern Canada. The freight that will [DOT]be handled over these railways must pay the cost. And if we need more railways than we should in western Canada, it is because of past blunders on the part of previous federal governments in surveying enormous areas of land and opening up country that should not have been opened up, at least in this generation. We have sufficient surveyed land in the west to-day to accommodate 50,000,000 people. At the instance, I presume, even of land speculators, great tracts were opened up; a vast area of land was thrown open in the interests of the railway companies and land grafters. Settlers went into these lands, senit there often by the government; and in fact, when land is surveyed, that is practically an invitation to settlers to occupy it. That is the situation in western Canada to-day. But when we come to other expenditures, such as public works, which I might almost be safe in saying are a direct gift to the provinces in which they are constructed, seeing that nothing has to be paid back on account of them, as is the case with the railways, we find that from 1913 to 1923 inclusive there was spent in public works in Ontario and Quebec the sum of $98,916,000; and during the same period the same department spent only some $10,465,000 in the three prairie provinces. When these figures are fairly considered it will be seen what an undue proportion was spent in eastern Canada, while we in the west must pay our share of it.
I was rather pleased this summer when I noticed that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) had become a convert to the Hudson bay route. I had been somewhat disappointed that session after session we should get no support from the minister, and it was rather pleasing to think that he had come to the support of the project. But when he spoke on the budget some time ago I found that he indirectly opposed the Hudson bay route, so that I was rather premature in congratulating him. The minister uses as an indirect means of opposing it his opposition to the port of Nelson, and he tells us that a terrible blunder was made when Nelson was chosen instead of Fort Churchill. In that connection the Laurier government sent a 
competent engineer, Mr. R. D. Fryde, to Port Nelson, and another equally competent man, Mr. W. J. Cleaver, to Fort Churchill. When the reports of both were handed in to the Deputy Minister of Railways, Mr. Butler, who was himself an experienced engineer of recognized ability, he decided in favour of Nelson. When the Borden government came into power they somewhat doubted the wisdom of the decision and they made a new investigation; engineers were sent over the ground again, and after the reports were received, Hon. Frank* Cochrane also decided in favour of Port Nelson. Going over these reports and summing up the arguments for and against the two ports, I believe that any fair-minded observer must come to the conclusion that after all the decision in favour of Nelson was a wise one. Churchill is often described as a natural harbour, and undoubtedly it is. It is a land-locked harbour, but it is land-locked to this extent, that when the ice breaks up in the spring it is a month or six weeks longer getting out to the ocean than it is in the case of Nelson. As a matter of fact, in the spring when the ice breaks loose in the Nelson river every bit of it is gone long before the ice disappears in Churchill. And Churchill is a very small harbour; at the present time it could not accommodate more than four ocean liners, and it would take a tremendous amount of dredging at an enormous expense to enlarge it. One of the engineers points out that the dredging would be an almost impossible task owing to the fact that there are tremendous boulders that could hardly be handled at all by ordinary machinery. I think therefore that a wise decision was made when Port Nelson was chosen. I conclude therefore that the Minister of Agriculture has not given this matter intelligent study; and in opposing Nelson he is indirectly opposing the whole proposition. Now, Fort Churchill is open only for a very short time during the year. While some claim that Nelson could almost be made a winter port, Mr. Tyrrell, an engineer who did a great deal of work for the government there, points out that with a light ice-breaker ships can go in and out of Port Nelson at any period of the year. Recently I was talking to a partner of J. D. McArthur, the contractor who had a great deal to do with building the railway and the works around Port Nelson. He had spent two years there, and he told me that- there never was a time during those two winters when he would dare walk a horse across the channel of the river at the dock, and that an ordinarily heavy vessel would

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Campbell
'have very little difficulty at any time in forcing her way through the ice.
Now, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) this afternoon raised some arguments about the depth of the channel leading into Port Nelson. I have a chart here, which engineer J. W. Tyrrell very kindly sent me, drawn by himself as the result of a great deal of labour. It shows the depth every few feet from the artificial island out to the mouth of the river. At the dock the water is thirty feet deep, it averages that depth for a considerable distance, in fact that is the minimum depth until we come to what is called the "hump." It appears there is a hardpan ridge just below the dock, and over that ridge there is only twenty feet of water. Immediately after that ridge is crossed, we come into what is called the "deep hole," Where ships can ride at anchor in perfect safety in any kind of weather, according to the reports of some of these navigators and engineers. I find that in this portion called the "deep hole," the water is sixty feet deep. After that it becomes shallower until at the mouth of the river the depth is only 26 feet, but beyond it keeps getting deeper and deeper until it runs to 54 feet at the extreme mouth of the river.
I think it was also the hon. member for Brome as well as the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) who raised the question of silt or mud that would have to be continually dredged to keep the channel open. Anyone looking at the charts drawn by engineer McLachlan and engineer Tyrrell, and reading their reports, will be convinced that this is a pure fallacy. At the beginning there was a great deal of discussion as to how the deposit of mud could be overcome, because the original plan was to build a dock at the edge of the river, between that dock and the channel there would be a mud flat, and the washing of the water would continually fill up the ohannel with silt. The engineers overcame that by building an artificial island right out to the very edge of the channel. So that objection no longer holds good. Engineer Tyrrell tells me in a letter which I have received from him that the whole channel from the dock to the mouth of the river is hardpan, and he adds that owing to the speed of the current it is absolutely impossible for any silt or sand to be deposited in that channel.


Andrew Ross McMaster: How wide is that channel?


Milton Neil Campbell: At the dock it is 3,000 feet, a little more than half a mile, and it keeps broadening out until at the mouth it is several miles wide. He points out that the
mean velocity of the river at the dock is eight knots per hour, and when the tide is going out it is ten and a quarter knots per hour, and that with such a speed, combined with the great volume of water, it is absolutely impossible for any silt or sand to become deposited in that channel. Therefore I think we ought to be convinced that the engineers at that time used good judgment in choosing Port Nelson instead of Fort Churchill. In this particular regard I should like to quote from an editorial in the Saskatoon Daily Star. I might point out that this is not a Conservative paper, it is not a Progressive paper, but it is a very consistent supporter of the Liberal party, and particularly of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). Yet this is what it says in its issue of April 9:
" Motherwell for Churchill terminus." So reads the most discouraging and irritating headline that has appeared in a western newspaper for many months.
After some further observations the article continues:
Thus spoke Mr. Motherwell in the House of Commons in April, 1925. The same gentleman told a different story in September, 1924. He was then in Saskatchewan and had just returned from a trip to Port Nelson. Speaking at Prince Albert, he said:
"Twenty millions have been spent on the road, and it would take about $5,000,000 to complete it to Port Nelson. It is the logical thing to go on."
Further on it quotes the minister as saying:
"It will take over a year to put the road in shape from The Pas to Kettle rapids, a distance of 332 miles. After that we will be ready to tackle the last 92 miles into Port Nelson. The time limit for completion will depend upon how our budget balances during the next session."
Then the article proceeds:
Not a word about Fort Churchill did Mr. Motherwell utter. His remarks in September, 1924, did not indicate that the place even existed. But in April, 1925, Mr. Motherwell wonders why Port Nelson was ever chosen as the terminus. Fort Churchill is the only logical choice. At any rate, the point is at least doubtful and ought to be cleared up before construction continues.
There are some further observations, not very flattering to the Minister of Agriculture, particularly when coming from a Liberal newspaper, but I will not weary the House by reading them.
Now, Engineer Cowie, Who was an employee of the Montreal Harbour Commission, has already been quoted this afternoon. He has been quoted by the press as saying that there was not a single obstacle in the development of the Hudson bay route that had not already been overcome in the St. Lawrence route. That is the word of an engineer of recognized ability living in Montreal. It raised

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Campbell
such a storm in that city that demands were made by some local newspapers for his professional head in a charger. So you can see what an engineer has to contend with in any part of eastern Canada, particularly in the city of Montreal when he dares speak the truth about such projects. I must admit that in the province of Ontario the prejudice is not so strong.
The Prime Minister-I am sorry the right hon. gentleman is not in the House, for I feel rather guilty in making these remarks in his absence-the Prime Minister in his tour of western Canada last summer spoke very hopefully of the Hudson Bay railway. He did not raise any of these objections that his colleagues are raising now. He rather gave the people the impression that he was quite in favour of it. He pointed out that the government intended to build the Hudson Bay railway just so soon as financial conditions would permit, and that when the government brought down its financial programme it took the members of its own party into its inner councils and discussed this and other matters with them. He added:	When these things
are being discussed where are our Progressive friends? Why, they are secreted off in a room by themselves. He added that the moral was plain, and he wound up 'by saying, "I ask you to think this matter over between now and the next general election". Now, what was the implication of the Prime Minister's remarks? Was it not a direct invitation to the people of western Canada to support the Liberal party and elect Liberal members, whereupon they would have a chance to secure the Hudson Bay railway? I do not like to use the word bribe, but his invitation to the people of western Canada looks very much like it. I may say to his colleagues that there are a number of hon. gentlemen in this section of the House who would probably like to attend their caucus, and I think some of us here would be glad to see them do so, for the quicker they go there the quicker we here will know where we stand. But perhaps their constituents may have something to say about that.
The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes)-and I would just like his attention for a moment; I do not want to criticize his remarks when he is not listening-made the statement that the Hudson strait was full of very heavy ice every month in the year. Now I hardily think the hon. gentleman was serious when he said that; perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, because he dealt with the question in a very fair manner. But if, he says, the straits are full of heavy ice every

month in the year, a ship could never go in there at. all; yet ships are going in and passing through there every season.


James Joseph Hughes: That is the report of the commander of the Neptune. The report will bear that out.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understood,1 it to be the hon. member's own opinion. If I misunderstood him, I beg his pardon for it. Now, I may say that an engineer, Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, was employed by the Laurier government to go up to the straits and to investigate the situation thoroughly from the standpoint of their navigability. He moored his vessel inside the strait; according to his report, he took up a position in a rocky cavern 400 feet above the level of the sea and he spent the whole winter there. In his report, which is a very comprehensive and illuminating one -and I would commend it to the attention of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. and also to the hon. member for Brome because I think the hon. member for Brome made the statement that the straits were not navigable for more than three weeks in the year-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Three months.


Milton Neil Campbell: Three weeks, I think, is what the hon. member said.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, no, pardon me; I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the straits were, on the outside, not navigable for more than three months of the year.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think the hon. member said three weeks first; probably he qualified it later on.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I said six weeks to three months. I try to be careful about what I say.


An hon. MEMBER:: The member for
Lunenburg said three days.


William Duff: Hear, hear. Quite right, and I can prove it. I will do so before I get through.


Milton Neil Campbell: This engineer, J. W.
Tyrrell, stated that there was no time during the whole winter that the ice was not constantly on the move, and that there were open spaces through which a vessel could pass in all except two months of the year January and February. Again with regard to Nelson, Mr. R. D. Fryde states in his report-I have the quotation here-that with a light ice-breaker Nelson could easily be kept open all winter. So I think it is unnecessary to discuss the question of feasibility or otherwise of the project. The whole question before us is whether

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. McConica
the government intend to build the railway or not. That is the whole question, and I am going to be frank and say I am quite convinced, after being four years in this House, that the government has firmly
10 p.m. made up its mind it is not going to build it, but if it can keep the project dangling before the eyes of the people of western Canada for another generation or two and thereby get a few votes, it is going to try to do so. I think the proper and commendable thing for the government to do is to come out plainly, state its position and relieve the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) of some responsibility, and some embarrassment-and say just whether or not it ever intends to build this railway.


Mr. T. H. McCONICA (Battleford):: Mr. Speaker, I have no disposition to delay the House or to prolong this discussion. I wish however, to associate myself with those who have favoured the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. I make no pretence to personal knowledge as to its feasibility, but the people I represent are intensely interested in the building of the Hudson Bay railway. They have been taught to believe that the project is feasible; moreover, they cannot comprehend how the government should have spent $20,000.000 on a thing that is absolutely impracticable during the whole of the year except for three days, as one hon. gentleman, I think, suggested. Now, western Canada, the part of it from which I come at least, will never be satisfied until this road is completed. They will never understand where the business sense of the government is that spends $20,000,000 and then walks off and leaves the whole thing to fall into ruin and decay. It seems to me it would be the practical thing, the reasonable thing, for the government to take some substantial step this year toward the completion of the road.


Mr. THOM AS SALES (Saltcoats):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking any part in this debate until I heard some of the comments made by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes). He quoted a report to show that on the 21st of July there was ice-strong, solid, northern ice-and also in September. A year ago last summer I crossed the ocean to the Old Country. It was not through the Hudson bay; it was through the St. Lawrence; we counted thirty-seven big icebergs that we could see with the naked eye-thirty-seven in one day; and I assure you they made the atmosphere pretty cold. I have no doubt that they were big, solid, northern ice.


Leland Payson Bancroft: What time of year was that?


Thomas Sales: We sailed from Montreal
about the middle of July. So that ice at that time of year is evidently not confined to Hudson bay. A year ago the member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff)-or was it two years ago?-had a number of photographs that he passed round in this House to show what the conditions were in 'the Hudson bay. If I had taken all the photographs of snow and ice and frost and all the things that have happened in Saskatchewan during the time I have been farming there, I could prove without doubt that it is not a fit place to live in, much less to grow anything in. We have had seasons when we never started work until the middle of May; hon. gentlemen sitting around me know that.


William Duff: When did you have the next snow after that? Did you have snow all summer?


Thomas Sales: Every month, in one year.


William Duff: All the time?


Thomas Sales: I will tell the hon. gentleman as I go along. On the 15th of June, 1915, when the wheat was about a foot high, it was frozen down to the ground, but we had a good crop. I am not like some hon. members in this House who talk of the blackest things they can think about and forget the good ones. We had a really good crop in that year, in spite of the frost. We had a frost in July, and still we had a crop. We had frost in August-that is a common occurrence; and we had snow in September. I have seen good snowstorms in September, time after time- and, as an hon. member reminds me, some of the wheat was standing uncut at the time. We have had our crops frozen time after time. We have had snow in October that did not go away until the following srping. What do all these things prove? Nothing. In spite of them all we can live in 'Saskatchewan; we can grow big crops in Saskatchewan of the finest stuff ever grown in the world. These things do not prove anything any more than the arguments of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., prove about the Hudson bay, in my opinion. If I wore the same kind of spectacles that the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., wears, so that everything looked blue or black, I could prove that the part of Saskatchewan from which I come is not a fit place to live in.
It is certain that, as the hon. member for Battleford (Mr. McConica) says, this question will not die down with our people until the

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Sales
road is built to tidewater and a fair trial given to the route. This railway will be built if the people have to build it themselves. I was at the great Farmers' Convention held in my province last January. A number of farmers were discussing this question of the Hudson Bay railway and its completion, and they asked me what I thought about it. I said "Do not fool yourselves. In my opinion it will never be built as long as the east controls the situation." One man said "Do you believe that?" I said, "I do." Then he said, "We will have to do this then. During the war we raised a lot of money for what we called a patriotic acre fund. We each gave one acre of wheat to that fund and we sent forward train loads of flour. Now, what would be the matter with doing the same thing in order to finish the Hudson Bay railroad?" I said, "You will get it built a good deal quicker if you do that than if you wait for the east to build it for you, in my opinion." I pointed out to them that one-half of one per cent-they are used to that being taken as shrinkage when they ship grain through the elevators-on a crop of 300,000,000 bushels at $1 a bushel would give SI,500,000 and at S1.50 a bushel would give $2,500,000, to say nothing of barley, oats, cattle, hogs, butter, and eggs, all of which would be shipped by this route if it proved feasible. I want to say to this House that if our people get hold of an idea like that they will surely bring it to a successful conclusion. May I appeal to our friends in the east. The Prime Minister made an appeal to us the other day to be fair to the rest of Canada. May we not appeal to gentlemen all over the rest of Canada to be fair to the west. Why not go a little further? Having spent so much money, having so much material lying idle at tide water as we hear time and again, having enough rails lying in the sidings to practically finish the road, without spending much more money for material, why not go a little further and reach tide water and prove whether this route is feasible or not? If it is not we will have to forget it. I would also like to say this to the members of the House: The idea is prevalent among many people in the west that if our friends who oppose this road so strenuously were absolutely sure that it would be a failure it would have been built years ago. But they really are afraid it will prove a success. That is why they are so determined to stop the road from reaching tide water so long as they possibly can. Now that idea is being held in the west, and the prevalence of ideas of this kind among the people there does not make for good feeling and unity in 
a country like this. Therefore I hope hon. members will give this project their serious consideration and support.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, let me at the very outset say that I am of the opinion that this great national project has gone altogether too far, and the national honour is entirely too much at stake, to even suggest that we repudiate the undertaking at this particular stage. If, when British Columbia entered confederation under a promise to be connected with the rest of Canada by a great transcontinental railway, Canada had repudiated the obligation what would that province have thought of it? At the time the Maritimes entered confederation the promise was made that the Intercolonial railway would be constructed. If Canada had defaulted then what would the Maritimes have thought of that failure on Canada's part to live up to its promise? And so with the present undertaking begun by a Liberal government, and carried out later by a Conservative government, and the leader of every party in Canada pledged to it, is it an enterprise that we should now talk of abandoning when 80 per cent of the road is constructed? It seems to me that would be an amazing proposal?
Now then a word or two, because I have a few more things to say, with respect to one or two members on the Progressive side. I think I am just as strong an advocate of the Hudson Bay railway as they are, and I am just as strong an opponent of Port Nelson as anybody on this side can be. They think such an attitude is contradictory; they cannot conceive of a person having different views regarding the same project without being inspired with the desire of deliberately blocking it. What would my hon. friends have said of the difference of opinion among the authorities at the time of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway when that line was built?-some being in favour of the Pine river pass and some in favour of the Kicking Horse pass. As a matter of fact it was switched from one to the other after the road was begun. But what would have been said at the time if one side was charged by the other with blocking the enterprise because they differed as to a certain pass through which the line should run? What would1 have been thought of some of the great leaders in the world war because they differed as to the tactics to be employed in the field if such a view as that prevailed? Why the great generals would have been charging each other with un-

Hvdson Bay Ry.-Mr. Motherwell
fairness and disloyalty to the common cause. Men who have exactly the same objective but think that a different course should be taken can surely disagree as to the procedure. It is not the way to get results to upbraid each other because one man differs from another as to the procedure to be employed.
I think there are only two hon. members on the Progressive side who have adopted such an attitude, and I want to thank all the rest for not following their example. I did not hear what the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) said but as he is a decent sort I am going to assume that he did not say what the other two hon. members to whom I have referred did. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) acting true to form, threw out suggestions that my motives were not sincere. Well, I do not know how much I am going to be. hurt by that sort of insinuation. At all events I am going to take the risk of any hurt that may come to me and let it go at that. I cannot, however, refrain from remarking that any member who is always suspecting and impugning the motives of others had better be careful that he is not guilty of the very thing he is charging others with.
As to the quotation from the Saskatoon Star it is substantially correct. When I was up in that country last season, that is in 1924, I ventured as far as Kettle rapids but regretted very much, as I explained the other day in the budget debate, that I could not get further. I gave the reason why. That should have been a sufficient explanation. Everywhere I went I heard from the trapper, the miner, the engineer, and they were all amazed at Port Nelson being selected. It set me thinking but not sufficiently to make me change my mind regarding the choice of Nelson. I thought it was natural perversity on the part of some people when the government was giving them a certain thing to want something else-we see that sometimes. I still tried to believe in Nelson because I wanted to believe in that harbour; I knew that we would wTaste a lot of money if the line was not completed to Nelson; and desiring to believe in Nelson I came back. I may have made a mistake in saying anything. On my return I noticed that the other gentlemen who came back from the bay, the most of them from Manitoba, did not say very much. Still it was difficult to return through the northern part of the province of Saskatchewan without giving some impressions of your trip north, and I gave them. At that stage of the game I had not sufficient information to warrant me in throwing any doubt upon the feasibility of Port Nelson. On returning I came down the St. Lawrence, and upon reaching Ottawa I proceeded to look into the matter further. I gave the evidence which confirmed the opinion I was beginning to form, and nobody has challenged that evidence. Even (the hon. gentlemen who have imputed motives to me have nothing to say against it. If that is the case then their case is very weak indeed. The evidence upon, which I based my opinion was taken from the records of those who were supposed to know the facts, navigators and mariners such as Captain Bernier and others.
I perhaps made the mistake of the medical man who arrived at his diagnosis after only half an examination; then after the second half of the examination found the diagnosis had to be changed.


Andrew Knox: Does the minister mean to
say that the governments who started the work at Nelson and afterwards carried it on there did not have before them the same evidence to which he alludes?


William Richard Motherwell: 
William Duff: That means it would cost more.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes. Nobody can tell what it will cost. What it has cost in the past is no criterion of what it will cost, because of the shifting nature of the channel. I do not think Mr. McLachlan has changed his. views in that regard.
That is as far as I go with Mr. McLachlan1. Now we have a Hudson bay explorer and navigator by the name of Freakley. At page 38 he says:
Nelson is	not	a natural	harbour but	an open
roadstead.	[DOT]
Hon. gentlemen from the Maritime provinces might	tell	me	what that	means.
Captain Freakley continues:
The vessel	lies	in the	river	about one and	a quartermiles from	the	shore	and	the freight is	lightered
to the land.
One is a natural harbour and the other is artificial.
We have had some experience in building artificial harbours in this country. We have some harbours. Great mistakes have been perpetrated apparently on account of mistaken advice by engineers. I have every respect for engineers, but have more respect for

navigators. I refer to that famous pier in Halifax. I do not think there is a finer harbour in the world than Halifax, and yet a great blunder was committed in regard to the construction of a certain pier. We have another such harbour-I almost hesitate to refer to it-the outer harbour at Victoria- just a parallel to the one at Halifax, and all kinds of money thrown away on it. It was done precipitately and in a hurry. Are we going to repeat all this performance in the face of the statements I have quoted?


Andrew Knox: Does the minister say this has been done in a hurry?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes, so far as Nelson harbour is concerned, as I will show very soon.


Andrew Knox: This matter has been pending since 1910..


William Richard Motherwell: I refer to the switching through there and the various steps that have been taken, I say if these other illustrations which I have given are bad, this is ten times worse as a 'harbour proposition. Now what are some of,the requisites of a harbour? Hon. members will pardon me if I make some mistakes in this matter, because I have lived inland all my life and have not had an opportunity of scenting the salt sea breezes very much, but from what I have read, I think we should have enough land and enough water to build a harbour. Now have we enough of either? In the case of Nelson we would1 have to build 'away out into the water, over half a mile, erect an artificial island for a harbour and put elevators on it. We are asked to build! a harbour, with all the other risks in. volved. We must deliberately take the risk of not having enough land to start with, and certainly not enough water. The water there is shallow and low, and then we have all those sand bars to contend with. Surely it does not take a mariner to understand that you must have abundance of both these essential requisites, water and land, tio build a harbour. What does a harbour mean? Does it not mean a sheltered place for ships at anchor? Where is the shelter here? Leave the other requisites cut of consideration and where is the shelter? Then there is a shortage of land. We would have to build an artificial island. It could foe done; it has -been done and it can be done again, if you like to put money into it, but how about the question of water? Shipping is only an indifferent proposition if you have not the water. In addition to the water you require a place to shelter the shipping. Where is the shelter here? Does anybody pretend

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Motherwell
there is any natural shelter? Is it a landlocked harbour? Does it resemble Prince Rupert, one of the finest harbours? Is it surrounded by any conditions to make it a landlocked harbour or anything of that kind? I do not see anything on the maps or nobody has shown me anything to indicate that it is a natural harbour. There is nothing there to constitute a shelter any more than the morning mist could be said to provide a shelter. The most important requisite for a harbour is shelter, where ships are anchored, not only to discharge their cargo, but for the purpose of getting out of the storm. I do not know where there is any place to get out of a storm at Nelson. I have been <on the prairie nearly all my life, and I think I see myself hunching up against the storm, with nothing to shelter me beyond what they have at Nelson. I would not be comfortable for the night.
Then again, while wTe are dhort of land at Nelson, short of water ajid short of shelter, we are long on dredging. I have given you all these facts; now need I go any further into it? Just think of it, with the Nelson pouring down its waters and sludge for the last century, and it will continue to do so for centuries to come, pouring out water and sludge and meeting the tides from the ocean. There is a place there-shall we call it the dead centre? There is bound to be an enormous quantity of precipitation there. Our own judgment will tell those of us who know anything in particular about the Saskatchewan river that that channel will be shifting, perhaps not every year, 'but almost every year. In face of that, if you want to make a job for dredges-and anybody who ever saw government dredges at work knows that it takes veTy little to keep them going sometimes; they go pretty slowly to my mind, at all events-there you have it from now until the crack of doom. I do not see how you are going to get away from that, and yet hon. merhbcrs upbraid me for mentioning these things. If we make the mistake of not going to this natural port, the project is all off in our life-time. I want to see it white I live and I do not want to take a step that will lead in the wrong direction. We shall have to take risks, but there is no need to take the ghastly ridk associated with Port Nelson. If anyone wishes to criticize me, let him criticize me on these facts and not on my alleged motives. I think I have as much right to be credited with being sincere as anyone else in this, and I do not see why this should be otherwise. My whole life has been spent in the west and I expect to spend the balance of it there after I get through here.


Mr. LADNER:: What are those alleged motives?


William Richard Motherwell: It is not worth while repeating them. I just referred to them a little while ago. It is pretty hard to put the X-ray on any hon. gentleman and to tell what his motives are, and I do not care to repeat them. I will tell my hon. friend afterwards. Let me go further. This is what Captain Bernier says regarding Churchill:
I should prefer Fort Churchill, because a ship can come in and she is in a harbour. In Nelson, you have to anchor away out; before you get a chance to come in you have to contend with all that danger. Suppose you dredge there and next spring is an exceptionally fine spring and there is a heavy thaw. Your channel is filled up with sand and the channel is somewhere else. The work that you have done is lost. At Churchill you have a big body of water. Of course, some dredging would have to be done. It is land-locked. There (indicating Fort Churchill on the map) is the work of nature, and when a man has to work against nature there is no money in it.
We have evidence as regards artificial harbours, but as Captain Bernier says in his evidence before the Royal Grain Commission, Canada is too poor to keep up a port like that. Does any lover of the Hudson bay project wish deliberately to shut his eyes and blunder into Nelson with these incontrovertible facts before him? I do not agree with all that the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. Hughes) or the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) say, but the sticker, especially with the hon. member for Kings, was Nelson. He knows what a harbour is; he lives by the sea, and he took some of the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that Nelson, in his estimation is, on that evidence, no good. Consequently, the great difficulty, in my opinion, in persuading eastern Canada that we should go ahead with this project is the impossibility of Nelson as a practical harbour. What is the use of going there if we are going to run into a lane with no gate at the end of it? I do not agree at all with the deductions of the hon. member for Brome. He took the ground that he did not think the Hudson bay would be open for more than three months at the most. He suggested from six weeks to three months. Captain Bernier takes the ground that it will be open for four months, and he has given in evidence that if you have radio, with all possible aids to navigation and with 10 per cent, if you like, added to the cost of construction of the ships by having proper plating, there is no doubt the time will be extended to four and one-half months. The statement has been made in the eastern press, not with any desire to mislead, but simply because they do not know anything about the matter,
2820	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Motherwell
that you cannot get the grain out the same year it is grown. That is the very year you will get it out. If they took the ground that it is not practicable to store grain there because you might have to wait until July of the next year, there might be some justification for that. But if you will investigate when our wheat starts to move from Montreal, you will find that it is about the 1st September or the last day of August. Our wheat will be moving from Port Nelson or Fort Churchill, whichever port is constructed, as soon as it will be moving from Fort William and ten days before it will be moving from Montreal as it has a thousand miles further to go to get to Montreal. Consequently, the movement of the grain that is grown the same year will start from either Port Nelson or Fort Churchill, whichever one is finally chosen, ten days before the grain will start across the Atlantic from Montreal. How much longer is Montreal open in the fall than either of those harbours? The most that is suggested is about a month and ten days. Some suggest that it is not safe to operate Hudson strait later than the 1st November. Captain Bernier, in his evidence, said the middle of November, and if we take the latter date, it will be closed about twenty-five days earlier than Montreal will be closed. If you deduct from that the ten days, that leaves fifteen days, so that you have only about fifteen days longer to transport our wheat from Montreal than from Hudson bay in the same year in which the wheat is grown.
On the other hand, I do not look forward to its being as good a storage place for grain over winter as the grain storage such as we have at Fort William. There is no doubt that some grain will have to be kept in storage there until the following July or the first of August, and that is where the long storage and interest charges will come in. But if we can get a quantity of our wheat out in the same year as it is grown, that is going to help the peak load when the grain is rushing to Buffalo, Montreal and Vancouver. That is the time when this outlet will be most required,- and not in the spring of the year. The other routes can easily take care of the wheat in the spring of the year; but if we go on developing as' we may and should develop, we should produce sufficient cargoes to keep the Hudson bay route going at full capacity, without taking away a bushel from Montreal, or Buffalo or Vancouver. Every railway that I have seen developed in the west during the last forty years has invariably produced its own tonnage. It 
caused so much additional development that before the road or outlet was completed, enough additional settlement and development had taken .place to produce freight for the new outlet and the new line. That has been our experience with the Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk, Canadian Northern and all the other lines that have been built in that country. They have produced their own freight. I do not know to what extent the suggestion of the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. Sales) is warranted, that it is the fear that this route will 'be a success that is actuating some people in opposition to it. Let me say to all such that the way to develop all our ports is to develop the country tributary to them. The great bulk of the grain, in my opinion, for many years will come down eastern routes, either by Buffalo, or by the Welland canal when it is completed, because there is no doubt, in that event, the attraction will .be more and more for Montreal. But before that is brought about, a great deal more storage accommodation must be provided at Montreal, or Port Col-borne, or Brockville, or Prescott, or wherever the transfer is at the present time. There is twice as much grain elevator storage at Buffalo as there is at Montreal.
So far as the right time in the matter is concerned-that is the substance of the resolution-I have nothing to say. As to when the road should be built, I do not know what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) will have to say on that point, but naturally he wil. speak for the government. I am merely dealing with the practicability of the route, leaving the matter of time, which is the essence of the resolution, to the Minister of Railways. You will remember that this great project was first undertaken by the Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was reported as saying that while there might be some question about the practicability of the Hudson bay route it was the price we had to pay for a united Canada. And has not many a thing been done towards that great end? The price of united Canada was paid in the building of the Canadian Pacific railway, which had just as much an elfement of doubt as to its future success as exists in relation to the Hudson Bay railway to-day. Did you ever hear of any great project that has been undertaken at anv time, whether it be the Suez canal, the Panama canal, the Canadian Pacific railway or any other great enterprise, in regard to which there were not many people who were in honest doubt concerning its success? And so it is with this.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Motherwell
I am not going to upbraid my Liberal friends from the east for holding different views, although what they get is naturally coloured a little with eastern sentiment. Some of them have pretty sound views on marine matters generally, and if they take the evidence in regard to Nelson they are only coming to the same conclusions which I, a western man, have reached so far as that particular port is concerned. I understand that a deputation is on its way to Ottawa now, and in the main I think they are doing useful educational work in the furtherance of the project. But I would advise them not to be quarrelling with everybody if they want to get anywhere. When they find some of their friends holding different views from their own as to the way to attain the object in view they must not be inclined to quarrel. I say without any equivocation that to go to the wrong port at this stage would be fatal. There is no reason why there should be any delay about making a further investigation. There is more than a year's work ahead before we can reconstruct the work to Kettle rapids. There is a tremendous amount of construction work to be done also along the way not only on the road itself but on the telegraph line from mile 214 to Kettle rapids, a distance of 116 miles, and that must be done concurrently with the reconstruction that takes place. If it is desired, a further investigation can be made as to the respective merits of Churchill and Nelson, and if that investigation confirms Nelson then there is nothing for it but to go there.
But have we no additional information recently at all? Well, I remember hearing of the storm that took place a short while ago and I thought at the time that it was only propaganda; for I had been just as suspicious as any hon. member on the Progressive side regarding every move in connection with this undertaking, and when I saw that news despatch in the papers across the country I thought to myself that it was more propaganda. But I did the report injustice because there was a serious storm; and while I will not go into any of the detail's-there was nothing harowing about the information to hand in March-I know that some of the more recent reports are rather disconcerting. At any rate there was a storm and the dredges and ships mustered in that so-called harbour were torn from their moorings. I do not know where, they went but they are being rounded up now anyway. Is that a harbour? I thought a harbour was a sheltered place for shipping, but of course Nelson is not yet finished; there has been only some $6,000,000
spent on it so far. But I am told that all the evidence goes to show that Churchill is better in a state of nature than Nelson is now or can be.
There is another feature about the matter which we might well ponder, and that is that the present undertaking at Nelson, that is to say, the building of a trestle away out to the artificial island, is not the first step that has been taken; the first step was to construct a lock inland and draw the water into it. A large sum of money was spent towards that end, but it was found that it would be better to build this trestle outstream than to try to get the water into this dock. So that there has been a change of views in this regard; they can now.see some way of getting out +o the channel. But for the life of me I do not know how they are going to keep the channel in its place.
I will not dwell on this point, but I do want to urge this question. Is it not a matter of national honour at this stage to push forward with the reconstruction work to Kettle rapids having regard to what has already been done? As the hon. member for Kings indicated it would mean a tremendous lot to us if we could get to Churchill'-and that is where we shall-get-and it proves successful. You cannot describe what it will mean to the west. Is it worth while trying? Is it any greater risk trying that than there has been in connection with any other great project? I do not believe it is; and with the road 80 per cent built it would be a huge blunder to turn back. "No man having put his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom." That is what this would amdunt to, figuratively speaking at all events.
I have not said anything about aids to navigation. I have crossed the Atlantic only once but I have seen icebergs, and if the pilot had been so inclined we might have butted into them at any time, for there are scores of them in the north Atlantic. But does that say that we could not cross the Atlantic? We have heard of the Titanic going down, but surely they did not go deliberately head-on into an iceberg. And because the Titanic went down is that any argument in condemnation of the Atlantic? Not at all. With the marvels that have been attained through the radio, and with all the various fog signals and lighthouses that exist to-day, navigation is fairly safe. Look at the equipment on the St. Lawrence. I was at Prescott this winter where I saw a large building devoted to the manufacture of equipment used along the St. Lawrence route, and it was wonderful. So that there is no comparison between what can be accomplished to-day, even in dangerous
2822	COMMONS
Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Motherwell
seas, with what was done a few years ago. The man at the wheel and the pilot are constantly within earshot of the voice of danger, and by means of modern equipment they know just where the ice is; and they are not going to butt their heads deliberately against any iceberg, or run carelessly into any other danger.
In conclusion, my suggestion is this:	We
must reconstruct the road as rapidly as possible to Kettle rapids, because no road will ever stand still; if it is not constantly repaired it will rot. And certainly this road will not remain as it was six years ago; it is in process of disintegration continually. If we only spend a few thousand dollars every year on it we might do that for a century and get nowhere, because the work will be deteriorating as rapidly as we can repair it. We should therefore at least go as far as Kettle rapids, our resources permitting, making it possible to connect with mile 214; and we should see to the reconstruction of the telegraph lines which are pretty well dilapidated, as well as to the restoration of the road, which has been heaved up by the action of the frost where the water accumulates. Well, this is being done. There is no occasion for delay, as my hon. friends from Saskatoon and Mackenzie suggested. If it is desired that further money shall be secured for that purpose, concurrently with reconstruction of the road to Kettle rapids the investigation could be undertaken. It has often occurred to me, Mr. Speaker, why what I am going to suggest has never been done. Would it not have been the logical thing-I do not want to upbraid those who have preceded me, but it seems to me, as every farmer knows, that there is nothing like trying your plough or your binder in the field under field conditions before passing judgment on it-would it not have been the logical thing, and comparatively easy, to load up one or two Atlantic liners, or as large boats as could in safety navigate these comparatively unknown waters, with wheat, take the cargo up the Labrador coast, through the straits and, if you like, on to Fort Churchill, and, further, if you like, see how close you could get to Port Nelson, and then see how long it would take to reach Liverpool? Would that be a foolish thing to do? I cannot think so. Please do not rise up in holy indignation at the thought of something being done to make a little surer than it is to-day whether we were right in going to Port Nelson. Surely this is a case where "safety first" should to some extent determine our further action, where we should look carefully before we leap, in order that we do not jeopardize the whole 
enterprise by a mistaken step at this time, particularly when this investigational work can be undertaken concurrently with the construction of the last 116 miles of the road.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
when I listened to the speech of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on the budget, in which he threw doubt upon Port Nelson as the proper terminus of the Hudson Bay railway, I experienced a great deal of disappointment, particularly as I had just returned 'rom a very largely attended meeting at Winnipeg called under the auspicies of the On-to-the-Bay Association. Any person who attended that meeting would certainly be impressed by the strength of feeling that prevails in the city of Winnipeg in favour of the Hudson Bay railway. I repeat, I was disappointed when I listened to the Minister of Agriculture, because at that meeting Port Nelson was spoken of with great commendation and in no uncertain terms, as I judged, by men who were in a position to speak with knowledge and authority on the subject of which port should be the terminus. I did not attribute any such motives to the hon. minister as some have seen fit to do; I had no thought of attributing to him any ulterior motives whatever. Indeed, I felt that probably he was speaking his own sincere convictions in the matter. None the less, I did feel that he was making a mistake at the time, and I think he will not accuse me of being unfair, of charging against him anything I should not charge, when I intimate that he might have made a mistake in throwing doubts upon the selection of Port Nelson as the terminus of this railway.


William Richard Motherwell: I might have made a political mistake, I agree. I often do that.


John Livingstone Brown: I am not speaking of a
political mistake, but a mistake from the standpoint of securing completion of the road at the earliest possible date. I think it was a mistake, not that I would be disposed to criticize very severely the comparisons that have been made between Port Nelson and Fort Churchill in their natural state. Indeed, for many years I was disposed to think, as the hon. minister has expressed it, that Fort Churchill was by all odds the most suitable port in its natural state. However, we have to consider the question now, not with those ports as they were twenty years ago, but in their present state; and in view of the fact that a large development has taken place at Port Nelson, that steel has been laid within ninety odd miles of that port that the grade

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Broivn
is constructed for the remainder of the way, and that a comparatively small amount of money would be sufficient to lay the rails and perhaps subject the road to an actual test, it did seem to me that the minister was making a mistake in introducing at this particular time '**he question of the relative merits of Fort Churchill and Port Nelson. From charts I saw exhibited at Winnipeg a few weeks ago, I judge it would require the construction of a good many extra miles of railway to reach Fort Churchill. I am not certain at what point the branch-off to Fort Churchill would leave the existing grade, but I think probably it would mean the construction of at least another 150 miles of new line.


William Richard Motherwell: About 100 miles.


John Livingstone Brown: It was shown also that the line would need to be constructed over a high ridge, involving a heavy grade to reach the top of the watershed, of course running down after that point into Fort Churchill; whereas the existing grade runs along the side of the Nelson river and is down grade all the way. For these reasons I felt it was a mistake on the part of the minister to introduce at this particular time doubts regarding the feasibility of Port Nelson as the terminus. After I came back from my Easter holidays I began to hear the people were imputing motives to the minister, but it had never occurred to me that there were any other motives than simply his desire to express his own personal convictions in the matter; but, as I say, I did feel that he had made a blunder in introducing these doubts at the present time.
I believe that a comparatively small amount of money will suffice to lay rails on the existing grades, and with the development that has already taken place at Port Nelson the road could be put into a position where a test could be made, and so demonstrate beyond any manner of doubt whether it could become a commercial proposition or not. I think we cannot urge too strongly the desirability of doing this for the sake of allaying the feeling of unrest and irritation that prevails in the western provinces. There is no question that that feeling does prevail there, and undoubtedly there has been some reason for it. The prairie provinces consider -and I think myself they have a right to consider-that they have been regarded by the east as proper subjects of exploitation. We have been deprived of our natural resources; we have been regarded as the milch cow of the Dominion; the manufacturers of the east have considered us their legitimate market, which they must hold to the exclusion of all other competitors; the fruit growers of British Columbia have also considered us their natural market; and so from both sides we have been treated as though we were legitimate subjects of exploitation, and naturally we have become somewhat restive about it.
As has been well said, we are marooned in the centre of the continent, and the question of freight rates is to us one of prime importance-of infinitely more importance to us than it is to others living in any other section of the Dominion, for, remember, we must pay the rates. The conditions are such that the price we receive for our produce is the price on the world market minus the freight rates, and the price we pay for the goods we buy is the price plus the freight rates. So that when Mr. J. L. Payne in his pamphlet recently published made a comparison between the rates we were paying on our wheat and the rates that were being paid on goods shipped to the west, he was altogether aside from the mark. We pay the rates under any circumstances; the price is minus freight rates when we sell our produce and is plus freight rates when we have anything to buy. Sc that the matter of freight rates is to us infinitely more important than it is to those situated in any other part of the Dominion. It would be worth while to build this road if only to allay that feeling of irritation. It pains me, Mr. Speaker, even to hear the word " secession ". As a native born Canadian my whole nature revolts from the idea I think it is absolutely impracticable; I think those who suggest it have not taken intc consideration at all what it would mean or what would be necessary to accomplish it; I think they are thoughtless in expressing sentiments in favour of such a step. Nevertheless such sentiments are expressed, although for my part I should do everything in my power to oppose any movement in that direction. But is it not well that the people of Canada should begin to get down to solid thinking and see just what are the causes of that feeling? Why does that feeling exist in the west? For the most part it is justified, because we have been exploited on the one hand and we are denied what is our right in seeking this short outlet to the sea. It may be wrong; we may be wrong, but it would be worth the expenditure of that money, it would be worth all it would cost to build the road, to allay that feeling of irritation and bring about a better sentiment in all parts of Canada so far as the attitude of different sections toward each other is concerned.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Leader
I have very little to say in regard to the feasibility of the route, or the navigability of Hudson bay and straits. There is such an immense amount of conflicting evidence in the matter that it seems to me almost presumption for any man, unless he is a skilled navigator, to stand up in this House and express positive opinions one way or the other. But I believe that with a comparatively small expenditure the line can be put in such shape as to give the route a practical test that will settle the matter for all time.
There are some things, however, that we cannot help thinking about in forming opinions on the subject. The hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie), dealing with the question of national defence, referred to the fact that we needed to be defended upon the Pacific coast and uipon the Atlantic coast and suggested that there was no fear of our being attacked from the north. But there is a little incident in Canadian history that throws 6ome light on this matter. The fact is that at one time Canada was attacked1 from the north. At one time the British authorities considered it necessary to -build a great fort, Fort Prince of Wales, at Fort Churchill. Why did the British -build a fort there? Because they were afraid their then enemies, now friends, the people who come from the province of Quebec, would) attack them in that northern country at a point which was then considered vulnerable. That they were wise in their decision was proved when the French did attack Fort Prince of Wales, and the fort is now in rui-ns. It has always seemed1 to me that the British authorities of that day
11. p.m. would) never have thought of building a fort as Fort Prince of Wales did they not think there was a possibility of the enemy coming in through Hudson straits. If that could be done under the conditions that prevailed during the eighteenth century it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it might be done in the twentieth.
We can sometimes judge of the worthiness of a cause by the enemies who array themselves against it. Man is known not -only by the company he keeps but sometimes by the character of his enemies. Who are opposed to this route? Well, we find that the opposition is centered very largely around the city of Montreal. There are certain straws which show which way the wind blows, and they indicate that such interests as the Hudson's Bay Company, the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Montreal Harbour Commissioners are opposed to the opening up of the Hudson bay route. Indeed I think there is good ground for be-
lieving that it is the fear on the part of these interests that the route would ultimately be successful that actuates their -opposition to it. I do not impute that to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster); I know he entered his protest. But the hon. member for Brome knows that these considerations do at times influence the opposition to or the advocacy of any particular interest or enterprise. The fact that this route is opposed by these interests would seem to indicate the possibility that the road is perfectly feasible.
There was a time when Montreal opposed the opening of the prairie country. One needs only to read the history of the northwest and of the Selkirk set-tiers to find out what intense opposition was offered to Lord Selkirk's scheme owing to the fact that Montreal interests wanted to keep that great land as a fur trading land and therefore to exclude settlers. If these principles governed the keen commercial men of Montreal a hundred years ago, we may perhaps be excused for thinking that the same considerations enter into their opposition to this scheme to-day.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That applies, I suppose, to the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I.?


John Livingstone Brown: I have great respect for the member for Kings, P.E.I.; I think he would be entirely unprejudiced in the matter. The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. and the hon. member for Brome are two members on the opposite side for whom I have high esteem; we stand very close together in opinion in regard to a great many matters.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, to associate myself very heartily with those who support this project. I know it is a project that is very dear to the hearts of the people of the west; in fact, I have no hesitation in saying that to them it is almost a matter of religious faith. Besides, there are abundant reasons for believing that the road is commercially feasible and that in time the straits will be navigated and the Hudson bay route will become one of the great trade routes of the world.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie) :: Mr. Speaker, during the four years that I have been in this House we have had an annual discussion relative to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. As I have not yet spoken on the subject I may be excused for offering a few remarks on this occasion. My views as a western man might be misunderstood did I not place myself on record in regard to this very important question. Did I not take that course my silence on this matter might be construed to mean that I

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Duff
am not in favour of this project. May I say that the people wtho sent me here are whole heartedly behind the completion of this enterprise. ' I want to state further that they are in the main, if not unanimously, agreed that this line should be completed to the 'bay. I am not going to argue or discuss the feasibility of the project; I think it has now got beyond the realm of argument. That was, or should have been settled years ago; what the people now want is less talk and more action. If the feasibility of this project has not been settled, then a great crime was committed against the taxpayers of this country in squandering millions of dollars of the people's money. But I believe the enterprise is feasible, I believe the money so far expended was well spent; and I 'believe that the $2,000,000 that will be required to complete the line to the bay should *be spent because it will be in the interest of real economy to carry this line to its destination.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) said this afternoon, that this project has been a political football kicked by the Liberals and by the Conservatives for the last forty years.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And now by the Progressives.


Harry Leader: And now by the Progressives. Well, I want to tell the hon. member for Brome that we, the members of the Progressive party are not using this enterprise in order to make of it a political football. I *want to tell my hon. friend that the people who sent me here are unitedly behind the project and-whether they are Liberals, or Conservatives, or Progressives-are united in their demands for the completion of the road. Members rise up and talk about a united Canadian people. I ask hon. members how can they expect to have a united people if one section of the country as denied justice. We in the west believe that we are entitled to the immediate completion of this railway. I do not intend to occupy any longer time. I should like to resume my seat so that I may listen to the hon. member for Lunenburg while he tells us of his experience in keeping Hudson strait open for three days.


William Duff: I cannot resist the invitation of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), especially in view of the fact that he is so strong an advocate of economy. But although he talked about economy a few nights ago I notice that to-night he is on another tack. To use a seafaring phrase, the other night he was trying to sail close to the wind. To-night he 180
is under full sail on a quartering wind, and I am very much afraid that unless he heaves his ship to he will get on the,rocks talking as he does about economy and at the same time advocating the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.
I agree with one thing the hon. member for Portage la Prairie said. That was that for four years he has sat here and listened to much discussion on the Hudson Bay scheme. It seems to me that remark is of sufficient importance to justify us in coming to the conclusion that it is not good business for this House of 235 members to spend a whole day each year in discussing a project that not one hon. gentleman knows anything about. I make that statement in all seriouness.	We
have had both sides of this question.	We
have had hon. members on the Progressive side say that the scheme is feasible, that it is practicable, that we should go ahead and complete the railway to Hudson bay; that we should build wharves and piers at Port Nelson and do dredging there; and that following that steamers should come into the port and take out their wheat and their cattle. We have also heard from the Minister of Agriculture, who is a strong advocate of the Hudson bay scheme except that he differs in this particular from hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party 

he feels it would not be wise to go on with the project until we find out whether Port Nelson is a feasible port or not. The Minister of Agriculture I think came to the conclusion fairly well, and proved it by the evidence which he read, that it would be a great mistake to go further and spend any more money on Port Nelson at the present time until we find out whether it is a proper port or not. On the other hand we have had hon. gentlemen from this side, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) get up and oppose the scheme.
I do not think I need express my views because they are very well known. I have no personal knowledge of Hudson bay itself, but I have been as far north as Cape Chidley which is at the entrance to Hudson strait, and with the limited knowledge at my command and from what I have heard from men who have been at Hudson bay-working on the dredges, going in. there on steamers which carried in supplies-with what I have heard from Captain Read who was on the Minto, and Captain Bartlett who was on the Bella-venture, and from other seafaring men, I have come to the conclusion that we should pot spend one dollar more until we find out whether this scheme is feasible or not. Let



Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Duff
me say to my hon. friends from the west that if I was convinced for one moment that the scheme was feasible, that proper wharves and piers could be built at Port Nelson, and steamers could get into Hudson bay for not three days in each year but one day in [DOT] each year-and they cannot do it at the present time-if I were convinced that steamers could get dn there to a degree of safety at any time of the year, I would be inclined to vote in favour of the scheme. But from my knowledge I am convinced that there is not one day in the year-let alone three days, or six weeks, or three months-as the hon. member for Brome has said when there is not ice in Hudson strait, and there is danger to every steamer which tries to get in or tries to get out. Notwithstanding the advice of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), who says that unless we complete this scheme there will be practically secession or something else in the western country, I ask is it wise to spend one dollar further until we come to some conclusion as to whether the scheme is feasible or not? The hon. member for Lisgar hinted to-night that eastern interests are opposed to the scheme.


John Livingstone Brown: So they are.


William Duff: Will my hon. friend tell me of one person in the east who would be opposed to the scheme if it were feasible-will he tell me one?


John Livingstone Brown: "If the scheme is feasible.'7
It is all right to put that in.


William Duff: My hon. friend said there were people in the east opposed to the scheme if it were feasible but has he named one person who comes within that category.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Who are afraid it would succeed.


William Duff: Yes. Would my hon. friend
name one person?


John Livingstone Brown: I named them.


William Duff: Who are they?


John Livingstone Brown: Montreal interests.


William Duff: There are 700,000 people in
Montreal. Can you name one individual in Montreal who states that if this road were feasible he would oppose it or name anybody else in the country. No, he cannot, and my hon. friend had to be brought to a round turn by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes). Personally I am not opposed to the scheme if it is feasible; I should be glad [Mr. Duff.}
to see wheat move from Hudson bay if it were at all possible.


John Livingstone Brown: Is the hon. gentleman so innocent as to suppose that anybody would stand up and say "We believe this scheme is feasible and we oppose it?"


William Duff: My hon. friend stood up and made the charge to which I have referred. He has said some things to-night which I do not agree with and which I do not think were very well said.


An hon. MEMBER:: Church union.


William Duff: That was one thing, yes. I do not say that my hon. friend said it. I noticed this afternoon in the discussion that some hon. members compared the Hudson bay route with the port of Montreal, and said the Hudson bay route was just as feasible as the St. Lawrence route.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: Someone, I think it was the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) said "hear, hear," thus endorsing the idea that the Hudson bay route is as feasible as the St. Lawrence route. I say there is ice in Hudson strait every day in the year, and there is ice in the St. Lawrence only for four months in the year. How therefore can anybody say there is any comparison between the Hudson bay route and the St. Lawrence route?


William John Ward: How does the hon. gentleman, know these things?


John Evans: The hon. gentleman said a. little while ago that he did not know.


William Duff: I did not say any such thing. I said from the evidence I had received, and from my own experience as far as Cape Chidley, where on a great many occasions you cannot see an inch of water, I did not think the scheme was feasible. I do know from all the reports we have received-and nobody will deny this- that in the Hudson straits there is ice every day in the year and everybody knows that there is ice in the St. Lawrence river four months of the year only. People also know that at a certain time of the year a notice is sent out that the St. Lawrence is closed, and no steamer or sailing vessel will make an attempt to go up or down the river. The same thing applies to the Great Lakes. There is no comparison between the waterways on the Great Lakes and the Hudson bay, because at a certain time of the year the Great Lakes freeze over, but on the 1st December or thereabouts notice is posted by the Marine-

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
department that navigation is closed till the spring and the aids to navigation are taken up. There is the difference. For eight or nine months of the year the Great Lakes are open for traffic from Fort Williaim down to the east. Can the same be said of Port Nelson or Fort Churchill? No, it cannot. For not one day in the year are the Hudson straits free of ice or navigation safe. I do not want to press this matter too far, but I have before me the log of a ship covering the whole voyage from the time the ship went out till she came in, and that convinces me conclusively that this scheme is not feasible, and that we must have further proof before we spend the money of the people of this country. I have photographs which show that one ship was jammed in the ice for six weeks. The steamship Discovery- was jammed in the ice off cape Chidley, the entrance to Hudson straits, from July 24 to September 5, 1918. During those six weeks she never moved, and anybody looking at that steamer could not say that she was not a properly constructed boat that should be able to go through any amount of ice. This picture is signed by Captain Reid, commander. Yet hon. members want us to spend twenty or forty million dollars to finish the Hudson Bay route without first having a proper investigation and survey. I have other pictures taken by Captain Read, who was referred to by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) and they will show conclusively' the position at different times of the year. Here is a picture taken on August 17, 1915, showing the Minto with the ice up to her upper decks. She was jammed in the ice. Another picture showing Big island light which shows the whole Hudson straits as far as the eye can see full of drift ice. And yet they say we should spend all this money without further investigation.
I am not going to speak longer because there is sufficient evidence offered from both sides for that matter. One side says the proposition is feasible and the other says it is not. We must get down to business in this matter. I can quite appreciate that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) is perfectly serious and would like to see something done and believes that something should be done. On the other hand some of us, not from Montreal, Quebec or Ontario, but from others parts of the country, who have no reason for opposing the project on the ground of feasibility are anxious to find out whether the route is feasible or not. What am I going to say about it? I do not know whether the government would approve of my proposition or not, but it is certainly up to the gov-180J
ernment, after listening to the story four years-and we will listen to it four years more and perhaps longer

to try and do something to satisfy the people of the west who are in favour of the scheme and who know very little about it. What is my suggestion? My first suggestion-and perhaps it is too late in the session to adopt it-would be to let the matter go to a special committee to investigate, to call evidence and to bring before it the men who have been up there and know the conditions. The session it seems to me is too far advanced for that. The other proposition is that the government should appoint a commission of practical men who understand navigation and men who understand the building of works in places like Port Nelson, and between the prorogation of parliament this session and next session, let the commission go up there, spend the summer, and get all the information they can on the ground, stay there until perhaps next July, obtain evidence from men who' have been going up there in steamers for the last fifteen or twenty years, come back and make a full report to parliament. Then I think we will be able to decide whether the road should be finished to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill, and whether it would be feasible for the steamers to go in and out of the straits.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If that commission were appointed to go up there and investigate, how would they get through the ice?


William Duff: That is a silly question to ask. Let me tell my hon. friend from Provencher that there is no trouble getting into Hudson bay if people have no other business. In other words, if you want to start to-day, you can take the train to North Sydney, take one of my little sailing vessels, go over.to Newfoundland, go along the Labrador coast wait for a. chance to get into the straits, and go up to Port Nelson. You will arrive there between now and the first of September or October, and if you want to stay all winter you will likely' get back in time for prorogation of the 1926 parliament. But that is not the point. If you expect steamers to go in and take your grain and cattle away, before they go in they must be convinced that they can go in with safety and come out with safety. They must be convinced they can get in there in ten days and not spend six months or a year.


Thomas William Bird: I have listened with great interest to the speeches on the other side of the House against this project.
I have been somewhat surprised at the method of argument pursued. I will not for a moment impute any lack of sincerity on

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
the part of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken. I believe them to be sincere, but after all, Mr. Speaker, sincerity is not such an exceedingly all-inclusive virtue after all. I was especially surprised, at the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I recognize him as one of the first-rank lawyers of our country, but I was somewhat taken aback at his very unlawyerlike method of argument. He certainly shattered all the rules in regard to adducing evidence, to prove that the period of navigation was short. I think it was Captain Read who took a trip in there in July. Now I fail to understand how he is going to prove 'anything in regard to the length of navigation, by quoting the case of a man who went in there and came out without saying when he wenlt in or when he came out. I am exceedingly surprised at the hon. gentleman presenting a lame argument of that kind, because it proves nothing at all in regard to the length of navigation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I said he took four
weeks to go in.


Thomas William Bird: I am concerned as to when
he came out.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did he ever get out?


Thomas William Bird: If he did not get out, there is no way of telling how long the period of navigation is at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: May I ask a serious
question? Does the hon. member think a route would be feasible where in the summer time it took four weeks to go to Port Nelson?


Thomas William Bird: I will be able to answer the
Ron. gentleman intelligently if he will give .me the dates.


William Duff: Does the hon. gentleman want
the dates?


Thomas William Bird: I want the dates and the
data. I will ask the hon. member for Brome for the dates, and the hon. member for Lunenburg for the data.


William Duff: I have the dates that Captain Read went in and caime out. If the hon. member is serious, I will give them to him. I have the log.


Thomas William Bird: I am not particular about the log.


William Duff: I thought not.


Thomas William Bird: On this question there are too many logs in this House.


William Duff: There is some log-rolling too.
IMr. Bird.]	I	i ,	!'	"! -l


Thomas William Bird: When it is not logs, it is icebergs. I accord to the hon. member for Brome that he is sincere in his opposition to this project, but I would commend to him a little more serious investigation of the facts of the situation. I felt from his speech that he had made no such investigation at all. The same is true of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes). I also admire that hon. gentleman's straightforwardness on almost every topic he is interested in. I think he is equally sincere in this, but his whole argument was based upon absolutely vague and indefinite quotations. As regards the very author, Mr. Low, from whom he quoted, no one would gather from the hon. member's speech that Mr. Low was an ardent supporter of the Hudson bay route, and yet that is what Mr. Low is after his experiences there. He is a practical man. He went through the strait one summer and he came out the next. His faith in the Hudson bay route was in no sense weakened by his experiences. Indeed, it was strengthened, and from the last chapter of his book one gathers that he was an ardent supporter of the Hudson bay route and a believer also in its commercial value.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) falls into the same class exactly as the other hon. members to whom I have referred. He may think we people who dwell on the prairies know little about matters of the sea. Probably he is right; but after all what anyone knows about the sea does not amount to very much. After listening to speeches against this project this evening, one would think that before anybody has a right to express an opinion regarding the Hudson bay route, one must smell of tar and wear baggy trousers or have smelt of tar and have worn baggy trousers. I do not agree with that at all. It is very interesting to 'listen to these practical men. A sea yam is probably one of the most interesting species of fiction there is, and no doubt the hon. member for Lunenburg can hold his own in that respect. He has not been as near to the Hudson bay as I have, so why set himself up as being superior to the rest of us?


William Duff: I went by water and my hon. friend went by land. There is the difference.


Thomas William Bird: It does not matter how one goes.


William Duff: It does. If you go by water,
you get seasick.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member never saw the bay.	.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird


William Duff: I beg the hon. member's pardon. I saw the Hudson strait and cape Ghidley.


Thomas William Bird: That is not the bay. That is 500 miles from the bay.


William Duff: But. that is where the ice is. You have to get through there before you get to the bay.


Thomas William Bird: I am afraid the hon. gentleman's imagination sees ice all the time, and it has a kind of refrigerating effect upon him. I challenge anybody who listened to the hon. gentleman's speech to-night to indicate wherein his claim to superior knowledge is above that of the rest of us.


William Duff: I did not claim that.


Thomas William Bird: I do not think it is equal to ours, because we have spent more time in delving out the facts, ns is evident by his speech.
Coming to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) I am glad to find that since the last time he addressed the House on this subject he has been investigating further. The minister is one of those gentlemen-and there are a good many of them-who form their opinions first and collect their evidence afterward. That is a hazardous procedure, because the evidence is so varied and contradictory that it is often hard to sustain one's first position. The hon. gentleman the other day quoted evidence to show that Port Nelson was not a port because it silted up and needed constant dredging; that you could not build there because the foundation was sand and so on. To-day, after having investigated the matter further, he quotes other evidence which proves exactly the opposite.


William Richard Motherwell: Ohl


Thomas William Bird: Well, he quoted Captain Bernier the last time he spoke; indeed, he quoted him again, and Captain Bernier on his oath says that the channel at Nelson silts up and for that reason it is of no use as a port. That was practically all the evidence the hon. gentleman had the last time he spoke and it is about forty years old. To-day he quotes such men as McLachlan, men of technical training. Mr. McLachlan is a man who has lived at the port for three or four years, who has had it under his observation. The minister quotes McLachlan, and McLachlan says that Port Nelson never silts up, has not silted up for the last one hundred years or more and probably will not silt up for the next one hundred years; that the bed of the river is hard pan, that is, that it is scoured clean constantly by the swift current, and that at
high tide it has a depth of 33.7 feet right up to within two and one-half miles of the island. I challenge any hon. gentlemen here to show me anywhere, with one or two exceptions, any important port that has started out with such a reputation as Port Nelson has at the present time. Some hon. gentleman over here quoted Liverpool, and I was somewhat amused to hear an hon. gentleman compare Liverpool with Port Nelson. There is nothing similar; there is nothing parallel. There was not any water at Liverpool at any time except at high tide. The port of Liverpool was dug out of sand dunes in the fifteenth century. One of the original movers in that great enterprise said that in making Liverpool a port, they had made a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You have no sow's ear at Port Nelson; you have a proposition that is scarcely equalled anywhere else in the world. You have a clean, straight channel leading right up to your docks, within two and a half miles at any rate. As regards dredging all these exaggerated statements about dredging are not true. The government figures themselves prove that.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not speak of the port of Liverpool. I spoke of the mouth of the Mersey river that leads to Liverpool.


Thomas William Bird: It is the same.


James Joseph Hughes: No. The sand bar at the mouth of the Mersey is three-quarters of a mile wide. It is a sand bar and a shifting channel. That has nothing at all to do with the port that is up the river.


Thomas William Bird: I have seen it all many times and I know what it is, but the contention of the hon. gentleman makes his position all the worse. Liverpool not only had to dig the docks out of the dunes but the channel also had to be dug out; and more than that, it has to be kept dredged all the time. You would never have that proposition at Nelson, where you would have a yard or two of mud and stone to remove for a distance of two and a half miles. That done, and you have your port at Nelson.
I do not know how to sum up this rather curious medley of opposition we have had to-day. If that is all the opposition we have in parliament why is there longer any hesitation about going ahead with the project? I was reminded to-night of a somewhat striking legend which perhaps hits off the situation. Once upon a time, so the story runs, Satan was very much concerned about a revival that was proceeding and to which he wanted to put a step He knew of no method by which

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
this could be done but as it happened he had some assistants: there were a big devil, two medium sized devils and a little devil. The big devil came up to him in his perplexity and said that he could manage the affair; he would tell the people that there was no God and that would settle the whole thing. But this did not appeal to Satan, who said that the people would never believe it. Thereupon the two medium sized devils suggested that they could put an end to the meeting by telling the people that there was no such place as hell. But again Satan objected; he was quite sure that the people would not believe this either. At last the little devil came forward with this solution. He said, "I will tell them that all these things are true but I will tell them further that they need not worry because there is plenty of time." I do not like to be personal, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has played the role of the big devil in this particular matter we are now discussing, and I am sure that no one will believe him in his opposition to the project. We have also had the medium sized devils whom nobody will believe either. And we have had the little devil in the person of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). What he says is more insinuating, it is more subtle; unlike the hon. member for Brome and the other two members on the opposite side who have opposed the proposition, the Minister of Agriculture believes in it, but he says "there's lots of time." I think that is the most dangerous attitude that can be taken on this subject especially by a minister of the crown.
I do not intend to detain the House much longer, because during the last four yearn all the details of the1 subject have been gone over; and I venture to say that the arguments that have been put up from this side of the House have met- with no -considerable degree of effective opposition. There has been no serious attempt at refutation, and we have donle our best during that time t-o put the facts before the -public. Our efforts have n-ot always been appreciated, although we have been- moderate; at least many of us have tried to be moderate and to present the facts just as we have found them. I do not think we have made much impression however, and I am sorry; the assurances we have been able to elicit, so far have been so vague and indefinite as almost t-o make us think that they meant nothing >at all. In the words of a famous -children's classic, it is jam yesterday and jam to-morrow but never jam to-day. We seem to be led -on, but somehow -our advocacy 
appears to be futile. The hon. member for Brome -could not -charge us with making this a political football for we have not done so. We have tried to -be fair to the government, and indeed we have been deferential to a degree that has caused us sometimes to be misunderstood by our own people. In every way we could we have tried to let the government declare itself; we have -not browbeaten them or tried1 to place them in an-y awkward 'position. I know that last year the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), who is otherwise a good-tempered individual, seemed to get just a little impatient with us and he imagined that we were trying to drive him into a corner. That was not the case; we had no such intention.


George Perry Graham: He did not go into the corner; there is a little Jack Horner over there that diid.


Thomas William Bird: I do not under-estimate the minister's ability to take care of himself, but I want to tell him and the House that however much he thought we in this corner had been pushed from the outside we had no intention then nor have we any intention now of being so pushed. I think that the time for being pushed from the outside is pretty well past for this group, and in the last four years we who have been advocating the completion of the Hudson Bay railway have shown, I think, that we are not the kin-d who are easily pushed from any quarter. We sometimes rather feet anxious to let somebody start to do the pushing. I do not think that the Minister of Railways really meant what he implied last session ; in a moment of impatience he thought we w-ere overstepping the bounds and were actually trying to -play -politics with him. But as hon. members have said, this is not a matter of politics. Most of us are solid with our constituents in this respect; we believe what we dio because we live where we do.
Now, it would be very interesting if one had time to review the history of this matter; it is a very illuminating history and it does not do a great deal of credit to this parliament. Away back in the days of the last century this parliament was unanimous in conceiving the Hudson Bay railway to be a national project; There is no question about that. And1 it made generous grants in land in order to confirm that belief. Not only that; it sent out very expensive expeditions that cost the country considerable sums of money. The reason in those times w-hy the Hudson Bay railway passed into abeyance was due to the un-looked-for development in western Canada. In the nineties of last century when these immense wheat fields were being brought un-

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
der cultivation men's minds were occupied with the problems that attended that development. They ceased for the time being to think about the Hudson Bay railway, but in a few years the matter emerged again when the west began to fill up and when those fields began to expand; then again the Hudson Bay railway came to the front and by 1906 it was a vital issue in this House, accepted by all parties. There is no doubt about it. At that time the Liberals were committed to it up to the hilt, and so were our Conservative friends. The Liberals, coming back to power in 1908, immediately began to make some feint at implementing their pre-election pledges. In 1907, I think it was, the matter was broached in this House by western members, and in 1908 a full dress debate took place thereon similar to the one we had in 1923. As 1 say, some effort was made by the government to carry out their promises, 'but then as now they were slow. There might have been justifying reasons for the delay, but you know as well as I do that the government was in power for three or four years and there were no promises implemented. The first sod was turned; but after all what is the first sod?


George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, above all men, should be an example to the rest of us for veracity. During the time he says nothing was done the contract was let for the first section of the railway to J. D. McArthur and signed by myself. The contract for the bridge at The Pas, if I am not mistaken, was let and considerable construction took place. If that is not implementing promises, I do not know what is.


Thomas William Bird: If the hon. minister will have patience and not concern himself with my veracity, I will come to that point.


George Perry Graham: I do not want you to go wrong, but you will unless you crawl back on the right road.


Thomas William Bird: I do not think I have given the minister any cause for anxiety regarding my veracity.


George Perry Graham: Yes, the hon. gentleman made a statement which I say is absolutely incorrect.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. minister is too impatient.


George Perry Graham: Not at all.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, he has taken the words out off my mouth. I am not accustomed to having my veracity questioned, even on the floor of parliament.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman must expect to have it questioned if he goes wrong.


Thomas William Bird: I have been very careful in
this investigation not to do any injustice to the Liberal party, and I prefaced my remarks by saying that, so far as I knew, there might be justifying reasons for the delay.


George Perry Graham: But a little later-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas William Bird: And I added that at the end
of that parliament very little had been accomplished.


George Perry Graham: That is not what you
said. You said that nothing had been done to implement the promises.


Thomas William Bird: I did not say so.


George Perry Graham: Yes, you did.


Thomas William Bird: Then I stand corrected, for
it was furthest from my mind to say what was not absolutely truthful.


George Perry Graham: It is all straightened out
now.


Thomas William Bird: I was simply trying to show
that during those three years the Liberal government did not succeed in advancing very far in the implementing of their promises, and I think that is an historical fact. In 1911 they were superseded by our friends to the right. Now, again, I want to do no injustice to the Conservative party. That party, for some reason or other, showed signs of greater activity than did the Liberals.


George Perry Graham: They stopped the work.


Thomas William Bird: I am coming to that part
of it.


George Perry Graham: They stopped it the
moment they came into office.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas William Bird: Yes, I understand the Conservatives stopped the work for one year in order, with the usual suspicion between the two parties, to make the investigation all over again. I think that is the essence of the effete two-party system-they cannot trust each other sufficiently to carry on the work of the country in continuity. There was a lapse of one year for that reason. It may have been a purely political reason, or it may have been a business reason, but there was that hiatus of one year. But after that the Conservatives made up for lost time by proceeding with the work with great

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
rapidity, and anyone looking at the records can see that for the next three or four years they certainly wasted no time in trying to redeem their promises. But in 1918 the work did come to a stop, and here again I am not imputing any motives. I am not sure which party was to blame, but I think they were both to blame for the work stopping. Governments may not be consciously influenced by forces outside themselves, but I think it is well understood that their actions are apt to be the reflection of the latest influence brought to bear. At that time there was a very concerted opposition to the Hudson Bay railway rising in the country, and the reasons given for ceasing work were, I think, somewhat insincere. I use that word because the charge is general. But there is this evidence to show that it was insincere, because in 1918, I think it was, the then Minister of Railways said that the government had ceased work for want of 'ties. The next year the plea was that branch lines required prior consideration. Yet again, in the following year another excuse was found-the finances of the country were in such shape that it was not advisable to go on with the Hudson Bay railway.
Now, I believe that during this period the opposition to the Hudson Bay railway which had blossomed out in the last few years was just beginning to make headway, and to make its influence felt upon this House. It may not have been consciously so, but there is no doubt in my mind, connecting cause and effect, that the propaganda then going on in the country found its reflection inside this chamber. Why, the editorials and the specially inspired articles to which this country has been treated in the last half dozen years were bound to have their influence upon the political mind. And those articles, from whatever source they came, I believe, have had a paralyzing influence not only upon this government but upon its predecessor. There is no other way of explaining the present attitude of the Conservative and Liberal parties towards this project. Their attitude is altogether inconsistent with what they have professed in bygone years. There must have been some intervening cause, there must have been some influence working upon their minds. It has been this flood of newspaper articles, this deluge of editorials from inspired sources. And I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that if ever there was an act of sabotage committed in this country it was on that occasion. These people did not dynamite the Hudson Bay railway, but they might just as well have 
done so. When workmen leave blast furnaces and mines to take care of themselves, that is sabotage. When a newspaper campaign paralyzes the nerves of government, causing a twenty million dollar proposition to moulder in the wilderness, that is but sabotage too, and that is what has happened in recent years.
Since 1918 the Hudson Bay railway would have passed into entire oblivion had it not been for the Farmers' organizations of the west. They have never forgotten it. At every annual convention each local has kept this thing before the public mind, and during the last parliament those organizations found what was perhaps a lone voice in this parliament in my predecessor. I must accord to him considerable merit for the manner in which he voiced the opinion of the west in that respect during the last parliament-[DOT] a voice crying in the wilderness; for so far as I can 'see he had a very unresponsive parliament to meet.
Now, in 1921 this was an issue in the election. The record of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party was a factor in that election, as we who took part in it very well know. If one thing is more responsible than another for the obliteration of the old parties, especially in the northern parts of the provinces of the west, it is this one question; there is no doubt about that from one's memory of the last election. That being the case, naturally we from the west, especially those of us from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, saw to it that the feeling of the people in this respect was immediately voiced in the House. We raised it the first session in the committee on railway estimates. We had every courtesy from the Minister of Railways at that time. But in replying to us the minister showed that he had given the matter no consideration, and the indications were that the government as a whole had given less consideration to it. But at that time we were not unreasonable; we were willing to wait and see, because we felt that the government, coming into power when they did, had a situation on their hands which perhaps justified their paying little attention even to the Hudson Bay railway. Now, in the following year we broached the matter again. This time we had a real debate, and the mass of evidence accumulated on Hansard has never been equalled in this House in its convincingness and its completeness. The Minister of Railways that year-the present minister-in reply pleaded the financial condition of the country and would not promise the immediate completion of the railway;

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
nor did he outline any scheme for its completion. But he did promise that he would complete the first 312 miles-that is, restore it; and for that purpose he placed in the estimates an amount of $350,000. We were frankly disappointed, as the House will remember; but we were helpless and we had to await the pleasure of the government.
But I am travelling ahead of my story. In the previous winter an incident occurred which had a tremendous influence upon opinion in the prairie provinces. That was the order which went out from the department to tear up the steel along the Hudson Bay line. The order was carried out to the extent of sending gangs away up the line at immense expense to perform that task. The effect on public opinion was such that the government was compelled to rescind the order. At that time Sir Henry Thornton came on the scene and I think he was responsible for advising the government not to proceed; at any rate that is how the public took it. As I
12 m. say, that incident aroused public opinion in the west and caused more interest to be taken in the Hudson Bay railway in the session of 1923 than in any other. The minister responded to the extent of placing in the estimates the amount I have mentioned. That would have been satisfactory to some extent if the money had been expended that year. But I travelled over the whole length of the line in the fall of 1923, and all I saw was a few scattered gangs of men, not more than a hundred, perhaps, in all, laying a few ties here and there; and that is all that was done that year. I understand that considerably more work was done last fall. I may say I travelled over a hundred miles of the line last fall and I can add my testimony to that of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), that the line for that one hundred miles is in pretty good shape. But what does it amount to? What does this putting in ties and dumping gravel here and there amount to? It is not completing the Hudson Bay railway. It is putting the Hudson Bay railway into such condition that the Canadian National can operate it for a few hundred miles, but that is not completing the line. These ties are being renewed on the most perishable part of the railway and in a year or two they will again have to be replaced at t.he same cost. I do not think it can be honestly said that the government have even attempted to carry out their promise of the session of 1923, because if they had been in earnest they would by this time have had the line completed up to mile 312 and we would have had various indications, by the disposition of material and so on, that the project
was continuing. That is the least we could have expected, and I hope the minister will have some satisfactory explanation to make of the delay.
To-night we are again endeavouring to solicit from the government some statement as to its policy. We are not unreasonable dn our expectation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his tour of the west made a certain reference to the Hudson Bay railway. The Minister of Railways, in speaking last year, made a reference that has a bearing upon the utterances of the Prime Minister in the west la^t year. The Minister of Railways said that so long as the House was constituted as it is there could be very little hope for the Hudson Bay railway. That utterance of his was enigmatic to me at the time and has been ever since, because what does it mean- "if this House continues to be constituted as it is at the present time?" It can only mean one of two things. The minister may have meant that there might be some opposition as between parties in this House; that one part would block another in its attempt to complete the Hudson Bay railway. But after the declarations we have had from all parts of the House it is inconceivable that any party should attempt to block any effort to complete the Hudson Bay line. And so the minister must have meant that the cause lay within his own party, that there was some obstacle within the Liberal ranks. Now, I am not adopting any superior attitude in a party sense, because I realize that there are obstacles right in this party so far as that goes. But that is what the minister evidently meant,' that there was a disposition in the Liberal party to divide on this question. Now if there is any declaration of the minister that will cause division in his party I think it is highly to be recommended. We on this side find that it is a very healthy thing. When a divisive influence passes over this party we seem to emerge from it happier, and better, and stronger than ever; and I think on a great many things it would be healthy for the Liberal party to have an honest difference of opinion, to come out and say openly that they do differ. Because so long as they will not say it it is impossible for the public to see where they stand on any particular question. Now, where does the Liberal party stand in regard to the Hudson Bay railway? Who knows, who can tell? Nobody. It has never been uttered, never been said; and anything that has taken place in this debate so far does not make it any easier to tell where the Liberals stand. There is some paralyzing

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Bird
influence within the ranks of the Liberal party which makes it impossible to proceed with this venture. The Prime Minister himself when in the west re-echoed that same view. The Prime Minister indicated in his speeches that to press the Hudson Bay railway at the present time might create a situation that might militate against that railway. That is arguing in a sort of circle. It really means: If you press the Hudson Bay railroad at the present time you will disrupt the Liberal party, and if you disrupt the Liberal party you will militate against the Hudson Bay railroad. You can see it is arguing in a circle and it comes around to the same thing. And I want to tell the House that is exactly the impression that the Premier's utterance left upon the west. They may not have said it in so many words but the west felt that the Prime Minister in saying what he did was saying nothing at all because they understood him to say: If you press the Hudson Bay railroad you are going to disrupt the party, and if you disrupt the party you are going to hurt the Hudson Bay railroad. I could have wished that the Prime Minister in his western tour could have said something that could have drawn the heart of the west-not to him, because that is not the thing we are wishing for, but had drawn the heart of the west more closely to the east as we hoped, but I think the Prime Minister failed in that sense. His tour throughout the west no doubt created immense interest. I had the pleasure of listening to one of his speeches, but it failed in the essential thing-in bringing any warmth into the western heart towards the east of Canada. The Prime Minister no doubt would have wished to do that but it is not an easy thing to do, unless there is a policy that contains some degree of definiteness that the average citizen can understand, that he can figure out, that he can meditate on and get some degree of hope out of.
Now I know that the old plea of economy will be put forward.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Will the hon. gentleman
permit a question? Is his argument founded on the assumption that the navigability of Hudson strait is proved, or that it is still a matter for fair controversy?


Thomas William Bird: I believe that the navigability of Hudson strait is absolutely proved, and that no amount of investigation will get you one degree further in the direction of proving or disproving it; I believe all the relevant facts are known.


Harold Putnam: What is the length of the season each year?


Thomas William Bird: That is indefinite, but I think four and a half months is a very good average for the moderate mind to accept. I was proceeding to say that the plea of economy is one we are constantly up against in this chamber.


Mr. CARRUTHERS:: In the last two lines of the resolution it says "recognizing the priority of the Hudson Bay railway with reference to other transportation projects started subsequently." Does that mean that the brandh lines now under way will not be finished and that no more will be constructed until the Hudson Bay railway is completed?


Thomas William Bird: No, I would not read all that into the resolution. I think the resolution is merely a Knoxian method of saying it is a very desirable thing to go forward with the completion of the Hudson Bay railway at once.
Now, coming back again to the question of economy, I noticed in the debate on the Speech from the Throne and also in the debate on the budget, that members of the opposition proved, and I think almost conclusively, that we had reached rock bottom, that it is difficult to economize in such a way as to make any appreciable difference in our national debt at the present time. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) in his speech on the Address went to a lot of trouble to show that we had reached rock bottom, and I think the Prime Minister also enunciated the same view in his speech on the budget. If that is the case where do we stand in regard to the Hudson Bay railway? The plea of economy seems to be no longer relevant, because if we have reached rock bottom the average membe; must see that for the next twenty years there is going to be no appreciable change in our financial condition, nor for the next forty years; and does the government propose to postpone the Hudson Bay railway indefinitely? It seems to me that if we have reached rock bottom the only sane thing to do is to build the Hudson Bay railway immediately, because if our financial condition cannot improve for the next twenty years it would be folly to wait; with every year that passes the Hudson Bay railroad depreciates at least a million dollars-at least it has done so for the last few years. So I think the plea of economy is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Knowing that, we all realize-I think even the Conservative opposition, believes-that we have pretty nearly reached hardpan in connection with our national expenditures.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured in as moderate a manner as I could, and without

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Graham
retracing the old ground, to bring this matter before the government once more. As to the tendency to asperity which has been pointed out to me I hope it will be abundantly pardoned because it is not in my nature to descend in these arguments to such low methods as that would seem to indicate. I have great admiration for the hon. gentleman's personality but I hope that he will not let us go home to-night without making clear beyond peradventure what the government intends to do in the next two or three years or so with regard to the Hudson Bay railway, if the government are to be so fortunate as to remain in power during that time.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): This is a subject which has not only been debated for the last four years, but for the last forty years, and I will just make a running comment on a few of the things that have been said.
In the first place, I desire to say that the debate on the whole has been very fair indeed, and the mover of this resolution set a good example to all his brethren. He talked to his resolution, and he did not insinuate that any of us were controlled by infernal powers. It is late in the night now, and I know I will be pardoned for telling a story. I seldom tell one in the House, but when I heard some hon. gentleman, not following the lead of the mover of the resolution, attributing motives to us villains whom providence has placed in the eastern part of the country, and to others, I could not help but think of this story. It was about a horse-trader and he had a deal on. Professional horse traders usually have one on, but he was asked to come in and kind of oversee a trade without being apparently interested. So that he was standing in the stall of the barn, and the chap that came in. wishing to trade his horse, commenced to feel round the spavin joints of the horse in the barn, and he felt down to where there might possibly be a ringbone on the horse. Not satisfied with investigating the hind legs, he went to the front legs and looked for splints. The adviser called up the man that owned the horse and said, "Do not trade horses with that fellow", and added, "Any man that looks at another fellow's horse for ringbones, spavins and splints,- sure his horse has got some of them." It always struck me that the man who is imputing motives to others-well, he could spend some moments in what we call introspection. There is a weakness somewhere in a man who thinks all his fellowmen must be wrong because they do not think as he does.
Now I did speak rather sharply to my young friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird). Hon. gentlemen will realize that if it had been some other hon. gentleman who was not accustomed to the effect of words and had not such a perfect understanding of what a word meant in a sentence, I would not have come out so boldly, but when I was accused of playing with the Hudson bay matter after the election of 1908, between that and 1911,
I resented it very much, because the opposition of that day told me I went too fast in letting this contract. In fact I went so fast in letting the contract that when they got in power they held it up. They thought there must be some campaign fund or something of that kind in it. I thought I went very rapidly. Then in addition to that I had some trouble in letting the contract for the bridge in his constituency, that he walks over quite likely now, and I was told that I rushed that too rapidly. I would suggest to my hon. friend, as an old man to a young man, in a case of that kind, always be sure; it is better than being sorry afterwards. Then some hon. member. I think my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) referred to some talk about secession, and stated that some other gentlemen were talking about freight rates and secession. Where were they going to secede?


John Livingstone Brown: I want to make it abundantly clear that I think the whole proposition in regard to secession is wrong.


George Perry Graham: I understand that, and I
want to exculpate my hon. friend from Lisgar. But I am talking about the other fellow. He was going to secede from Canada, and where was he going? I want to tell him that if he secedes from Canada to the United States he will pay great deal higher freight rates than he pays in Canada, and that is an important point according to my hon. friend from Lisgar I want to tell all those who talk about seceding that they will pay 30 to 40 per cent more freight rates if they go away from Canada than they have to pay in this country. _
I am aware that some of the speeches which have been made will make votes for the hon. members who spoke. I feel confident of that, but I submit with all modesty that these speeches will not make friends for the Hudson bay project. I thought it was a mistake last year to move a vote of want of confidence in the government and press it to a conclusion. I think so still, and I think that made it harder for them to get friends-I say frankly-in the Liberal party for the Hudson bay project than if that resolution had not been moved and pressed to a conclusion.

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Graham
That is a matter of history. Hon. gentlemen
can do as they like.
Now to come to the project itself. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is going to move us on to Churchill. I will state the reasons for taking the port of Nelson. We base all our action, every bit of it I might 6ay, on information brought to us by engineers of the department who were sent to investigate, added to information that they gave us in connection with those who had had sea-faring experience. I will admit this: That I think the necessity of the construction of a much longer line of railway to Churchill may have had considerable influence in the selection of Nelson. But just at the time the selection was under discussion, or practically had been made, the government changed, much to the detriment of the country, and my successor was neither satisfied with the contract nor with the port of Nelson; so he stopped the contract, and stated he would see whether there was any-think wrong with it. Then he made a trip to Nelson himself, and came back enthusiastic about that being the proper port. I refer to the late Mr. Cochrane. I do not pretend to be practical myself, and I simply based my selection on the information given by the engineers at that time. This was confirmed by my successor in office, Mr. Cochrane; but, as I said before it is possible the shorter mileage of railway construction might have had something to do with the selection of Nelson.
As regards the Hudson strait, I do not know anything about the strait, and I think if I were to go around the House I would have a good deal of company. We have formed ideas from what we read. The information that I gleaned from the reports I read and reports that were given to me was, if I remember correctly, that the season was as short as six weeks and that it ran to four months. But in all this I suppose there is not much information which my hon. friends are looking for. The resolution itself does not call for any real information. I have some notes here but I do not propose to elaborate them, because hon, members want to get through with this debate as rapidly as possible. I want to read the resolution of 1923. This is not the vote of want of confidence; this is the resolution of 1923, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada give further consideration to the report. of the Senate committee on the Hudson Bay railway with a view to safeguarding the investment of public moneys made in the construction of that portion of the work completed to date.

Down to that point every hon. gentleman who has spoken to-day admits that we have made good-and that is nearly all of the 1923 resolution-that we have protected the investment made in the portion already constructed and put into operating condition the line as it exists up to mile 214. That has been done. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey) says that that is in good condition. There is 118 miles that is not in extraordinary good condition, although he went over it at thirty miles an hour. I think from what I know of the road, he should have been arrested for speeding. Before I get through, I will show hon. members that we propose at least to carry out at once the resolution up to the point I have named and, in fact, that is nearly done now.
One thing that I cannot understand is how hon. gentlemen object to the Welland canal expenditure. If it is not to aid in the carrying of grain from the west, it is not for anything; it might as. well never have been constructed. It is not for the products of the east. Let me point this out to hon. gentlemen again. Although hon. members take a different view now, when I was in the west in 1910, one part of the west wanted the Hudson Bay railway and the other part of the west, with every deputation, without a single exception, asked for the deepening of the AVelland canal. I remember when I was leaving one point with Sir Wilfrid Laurier we were told: Now, the next place you stop at, the deputation will ask you to build the Hudson Bay railway; they are not so much interested in the Welland canal. When hon. gentlemen criticize the late government and this one with the deepening of the Welland canal, they are criticizing an action which was founded primarily upon the request of the western people and I am speaking of what I know.


Andrew Knox: Would the minister say that
there has been as much pressure for the Welland canal as there has been for the Hudson Bay project?


George Perry Graham: At that time before
either one of them was begun, there was far more pressure for the Welland canal than for the Hudsoy bay project. I say so advisedly.


John Evans: May I respectfully ask what
bodies in the west pressed for the Welland canal?


George Perry Graham: That is a good many
years ago, but they were live bodies, or at least they talked in that way. They were just as strong for the Welland canal as

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Graham
another portion, was for the Hudson bay project and they had organizations pressing. As a matter of practical construction, the new Welland canal project-and it is not a new project; it is as old as the hills-was begun by the government of Sir Robert Borden, although under the Laurier government we had made some surveys, got together considerable data and made test pits and that kind of thing. But the Laurier administration would have done exactly as their predecessors did in deepening the Welland canal. As I said a moment ago, if the Welland canal project was not to aid in cheapening freight rates on the western crop, there was no sense in deepening that canal under any consideration. The United States government have recognized that, because they have proceeded to deepen their canal, what we call the American Sault. The Canadian canal is not deepened, but the larger locks and the greater depth on the American side has been used by our Canadian ships of larger draught, while the Canadian canal serves the smaller Canadian ships of lighter draught and American ships of lighter draught, there being no canal dues on either side. Whatever may be thought now, I was just as conscious and so was the Laurier administration and, I believe, our successors that in starting the Welland canal improvement, we were doing something to aid the western farmer to market his crop at a cheaper rate of freight. I believe that will be the result, notwithstanding criticism, because while vessels can be loaded and come right down drawing up to 21, 22, 23 feet, as the canal will accommodate vessels of larger draught than that, surely with one lightening furtheT down the line with larger vessels taking the big load, you can get to the seaboard much more quickly than at the present time. The government has to-day a large elevator at Port Colbome, and through that elevator even with the present depth of the Welland canal, go millions and millions of bushels of western wheat. If western wheat is not going to be benefited by going through the Welland canal, it was a mistake to build it at all. Both governments, that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the government succeeding it, believed- and I believe their views were founded upon accurate information-that the deepening of the Welland canal would enable the western farmer to get his wheat to market at a cheaper rate of freight than he is now paying. These things should be thought out together. I am not scolding at all. With that viewpoint, no objection should be taken to the Welland canal, and it should have no influence one
way or the other on the Hudson bay project.
As regards the Hudson Bay project, it is too late for the Liberal party or for myself to say that it is a phantom. As has been pointed out, both of the old parties have been committed to the Hudson bay project, and as has been said, the time must come, and must come before very long, in my humble judgment, when somebody will finish the Hudson Bay railway. I think I am safe in going this far in making this statement. Even if doubts exist as to the practicability of carrying wheat at a reasonable rate, there would not be a very great risk in finishing this line and using it for a colonization line and for whatever traffic might accrue from a port on the ocean at that point. I am not saying that the other would not be practicable.
In discussing this question years ago it will be found, if the records are looked up, that I rather laid stress on the value it would be to the live stock breeder and to the dairy interests of the west, to whom a voyage on the ocean does not make much difference; because the colder the surroundings and the cooler the atmosphere, so long as it 'is not overdone, the better it is for both cattle and dairy products. I look to the west, and I do not have to look very long because it ;is rapidly materializing, as possibly the dairy centre of Canada; the dairymen of western Canada are making strides on us in Ontario and Quebec and dn the Maritime provinces as well. And these products, it seems to me, would be more sure of successful transportation in this way than perhaps wheat would be.
Now as to what we are doing at the present time. My hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) asked in last year's resolution that we complete the repair of the property so as to protect our investment there. Last year, the first year, we expended quite a large amount of money, although not nearly so much as was voted, and the reason was that parliament sat late, so that there was no opportunity to proceed until we could get at least an initial vote. And the farmers do not like railway construction to interfere, either in the matter of wages or in the employment of men, with the work they are carrying on. So that a comparatively small amount was expended. But the fact was that the Parliament of Canada had approved of the expenditure of money in order to put this line into proper operating shape to the extent that is now constructed. The next year, in consultation with the railway authorities, I asked them to go on as though a vote had been given; because I felt sure that parliament would grant another vote; and this year, in the Canadian National expenditures, we have

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Graham
if I remember rightly a vote of $180,000 or $200,000 to complete the repairs to that last section of the Hudson Bay railway to which my hon. .friend has referred. But hon. gentlemen, who are great friends of public ownership, must remember that under the new arrangement every dollar expended on the National Railways; it is not charged to the Hudson Bay will be changed to the Canadian consolidated revenue of Canada but against the Canadian National, and on that money the Canadian National must pay interest. We must therefore go no more rapidly in these things than can be defended from the point of view of the Canadian National Railways as well as from the standpoint of the people of Canada.


Robert Alexander Hoey: That would be a good argument for the completion of the road at an early date, to make the railways a paying proposition.


George Perry Graham: If it were to be a paying proposition it would be a good argument, but I am not so sure. However, I am not saying that it would not be.


William John Ward: Will the Toronto viaduct be a paying proposition?


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend has altogether a misconception of the Toronto viaduct situation. That was a bargain between .the railways, before there was a Canadian *National Railways, and the city of Toronto; an agreement was signed and carried to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council .where it was confirmed. The burden therefore was on the Grand Trunk Railway, and the agreement could have been enforced. The government of Canada might have been, and *in fact was being, sued for the performance *of that contract. Under those circumstances there was no alternative but to clean up 'he Toronto situation, and it was cleaned up at a saving of several millions of dollars. That situation was altogether different from this. Now, I have talked long enough. I have said what we propose to do this year, and any further announcement that is necessary can be made later. But at the present time we have in the Canadian National estimates the amount charged for the completion of *repairs to the last section that has been referred to.
Hon. gentlemen have heard my remarks in regard to the Welland canal. I do not admit for a minute that the Welland canal .was started after the Hudson Bay railway. The Welland canal is an old scheme which it was intended Should be enlarged when the .time came that both countries could enlarge their channels. With that explanation I

see no difficulty at all in -accepting the motion of my hon. friend. I do not think he would want us to say that we should not operate any branch lines; that is not the intention. The intention of my hon. friend is to impress upon the House and the country the necessity of keeping in mind the Hudson Bay railway project and not having it side-tracked by everything that comes along.


Andrew Knox: I consider the Welland ship
canal as a transportation project to have been started subsequent to the Hudson Bay railway.


George Perry Graham: I do not agree with that, because the Welland ship canal has been in existence a great many years; it was there before my time. Its constant improvement is a matter for the benefit of navigation, just as the constant improvement of the river St. Lawrence is necessary in the interests of navigation.


Andrew Knox: Is not this an entirely new
canal?


George Perry Graham: It is a portion of the old one, but it is really like replacing your old house with a new one. You may not put up the new one on precisely the same land but it is a continuation of your residence. With that explanation, Mr. Speaker, I see no objection to the House accepting the resolution of my hon. friend.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Having put the line in a state of good repair to mile 332, if the government is in power will the minister give an assurance that it will then undertake the completion of the road?


George Perry Graham: If the hon. member will
say that he will help to keep the government in power I might give that assurance. But that might be considered bribery. However, that is only a bit of pleasantry between the hon. gentleman and myself.


Arthur Meighen: Would that improve the merits of the Hudson Bay railway?
Mr, GRAHAM:	It would fulfil the other
contract, which would be necessary. However, I hope the government will be in power and that we shall be able to discuss this question again.


Arthur Meighen: I do not need to speak
at any length; in fact I am not certain that words are at all necessary. I have no difficulty whatever in agreeing with the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in his reference to the Welland canal. That the Welland ship canal has been from its inception an ad-

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Meighen
vantage to western Canada goes without saying; in fact, I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who would dispute that assertion. And if the canal with its low draught is of advantage, having been built mainly for the purpose of improving the exit of western production, surely it follows that an improved canal improves the conditions of that export trade. It is too often the case that after expenditures are undertaken and are fairly well on to completion their merits fade in the sight of those who were very strong in their behalf previous to their inception. However, the merits of the Welland canal are really not in dispute here.
Some two years ago when this issue was before the House I spoke upon it. I have taken the opportunity of reading over what I said then and, as well, what many others in the House contributed to that debate. From my words at that time I have no divergence now; I have no reason to change them at all. Since that occasion it has been my privilege to visit western Canada, and at the point which of all points would perhaps be the strongest in its insistence upon the immediate completion of the road I snoke, anc}, whether with acceptability or not, I certainly spoke with entire frankness on this question; and from the statement which I made in Melfort last fall I also have no divergence to urge at the present time.
The question as to the resolution itself affords no difficulty in view of the action of the government. I do not think-I know I made it very plain in what I said before

that essential branch line construction can be said to be new enterprises at all out of keeping with the resolution which then passed if given priority to the completion of this road, nor do I think that the going on with the Welland canal-which of course in its original inception was decades before the Hudson Bay railway, and which in its present new form wras commenced long before the resolution passed-much of the expenditure on which would have been largely lost had construction not been gone on with in the meantime, is in any way a violation of the resolution.
Now, I have been very much interested in the speeches made by one or two hon. members to my left, particularly that of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey). I believe in the completion of the road, I believe in it for the reasons given two years ago, among others, because its completion is it) the nature of a contractual obligation entered into with settlers who have not only gone in there on the promise of this country, given ir the only way that a country can promise
anything, but wjio, having gone in, have made further investments and commitments on the faith of the pledges which they have accepted. The question is merely a question as to when, in justice to Canada's position, that road can be gone on with. I do not believe in any indefinite postponement, and if I could accept-I certainly accept the sincerity of the hon. member for Springfield-if I felt that the idea which he advances was a practical one, I would be prepared to support the carrying out of his request earlier than I otherwise would. If, as he says, a fair trial of the export possibilities of this line could be secured by the completion of it to the bridge at Port Nelson, utilizing that bridge over the artificial island-if that is all that would be essential to give it such a trial as would determine whether or) not it was going to be of real use as an export channel-ther. as far as I am concerned I would be prepared to go pretty far and start pretty early to see that that was done. But I would not want to see this expenditure made, even if the idea of the hon. member for Springfield was right, if afterwards there was no way of utilizing the line and1 testing the practicability of navigating the straits. I think the government would be well advised to canvass the possibilities of this idea, for, if it is practicable, it seems to me a way would be found for meeting the very urgent demands of western Canada in this respect earlier than -otherwise could be done.
1 do not listen with very much sympathy to arguments advanced1, based on the assumption that in eastern Canada there is an ingrained hostility to this line, merely because it will afford another means of exporting western products without bringing those products through the cities of the east. I have never encountered that prejudice; in fact I have encountered quite the opposite. If I judge eastern Canadian sentiment aright, that sentiment is wholly sympathetic with the Hudson Bay railway once it is demonstrated that the road is really going to be a sound proposition, is really going to be what western Canada hopes it wild be-a cheaper outlet for western grain.
I know there is a lot of misgiving-and I am afraid the misgiving has increased rather than diminished in recent times-as to whether the anticipations of the west would be realized when the road is completed. It is on account of this misgiving that a considerable body of public opinion is opposed, not at tall because of fear that the road would 'he a success after construction. It is of no value to this country, it does not contribute to unity and good feeling in the least degree, to be attributing, first from one section and then from another, an

Hudson Bay Ry.-Mr. Meighen
antagonism on the part of tjje majority in the centre to either extremity. If I may be allowed to express my own. humb'le opinion, formed after a considerable number of years of public life, it is this, that a very generous sentiment pervades both the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario as respects the demands of western Canada. Therefore I feel all the more justified in saying that in my opinion there would not be call for very great delay if this House could be convinced, upon proper investigation by those best -qualified to undertake it, that a real test of the enterprise could be secured by merely the further investment suggested by the hon. member for Springfield; then I -believe the House would be prepared for an early realization of his hopes.
With this addition, mot modification, I reaffirm what I stated in the debate two years ago and to the public since.
Motion (Mr. Knox) agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. (Tuesday).
Tuesday, May 5, 1925