ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY STATEMENT OP ACTING SECRETARY OP STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs): I should like at this time to make a brief statement which was asked for by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) on October 4. as reported at page 756 of Hansard. The hon. member asked:
Will the acting leader of the house be in a position to make a statement within a few days regarding the St. Lawrence waterway, in view of the message of President Truman to Congress yesterday recommending an early start?
In reply the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) stated that the question would be referred to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have had the statement prepared and I think it should be communicated to the house.
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin agreement was signed at Ottawa, March 19, 1941. It makes provision for the development of navigation and power resources within the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin for the joint account of the peoples of Canada and the United States. Generally, it covers the same fields as the Niagara convention of 1929 and the St. Lawrence waterway treaty of 1932.
2.	Immediately after the signing of the agreement, a white paper, including correspondence and documents relating to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin development, was tabled in the House of Commons on March 21, 1941.
For the convenience of the members of the house I am tabling additional copies, both in English and in French, of the white paper: Correspondence and documents relating to The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin development, 1938-1941.
I am also tabling copies, both in English and in French, of an additional white paper: Correspondence and documents relating to The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin development, supplement No. 1; (i) legal opinions; (ii) summary of outstanding features.
3.	The agreement provided for ratification and it was made subject to approval by the parliament of Canada and the congress of the United States of America. In this respect, it differed from the 1932 treaty which required the observance of "constitutional methods"

St. Lawrence Waterway
before ratification. The 1932 treaty could only be ratified by the President of the United States if approved by a two-thirds majority of the senate. The present agreement could only be ratified by him if it were approved by joint resolution of both the senate and the house of representatives.
4.	Accordingly, the agreement was submitted to the house of representatives in 1941 and referred to the committee on rivers and harbours. It failed, however, to obtain the necessary congressional approval and no action was taken by way of ratification either in 1941 or in succeeding years.
5.	An attempt was made in the senate of the United States in 1944 to obtain the necessary approval by the adoption of what would have been a joint resolution, but it was unsuccessful.
6.	Upon the initiative of the President of the United States of America, a joint resolution was introduced in the senate and in the house of representatives on October 2 of this year. The procedure followed is somewhat different from that which was adopted in earlier years and the joint resolution is fundamentally different. The earlier resolutions had been designed to provide for approval of the entire agreement with a view to ratification of the agreement and proceeding with the project. The joint resolution as presented both in the senate and in the house of representatives is different from the earlier resolutions in the following respects:
(a)	The resolution approves the agreement with the exception of articles VII and IX and authorizes the President to fulfil the undertakings, other than those which are contained in these articles, upon approval of the agreement, with the exeception of the articles in question, by reciprocal or concurrent legislation in Canada.
(b)	The resolution indicates that it is the view of congress that the President should negotiate with Canada a treaty or treaties covering the subject matter of articles VII and IX, including the provision with respect to perpetual navigation rights on the great lakes, on the connecting channels and canals, and in the wholly Canadian sections of the St. Lawrence river, and provisions for the amendment of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with respect to the diversion of waters at the Niagara river, and should submit the treaty for the advice and consent of the senate.
(c)	The president is directed to provide for the investigation of the feasibility of making the project self-liquidating by the imposition
47696-68J
of reasonable charges or tolls on the foreign commerce of the two countries utilizing the facilities.
(d)	Provision is made with respect to the appropriation of funds and there is a declaration to the effect that no exchange of notes under article I, section 4 of the agreement is to impose additional financial or other obligations on the United States. (This refers to a power enabling the governments, by exchange of notes, to prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin commission, to expand or abridge its powers and duties, to reduce, or after reduction, to increase the number of members, and to wind up the commission. The declaration does not, however, change the obligations of the governments in any respect, as the limitations would be implied in the absence of an express provision of this sort.)
(e)	The President is authorized, by arrangement with the government of the state of New York, to transfer the power facilities to the appropriate agency of the state in accordance with certain principles and there is a proviso that the arrangement must be consistent with the laws of the United States and protect the interests of the United States and of other states and also that the arrangement is to be subject to approval by congress and the legislature of the state of New York.
7.	For the information of the members of the house, I am tabling three copies, in English, of the joint resolution which has been introduced both in the senate and in the house of representatives of the United States of America and, if this course meets with the approval of the members of. the house, the text of this joint resolution could be printed in Votes and Proceedings. May I take it that I have the unanimous consent of the house?
Some bon. MEMBERS:	Consent.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: To continue:
8.	If the joint resolution is approved by congress, it may be necessary for the dominion government to confer with the governments of the province of Ontario and Quebec. The existing arrangements, so far as Ontario is concerned, are embodied in the agreement at page 11 of the first white paper and in the correspondence at pages 43-45. The arrangements with the province of Quebec are embodied in the correspondence at pages 66-72. Consideration of the question as to whether the modifications involved in the procedure now before the congress of the United States of America present any difficulty from the Canadian point of view must, necessarily, be deferred until a later stage.
St. Lawrence Waterway
[Stage Direction]
9.	It is difficult, if not impossible, to forecast the time which will be taken (a) in dealing with the matter by the congress of the United States of America; (b) in negotiating the additional treaty, and (c) in consultations with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but there would seem to be a good deal of doubt as to whether the matter is likely to reach a stage at which it can be presented to parliament during the present session. In the meantime, the proceedings in congress do not in any way of course commit the parliament or government of Canada in any respect.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: As I followed the minister's statement, he indicated that the agreements which had been before the two countries, with the exception of articles YII and IX, were now being submitted to congress, through presidential action. The minister, however, did not make one point clear. Did the President of the United States or anyone acting on behalf of the government of that country submit the agreement, with the exception of articles VII and IX, to the Canadian government or any of its members, before it was presented to congress in the changed form in which it appears to have come before that body? In other words, it seems to me the President of the United States is now submitting to the congress something different from that which had originally been agreed upon between the two nations. I am wondering whether he, or someone representing the United States, had consulted with the Canadian government in respect of those changes, before the submission was made to congress.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not be in a position to give a positive answer to my hon.. friend at the moment. My understanding, however, is that there is no intention of modifying the substance of the agreement, but rather that this proceeding has been adopted because it was felt there that with respect to all the subject matter of the agreement, not including articles VII and IX, it could be dealt with by joint resolution of the two houses of congress. It was felt, however, that with respect to articles VII and IX there should be a formal treaty. This of course would require for purposes of ratification a two-thirds vote of the senate of the United States. There were conversations, or exchanges of views, with respect to the procedure to be adopted, and Canada voiced no objection to the attempt being made to have the matter submitted in the form that is now contemplated in the United States. We. of course, will await further developments there before

determining what the subject matter of our further negotiations with Ontario and Quebec should be.


Gordon Graydon: As this has now been put upon Hansard, perhaps the minister will supplement his statement by indicating generally what articles VII and IX, which are not before the members of the house, deal with in connection with the agreement.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	I would not like to
undertake that from memory. This is an international agreement, and I would not want to go beyond what is contained in the statement. Articles VII and IX include provisions with respect to perpetual navigation rights on the great lakes and the connecting channels and canals, and on the wholly Canadian sections of the St. Lawrence. There are also provisions to amend the Boundary Waters Treaty Act, 1909, with respect to the diversion of water at Niagara. These matters were covered by treaty, and my understanding is that it was felt they should not be varied in any way by an agreement that did not take the form of a treaty; that even though they were incidental to the agreement they should nevertheless be dealt with separately on the basis of a treaty and submitted in the usual way to the senate of the United States for its consideration.


Gordon Graydon: Canada is not voicing
any objection to this taking the form of a treaty rather than being included in the joint agreement?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Oh, no; so far as
Canada is concerned our procedure with respect to the international agreement will b& the same, whether it be in the form of a treaty or in any other form. In either case it is to be brought to the houses of parliament for consideraiton.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose the procedure
taken in the congress of the United States does not affect us so far as parliament is concerned?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Does not substantially affect us. It presents to us the same substantive matter in a slightly different form. So far as we are concerned, whether it be in the one form or in the other, our method of dealing with it will have to be the same.



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):	Mr. Speaker, there is another matter with respect to which considerable public interest has been manifested and which I think should be made

Questions
public just as early as can be. It has to do with the extradition arrangements between Canada and the United States.
Extradition arrangements between Canada and the United States have in the past been based upon treaties between the latter and the United Kingdom government and extending over a long period of years. A new extradition treaty was negotiated between the United States and the United Kingdom some years ago. It did not extend to Canada, and provision was made to preserve extradition arrangements under the old treaties in so far as Canada was concerned.
A new treaty with Canada was signed on April 29, 1942 and was approved by the United States senate in May of that year. On June 6, the president of the United States provided for ratification. The matter was about to be brought to the attention of. parliament for approval when protests were made from financial organizations from coast to coast in respect of possible offences relating to dealings in securities, and further action was deferred.
An endeavour has since been made to formulate a protocol to overcome the substantial objections which were raised. It was recognized that it would be impossible to induce the United States to change their security laws so as to permit free marketing of securities within the United States without compliance with laws made for the protection of United States investors. On the other hand, it was recognized that protection must be given to Canadian business men engaged in legitimate business within this country and to Canadian publishers of advertising or other matter. Negotiations have been carried on with the United States representatives, and a protocol has been signed designed to carry out these objectives.
For the information of the members of the house I am tabling copies in English and in French of treaty series 1942 No. 10, treaty for the extradition of criminals concluded between Canada and the United States of America, Washington, April 29, 1942, and copies in English and in French of protocol annexed to the treaty for the extradition of criminals between the United States of America and Canada which was signed at Ottawa, October 3, 1945.
A resolution will be introduced in due course in both houses of parliament which will provide an opportunity for full discussion of this matter.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Is it law now?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, it is subject to approval by parliament.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BENTLEY:: Is flour that is milled in Canada from western Canada wheat and sold on the export market subject to the export ceiling of $1.55 per bushel?


Mr. MacKINNON:: Wheat for grinding into export flour is now sold to the mills by the Canadian wheat board on the same price basis as export wheat, that is, at the export price of SI .55 per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur or Vancouver. The great bulk of the export flour is sold to the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R. and UNRRA and on these amounts the margins are fixed between the buyer and the mills. On the other smaller amounts going forward to other countries, the sales price is kept in relation to the $1.55 price by competition between the mills and the competition of U.S. flour, that is subsidized by the U.S. government to approximate parity with the Canadian export price of wheat.


EMERGENCY SHELTER COORDINATION
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	On what date was emergency shelter coordination established in Canada?
2.	How many officials are employed?
3.	What has been the total cost to date?
4.	What cities have been placed under its

control ?
5.	Under its administration how many persons-have been, (a) kept out of each of said cities; (b) given permits to enter each of these cities?
6.	How many such persons are returned soldiers?
7.	Are returned soldiers given any preference over civilians when applying for a permit to enter any of said cities?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	December 19, 1944.
2.	17.
3.	Wartime Prices and Trade Board, $342,600; Dept, of Public Works, $20,500: Total, $363,100.
4.	Ottawa and district, Vancouver and district, Victoria and district, Toronto and district, Hull and district, Hamilton, and district, Winnipeg and district.
5.	The permit system under the emergency shelter regulations was in effect until September 1, 1945, when it was discontinued. The number of families allowed to enter the areas is accurately shown by the number of permits granted, but the number of persons kept out of the area is not completely disclosed by the number of permits refused because in
Questions

many cases no formal application was made. No record is available of the number of families who were told during personal interviews or by letter that a permit could not be *granted. However, the record of formal applications granted and refused is as follows:
City	Granted	RefusedOttawa 	
2,919	679Vancouver 	
1,379	1,958Victoria 	
1,864	1.172Toronto 	
1,369	871Hull 	
658	258Hamilton 	
730	568Winnipeg 	
459	1076. Of permits	granted and refused the fol-	towing numbers	were based upon applications	from active and discharged service personnel:	City	Granted	RefusedOttawa 	
1,428	72Vancouver 	
831	665Victoria 	
1,158	590Toronto 	no recordHull 	
63	62Hamilton 	
526	Winnipeg 	
309	Where blanks	are shown above,	no record
was kept.
7.	The permit system is no longer in effect in any area in Canada and accordingly the question of preference to returned soldiers does not arise. When the permit system was in effect, permits were given without question to any service personnel who have served outside Canada for one year or longer.


MILITARY DISCHARGE DEPOT, P.E.I.
Mr. McLURE:: What action has been taken to establish a military discharge depot in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The matter of setting up a discharge depot in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island has been carefully studied and it was decided not to establish such a depot for the following reasons: (a) Benefits to Prince Edward Island personnel arising from the well equipped and experienced organization at No. 6 district depot in Halifax outweigh the disadvantage of longer travel, (b) The number to be discharged in Prince Edward Island does not warrant the overhead entailed in the establishment of a separate depot, (c) Shortage of personnel specialised in demobilization procedure.


RENT CONTROL REGULATIONS
Mr. FLEMING:: What action is the government taking with respect to the revision of the present rent control regulations, (a) in regard to accommodation for ex-service personnel; (b) in any other particular?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	(a) Under the wartime leasehold regulations, being order in council P.C. 9029 of November 21, 1941, the wartime prices and trade board are responsible for the maintenance of rentals at the 1941 level. As an aid to this end the wartime prices and trade board have restricted landlords' provincial law rights respecting termination of leases. These restrictions, by order No. 511 of that board, effective May 31, 1945, have been modified in the case of service personnel who owned houses at the date of their enlistment by permitting a three months' notice to vacate to be given to the tenant. No further modification is contemplated at the moment.
(b) From time to time the rentals regulations have been amended and as conditions change these regulations will be altered to meet new situations.


RESEARCH ENTERPRISES LIMITED
Mr. McM ASTER:: 1.	Are the buildings of Research Enterprises Limited at Leaside or Toronto for sale? If so, by whom?
2.	Will the government, or War Assets Limited, offer the buildings separately for sale by public tender?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	Yes. By War Assets Corporation.
2.	This is a matter which has not yet been determined. See also minister's statement
on Research Enterprises, page 929, Hansard, October 11, 1945.


WIVES AND CHILDREN OF EX-SERVICEMEN IN CREAT BRITAIN
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Are steps being taken by the government to bring the wives and children of servicemen and ex-servicemen from Great Britain as speedily as possible?
2.	Does the government pay the transportation costs for the wives and children of ex-servicemen?
3.	Does the government pay an allowance to the wives and children of ex-servicemen while they are awaiting transportation to Canada?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes, although priority is being given to the return of servicemen. Every effort has

Questions
been and is being made to obtain the maximum shipping space for repatriation of dependents.
2.	Yes, P.C. 6422 of 12th August, 1944, provides free transportation from home in the United Kingdom to new home in Canada, berths and meals with 500 pounds of baggage for "the wife or widow of a member of the force and who is not resident in Canada and who was married to such member of the force while serving outside of Canada or the territorial waters thereof on active service during the present war"; also "the child or children {including adopted and step-children) of such member of the force."
P.C. 64/505 of 24th January, 1945, provides also for hospitalization and medical attention if required by dependents while enroute to destination.
3.	Yes, P.C. 132/6173 of 21st September, 1945, provides for payment of dependents' allowance to the dependents of discharged soldiers while held in the United Kingdom by the non-availability of shipping. The dependents' allowance is the same amount as that paid to the dependent prior to the soldier-husband's discharge.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SENIORITY TO SERVICE PERSONNEL
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Will war veterans, employees of the Canadian National Railways at time of enlistment, be given credit on seniority for time spent in the armed forces?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Yes.


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	Into what divisions has the Department of Veterans Affairs been divided?
2.	Who are the chiefs of each division?
3.	What salary is paid to each such chief?
4.	What, in detail, are the duties and responsibilities of each division?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1,	2 and 3. Administration, A. J. Dixon, $5,400 per annum; Rehabilitation, Major-General E. L. M. Burns, seconded from Department of National Defence; Treatment, Dr. W. P. Warner, $8,500 per annum; Prosthetic, C. A. Bell, $4,620 per annum; Veterans' Bureau, E. V. Wilson (acting), $4,740 per annum; Veterans' Insurance, W. G. Reburn, $5,100 per annum; Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act, G. Murchison, $8,000 per annum; Civil Defence, A. Ross, no salary.
(N.B.-In addition, the department provides in its main estimates for the administration expenses of the Canadian Pension commission and the war veterans' allowance board, of which J. L. Melville and F. J. G. Gameau are the respective chairman.)
4.	Administration.-Under direction of the deputy minister, the organization, operation *and coordination of departmental activities and the provision of administrative services to other divisions, excepting the Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act.
Rehabilitation.-The provision of rehabilitation services, specifically the administration of the post-discharge re-establishment order and part II of The War Service Grants Act, 1944. and generally to provide advice and guidance in all matters pertaining to rehabilitation other than treatment and settlement under the Veterans' Land Act, 1942.
Treatment.-The provision of medical, surgical and dental care to all veterans and other persons entitled.
Prosthetic.-The manufacture, supply, maintenance and development of prostheses.
Veterans' Bureau.-To advise and assist applicants for pension as required under the provisions of the Pension Act.
Veterans' Insurance.-Under the direction of the deputy minister, to administer the provisions of the Veterans' Insurance Act.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act, -To administer the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act and the Veterans' Land Act, 1942, and in addition to provide a field service for various departments of the government.
Civil Defence.-To wind up the affairs of the civil defence organization insofar as the dominion government is concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-DIVISIONS AND CHIEFS
Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	Into what divisions has the Department of External Affairs been divided?
2.	Who are the chiefs of each division?
3.	What salary is paid to each such chief?
, . .What, in detail, are the duties and responsibilities of each division?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1,	2 and 3. First political division, C. S. A. Ritchie, $4,5S0; Second political division, G. P. Glazebrook, S5.000; Third political division, R. M. Macdonnell, $4,580; Legal division, J. E. Read, $8,000; Diplomatic division, L. Beaudry, $7,200; Economic division, S. D. Pierce, $6,000; Information division, T. W. L. MacDermot, $6,000; Administrative division, W. D. Matthews, $5,000.
4.	The first political division is concerned with all matters of international organization and peace settlements; the second deals with
Questions

political affairs relating to the British commonwealth, Europe, the Middle East and Africa; the third, with political affairs relating to the U.SA.., Latin America and the Far East. The three political divisions perform their functions under the direct supervision of the Associate Under Secretary of State for External Affairs. The names of the other divisions are self-explanatory.


Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What are the names of the members of the federal district commission?
2.	On what date was each such person appointed?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	F. E. Bronson, B.Sc., M.E.I.C.; R. Chev-rier, M.D.; J. W. Ste. Marie, K.C.; C. J. Booth; J. B. Spencer, B.S.A.; A. Johnston,
C.M.G.; LL.D.; J. A. Ewart, B.A.Sc., R.A.I.C.; M.E.I.C.; D. K. MacTavish, B.A., K.C.; His Worship Mayor Stanley Lewis.
2.	May 4, 1927; chairman, November 18, 1936; November 28, 1924; May 4, 1927; February 25, 1932; October 18, 1934; May 2, 1938; May 2, 1938; May 2, 1938; January 2, 1945.


Mr. FRASER:: 1.	How many persons have been appointed to the privy council office since January 1, 1943?
2.	What are their names, indicating those who are temporary and those who are permanent?
3.	What is the title of the position held by each and what, in detail, are the duties of such positions?
4.	By whom was each such person appointed?
5.	What salary is paid to each such person?
6.	What was the total number of officials of the privy council office as of, (a) September 1, 1939; (b) October 1, 1945?
7.	What additional responsibilities have been undertaken by the privy council office since September 1, 1939?


Mr. MACKENZIE:: 1.	22 (including office of Special Commissioner for Defence Projects in Northwest Canada, Edmonton-5)-All temporary appointments. In addition to the above there are presently on loan to the Privy Council Office 6 officials (and 4 subordinate staff) of other Departments of the Government.
2,	3, 4 and 5:
Name-Title of position-Duties of position -By whom appointed-Salary
Privy Council Office
Baldwin, J. R., senior assistant secretary and secretary to the cabinet committee on reconstruction, cabinet secretariat, civil service commission, $5,400.

Bayne, W., messenger, messenger service, civil service commission, $1,080.
Bethune, A., clerk, grade 2, clerical work, civil service commission, $1,140.
Bigue, L. R., clerk, grade 4, clerical work, civil service commission, $1,740.
Cross, J. L., clerk, grade 3, clerical work, civil service commission, $1,380.
Hornsby, H. G., steno. grade 3, stenographic work, civil service commission, $1,620.
Lawson, G. M., typist, part time, typing, civil service commission, $50 a month.
Marleau, M. T. L., typist, grade 2, typing, civil service commission, $1,140.
McClong, M., first assistant secretary, cabinet secretariat, civil service commission, $3,600.
Nalevykin, S., stenographer, grade 2, stenographic work, civil service commission, $1,080.
Palmer, D. A., typist, grade 1, typing, civil service commission, $840.
Saunders, T., stenographer, grade 2, stenographic work, civil service commission, $1,080.
Matte, G. J., private secretary to the president of the privy council, secretarial, governor in council, $5,000.
Statutory Orders and Regulations Division
Gauthier, H. E., principal translator, translation, civil service commission, $2,520.
Gillespie, S., typist., part time, typing, civil service commission, $50 a month.
Graham, M. M., stenographer, grade 3, stenographic work, civil service commission, $1,440.
McMillan, E. M., clerk, grade 4, clerical work, civil service commission, $1,920.
Office of Special Commissioner for Defence Projects in Northwest Canada, Edmonton
Hogg, T., administrative officer, office manager, governor in council, $2,700.
Negovich, A., typist, grade 1, typing, civil service commission, $780.
Pepin, G. M., stenographer, grade 2, stenographic work, civil service commission. $1,080.
Phinney, L. H., acting special commissioner for Defence Projects in Northwest Canada, defined by order in council P.C. 3758, 6-5^13, tabled by prime minister on 10-5-43, governor in council, $6,360.
White, S. C., stenographer, grade 2, stenographic work, civil service commission, $1,380.
Permanent Appointments, Nil.
6.	(a) September 1, 1939, permanent employees, 19; temporary employees 1; total, 20. (b) October 1,	1945, permanent employees, 19; temporary employees, 26 (including office of special commissioner for defence projects northwest Canada); total, 45.

Questions
7.	(a) Provision of a secretariat to the cabinet, cabinet committees and certain interdepartmental committees reporting to the government.
(b)	Executive duties in connection with the wartime information board (to September 28, 1945 and subsequently the Canadian information service), the special commissioner for defence projects in northwest Canada, and the federal district commission.
(c)	A statutory orders and regulations division was established in the Privy Council office on September 4, 1942 to provide for the publication of Canadian war orders and regulations.
NATIONAL REVENUE-P.C. 80/3440-DRAWBACKS ON IMPORTED COAL


Mr. HODGSON:: 1.	Has the Minister of National Revenue given consideration to the assertion of the Auditor General at page 10 of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1944, that order in council P.C. 80/3440 trenches on the legislative power?
2.	What action does the minister propose?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The order in council is deemed to be intra vires.
prison reform


Mr. CHURCH:: What action is the Minister of Justice taking with regard to the remarks made by the Court of Appeal of Ontario on prison reform, and the lack of any proper steps to remedy juveniles and those who should come under the Borstal system ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to answer this question orally. To the question as drafted I must answer, none. Of course the matter of prison reform is under active consideration and is one of the subjects I hope to have an opportunity of discussing with the representatives of provincial governments during the present dominion-provincial conference.
penitentiaries


Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What clauses of the prison reform commission report have been adopted by the government since the report was tabled?
2.	Who is in charge of federal prisons, is it the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, and what is the division of authority between them, if any, herein?
3.	Who appoints those in charge of these institutions and the staff, and what qualifications have they in this work before appointment?
4.	What inspection is there of these institutions, and how many visits have been made by the minister in charge?
5.	What practical experience have the chief officers of the department in this work before appointment?
6.	Do grand juries visit these institutions and make a report? If so, to whom?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I should like to deal with this question orally. I have no doubt that the first question refers to the report of the royal commission on penitentiaries. No clauses of that report have been adopted. Full detailed particulars of the recommendations of the royal commission which have been acted upon by the department were furnished in answer to a question asked by the hon. member for Broadview on April 4, 1945. There have been few, if any, additional recommendations acted upon since that time.
In reply to part 2 of the question, I would say that the Minister of Justice is in charge of federal prisons; he is the minister responsible for the administration of the penitentiaries, under section three of the Penitentiary Act.
In reply to part 3, first I would say that the minister is appointed by the governor in council. The appointment of officers is made pursuant to sections 20 and 20A of the Penitentiary Act, as amended by chapter 27 of the statutes of Canada, 1933. Wardens usually have years of experience in penitentiary administration before appointment, and the staff do not necessarily have previous experience in penitentiary work before appointment.
As to qualifications, wardens are usually promoted to that position, but occasionally one is appointed without previous experience. Qualifications for appointment to the staff do not require previous penitentiary experience, but a guard is required to have certain physical qualifications and be a graduate of a public school. Chaplains, physicians and trade instructors are required to have the appropriate qualifications in their own profession or trade.
As to inspection of penitentiaries, they are inspected from time to time by the acting superintendent and by the inspectors. No visits have been made by the Minister of Justice.
In reply to part 5 I would state that acting superintendent G. L. Sauvant, had six years' experience as a penitentiary officer before being appointed inspector. He had four years' experience as inspector, of which he spent a year as acting warden, prior to assuming the duties of acting superintendent. Inspector J. A. McLaughlin was on the staff of the penitentiary branch for about eleven years, during which time he visited the various peni-
Questions

tentiaries particularly with respect to industries, farms and supplies. During the last four of those eleven years he acted as inspector before being appointed as such.
In reply to the last question I would say that grand juries do not visit the penitentiaries.


Mr. COLDWELL:: May I ask a supplementary question? If a member of parliament or a member of a legislature wishes to visit these institutions, can permission be obtained?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Permission may be
obtained from the Department of Justice, but there is no standing rule as to those who shall be allowed to visit them. I would not be sure that there is no such rule with respect to members of parliament, but I do not think there is with regard to members of the legislature.


Major James William Coldwell: I happened to write to a member of the British Columbia legislature with regard to the penitentiary in that province, and I was told that he could not get permission to go there. I was wondering to whom he should apply. He probably applied to the wrong person.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	The application
should come to the Department of Justice.



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION- QUEBEC RADIO ACT

Major James William Coldwell: Has the Minister of Justice referred the Radio Act of the legislature of the province of Quebec to his law officers for any opinion regarding the advisability of exercising his power of disallowance?
Mr. ST. LALTRENT: The Quebec statutes for the last session of the legislature, including the act to authorize the creation of a provincial broadcasting service, were received by the Secretary of State of Canada on June 30, 1945, and referred by letter dated July 9 to the deputy minister of justice in accordance with the usual practice. They are now before the legal officers of the Department of Justice for the purpose of preparing memoranda to assist the Minister of Justice in determining what recommendations he should make to council on the question whether these statutes should be allowed to operate according to their terms.	.



THUNDERCHILD INDIANS

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	What moneys are due the Thunderchild Indian band from sale of reserve No. 115, (a) principal; (b) interest?
2.	What moneys are being held in trust for the following reserves: Red Pheasant, No. 108; Mosquito. No. 109; Sweet Grass. No. 113; Poundmaker, No. 114; Little Pine. No. 116; No. 159. No. 112. No. 115B?


Mr. GLEN:: 1. (a) Principal, 314,827.21;	(b) interest,

2.	Red Pheasant, No. 108	 3	437 17
Stoney, No. 109 (Mosquito) 110
and lil,l	 53,573	57
Sweetgrass, No. 113, 113A, and
H3B	
5,473	73Poundmaker,	No.	114	
1,171	18
Little Pine and Luckyman, No.
116	
1,027	08Saulteaux, No. 159	
4,323	14
Moosomin. No. 112, 112B, 112E,
and. 112F	 118,621	44
Thunderchild, No. 115, 115A,
115B, 115C	and	115D	 102,519	76
One account includes several reserves as indicated and cannot be broken down by
reserves.



WAR ASSETS-PRESTONE ANTI-FREEZE

Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	Is any prestone anti-freeze being kept by, or on behalf of, any department of the government in the Ford plant on Danforth avenue, Toronto? If so, how much?
2.	How long has it been located there?
3.	What steps have been taken, or are being taken, to make it available for sale to the public this fall?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	There is no Prestone Anti-freeze kept at the R.C.A.S.C. garage at the Ford plant, Danforth avenue, Toronto. There are, however, 3.776 gallons of ethylene glycol base anti-freeze in storage there, also, 4,192 gallons of ethylene glycol anti-freeze reclaimed from drainings from vehicle radiators last winter which contains 50 per cent water.
2.	Of the 3,776 gallons of new ethylene glycol anti-freeze, 360 gallons were carried over from last winter, 2,000 gallons were received in April, 1945, and 1,416 gallons in August, 1945. The 4,192 gallons of reclaimed ethylene glycol were received for reclaiming purposes during the spring and summer of 1945.
3.	None, as it is expected it will all be required by the armed services. 1.350 gallons of reclaimed anti-freeze will be returned to Petawawa, 700 gallons to Camp Borden and 1,159 to the R.C.A.F. The remainder will be used in military district No. 2.



EXCHEQUER COURT-CASES IN WHICH JUDGMENT NOT YET DELIVERED

Mr. AYLESWORTH:: In how many eases heard by the exchequer court longer than one year ago has judgment not been delivered?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Thirty-four.

Questions



PUBLIC DEBT

Mr. BARRETT:: 1.	What was the total net debt of the Dominion of Canada at the end of each fiscal year, 1938 to 1945 inclusive?
2.	Of this amount, what amount was payable, (a) in the United Kingdom; (b) in the United States, at the end of each fiscal year?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1.	March 31, 1938	
$ 3,101667,570 251939	
3,152,559,314	481940	
3,271,259,647	341941	
3,648,691,448	561942	
4,045,221.160	801943	
6,182,849,101	101944	
8,740.084,892	971945	
11,298,362,017	772.	The net debt of Canada is the total liabilities of the dominion less active assets, accordingly it is not possible to state what amount is payable in Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States. However, the distribution of unmatured funded debt (included in total liabilities) by currency of payment is as follows:
Payable in Canadian Dollars
March 31, 1938 ..	.... $ 2.455,690,435 07
1939 ..	.... 2,510.490,007 67
1940 ..	.... 2,904.773,870 85
1941 . .	.... 3.727.769,072 93
1942 ..	.... 5,390,813,428 00
1943 ..	.... 7,441,752.802 05
1944 ..	.... 10.591.425.890 69*
1945 ..	.... 13,638,698,042 05*
* Includes estimated	amounts of refundable
portion of personal : profits tax.	income tax and excess
Payable in London in	Sterling
March 31, 1938 ...		 $409,867,596 79
1939 ...		 406.207,026 63
1940 ...		 321,911,321 06
1941 ...		 175.221,518 97
1942 ...		 15,450,865 42
1943 ...		 12,725,620 91
1944 ...		 12,405,650 32
1945 ...		 12,065,532 86
Payable in New York	in United States dollars
March 31, 1938 ...		 $449,000,000
1939 ...	
1940 ...		 469,000,000
1941 ...		 469.000.000
1942 ...		 459,000,000
1943 ...		 439,000.000
1944 ...		 333,000,000
1945 ...		 333,000.000



INDIRECT OR CONTINGENT DOMINION LIABILITIES

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: 1.	What was the total of the indirect or contingent liabilities of the Dominion of Canada, as of March 31, 1945?
2.	What is the classified breakdown of these indirect or contingent liabilities, together with the amount of the obligation under each heading?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2. Details of the contingent liabilities of the Dominion of Canada are shown on pages 49-52 of the appendix to the budget tabled in the House of Commons on October 12, 1945.



DISCHARGED MEDICAL OFFICERS-POST-GRADUATE STUDY

Mr. NICHOLSON:: 1.	W'hat is the maximum grant available for medical officers on being discharged from the armed services, for the purpose of post-graduate study?
2.	What deductions, if any, are being made for room and board, which the hospitals supply to interns, by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
3.	How much money will be available for a married doctor who is living in a hospital taking post-graduate study on D.V.A. grants?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	The maintenance grant for a medical officer pursuing post-graduate studies under the provisions of the post-discharge reestablishment order is S60 monthly, plus additional allowances for dependents. In addition the department pays regularly university fees not exceeding 8500 per academic year.
2.	Full board and lodging provided to an intern by a hospital in which he is training is regarded as salary for services rendered and is valued at $30 a month. Where an intern's income, apart from maintenance grants, does not exceed $40 a month inclusive of board and lodging, no deduction is made from maintenance grants.
3.	A doctor, married and without dependent children, living in a hospital and supporting a dependent wife in a separate establishment, would receive a monthly maintenance grant of $80, plus an additional allowance of $5 a week, or approximately $101.75 per month.



PAYMENTS FOR U.S. BASES IN CANADA

Mr. NICHOLSON:: How much has the Canadian government agreed to pay to the U.S.A. for American bases at, (a) The Pas; (b) Churchill, Manitoba; (c) Southampton island?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Canadian government has paid the United States government
Questions

the following amounts in United States dollars for construction carried out by the United States government (a) 415,000; (b) 6,206,800; fc) 5,318,870.



HOUSING-BROCKVILLE TRAINING CENTRE

Mr. WEBB:: 1.	Has consideration been given by the government to any plan which would result in the use of certain of the buildings at the Broekville training centre for housing accommodation?
2.	If not, what use will be made of these buildings?
3.	Has any action been taken in other sections of the country to utilize similar establishment buildings to relieve the housing shortage?
4.	If so, at what centres has such action been taken?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes. Part of this accommodation will still be required for military purposes and the remainder will be handed over to Department of Labour for rehabilitation training.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	Action has already been taken at Vancouver, Victoria, Port Alberni, Edmonton. Lethbridge, Saskatoon, Brandon, Toronto, Kitchener, Ottawa, Hull, Quebec and Halifax to release vacant army accommodation for emergency housing or to other departments for rehabilitation purposes, etc.
veterans' land Act-Toronto office


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	How large a territory is served by the Toronto office under the administration of the Veterans' Land Act?
2.	How many veterans have made application through the said office to be settled under the said act?
3.	How many veterans have actually been settled through the said office?


Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	Toronto district office:-All that part of Ontario lying east of the east boundary of military district number 10. Toronto regional office:-The counties of Peel, York, Ontario, Simcoe, Muskoka and Parry Sound.
2.	2,010 applications for qualification were received by the Toronto regional office up to September 30, 1945.
3.	211 applications for financial assistance originating in the Toronto regional office had been approved as of September 30, 1945.
IMr. St. Laurent.]



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	What private companies are licensed to operate air routes in Canada?
2.	What air routes are being operated by each of the above companies?
3.	How many applications for licences to operate air routes in Canada have been received since March 17, 1944, (a) from Canadian Pacific Airlines; (b) from all other companies; how many licences have been granted to, (a) and (b) since said date and what routes are covered by licences so granted?
4.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway divested itself of the ownership of Canadian Pacific Airlines? If not, has the government taken any steps designed to achieve this end?
5.	Has any United States air line sought to purchase Canadian Pacific Airlines from the Canadian Pacific Railway?
6.	Have any steps been taken by the government to form a crown airlines corporation for the operation of feeder air lines in central and western Canada? If so, is the acquisition of the ownership of Canadian Pacific Airlines by said corporation under consideration?


DEPARTMENT OF RECONSTRUCTION-DIVISIONS AND CHIEFS
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Into what divisions has the Department of Reconstruction been divided?
2.	Who are the chiefs of each division?
3.	What salary is paid to each such chief?
4.	What, in detail, are the duties and responsibilities of each division?
5.	What is the total number of employees of the department?
6.	Of these, how many have had experience in trade union organizations?
7.	What are their names and what positions do they hold?



REESTABLISHMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN-RETAIL BUSINESSES

Thomas Langton Church: What has been done to help ex-servicemen who wish to reopen their retail shops?



SOLDIERS IN PENAL INSTITUTIONS-DESERTERS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	How many soldiers of the forces overseas have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment, and from what theatres of wrar?
2.	How many have been returned to Canada and where are they incarcerated at present?
3.	How many are in the penal institutions of Canada at present?
4.	How many were deserters, and where are they confined after their return from overseas?
5.	How many were moved from Fort Henry at Kingston to the federal prison in that city, or to a prison adjacent to that city, at Collins bay?
6.	How many deserters in Canada have been taken since the war closed; where are they confined, and how many are still at large?

Motions for Papers



WAR ASSETS-SALE OF AEROPLANES

Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many aeroplanes have been sold by the government during the last five years?
2.	To whom was each of them sold, and how much was paid for each of them by the purchaser?



FARM LOANS-PRAIRIE PROVINCES

Mr. THATCHER:: 1.	How many applications have been received by the Canadian farm loan board from June 15, 1944, to October 1, 1945, for loans, in each of the prairie provinces?
2.	By provinces, how many of these loans have been approved?
3.	By provinces, how many of these loans have been actually paid out by the board during the same period?
4.	How many loans were made in Saskatchewan during the fiscal years, 1942 and 1943?



WAR TAXES, 1914-18, STILL IN FORCE

Mr. WHITE (Hastings-Peterborough):: What taxes, first levied during the war of 1914 to 1918, have never been removed?



TRANSPORTATION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL- PAYMENTS TO RAILWAYS

Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	What amounts have been paid by the federal government to, (a) Canadian Pacific Railway; (b) the Canadian National Railway, for the transportation of military personnel of the three armed forces for each of the years 1939. 1940, 1941, 1942. 1943 and 1944, and for the first eight months of 1945?
2.	What amounts were paid for the carrying of mail to the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railway for the same years?



DOMINION BORROWINGS

Mr. BARRETT:: 1.	What was the total amount borrowed by the Dominion of Canada during each of the fiscal years ended March 31, 1940 to 1945, inclusive?
2.	What is the classified breakdown of the above, showing the amounts borrowed through victory loan, from the chartered banks or any other means during each of the fiscal years aiorementioned ?



CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Mr. DORION:: 1.	Since September 1. 1939. how many persons, in each province, asked to be exempted from military service as conscientious objectors?
2.	How many of such applications, in each province, were, (a) granted; (b) refused?
3.	How many of such applications, in each province, were made, (a) before the applicant was medically examined; (b) after the applicant was medically examined?
4.	What is the racial origin, by category, of those who so applied for exemption from military service as conscientious objectors?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FRASER:: For a copy of all letters, reports, contracts or agreements in possession of any department of the government in regard to the building of semi-permanent w'artime houses.


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, this motion
calls for a voluminous series of documents, practically the entire files of Wartime Housing Limited. It is understood that my hon. friend is asking actually only for three documents, which are being prepared. I would ask that he confirm that before the motion is passed.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As agreed between the
minister and myself, yes-St. Catharines, Ottawa and Peterborough.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: For a copy of orders in council P.C. 149/6991, 134/7263,	151/7263,	154/8855 and 76/9400
referred to in paragraph 45 of the Auditor General's Report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1944. together with all correspondence between the Auditor General and the Department of National Revenue with relation thereto.



MINISTERS OF THE CROWN-TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. DESMOND:: For statement showing the total amount of travelling expenses paid to each minister of the crown, his private secretary, assistant private secretary, or any official attached to the personal staff of such minister during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1943-44-45.



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION- SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: For a copy of all petitions praying that the governor in council disallow any acts of the legislature of Saskatchewan since 1920.



PORT OF CHURCHILL


Mr. RONALD MOORE (Churchill) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, or the transferring of the management and control of the said port to a joint board appointed by the governments cf Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta.
Port of Churchill

He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was placed on the order paper because it is of growing importance to northern Canada and to the future economy of our country. I do not know how much latitude we are permitted in dealing with resolutions of this kind, but it is important for us to realize that our economy is gradually spreading to the northern sections of this country.
It is a significant fact that in 1812 the first settlers in western Canada came by way of Hudson bay to the spot where Winnipeg now stands. Those original settlers did not forget the route by which they landed at the gateway to the west, and for many years after the colony became firmly established there was a growing demand that they be given an outlet to Hudson bay and a connection with their mother country.
Prior to this first settlement the inland sea known as Hudson bay had its waters furrowed by the keels of many ships belonging to the Hudson's Bay company. That the route was a safe one may be judged from the fact that the Hudson's Bay company took back to England a fabulous amount of wealth.
I think it is important that we should review briefly the history of Canada at this period. In those early days, after the fall of France in Canada, the history of this country was the history of the fur trade and the history of the fur trade was the history of two great companies, one English, the other Canadian. The Hudson's Bay company, with headquarters in London, England, sent its ships out from Europe to Hudson bay to carry with them the wares they brought from England in exchange for the furs they received from the natives along the shores and in the southern part of the northern territories. The Northwest company had their headquarters in Montreal. They, too, carried on a thriving trade with the natives in this country. However, it was found that the long route from Montreal to the head of the lakes had to be made by canoe over treacherous waterways and it was difficult terrain to traverse; it was very expensive.
History records the fact that is cost the Northwest company four times as much to *place their wares in England as it cost the Hudson's Bay company. Difficulties between the two companies became rife; competition was keen. In fact toward the end open conflit resulted. But the Hudson's Bay company bided its time. It was the sheer practicability of the Hudson bay route into the heart of America, that made competition

impracticable if not well-nigh impossible. The two companies finally composed their differences, with the result that the flag of the Hudson's Bay company was left on every trading post throughout the northwest.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that as time went on our governments of the past repeated in railway construction the same mistakes that led to the defeat of the Northwest company in the early fur trade in Canadian history. I wish to make it plain at this time, that we are not blaming anybody for these mistakes. It was only natural that they should occur, because our development first began from the shores of the St. Lawrence river. Canadian settlement first began at these points. Montreal and Toronto were thriving cities before the west was ever heard of; therefore it was only natural that the big interests in those places should want the trade from the northwest to flow to the financial coffers of Montreal and Toronto. We are not objecting. That was the attitude they took. But we want to point out that in accepting the building in Canada of a national transcontinental railway system to carry our goods east and west we completely ignored the most feasible and the most logical route, that to the northern sea.
We feel strongly that some time in the near future Hudson bay is going to be the principal sea lane between the old world and the new. I know there are many people who say that you cannot navigate Hudson bay and Hudson strait for more than three months of the year. I am going to allow that statement to pass for the time being, but I doubt it very much. I doubt it for this reason. It will be remembered that from 1914 to 1918, when there was great danger of German U-boats shutting off the north Atlantic, plans were ready to make full use of Hudson bay; and in the war just finished, when there was danger of long-range German U-boats cutting off the North Atlantic, it was also possible that we could have used Hudson bay.
In order to demonstrate the possibilities of this route, since the railroad is now completed to Churchill, I want to quote from some of the shipping authorities who have had boats going to the seaport of Port Churchill. I want to quote from the imperial committee on shipping. This is what they say:
As far as physical risks are concerned we are convinced that the Hudson bay route is not more dangerous, and in some respects less dangerous, than the St. Lawrence route.

Port oj Churchill
In making that statement I presume that the imperial committee is referring to the season in which shipping is carried on in Hudson bay.
May I now refer to the Dalgleish report on Hudson bay shipping. R. L. Dalgleish is the president of the Dalgleish Shipping Company of England. His boats were the first to sail into the Hudson bay to take wheat from that port after the railroad was completed in 1931. Here is what he has to say concerning the possibility of the Hudson bay route:
I loaded the first ship at Churchill eight years ago with wheat, and anyone who says that Port Churchill will not in course of time become one of the world's great ports does not know w'hat he is talking about.
That was in 1931, and again I presume that Mr. Dalgleish is referring to the navigational season in Hudson bay, which is from approximately the middle of June until the first week in October. But I wish to indicate to the administration the possibilities of extending that season to five or six months and perhaps at some time in the future to a year-round port. As proof of that, I wish to quote from an eminent Canadian geologist and explorer, Doctor Robert Bell, Fellow of the Royal Society, explorer of the northwest and a very high authority on northern navigation. He was sent to Hudson bay and Hudson strait by the federal government in, I believe, 1881, to investigate the possibilities of navigating Hudson bay and strait, and this is the report which he gave on returning from that area in 1881:
It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating Hudson straits for they are upon tide water. In regard to the bay itself, there is no date for the opening or closing of navigation because the bay is open all the year round, like the ocean in corresponding latitudes. It is strictly correct to say that the bay is open during the winter. There is a margin of ice along the shallow- water, but it never extends so far but a man on the beach can see the open water on a clear morning. Bay ice. being light and rotten after it breaks away from the shore, offers little obstruction to the steamship.
That is the opinion of Doctor Bell in connection with the possibilities of making Hudson bay- a year-round port. I am not going to ask that the present administration do that immediately; I fully realize that it will take time to bring that about; but I want to point out that there are eminent explorers who believe Hudson bay can be made a year-round port, and I venture to say that we shouid approach the matter from that angle.
From 1880 until 1914 Canada expanded in a westward direction with the settlement of the plains in the western part of the country. From now on, I think we are going to expand more. We are going to see greater development in northern Canada than we have ever seen before. At the present moment the Hudson Bay railway runs 510 miles from the Pas. Manitoba, to Churchill, and over that 510 miles of steel, it is correct to say, there is not much traffic. But that railway runs through one of the richest mineral areas to be found anywhere on this continent. At places it does not pass directly through the area but it passes close by mineral fields which could be connected up by short lines of railway, and I have no doubt that within the next few years we shall see these developments take place.
Already at a place close to the Hudson Bayrailway, at Wekusko in northern Manitoba, development is being made in gold mining. I understand that a site for the town has already been laid out and some time in the future it will furnish homes for eight thousand people; and there is sufficient ore to last some fifty y-ears.
Some hon. members may ask, what is the use of our using this route when we have already three transcontinental railways in Canada capable of shipping all Canadian grain to the eastern seaboard? The answer is this. It is much cheaper to ship by sea than by rail. The sea route from Churchill, Manitoba, to European ports is approximately 100 sea miles farther than from the eastern seaboard, but the rail haul is much less, and it is the rail haul that is really expensive. From Saskatoon to Churchill is approximately 800 miles, and from Saskatoon to the head of the lakes is only slightly- greater; but it is another 1,200 miles to salt water, and that extra 1,200 miles must be made either by rail or by cargo boats across the great lakes. If you make it by cargo boat you have to shift your cargo several times before you finally get it on the ocean freighter at Montreal, and that costs money.
According to the grain commissioners, the use of this northern route will mean a saving to western Canada of seven cents a bushel, basis Port Churchill. Now seven cents a bushel is a very large saving on the grain of the western farmer. I want to suggest something that the government could do in order to increase that saving, should they find it convenient to make further use of the
Port of Churchill

Churchill route. At the present time the chief hold-up in connection with the use of the Hudson bay route is the excessively high insurance premiums charged on ships going into Hudson bay, and I should like to deal with the unfair insurance charges in connection with the bay route.
It is most important that something be done to bring to a reasonable figure the insurance rates on ships plying Hudson bay. At the moment the marine insurance rates are based on "whole-world" basis renewable yearly. These policies are subject to "institute warranties" which in actuality are agreements that the ships will not be taken into certain trade routes or into certain ports considered to involve extra risk. The British North American "warranty clause" provides that no ship may enter British North American ports, that is Canadian ports, with the exception of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. Should a ship be routed to prohibited waters an additional fee must be paid, as laid down by the joint Hull committee. Then for vessels which wish to use the Hudson bay route a further and exorbitant penalty is exacted by the marine insurance people. At one time this rate was as high as ten times the figure charged for St. Lawrence bound vessels. This is bad enough, but even worse than this is the fact that no insured ships may enter the bay after the season, and the length of season is arbitrarily set without regard to the actual safety of the route. Thus you may understand that by the manipulation of insurance rates those people who think they have more to gain by having grain shipped from eastern ports can prevent the use of this new route.
I am not blaming them for that. Possibly they have interests tied up, money invested. Nevertheless we feel that it ought to be the policy of the government to make a little more use of the seaport which lies just north of the prairie provinces.
Now I wish to deal for a few minutes with navigation in Hudson bay. First I think we must realize that Hudson bay itself does not freeze over and it would be possible to keep the port of Churchill open with an ice-breaker. However, it is correct that ice drifts down from Baffin bay and from Davis strait to block the entrance to the strait at times. In the fall, navigation is made dangerous because of the fact that fog hangs over the straits. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this danger can be completely eliminated by the use of radar on ships going to those northern latitudes. Then in connection with navigation it has been said that the magnetic compass has too
much deviation in those northern areas to be much good as far as navigation is concerned.
I submit that this government can overcome that difficulty quite readily in this way. I understand that we have about a hundred corvettes that have been decommissioned and are to be destroyed. Practically all these corvettes are equipped with gyro compasses, and there is no reason at all why the government should not have those gyro compasses salvaged and placed on ocean-going ships going into Hudson bay.
In addition, I think we should investigate the possibility of constructing ships suitable for trade in Hudson Bay, just as the Russians have constructed ships suitable for trade in their northern latitudes. In this regard there is something else which I think should be mentioned in connection with Russia's develop- . ment of navigation over the top of the world, over the top of Siberia. Annually the Russians send millions of tons of shipping from European Russia through the Arctic ocean almost to 70 degrees latitude, where it turns south and comes down to Vladivostok, on the Asiatic side of the Pacific ocean. That is done during two months of the summer. Hudson bay is much further south than the Arctic ocean north of Siberia, and I venture to say we could make Churchill, Manitoba, at least an eight month port.
I have just one further word to add in connection with this matter, and that is in regard to the future of northern Canada. I have mentioned already that we must do something in the near future to develop our north country. The Russians are developing their northland, and I should like to see Canada at least keep abreast of them. There is no reason at all why we cannot do in our northern country what they have been doing in theirs. I understand the government have a policy with respect to this route, and I am anxious to hear that policy, because I am sure there are in the present administration men who fully realize the great importance of northern Canada to the future of this country.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore), and I am proud to follow such a gallant sailor as the hon. gentleman has demonstrated himself to be through his service with our own Canadian navy during the war now ended. We are fortunate to have in the House of Commons men who are conversant with sailing and who have a knowledge of shipping, such as the

Port oj Churchill
hon. member. I have a warm feeling for the port of Churchill, and anything I can say or do to bring about a greater use of that port I am going to say and do. Many times I have addressed clubs of one kind and another across Ontario in an endeavour to create an interest on the part of this province in western problems. I believe the greater interest Ontario takes in the west and the problems of the west the better it will be for western Canada, because down here is the place where most of the support has to come from. On the other hand I am delighted to see western members discussing their own problems, and one of them is the port of Churchill.
I rather like to call Churchill the back door of Canada, which indeed it is. We have fine ports on the Atlantic seaboard, on the great river St. Lawrence and on the western coast, and there is no reason why we should not have a port on our northern seaboard as well. Last year I made a trip right down to the Arctic ocean to inquire into the possibilities of shipping from Aklavik on the north shore of our country, and a few years ago I made a thorough survey of the Hudson Bay railway right down to the port of Churchill, so when I speak about Churchill I am speaking about something I have myself examined into and seen.
The southern terminus of the Hudson Bay railway is the Pas. This does not mean "pass" in the ordinary sense; it is called after the Pasquia river, which flow's into the Saskatchewan river near this fine thriving town. It means in Cree "the joining of the waters." From that point to Churchill is a distance of about 506 miles; and this is a mighty fine railway. Whoever had to do with the construction of that line built a spendid roadbed on which to lay the rails, which are of heavy weight capable of carrying an enormous traffic. This was demonstrated very clearly during the recent war when our American cousins shipped a vast number of tons of heavy freight to Churchill for their works in that area. So much was this the case that I believe in 1943. the year of greatest traffic, the road paid a profit of $112,000, of course on operating expenses only. That is a clear demonstration that if the road could obtain the freight, this country would not have to meet annual deficits which, using arbitrary' but fairly correct figures, run from $250,000 to perhaps $550,000 for operating costs alone. In my judgment that is not a heavy deficit, but there is no reason why we should have any deficit whatever.
At the port itself unquestionably Canada possesses one of the largest and certainly' one of the best built elevators in the world. This elevator was constructed at that remote northern location by a member of this House of Commons, an engineer of note, none other than the present Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe). One thing I like about the minister is that he does know a great deal about construction, and that elevator at Churchill is a tribute not only to those who planned it but to those who built it. I have not seen a better elevator anywhere, and I have seen a great many of them. The sad thing about it is that the elevator is not used to anything like the extent it should be. I believe from 1931 to 1945 the total amount of wheat shipped over that road was only' something like 24.000,000 bushels. The maximum use was back in 1932, I believe, when the road carried something less than 5.500.000 bushels of wheat. The capacity is a great deal more than that, and that capacity should be used.
I should like to see some new policy in connection with the operation of the Hudson Bay railway, Mr. Speaker, under which we could arrange to deliver over that route all that it could handle and ship. The shipping capacity is perhaps not as great as some would think, though it may' be greater than will be admitted by those who have not been using the shipping facilities to their limit. The general opinion is that the port is good for a maximum of about four months a. year. This might be lengthened, of course, through the use of ice-breakers, to break up the very heavy off-shore ice formations, and to break up the ice in the bay itself. Ice comes down from the north toward the south end of the bay', and shipping using the port late in the season and entering Hudson bay' itself would have to sail south and out around great sheets of ice. If those sheets were broken up by ice-breakers such as are in operation at Petsamo in northern Finland-at present owned by Russia-or at Archangel, the port might be kept open to some such time as was mentioned by the hon. member who introduced the resolution.
I do not feel competent to say how long the port should be kept open, but I am satisfied we could use it to the greatest advantage for between three and four months a y'ear. If we did that we would be able to ship not less than 15 million to 20 million bushels of wheat in a season. The elevator capacity' is sufficient, running in the neighbourhood- of about three million bushels or more. I believe there is that much in it at the present time. So that throughout a shipping season, if w'e started
Port of Churchill

out with a full elevator it would be an easy matter to handle between 15 to 20 million bushels of wheat a year. That operation would save the country an annual deficit both on capital and in operating costs. It seems to me that in all the years I have been in the house capital and interest charges have run as high as So million or $6 million a year- although I do not remember the exact figure.
If fifteen to twenty million bushels of wheat were shipped over that route in a year-and more should be shipped, if possible-the operations would save the country an annual deficit, and would seem to me to be amply justified, and the procedure which would be dictated by ordinary common business sense. In addition to that, through constant use of the route during the shipping season and the natural increase in knowledge acquired by those sailors and by those associated with shipping who would use the route, the length of time during which it could be used would undoubtedly increase. In any event I maintain it should be used.
While I had not expected this resolution would be reached to-day and, as a result, have not my notes before me, my memory is that the three western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, backed with their crown lands the money that was invested in the building of the route, $50,000,000. At that time, when the construction of the route was proposed, the federal government did not feel inclined to advance the required sum of money, and it was for that reason that the provinces gave this guarantee, in order that the country might be opened up. For that reason those prairie provinces are keenly interested in the use of the route and, in my judgment, a greater use of it would open up new trade channels.
As the previous speaker has said, it is much shorter by rail and sea from Saskatoon or other western Canada points to the European market than it is from Chicago to that market. The water route is longer, but of course it is cheaper. The rail route from Saskatoon, or from Manitoba elevator points, down to the bay, is much shorter.
This applies not only to the shipping of wheat. I remember well having seen fine cattle pens up there, and having listened to the men at the port tell how they were able to ship cattle, and I remember their statement that the cattle arrived overseas in first-class condition. I see no reason why a number of ships could not carry cattle and other farm stock from that port to the old country, thereby putting more money into the pockets of the western farmers.
I am one who believes that the more money we leave in western Canada or with western farmers the better it will be for eastern Canada. People have said to me, "What business is it of yours whether the west develops or not?" Well, it is every man's business; it is the business of every easterner, and particularly if he is engaged in business. If he is neither manufacturing nor in production, he may not be so keenly interested. I was in my time in the manufacturing class, and naturally the advancement of the west meant a great deal to the business in which I was engaged. The greater the amount of money that is put into the pockets of western farmers, the more they will buy; the more they buy, the more men are given employment in Ontario and Quebec and other eastern provinces.
Cattle and wheat could be sent over that route. I have examined it carefully. I know that not less than 250 of the 500 miles is fairly good timber country, good fishing country, and not altogether improvident agricultural country. I have seen crops of every description in the area, and I have no doubt that if the roadway were used to a greater extent, so that all the little towns and villages along its route would have more to do and more men employed, greater and greater trade would be built up. Certainly large quantities of timber could be shipped from the area.
I do not know who would be responsible for the improvement of the Pas. It is situated at a natural trade crossing on the Saskatchewan river. That river would be a great trade artery, if used - and it is not, although I hope it will be some day. I hope the time is. not far distant when it may be a shipping route of note. However the fact is that, east and west of the Pas little has been done to develop trade. There is no railway east or west, only to the north-nothing but the river itself. Then, the equipment on the river is not what it should be. One reason for the lack of development is that the docks are a disgrace to that part of the country. I have no doubt the Minister of Reconstruction is familiar with them. Those docks are built on the Pasquia river, and they are a menace to life. To enter a boat at The Pas to go either east or west on the river-and those boats are small-one almost takes his life in his hands. The docks are indeed in a dilapidated and dangerous condition.
I believe the whole country could be built up and traffic developed for the railway if an

Port of Churchill
honest effort were made to open, up the country east and west of the town of The Pas, which has a population of 5,000 to 8,000. One must be careful in making an estimate of the size of a town; if it is too high, it is ridiculous, and if it is too low, the townspeople are offended. However, my leader would know more about that, because he represented the area for some time in the local legislature. Perhaps if I said the population is around
5,000	or 6,000 I would not be far out.


Mr. BRACKEN:: That is about correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: People moved in there with high hopes. If The Pas had half a chance and was backed up as it should be, it would soon become an important distributing centre. If given a chance, there is no reason why it should not equal the size of that fine city of Prince Albert or, better still, become something like Edmonton.
The north area is undoubtedly one of the best mineral areas in the world. I do not know of any place where so much mineral wealth is concentrated in such a small area as that around Flin Flon and Sherritt Gordon. There are a score of new mines opening up along the Hudson Bay railway and along the old canoe route from the Pas to Churchill. That district is fine minerally and not too bad agriculturally, particularly the southern end. There is not a great deal of timber, but there is sufficient to meet the requirements of the country. There is a splendid road bed, an excellent elevator, and the best equipment of the Canadian National rolls down to that port.
I am going to ask the minister in charge when preparing his estimates for next year- I imagine it is too late to do anything this year, because by this time probably everything is frozen-to make arrangements to use that route to a much greater extent. We should arrange to ship fifteen to twenty million bushels of wheat over that route next year to start with. I discussed this matter with wheat importers in Liverpool, and at Birkenhead with cattle importers, and I was told that this route has great merit. So far the route has been more damned than praised, but I am always going to praise it until it is used more than it is to-day.
I do not know that there is a great deal more I can say. I have a warm feeling for that whole country. The power possibilities are tremendous. The railroad passes by two of the most marvellous power sites in Canada, the Kettle and the Manitou rapids. The banks are solid rock and the dams could be built as high as one wanted them. I may
be exaggerating, but I believe that these sites are capable of producing from two to two and a half million horsepower each. I am thinking of the possible height of the dams that could be built and the reservoirs that could be built up behind them, running back almost to lake Winnipeg. In fact, the lakes almost join together and between is what might be called a river So that there is vast power there. Long before you come to Manitou or Kettle rapids there is an excellent power site at White Mud rapids where a vast amount of power could be developed. So, Mr. Speaker, that territory has a great wealth of natural resources. The only route into it by rail is the Hudson Bay railway. The more we use the Hudson bay route for shipping across the sea, the more the Hudson Bay railway will be used; the more that railway is used, the greater the number of the people who will go into that country the more the country will be opened up, and the more it is opened up the greater the volume of business that will come down to Davenport riding and elsewhere. I have to think of Davenport riding, sir, because it has I know many manufacturing plants of every description.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: One of the better ridings.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As my hon. freind says, one of the better ridings. I have never yet said that it is the best riding, because I think if I did Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is occupying the chair at the moment, would say "next to Brantford". But it is a wonderful riding so far as the working men in it and industry are concerned. I have never asked for anything for my riding in this house. I have never even asked for a post office. I have asked for nothing for my riding except jobs for the workmen I represent, and there are from forty to forty-five thousand of them working in plants and factories in my riding. I can see no way of getting jobs for them unless the companies that employ them get orders, and I know of no better way of getting orders for those companies than by opening up and developing this country. I will strongly support the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) or the Minister of Transport, whichever minister is responsible, in doing every thing he can in bringing about a greater use of the Hudson Bay railway and of the magnificent port of Churchill.
I shall not take time to speak of the history and the great many advantages of that port. It has a depth of thirty-five feet of water right at the docks, and modern equipment has been installed for the unloading of wheat cars.
10S4
Port of Churchill

Four cars of wheat can be unloaded on each side at the one time, approximately, 40,000 bushels of grain or more an hour, and grain can be loaded into two ships at the same time at the rate of 150,000 bushels to 160.000 bushels an hour. These are great port facilities-too splendid to have them standing idle, particularly when our western elevators are filled with wheat and are crying out for the wheat to be put on trains and shipped to Europe.
I cannot see how the opening up of the Hudson Bay railway and the port of Churchill would be anything but of great benefit to western Canada, and whatever is of great benefit to western Canada, whatever puts more money into the pockets of the farmers and business men of western Canada, means in the last analysis more orders for the factories in the riding of Brantford. Mr. Deputy Speaker, more orders for the factories in Davenport riding-


Arza Clair Casselman: And Grenville-Dundas. Better include them all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: More orders for Grenville-Dundas, more orders for Hamilton riding, for Peterborough, et cetera. I do not know a riding in Ontario that would not benefit from the development of western Canada, because every such development means more orders for the plants and factories in Ontario ridings and more jobs for the men whom I and my hon. friends represent in this House of Commons.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has won the name of parliament's ambassador of good will. It has been his good fortune to travel perhaps more extensively in Canada than any other member of parliament. He has invariably found it possible in the course of his travels to become familiar with the problems of the people living in those areas, and upon returning to parliament he has always come to the defence of those who live in remote places and puts in a word, as he has to-day, for greater consideration for the frontiers of Canada.
Having gone to public and high school in this province perhaps I might be forgiven for saying that a great many people here think that the most important part of the world is confined within the boundaries of Ontario. In view of the fact that there are 147 members in the House of Commons from Ontario and Quebec and 98 from all other parts of Canada, it is only natural that those of us who represent constituencies outside these two provinces should find it necessary from time

to time to bring to the attention of the government and the house the problems of other parts of the country as we see them.
I would remind the house that two years after Champlain founded the city of Quebec, Henry Hudson left Great Britain with the Discovery in quest of a new and shorter route to Japan and China and the far east. He left on April 17, and two months later his party had reached Iceland. There they managed to gather some wild fowl to replenish their diminishing larder. On July 5, they reached the east coast of Ungava. By the 19th of July they had passed Cape Hope's Advance, and the optimism of Hudson was marked by the name he gave to that point. Then after zigzagging back and forth for five months hoping to find an opening that would lead to the far east, he was eventually disappointed and was forced to winter in the southwest comer of James bay. Hudson's journal indicates that on the 10th of November his ship was frozen in. Later in the year one of the Indians in the region came and looked for the first time upon these strange white faces with their long beards, and he was sent away feeling very happy, carrying with him a knife and a looking glass and some buttons, the gift of Hudson. He returned the following day with two beaver skins, which he gave to Hudson to express his appreciation of his kindness the previous day. He also had two deer skins with him, which were exchanged for a hatchet, and so during these winter months of 1610-11 the first trading took place up in the far north.
The records tell us that the crew had a very difficult winter, and some of its members became most unruly. When they finally set out in the spring, Hudson, his young son and seven of the sick men were cast adrift in the ship's boat. The carpenter offered to join Hudson if his tool chest were given to him. The other members of the crew were glad to have one mouth less to feed and gave the carpenter his chest, and the carpenter then joined Hudson and his companions. What happened to them is one of the unsolved mysteries of the north. No one has ever been able to guess what happened to Hudson and his small company. But the Discovery, with the other members of the crew, reached Digges Island later in the spring. Three men went ashore to see if the Eskimos there would not give them some supplies to tide them over, and the three of them were killed by the Eskimos. The mate. Juet, who was chiefly responsible for plotting against Hudson, died of starvation while crossing the Atlantic, and only four out of the original twenty-three reached Plymouth in the following summer.
It would be impossible for me in the time at my disposal to go into the fascinating



IS, 1945

[Stage Direction]
Port of Churchill
history of this great north country but mention should be made of the founder of Churchill, Jens Munck. In 1619, as the commander of the Unicom and Lamprey, he set out to find the Northwest passage. The ships were fitted out by the king. They reached Churchill and spent the winter there. They had a very difficult time. They were short of food all through the winter, and on the 6th of May, 1619. Munck wrote in his journal:
The bodies of the dead He uncovered because none of us had strength to bury them.
By June, Munck and two of his crew were all that was left. The grass was beginning to sprout; two of the sailors crawled ashore and collected some of the grass and sea nettles, and this vegetable diet seems to have checked their disease. They returned to their ship and succeeded in restoring to health their commander, who had said "Good night to all the world" and commended his soul to God. as he did not think there was any chance of coming home alive. However, the two sailors and Munck out of the crew of sixty-four reached Norway in September, 1620, on the Lamprey.
As I said, I have not the time to go into the history of the Hudson Bay railway and the port of Churchill. The hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) have dealt with certain aspects of the matter. There is no doubt at all that the people of Canada have a very large investment in the Hudson Bay railway and in port facilities, and that the route provides a feasible means of transportation between the prairie provinces and Great Britain.
I have on my desk a number of reports of the imperial shipping committee. I shall quote from the General Report in 1930 signed by H. J. Mackinder, Chairman. The committee comprised representatives of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa and India, two shipowners, one shipbuilder, one manufacturer and a merchant. The report was signed at London on May 23, 1930. I quote from the summary of its recommendations :
For two hundred years the Hudson's Bay Company has transported its cargoes to and from Europe by the Hudson Bay route. For probably one hundred and fifty years of this period these cargoes were successfully carried in .sailing ships, consequently it does not seem unreasonable to suppose that modern ships, modern equipment and modern ideas should meet with a considerably greater degree of success, and that a very great and important route will eventually be developed, provided always that in the initial stages of the development every precaution is taken to provide for the protection of the vessels using it.
Then there were certain recommendations regarding charting, aids to navigation, icebreakers and fuel bases. I think it must be said to the credit of the departments con. cerned here that the recommendations regarding aids to navigation and so forth have been carried out to a very considerable extent.
In 1939, on July 19, just before the war broke out, another report was made by the imperial shipping committee. I should like to quote a few sections from the report:
13. There have been during the nine seasons since the route was opened 64 voyages to Churchill, and in our opinion the stage of development may now be considered as over. The way is adequately charted and equipped with the usual aids to navigation, and the exceptional circumstances on account of which the warranty is imposed-ice. fog and magnetic disturbance-are known and have been provided against by the gyro compass, direction finding by radio and the very efficient services of the Canadian patrol vessels. With the sole exception, therefore, of the difficulty which might arise of securing adequate salvage if a vessel should be wrecked late in the season, it is the view of the committee that the Hudson Bay route need not be considered as more risky than the St. Lawrence.
14.	The Underwriter's representatives have agreed to regard the past nine seasons as dosing the dewiopment period of the route, the casualties which have occurred being regarded as paid for by the premiums received. It is clear, however, that before any substantial reduction in the rate of premium for suspending the warranty to Churchill can be secured, an increased number of voyages to and from Churchill will be necessary. There are at present (July. 1939) approximately eight cargoes of wheat in the elevator at Churchill available for shipment when the season opens, and if there is a fairly good harvest this year, it should be practicable to set up a new record in the number of voyages in the season.
15.	In view of the very small number of cargoes available for transport from Churchill in 1937 and 1938, the Joint Hull Committee have not been able to see their way to recommend to the Underwriters a further reduction in the premium for suspending the -warranty for the coming season 1939 and the rates to be charged will be the same as in 1938. But in consultation with our Chairman, the Joint Hull Committee have taken note of the fact that there are already at Churchill for shipment from the 1938 season's crop some eight cargoes of wheat, and they have agreed that if some twenty cargoes in all are brought away from Churchill in 1939 and no serious loss occurs, they -will be prepared to give favourable consideration to the question of recommending a further reduction in 1940 from the rates of premium chargeable in 1939.
During the shipping season of 1939 war broke out and it was not possible to have the twenty vessels move through Churchill as was suggested.
I hold in my hand a memorandum written by D. J. Munro, CjM.G., a captain of the royal navy, and also a nautical assessor for the courts of Scotland. He made a careful study of the possibilities of the northern
Port of Churchill
[Stage Direction]
routes. Hon. members might be interested in some of his remarks regarding Hudson bay and strait. This is what he says:
The safe navigation of Hudson straits is now greatly aided by four instruments perfected during the last few years, via:
(1)	Echo depth recording
(2)	Wireless direction-finding stations
(3)	Gyroscopic compass
(4)	Radar. An instrument which enables dangers invisible by reason of darkness, fog, snow, rain, etc., to be indicated to the mariner, especially icebergs and land.
In comparing the hazards of this route with the hazards of routes in other parts of the world he mentions that commercial ships have now gone from Murmansk to Vladivostok. This is what he said:
Commercial ships have now gone from Murmansk to Vladivostok. In 1935 two ships left Murmansk and two left Vladivistok carrying 9,000 tons of freight between them. The Vancetti and Iskra arrived at the latter port on 11th September-the Anadr and Stalingrade entered Murmansk on 11th and loth of September. These craft carried supplies for ports established at the mouths of the great rivers Ob, Yenisie, and Lena. The distance was over 3,000 miles, and they had not the latest up-to-date instruments to aid them. The Russians have kept their war performances on this route much to themselves, but there are various substantiated reports of submarines arriving by this route at Vladivostok.
The hon. member for Churchill pointed out, and I think rightly so, that on the ships that are now being decommissioned there is a valuable equipment that might be made available on the Bay route.
With regard to the hazards, I think we should not lose sight of the fact that there are hazards in sailing the St. Lawrence route. I crossed to Great Britain on a cattle boat one summer. We left Quebec city in June. We rode at anchor for some three days in the Newfoundland area. There were ice hazards nearby; we were in dense fog. It has never been suggested that the St. Lawrence route should be discontinued because of those hazards. The evidence that is available clearly indicates that the port of Churchill and Hudson strait can be navigated successfully, and many of us feel that it can navigated for a much longer period than has hitherto been accepted by government authority.
As the hon. member for Davenport pointed out, it is important to western agriculture that its products be placed on world markets with the costs reduced to a minimum. I hold in my hand one of the booklets put out a number of years ago by the "On to the Bay" association which made an intensive study of freight rates. They give the distances betwen various

centres in western Canada and Liverpool via Churchill and Montreal. According to the rates which apparently prevailed in 1931, when this report was written, on a carload of live stock being shipped from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, to the old country, there would be a saving of $102; on butter and dressed poultry from Yorkton there would be a saving of $300; on eggs in carload lots there would be a saving of $134 and some cents.
I have here one of the reports of the board of grain commissioners for Canada dealing with the movement of grain. This report was presented with the compliments of the secretary, Mr. John Rayner, dated Fort William, Ontario, March, 1939. It gives the charges in connection with handling at country elevators, railway freight to Churchill, actual handling at Churchill, ocean freight rates and marine insurance approximate average transportation handling charges per bushel of wheat between the producer in western Canada and the arrival of the vessel at British ports, first by way of Churchill and then by way of Vancouver and Montreal. The Churchill rates as given here are 29-25 cents per bushel; Vancouver rate is 35-25 cents, and the Montreal rate by way of the great lakes, 35-25 cents.
It will be readily appreciated that these substantial savings in the getting of agricultural products from western Canada to the European buyer in the shortest possible time and at the lowest cost will be important factors in determining how much trade we are likely to have in the post-war period.
It is true that the people of Canada have spent considerable sums of money in this development, but I wish to suggest that it must never be regarded as an unwise expenditure. I might remind the house that we make very large appropriations for Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax. I hold in my hand a sessional paper which was brought down in 1940 in reply to a question of mine asking for the total amounts paid by parliament to Montreal between the years 1935 to 1939. In those years we appropriated for Montreal $7,000,000 and some odd; Churchill $926,000 and some odd; Vancouver $2,234,000 and some odd, and Halifax $4,954,000 and some odd. I am not complaining about these expenditures. I think it is important that the government vote money to see that the facilities at Halifax, Vancouver and Montreal are maintained in an efficient state.
Mr. ISNOR:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Are the figures he gave capital expenditures?

Port oj Churchill


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The questions were as follows:
1.	How much was spent by the dominion government for dredging the St. Lawrence river and Montreal harbour, and for operating and administering the St. Lawrence ship channel during the years from 1935 to 1939?
2.	How much was spent during the years 1935 to 1939 under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to compensate railways for the difference between the tariff tolls and normal tolls on all traffic moved during the above mentioned years?
3.	How much was spent during the years 1935 to 1939 to provide for construction and improvements in connection with the Hudson Bay Railway, and to provide for losses in connection with the operation of the railway during the above years?
4.	How much money was advanced by the dominion government during the years 1935 to 1939 for the following: (a) Montreal harbour; fb) Churchill harbour; (c) Vancouver harbour;
(d)	Halifax harbour?
I have a table which I should be pleased to place on Hansard with the permission of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: It is already on. Mr. MacKINNON: Is it already on?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Only the questions. The answers are as follows:
1.
1935-	36
1936-	37
1937-	38
1938-	39
1939-	40
Dredging $ 6,885,464 887 3,083,428 14) 2,698,256 05 2,879,142 18 3,211,030 44

Operation and administration
(See footnote)

Operation and administration costs included in total annual costs prior to 1937-38: no separate record available.
2. 1935-36
1936-	37
1937-	38
1938-	39
1939-	40

1935-	36
1936-	37
1937-	38
1938-	39
1939-	40
Capital construction $158,539 62 82,380 76 62,805 61 20,388 43 1,969 04
Operating
deficit

Total

$326,083 46	$1,472,388 40

1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	TotalMontreal ' Advances-Interest Bearing-re Capital Works Grants-Non-interest Bearing-re " " Churchill Advance-Interest Bearing-re Capital Works.	$ cts. 74,000 00 1,252,737 20	$ cts. 852,791 41 1,680,346 78	$ cts. 516,012 85 1,098,002 08	S cts. 838,474 34	$ cts. 728,194 70	$ cts. 3,009,473 30 4,031,086 061,326,737 20	2,533,138 19	1,614,014 93	838,474 34	728,194 70	7,040,559 369,443 94	9,443 94 320,729 87 354,377 65 242,391 11Grants-Non-interest Bearing-re " " -re Operations. .	199,529 05 188,210 09	121,200 82 166,176 56	
140,889 61	55,009 92	46,491 58	
Fiscal year 1935-36 [DOT]* 9 mos. to Dec. 31, 1936 Vancouver Advances-Interest Bearing-re Capital Works " " " Redempt. Bk. Loans							
[DOT] 387,730 14	[DOT][DOT]287,377 38	140,889 61	64,453 86	46,491 58	926,942 57417,971 30	580,974 26	210,873 31 983,405 90	35,969 62 58,405 90	63.508 86	1,309,297 35 925,000 00Hali/ax Advances-Interest Bearing-re Capital Works Redempt. Bk. Loans for Capital Works " " re Redempt. of Bonds	417,971 30	580,974 26	1,194,279 21	22,436 28	63,508 86	2,234,297 3573,211 63 118,985 80	68,242 95 449,484 20	14,335 73	111,640 93	238,759 78 568,470 00 2,664,338 37 894,450 06 573,227 50 14,934 33
964,338 37	1,700,000 00		
Grants-Non-interest Bearing-re Capital Works		626,164 08	268,285 98 573,227 50				
" re Redempt. Bk. Loans for Deficits..						
" " re Deficits				14,934 33			
						
	818,361 51	1,359,240 63	964,936 97	1,700,000 00	111,640 93	4,954,180 04
Port oj Churchill


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: So far as Halifax is concerned, they were capital expenditures, not dredging.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As pointed out by one of the other speakers this afternoon, in 1908 prairie lands were definitely set aside and ear-marked to provide money for the Hudson Bay railway, and lands were sold to the amount of $42 million, of which $20 million was received in cash. I find this information in an address delivered by Mr. J. M. Stevenson, of the "On to the Bay" association, at its annual meeting in Saskatoon on December 7, 1940. This is what he said:
But in 1908, prairie lands were definitely set aside and earmarked to provide money for the Hudson Bay railway, and such lands were sold in the form of purchased homesteads and preemptions, resulting in some $42 million, of which $22 million was received in cash. This area, therefore, can reasonably assert that it has paid almost the entire cost, and surely this constitutes a substantial reason why we may justifiably demand that the investment be not allowed to lapse.
The money that has been spent has made possible in the north country developments which have had a far-reaching effect on Canada's economy. If this railway had not been undertaken and built when it was, the very valuable deposits from Flin Flon, for example, would not have been available during these past years of war. I realize that Flin Flon is a long way from Churchill, but after the Hudson Bay railway was started it became possible for prospectors to go into the far north country, and several rich mineral areas have been developed. During the war tihe production of copper, zinc, silver, gold and cadmium by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting company were important factors in Canada's war effort.
We have also very rich fishing grounds in the north. We have Reindeer lake, Beaver lake and a dozen other fresh water lakes that supply fish to the New York market. We have also very popular and promising tourist grounds. Few members apart from the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) have taken the trouble to visit Canada's great northland in the western provinces. I have been through the Alps; I am familiar with the Lake of the Woods country, the Thousand Island area in the St. Lawrence, and the Mus-koka country; but I have not found any place more beautiful than northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Some day these places will be a resort for citizens from the United States who will come north to enjoy the fishing and hunting that are available.
Up in the northern part of my own constituency on the Churchill river we have the Island falls development. The plant supplies

power for Flin Flon and Sherritt Gordon, and more than $8 million has been spent in developing this modern power project. Quite recently an article appeared in the Toronto Daily Star referring to that area as Canada's Shangri-la. All the houses are electrically heated. There are electric lights and various city conveniences. I believe every house has a frigidaire, and I have not found any place in Canada where the standard of living is higher than it is in the small community of Island Falls on the Churchill river.
I admit that this is a considerable distance from Churchill. . Some who have visited Churchill say that they would not like to live in the far north. I think it is very fortunate that the people throughout the world do not all want to live in the same place. We have two daughters going to school in Saskatchewan. They have not been in Ottawa for some time, but they think that Ottawa is the last place in the world to live. In their opinion Canora in Mackenzie is the ideal place.
The last time I went into Churchill I travelled with a mounted policeman and his wife who had been away from the north a year and a half. They had gone down to visit relatives in the New England states and they said, "Thank goodness we do not have to live in New Jersey for the rest of our lives." They were most impatient to get back to the north country.
During the war a good deal of attention was paid to the improvement of this area. Just this afternoon an answer was brought down to a question of mine. I asked: "How much has the Canadian government agreed to pay to the United States for American bases at (a) the Pas; (b) Churchill, Manitoba; (c) Southampton island?" The figures are quite interesting. The amount in connection with the Pas is small, $415,000. We are paying the United States $6,206,800 for their work at Churchill and in connection with Southampton island, $5,318,870.
I was in Churchill while a good many Americans were there. My wife had the misfortune to be taken seriously ill while w^e were in the north and she spent several days in their hospital. She had at her service seven of the best qualified doctors to be found in the United States. They were in northern Canada to look after the health of United States soldiers who were guarding our northland. Needless to say she had the best medical and hospital services possible. Now that the war is over and Canada has agreed to pay $6,200,000 for what has been done at Churchill, I do not think it is unreasonable

Port oj Churchill
to ask that we spend a little more money to give this northern route a chance to prove all that some of us have claimed.
Perhaps we are over-optimistic about the possibilities. The resolution before the house states that in the opinion of the house the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, or the transferring of the management and control of the said port to a joint board appointed by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I have before me a proposal that has come from one of the organizations in western Canada. A number of resolutions have come to members of parliament from people in the west who for some reason or other think that Churchill is not getting a square deal. They think that parliament's decisions are weighted heavily by members like the senior member for Halifax, who has been here a good many years, and by members from Ontario and British Columbia who are fearful lest the development of Churchill might prejudice future developments of their own favoured localities. Let me quote from the brief I have before me:
The case for a change in management is, briefly, as follows:
The present management is the result more of accident than design. The national harbours board was set up becaouse of conditions at other ports, not because of conditions at Churchill. All these others were established ports. At all of them private enterprise had built up trade connections. To them, the substitution of the national harbours board for the independent local boards was, comparatively, a minor matter. Trade and the facilities for promoting trade, and for handling goods, remained in private hands. The businessmen at these ports carried on, little affected by any change.
But Churchill, when it was taken over by the board, was in a very different condition. Churchill by no stretch of the imagination could be called an established seaport. Private enterprise was not and could not be established there; and, therefore, could have not built-up trade connections. There were no established businessmen to carry on in the same manner as they had always done. As the result of a positive policy to make it so, government ownership was complete, without exception.
Obviously, a proper management for Churchill required an organization of a different character from that of the board set up to supervise the other ports. The national harbours board is intended to be a neutral body, a sort of referee between the ports; it cannot go out full-blast in the interests of one particular port.
The port of Churchill is a new enterprise, still waiting to be set firmly on its feet. The principal problems it presents are those connected with the securing of trade to pass through new channels. Like any other enterprise in
its early stages, it calls for a vast enthusiasm on the part of its promoters. Like any other venture in its infancy, it requires of its executive, vigour, initiative, drive, freedom in action, and, perhaps more than anything else, a partisanship bordering on the immoderate. The national harbours board is fitted to supply none of these things.
And a little later on:
What is proposed is that the national harbours board shall cease to Jiave any responsibility for the operation of the grain elevator; for the wharf with its sheds and freighthandling equipment; and, in general, for private enterprise. It is proposed that a new organization be set up to manage, use, and find business for these commercial facilities; and to handle the business it finds. Outside of this, the board can function as usual.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman what proposal he is reading from?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: This is a resolution of the "On to the Bay" association; I have not the date. It is fairly obvious that the national harbours board would be subject to criticism if it did go out and direct business to Churchill that might normally go to Halifax, Vancouver or Montreal, and I think the resolution before the house has a good deal of merit. I believe the western provinces are necessarily keenly interested in this project. It might be expected that they would have their offices in Europe, with a view to securing trade for the Hudson bay route, and to see that the ships coming to Churchill for wheat are not obliged to cross the Atlantic empty. I believe that has been one of our chief difficulties in the west, that up to the present it has been hard to arrange incoming cargoes at a time when the grain must go out. Therefore there is something in the suggestion that has been made, that some responsibility should be placed upon the shoulders of the western provinces to appropriate funds and set up a board to do this important work. I feel sure the province of Manitoba is very much interested in this development. In 1939 the Department of Transport issued a report on Churchill and the Hudson bay route, and on page 50 I find this:
It was the wish of the government of Manitoba to develop Churchill townsite in an orderly and progressive manner.
I must congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) upon his wisdom, while premier, in seeing that free enterprise was not permitted to go in and retard the development by speculation. They planned to have it developed in an orderly way.
To this end a sloping tract of land near the railway terminus was surveyed in Lots and streets as an initial development in 1931. These lots are to remain in the possession of the provincial government, neither grant nor sale to

Port of Churchill

individuals or to corporations being allowed. Anyone who wishes to occupy one of these lots may obtain a lease by going through the regular formalities. In view of the severity of the climate in the winter, building regulations have been framed which require the settlers to put up substantial and warm houses. They must also take special precautions to reduce the fire hazard.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I urge all hon. members to *plan, during the time they are in parliament, to travel as extensively as possible, and to become familiar with problems in all parts of this dominion. In planning their trips during the summer recesses I hope they will find it possible to include a trip to Churchill and Hudson bay, in order to decide for themselves whether or not we have great possibilities in that north country.
Mr. RENE N. JUTRAS (Provencher): Mr. Speaker, coming as I do from Manitoba, the keystone province, I think it only right, and it gives me great pleasure, to thank the hon. members who so far have extolled the beauties of the northern part of my province. I wish more particularly to thank the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), because I know he has had a deep and sincere interest in the development of northern Canada. I know also that he has travelled extensively in this country and has covered most of the northern portion, so that, he is quite familiar with that part of my province under discussion this afternoon. I am very sorry that I have not had the good fortune to visit that portion of Manitoba. It has been my hope some day to take a trip north, and I intend to do so at the very first opportunity, in order to see for myself the climatic and other conditions that exist at this famous seaport of Churchill. However, I have read a great deal of what has been said on this subject both in this house and in the senate. I find that it has been discussed in both houses for many years. I must say it seems that in these discussions a certain amount of discredit has been cast upon Churchill harbour in the interests of the St. Lawrence. Now that the war is over and we are getting back on a peace-time basis, I believe the time has come when this question must be grappled with earnestly.
The position of Hudson bay itself cannot fail to impress anyone who pays the slightest attention to the topography of our country. Many people fail to realize that Hudson bay is one of our greatest lakes. As a matter of fact, some have said that it is half the size, of the Mediterranean, and it is situated right at the centre of this continent. To bring home the fact that it is not next door to the north pole, as some people may think, let me 
remind hon. members that it has a good two thousand miles of seacoast in the temperate zone, so that I think it is high time we stopped thinking about Churchill as a group of Eskimo igloos. After all, this country has invested close to if not more than $13,000,000 in that harbour, and the facilities it has to offer to-day are quite impressive. In order to put those facilities on record I want to read from the annual report of the national harbours board:
The facilities operated by the board include: 1,855 linear feet of wharf with a depth of water alongside of 30 feet at low tide, a steel transit shed 476 feet long by 173 feet wide, a grain elevator with storage capacity of 2,500,000 bushels, equipped -with galleries and spouts allowing the loading of three ships at a time, railway tracks along the wharf, a locomotive crane of 20 tons capacity, a floating crane of 10 tons capacity, shear legs of 35 tons capacity, and a marine slipway capable of handling boats of up to 1,200 tons weight.
This harbour is not so far north, as I pointed out before, when we realize that its latitude is approxmiately the same as that of Devonshire in England. Anyone who has been in England, as I have, knows that the climate of Devonshire is indeed the best to be found in the British isles. So we can think of that part of Manitoba, not as a broad stretch of ice but, in certain months of the year, as a pleasant spot in which to live.
I shall not discuss the navigational period, because there seems to be some difference of opinion in the matter. Some experts contend that the harbour cannot be operated for more than one or two months, while others assure us that it may be operated successfully for three or four months. Some hold the view, one which is shared by the hon. member who preceded me, that at reasonable cost this route could be kept open for seven or eight months, or even for the entire year. I have no doubt that with the aid of new navigational equipment developed during the war the route can be made safe because, if I understand the situation correctly, one of the dangers has been that of floating ice in the channel out. of the bay.
With the new developments in radar it is clear that vessels will be able to find their way safely in the fog. However, as I said earlier, this question is intricate and capable of considerable debate. But there is no doubt that this port and harbour can be kept open for a period of time longer than it has been in the past. I hold the view that this port has never been exploited to anything like the proper extent.
A moment ago mention was made of the Hudson Bay railway. It seems to me a most significant fact was missed by hon. members

Port oj Churchill
who have spoken earlier. I am given to understand that this railway was most active during the war, and that it justified its existence as a railway. The annual report of the Department of Transport for the year ended March 31, 1944, shows that the volume of traffic, both passenger and freight, declined sharply in comparison with the 1942-43 traffic, and that operations in 1943-44 resulted in a deficit of $347,872.90 as compared with a surplus of $112,120.75 in the previous year.
I refer to this report to show that the Hudson Bay railway which, in the past, has repeatedly been described as a white elephant, had in 1942-43 an income of over $112,000, and thus proved that it can operate at a profit.
The same applies to the port of Churchill. If it were given the same chance as' was given the Hudson Bay railway, I have no doubt that the port could operate at a profit, or could at least break even.
Further reference to the report of the national harbours board for 1944 would seem to disclose that the harbour of Churchill was not given a fair chance during the war. Shipping figures for the harbour, beginning with 1940, show that it handled in that year a little oyer 2,000 net registered tons. In 1941 approximately the same tonnage passed through the port. In 1942 there was an increase to 26,315 registered tons, and in
1943	a slight decrease to 25,026 tons. Then in
1944	there was a decided drop to 4,109 tons. The two heavy years were 1942 and 1943; but for some reason or another interest in the port after that time decreased, and I fear that the harbour is returning to its prewar fate. I would draw further attention to the limited activities of the port, despite the facilities there offered. I am surprised indeed to find so limited a quantity of wheat passing through there, in spite of the fact that it has a grain elevator capacity of about
2,500,000	bushels.
The harbours board report contains a statement showing the quantities of grain handled at the terminal elevator. This table discloses that in 1940 there were no shipments, that there were none in 1941 or in 1942, and that in 1943, there were 740,219 bushels passing through the port. Then in 1944 we find the sum total of twenty-five bushels. This did not come by water, so that I would assume it must have come by aircraft, or by some other means of conveyance.
In the light of these circumstances the harbour in 1944 had a deficit of $59,266 as compared with one of $29,848 in 1943. I do not know whether there is any relationship 47696-69i
between me Hudson Bay railway and the harbour, out the figures show that, in respect of each, the years 1942 and 1943 were the most active for some time.
The spending of $144,500,000 on the St. Lawrence seaways seems at the present time almost an accomplished fact. But let me say in passing that, while I do not begrudge this expenditure, and while I believe it is justified for the development of Canada, at the same time I cannot but view with a certain amount of alarm the constant centralization of industry in eastern Canada. The facts disclose that industry is concentrated in this part of the country, and when the St. Lawrence project comes into being, it will have a tendency to develop centralization in eastern Canada to an even greater degree. I fear for the
13,000,000 that has been spent on Churchill. I think the two are not incompatible. I am quite sure that Churchill harbour could be operated so that it would at least pay expenses, if not provide some income. As the hon. member for Davenport has just said, this would provide encouragement to industry in the west as well as to the people there. When we consider the statistics for 1941, we in the west cannot help viewing them with alarm. I strongly urge the minister to explore the full possibilities of Churchill harbour.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, I am sure this has been an interesting afternoon so far as Canadian history is concerned. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has travelled extensively throughout Canada and he always reviews his trips in an interesting and instructive manner. I could understand the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) introducing a resolution such as this, were it not for the last few words which suggest that a joint board appointed by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be given control of the port of Churchill. I think the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) placed his finger upon the question which I have in mind. He referred to the possibilities of the port of Halifax and the lack of possibilities so far as the port of Churchill is concerned. He then went on to state that Halifax has always been more or less under private control, that the merchants of that port simply carried on even though the national harbours board took over that port in 1936 as a national enterprise.
I am not opposed to the first part of the resolution; in fact I am rather in favour of the government doing everything possible to encourage the fullest possible use of the port
Port of Churchill

facilities at Churchill. However, at a time like this when we are considering post-war plans and expenditures we should consider whether expenditures additional to the $13,000,000 already made should be made on the further development of this port. I am not going to debate that question, nor am I going to try to place the east against the west. The hon. member who spoke last placed the facts before us in a reasonable manner. Taking the case he has presented, I think it will' be seen at- once that the development of Churchill is not feasible or sound, nor is it wise for the government to spend further money.
Ships enter and leave the port of Halifax during the twelve months in the year, whereas they could use the port of Churchill for only three and a half months, from August 1 to October 15. It will, therefore, be readily understood that it would not be good business to add to the expenditures already made on an unwise development. The last speaker .referred to the number of sailings. In the period 1940 to 1944 only 121 ships arrived at that port, or an average of 25-4 ships a year. The departures were 120 ships during the same five-year period. The financial returns show that there has been an investment of about $13,000,000. Approximately $10,000,000 was lost on the grain elevator, which shows an annual revenue of $47,320.94 as against operating expenses of $57,672.82. Roughly speaking, there was a deficit of $10,000 for the year.
The hon. member for Mackenzie said that I am jealous of the port of Halifax. I am jealous of the port of Halifax because of the wonderful record it made, not only during the first world war but during the recent war. I am anxious to see that port maintained at the highest possible state of efficiency. I do not want to see a repetition of what happened after the last war when a very busy port suddenly became stagnant. I do not place the responsibility entirely upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) or upon the national harbours board. When a merchant has a good article to sell, he should go out and sell it. It is up to the steamship companies and the other firms in Halifax to sell the advantages af that port to the rest of Canada. The Minister of Transport is head of the national harbours board, and I say to him that he should take advantage of that port which is open twelve months in the year and which has the most up-to-date facilities of any port in Canada.
The average sailing time for a sixteen-knot vessel from Montreal to London is 203 hours; from Saint John to London, 182 hours, and from Halifax to London, 172 hours. The difference between Halifax and Montreal is

thirty-one hours. I mention that for two reasons. First, there is the advantage to be obtained by using the port of Halifax to bring back our troops from oversfeas. I do not want to say anything unkind about Quebec, but I cannot understand why certain ships sailing from England were rerouted from Halifax to Quebec about a month ago. With ships being needed so badly for the return of troops, I would have thought the authorities would have continued to bring all ships into Halifax. I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport, hoping that he in turn will bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Abbott). The greater the number of ships coming into Halifax, the more space will be available for the transport of troops from England to Canada.
Since the last speaker has placed on record the port facilities of Churchill, I think it is only fair that I should also place on record the port facilities of Halifax, so that anyone reading Hansard will at once appreciate the advantages of that fine eastern port, the gateway to Canada. I quote from the annual report of the national harbours board:
The harbour of Halifax, situated on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, is approached directly from the ocean by a channel with a minimum depth of fifty feet at low tide. It is open to navigation the year round and is served by both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. Here, the national harbours board operates seven main piers and wharves having about 16,000 linear feet of berthing-
I ask the hon. member for Mackenzie to compare that berthing space with Churchill's. The report goes on:
-and being equipped with thirteen transit sheds with an aggregate floor area of about 1,100,000 square feet. In addition, the board operates a 2,200,000 bushel grain elevator with a maximum loading capacity of 75,000 bushels per hour and a marine tower with an unloading capacity of 15,000 bushels per hour; also a cold storage terminal warehouse, with about 1,050,000 cubic feet of storage space, completely fitted with freezing, storing and packing equipment and ample rail connections. A cattle shed with yards and runways, with a capacity of 1,000 head, is provided at a location convenient to both water and rail.
Thus the port of Halifax is well equipped to handle all types of freight, and as well it possesses a grain elevator, which I regret to say is not used to anything like capacity.
The hon. member for Mackenzie also mentioned that Churchill began its operations in 1749. If I recall rightly it was in exactly the same year, 1749, that the port of Halifax commenced operations, so that if any argument is to be made in favour of state versus private ownership, then I say that on the wonderful

Port oj Churchill
success which Halifax has made in developing that port under private enterprise, the system of private enterprise should be continued. I recall that in 1936 we in Halifax thought it was a mistake that the national harbours board should take over our port. We thought we were doing well, but the present Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), viewing the ports of this country nationally, thought it would be in the best interests of all the harbours that they should come under one authority, the national harbours board, and accordingly Halifax and Churchill along with the other ports were brought under the direction of the national board. I feel that it would be a mistake to divorce any one port from the administration of the national harbours board unless the whole question is to be thrown open again. Halifax would be quite willing to take its chance if all the harbours are to be made free of national control and we are told to go ahead and get what business we can. In that case Halifax, being the eastern terminal of the Canadian National Railways, as well as being connected with the Canadian Pacific railway, would have no fear of getting a fair share of the business. But if the national harbours board is to continue, I feel that all ports should remain under its administration. For that reason I do not think it would be wise for the minister to approve this resolution.
As I stated before, I am not against the west having its share. I might quote the revenue figures for the port of Halifax. The hon. member for Mackenzie said that Churchill had a deficit of $57,000 on last year's operations. Compare that with the port of Halifax, which last year showed an operating surplus of $86,756.
In connection with maintenance expenditures and the return quoted by the hon. member for Mackenzie, I would point out, although I have not the exact figures, that not in 1945, 1944, 1943, 1942, 1941 and 1940, not in one of those six years has one hundred dollars, let alone one hundred thousand dollars or four hundred thousand dollars or one million dollars been spent in dredging the port of Halifax. It is true that many millions of dollars have been spent in dredging the St. Lawrence, and that is all the more reason why we should make the fullest possible use of the port of Halifax.
I had not intended to take part in this debate. I was drawn into it because of the reference that I was concerned about the port of Halifax. I am always interested in the development of Halifax, and I thought I would just keep the record straight in regard to certain figures that had been given to the house to-day.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Would it not be in the interests of all the people of Canada if we were to develop Canada to the point at which there would fee plenty of use of both Halifax and Churchill? We believe that if that were done, if we really developed the west, there would be plenty of use for both ports.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I am very glad that the hon. member has asked me that question. I am broad enough to answer it in the affirmative, and I would hope that my hon. friend and all his western friends will join with me in creating sufficient business in the west to keep the train crews of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific railways busy transporting freight to the Atlantic coast, and supplying additional employment for large numbers of train crews running from the extreme west to the Atlantic port of Halifax.


John Horne Blackmore: We are doing our share now.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Before I take my seat may
I again express the pleasure it was to me to listen to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). It is always interesting to listen to him. He has visited our fair province and the port of Halifax. I do not need to sell him the idea that we have a wonderful port in Halifax because he knows it. But there are a good many members from the extreme west who have not visited Halifax, although in 1940 it was my privilege to have forty-six members of the House of Commons visit that port. I do not think I need to sell them the idea that we have a great port.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are all proud of it.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: You are all proud of it. Some members of the C.C.F. party have also visited the port of Halifax and taken part in certain activities there, and they could not help admiring the fine approach to our harbour and appreciate its many advantages.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Our sailors did not
like Halifax.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The hon. member for
Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) has paid at least two visits to the port of Halifax, and I do not think that last remark of his was becoming. It does not do the hon. member justice to criticize the judgment not only of a magistrate but of a judge of the supreme court of Nova Scotia. I doubt very much whether any hon. member who is not in possession of all of the facts is in a position to make a statement such as the hon. member has just made.


George Hugh Castleden: They did not like your magistrates.
Port of Churchill


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I did not intend to enter into a discussion on any question that has no bearing on this matter; therefore I shall close with the hope that we shall all work together for the port of Halifax and in the best interests of all of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Saint
John?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not mind saying a word about Saint John. It is a fairly good port; it compares with other ports farther away from Halifax. Naturally, being in the maritimes, it ranks perhaps next to Halifax.


Mr. R. R. KNIGHT (Saskatoon City):: I rise to support the resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, or the transferring of the management and control of the said port to a joint Board appointed by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I should like to point out to the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) who has just spoken, that this resolution is divided into two parts, and that his assumption is not necessarily correct that the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) wants to put the second part of the resolution first, namely, to put the cart before the horse. The resolution states:
That . . . the government should take into' immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, or . . .
You see, sir, the people in that part of the country have had a good many disappointments in regard to the port of Churchill, and they find it is better to have that "or" in the resolution. In other words, if the government is not prepared to do something about it, we have people out there who are prepared to do something about it in their stead.
Geographically speaking, this debate seems to have moved considerably east. The senior hon. member for Halifax suggests that vast sums of money are now being asked for. We are not asking for vast sums of money; we are asking for a sympathetic consideration from this government to handle our own business. The building of the railroad and the opening of the port are fait accompli. What we want is sympathetic encouragement from the government, and I am proud to be able to say that I believe we are going to get it.
The senior hon. member for Halifax said that only 24-5 ships arrived the year round. If that is true then there are certain other reasons for it and they are not all geographical. I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras) pointed out
FMr. Castleden.]
that the route had not been used at all, or practically not at all, in the last four years. That, of course, is perfectly understandable, seeing that the British government, I am led to believe, requested that the port should not be used because they did not have the ships available to convoy commercial ships. Therefore those years cannot be counted in any calculation of that kind.
The senior hon. member for Halifax said that since the hon. member who spoke before him had praised Churchill he should be allowed to praise Halifax. By the same reasoning if the hon. member who spoke before me had the privilege of running down Churchill, I, too, have the privilege of saying a word to the detriment of Halifax. So far as westerners are concerned I would say this to him: the long rail haul to the Atlantic prohibitively raises the cost of production on all bulk commodities to such an extent that we cannot get very much benefit from using Halifax as a harbour. Another thing that was very well recognized by the United States government during the late war is that the port of Halifax is somewhat vulnerable during war time. It has a disadvantage there that Churchill has not. If shipping into Churchill were properly organized it could be more easily defended. _
The argument of the hon. member breaks down when he compares Halifax with Churchill. Even speaking on the advantages of Halifax his argument is a very shortsighted one, because we believe that if our hopes are fulfilled in the years to come a healthy shipping trade will spring up between Churchill and Halifax.
I shall not speak, and the clock so reminds me, at any great length on this subject, because I had something to say on this subject when I made my maiden speech some time ago. Those remarks are recorded at page 199 of Hansard.
It is fitting that the resolution concerning the Hudson Bay route should be introduced by the hon. member for Churchill, because his port is the one that is under discussion. As the member for Saskatoon City, I could not allow the opportunity to go by without raising my voice in behalf of the development of this route, a development which is so vital to the people of my constituency and to the people of the northern and, indeed, of all parts of Saskatchewan. It is not purely a provincial project; it is one that on many counts should be classed as a national problem. Saskatoon is a city which is the centre of a large tract of fine wheat growing country. It has wholesale houses and supply houses for innumerable towns and villages, country stores and post offices. It is a distributing point for farm

Port oj Churchill
machinery. It has two great flour mills which process a considerable part of the grain grown in that country for the export trade. It is the natural trading centre for that part of Saskatchewan, and it is in a position to benefit enormously in the way of trade by a lively increase in traffic over the Hudson bay route.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: Would the hon. member permit a question? I am seeking information. With regard to the second part of the resolution, is the hon. member able to say whether the western provinces would be content to take over this port; do we know that?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I have letters and correspondence which, if the hon. member would come to my room, I would be pleased to show him at any time. My information is that there is in Saskatoon a new Hudson bay route association. I did not want to interrupt an hon. member when he was speaking, but that is now the name of the main organization which is promoting this particular project; it is the heir of the previous "On to the Bay" association. I shall tell the hon. member quite candidly what my information is and which was contained in a letter the secretary wrote to me the other day. He said that he had approached the governments of the provinces on the matter, and that as far as he could see their consideration was favourable. They are also trying to work out some cooperative trade with the cooperatives in the old country. They are going to try to get together with the federated cooperatives of the provinces. They are going to try to persuade those cooperatives to appoint trade representatives to work this out, and if they refuse so to do they are going to persuade the governments of the provinces to agree to such trade commissions. I think that proves that the governments are also looking with a friendly eye upon the proposition. As a matter of fact, the letter stated that the reason the conference between the provinces and between the group of cooperatives was not already in effect was that Premier Garson of Manitoba is now bifty with the election and could hardly be expected to give his time to this project, which is not a political one. I do not know whether I have answered the hon. member's question, but I have done as well as I could.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Thank you.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The headquarters of the federated cooperatives which I have just mentioned are also at Saskatoon. It is a business whose expansion has been phenomenal. The
wheat producers are operating a tremendous business there this year. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of it, but the wheat pool is making an attempt to start an industry there. They have started a project to build factories which are to produce grain alcohol and to extract oil from flax and to make paint and plastics.
The ground has been broken this year by the provincial government for the building of a medical school in connection with the university. Saskatchewan has never'had a medical college, but it will have one soon, and the same provincial government has done a great deal to promote and encourage home industries of which we are greatly in need. A great airport with a rutiway a mile and a half in length is at this moment being constructed and we are to have a great air centre in a world air route. Now, to connect all this up with the port of Churchill, I must relate that the distance from Saskatoon, all rail, to Churchill, is 814 miles, and from Saskatoon all rail to Montreal is 1,828 miles. Hon. gentlemen across the way can compute for themselves how much more it would fake to get to Halifax. By rail and water, the distance to Montreal is 2,133 miles. Therefore it will be seen from the point of view of distance why we are. so much in favour of Churchill.
As to the water distance-and again I did not wish to correct hon. gentlemen who spoke previously-it has been said that there is a great deal of difference between water distances. As a matter of fact, the water distances from Churchill to Montreal and from Churchill to Liverpool are practically the same. There are of course optional routes, but the average distance is practically the same. There is not a hundred miles in the difference either way.	[DOT]
It would be just as reasonable for us in. the west-I think hon. gentlemen from the east should listen to this-to expect people in Toronto and Hamilton and points between Toronto and Hamilton and further west to ship their stuff out west by railway, take it through Churchill and ship ft to Liverpool by that route as it is to expect us to use the St. Lawrence waterway down from our home. That is literally true from the point of view of distance.
I have said that this is a matter of national and not of local concern. Canada has ports and, whether it be wise or not, she has a great mileage of railways per capita. She has a vast system of transportation, and what we need in this country, and particularly in the west, is more people. The people we have
Port of Churchill

now are divided too unevenly and the resuh is that we have an unbalanced economy. That is not altogether due to geographical conditions. In Saskatchewan, owing to the increased mechanization of farming, and owing to increased modern improvements in farm machinery, only a fraction of the people are now needed to grow the wheat who grew it before. When I first threshed in that province thirty years ago twenty-six men ran the threshing outfit; now an old1 man and a boy of eleven will do more work in a day than all of us did, put together.	,
The average age of the Saskatchewan or the western farmer, hon. members may be surprised to know, is very high indeed. The young men marched off to the war, in spite of the fact that they were farmers' sons, and boys and girls came east to get war work. Let me ask hon. gentlemen from the east this question: Have they ever considered what it would be like to have their sons and daughters going 2,000 miles to get a job? I wonder how those who come from Quebec would like that? It is an honest fact that if a boy wants a job in industry he has to go at an early age 2,000 miles from his own home and his family influences.


Mr. CLAXTON:: Many people went from the east to the west to get jobs.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was speaking of industry. That is not a good national situation, and it is one which the development and encouragement of a new route would help to overcome. What I have said may give rise to the idea that some opposition may be raised in central Canada against government encouragement of the Hudson bay route, but I contend that such opposition would be purely selfish and in the long run short-sighted. For fifty years a golden stream of western wheat has flowed down through central Canada. This left a good deal of sediment in its path. It has turned into a stream of gold. When hon. members consider the Icing haul, the discriminatory freight rates, the protective tariff that has been in existence in this country so long, I think they will agree with me that the western wheat lands have contributed their share and more to the upbuilding of this nation.
And now we want from the east and central Canada and Halifax, not large sums of money but a little sympathy and support in the upbuilding of the west; for, as Sir Ashley Cooper, governor of the Hudson's Bay company, said a day or two ago to a western audience:
Your imports will be governed largely by eastern Canada. The question of trade between western Canada and Britain is not so much a
IMr. Knight.]
matter for Canada and Britain to deal with but one to be settled between eastern and western Canada. Great Britain will take all the products of western Canada she can pay for.
But the amount she can pay for will depend a good deal on the amount we in Canada are willing to import from her. I suggest that some of these imports could be profitably brought to the port of Churchill through Hudson bay. There was a good deal of opposition to the building of this road and the equipment of the port. For years the whole thing was a political football, but now we have fait accompli, a transportation system which by 1932 had proved that it would work.
Surely that selfish and petty opposition should now disappear. Surely we have reached the stage when we are prepared to put the public good before the private purse. It is queer, though, how men who will send their sons even cheerfully to war, and with some degree of resignation contemplate the fact that they will not return, will oppose tooth and nail any public scheme which will affect their own pockets.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Before six o'clock I was
speaking in support of the resolution asking for sympathetic consideration and active support on the part of the government for the Hudson bay route. I had shown the importance of the route to my own community; I had discussed its importance from a national point of view, which to my mind is infinitely more important; I had pleaded for it as a means of bringing people and industries to my part of the country and to this nation as a whole, and to the best of my ability I had answered the arguments of the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) in opposition. That attitude of opposition, Mr. Speaker, has done more injury than good to this country. It is the attitude which says, if we cannot have something for ourselves, then let no one else have it. What we need in this country, sir, are kindly hearts, open minds and, above all the vision that tells us that what is good for one is good for all, the vision that will make our country great. Good luck to Halifax as far as I am concerned; long may it prosper. For the hon. member who lives there I have nothing but best wishes and sympathy. I have been there twice. My own view is that it is rather depressing to think that between Halifax

Port of Churchill
harbour and Cape Race lie scattered the ribs of 280 gallant ships which have gone to Davy Jones' locker. I had hoped, nay I was almost convinced that such opposition had ceased. If you are interested in the opposite view I would recommend the reading of "Sea of Destiny" by Dyson Carter. He claims that a deliberate attempt to sabotage the route was made by eastern commercial and transportation interests and marine insurance companies, supported by the press. He even offers the terrible indictment that the sinking of the ship Bright Fan early in the history of the completed route was not altogether accidental. Of course I have no proof in regard to this statement, and he will have to take the responsibility for it himself. I do know there was joy in certain quarters in Montreal when the Bright Fan went down, but that joy was somewhat tempered some two weeks later by the news that the Pennyworth had gone down in a fog off Montreal. The Pennyworth had successfully cleared her cargo from Hudson bay just a short time before.
However that may be, shipping out of Churchill increased until in 1936 some fourteen ships steamed out of the port with
5,000,000 bushels of No. 1 wheat aboard. The Imperial shipping committee, investigating a wreck that occurred that year, declared:
As far as physical risks are concerned we are convinced that the Hudson's bay route is not more dangerous, and in some respects is less dangerous, than the St. Lawrence route.
I said, sir, I had hoped the opposition would cease. I am afraid that, like the poor, propoganda persists in being with us. I have in my hand a little pamphlet which just came to my desk. I do not know who sent it; no one knows. It just came. It did not cost a penny; I was very welcome to it. As a matter of fact, they hope I will read it. Perhaps it was sent to be received in time for this debate. Again, I do not know; but at any rate it is free. It represents this selfish viewpoint, this one-sided idea about which I was talking. It reminds me of certain other pamplets which you will remember were sent around in this country prior to June 11, except that this one is white in colour. It should have had a bit of that red mail-order paint on it to dress it up a little. No one knew who sent those other pamphlets, either; they just came, and we were welcome to them. Hon. gentlemen opposite did not know where they came from; hon. gentlemen to my right did not know where they came from, and they are all honourable men. Let me read a little from this pamphlet, choosing a 47696-70
place almost haphazardly. The writer seems to be interested in railroads; so am I He
says:
We can realize that the C.P.R. made western Canada . . .
Well, that is a good sentence; it reads equally well in reverse. Then he goes on to
say:
Public opinion on the prairies forced the gov- eminent into backing great and even unwise ventures in providing competition for the C.P.R.
Then a little later comes the line that caught my eye; this is my reason for introducing this pamphlet into this debate:
Perhaps one day the line to Hudson bay will be available.
He goes on to speak of other railway ventures and then adds:
However, mistakes were made.
Then another line:
. . . and it is now taken for granted that we shall, forever, have two railways in western Canada.
The gentleman looks a long way ahead. He is also interested in tariffs and says:
As a matter of fact, even good free traders are apt to doubt whether a tariff which has been on for any length of time can be taken off completely, and overnight, without making things worse than they were . . . However, as things are, the fact has to be faced that there will not be a sudden and general removal of all tariffs . . .
He is also interested in the Winnipeg grain exchange, and say$:
Unfortunately, western wheat grower opinion, still worrying about the depression of the thirties . . . has backed the idea of suspending open trading on the Winnipeg wheat market. This has almost certainly involved a heavy loss to the wheat growers.
And he feels very sorry for them.
To get back to the more serious question, although I believe what I have read has some bearing upon it, for a moment I should like to discuss the question of the danger to shipping, which of course is a vital factor in the situation, because the success of this project depends upon getting reasonable rates in marine insurance. Even before the war the dangers of the route, like those of the St. Lawrence, had been progressively mastered by scientific advance, with the installation of gyro compasses, radio direction finders and the employment of icebreakers. During the last war many devices must have been evolved making for the safety of ships at sea, devices which can be applied to the occasional fog and ice conditions encountered in Hudson bay. As some of the previous speakers have said, I imagine

Port oj Churchill

radar holds immense possibilities in this connection and will open a whole new field of navigation.
The other day in this house I asked that the Minister of Transport produce copies of reports furnished by the United States government in regard to a survey made during the last war by that government of meteorological conditions over the route. We were told that 6uch a survey had been made, and I understand that both the waters and the air were thoroughly investigated. I was promised a copy of the report and I know it will reach me in due course. Unfortunately it is not available for this debate. I expect and hope it will contain information encouraging the use of the Hudson bay route. Let me draw one thing to the attention of hon. members. During the war the Americans took no chances on leaving unguarded that great body of open water which leads directly into the heart of this continent. They know the potentialities and the virtues of that great route, and so they took that survey. I am told that the Americans went in there to Hudson bay, to a frozen sea as it has been called by so many people, in the heart of winter. I am not vouching for the truth of that statement, because I was not there; but I am offering it for what it is worth. I hope to get the information from the minister later on.
With all this new information, and with all these new inventions, surely the price of marine insurance will come down. If so, the success of the route will be assured, and the wish of the people in the prairie provinces will be fulfilled. I suggest lo the government that if marine insurance is not cut down proportionately as, in the light of new inventions, it should be, the government should be doing something about it, and should say to the marine insurance companies, you will have to bring your rates down, proportionately, or we will see that there is some other company operating, or some manner in which marine insurance rates may be made reasonable.
The wish that the Hudson bay route be opened was expressed in a recommendation of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan branch, to the dominion-provincial conference, in a memorandum of August 4, 1945. May I quote the following from that recommendation:
We recommend action to make full use of the Hudson Bay railway and all facilities at Port Churchill for shipment of products from, and oods to, Canada; that Canadian trade agents e appointed to facilitate trade through the Hudson Bay-Port Churchill route; that Canadian^ trade agents established in other countries be instructed to develop trade through the Hudson Bay-Port Churchill route, and that the project be operated under a board of western management.

This request for a western board, about which some curiosity has been shown here to-day, in conjunction with the governments of the prairie provinces, is also put forth by the Hudson's bay route association, an organization which is leaving no stone unturned to bring about the resumption of traffic over that route. The board's being of that composition would procure action forthwith, I am sure, and would remove any suspicion that may linger in the west that pressure was being brought to hinder operations.
We hope, and have reason to believe, that the government will act upon the idea expressed in this resolution, particularly in respect of the first part of it. In that event the second part would not be necessary. I have in my possession correspondence which shows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) attempted to find shipping to bring out of Churchill the grain that is held there. A letter from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) states:
The policy of the government in the matter of Churchill is to facilitate the use of ithis port in every way possible.
Good! We will look for action-and not next year when shipping opens up, but now, to prepare for the time when shipping opens up. May I add in passing that this has been one of the great drawbacks in the past. The authorities would wait until the weather was changing, and when ships might have been coming in there it was found that preliminary investigation and preparations had to be made. By the time that was done, the season was over.
The road is built and ready. In fact, it is now in use and it has been paid for out of the proceeds of western lands. There is at the port a fair nucleus of equipment with which to start business, and the government has assured us that the ban on shipping, which they say was a necessity owing to war, is now lifted.
We have hope of support from hon. members in the house. I hold in fny hand an interesting pamphlet, somewhat yellowed with age, for it is dated 1926. This pamphlet deals with the Hudson bay route. May I quote haphazardly from the speech-for that is what it is:
The problem of transportation is the great problem of western Canada . . .
Since we are a democratic country governed by the wishes of the majority, and since all the produce of. western Canada before the opening of the Panama canal had to move eastward, every attempt to open up new trade routes has met with opposition which has often been successful . . .
Nor is the Hudson Bay railway the project of the west. It is national in its interest.

Port of ChurchUl
In this fashion the then premier of Saskatchewan, now the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) proceeded to prove his point with earnestness and precision. In an eloquent conclusion he states, prophetically, in the light of recent inventions:
Those seamen . . . will find ways and means to stretch the four month's season set down by tenderfoot engineers into six or more months.
So that in support of this cause we shall have within the government, and as an influence upon his colleagues, the driving force of the Minister of Agriculture. I have never heard it said of him-and I have heard plenty-that he has shown either reluctance or a lack of ability in fighting for a cause in which he believed.
There is another point of interest about this now historic pamphlet published by what was known as the "On-to-the-Bay" Association of Canada. On its reverse side we find the list of patrons, headed by the Hon. John Bracken, then premier of Manitoba. I do not believe that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) changed his beliefs in regard to this route when he changed over to his present company. I hope he will give as aggressive leadership in the right direction to his Ontario cohorts as he did in Manitoba to his western gentlemen, and that in his important capacity in the house he will assist in stirring the government to action in this matter, for which there is strong support both in the house and in the country.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make a speech, but I should like to ask a question. The port of Churchill is an unnatural port, when we have two railroads which can deliver the grain to the breadbasket of the world, and to a point where we have the greatest wheat handling facilities found anywhere.
My question is this: Is it possible to heat up the Hudson bay and Baffin strait with atomic power, so as to keep the water free of ice? I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) or the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) if there is'any possibility of that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is the sixty-four dollar question.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister speaks, I should like to add a word on behalf of this group in full support of the opening and the operation of the Churchill route.
I do not happen to be a resident of Port Arthur, but I do happen to be-perhaps through good luck, or bad-one of those farmers in western Canada who have been ad-47696-701
- versely affected in the past because the Hudson bay route does not operate. If we would watch the wood-pile and pull the niggers out, perhaps we would learn just why gyro-compasses and other things have been discussed to-night. We in western Canada are satisfied that there is a nigger in the wood-pile, and that if we can get it out it will not be necessary to bother with the red herrings that have been thrown across the trail.
Our group is fully behind this project.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house has listened with keen interest to the debate which has taken place this afternoon on the resolution moved by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore). I know I have enjoyed the speeches which have come both from this side of the house and from the other side.
Hon. members who have preceded me in the debate have paid tribute to those who have spoken, and I should like to add my word of commendation to the hon. member who introduced the resolution as well as to other hon. members who have spoken on the subject. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) has received so many congratulations that I hesitate to say anything about his contribution. When he does rise to speak in any debate he speaks with such experience that it is always interesting to listen to what he has to say.
The resolution which the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) has placed on the order paper may be termed academic to an extent. I am sure that he did not intend it as such, that what he is looking for is something of a practical nature. The resolution as I understand it can be divided into two parts, but perhaps I should read it to the house. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba, or the transferring of the management and control of the said port to a joint board appointed by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The first part deals with the policy of the government, while the second part asks, in the alternative, that the port be turned over to a board representative of the three prairie provinces. So far as the first part is concerned, I may tell hon. gentlemen that the policy of the government with reference to Churchill is to use the port facilities and the railway facilities to every possible advantage. I may tell the hon. gentleman wdio has just taken his seat and who has asked that the
Port of Churchill


Mr. WRIGHT:: Have you the tonnage handled in 1942?


Lionel Chevrier: I propose to put on Hansard at a later date a detailed statement of the facilities as well as an answer to the hon. gentleman's question.


Major James William Coldwell: At a later date, or later in your speech?


Lionel Chevrier: Later in the debate.


Mr. REID:: And the grain too.


Lionel Chevrier: I would draw special
attention to the fact that in 1944 the deficit of the Hudson Bay railway was over a half million dollars, namely, $564,940.02. That coupled with the deficit of $58,907.04 on the harbour operations made a total deficit of $623,-
847.06 on the railway and harbour operations alone from 1944. With the permission of the house I should like to table for inclusion in Hansard the following:	(1)
construction cost of the Hudson bay project to March 31, 1945; (2) net deficit or surplus;
(3)	summary of the number of ocean ships and business handled each year since the first shipment of grain in 1931; (4) ice out of harbour; (5) closing of navigation; (6) traffic on Hudson Bay railway, 1930 to 1944; (7) distance tables:
The construction cost of the Hudson bay project to March 31, 1945, has been as follows:
Hudson Bay railway	
$33,602,516	92Terminal works, Churchill harbour	
12,826.418	17
Terminal works at Port Nelson. 6,240,170 86

Fiscal year 1932-33
1933-	34 '
1934-	35
1935-	36 .
1936-	37 .
*1937	.
*1938	.
*1939	.
*1940	.
*194.1	.
*1942	.
*1943	.
*1944	.
Net Deficit or Surplus
Churchill
harbour
	 $ 76,257 58
	 68,063	39
	 76,332	64
	 101,156	41
	 46,720	79
	 140,889	61
	 55,009	92
	 46,491	58
	 39,913	62
	 32,515	38
	 +	7,668 74
	 29,488	66
	 58,907	04
Hudson Bay
Railway	$	Total 76.257	58
		68.063	39
		76,332	65
$ 239,702 75	340,859	16252,854 81	299,575	60364.413 77	505,303	38285,035 01	340,044	93330,382 06	376.873	64417,558 50	457,472	12459,859 28	492,374	66+ 112,120 75	+	119,789	49347.872 90	377,361	56564.940 02	623,847	06


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister will
permit a question just for information, now that he is giving the periods of open water, may I ask if the entrance to the bay is not frozen over for the year between the three islands across its entrance. At what time does the ice open up across the mouth of the bay?	[DOT]


Lionel Chevrier: As I stated a moment
ago, the time at which the ice opens up in the bay is much later than in the harbour. I have before me the report of the engineer of the transport department who made a complete survey of conditions in the harbour and who has prepared certain notes for my use. In his statement he says that in the spring the ice leaves the _ harbour about the 10th of June, but at that time heavy ice is in the bay and also in the strait and a ship would not be able to go through there. But even if it did, with the aid of an icebreaker, a ship, if anything happened to it because of ice running, would not be able to get back to port. That is the information I have at hand.
I want to say something about insurance rates, which is another important feature, whether or not ships can get insurance before they move. Insurance for Churchill can be obtained from August 5 to October 15 only, and on ships going in and passing Cape Chid-ley at the eastern end of Hudson strait on August 5 and can be kept on ships leaving Churchill until October 7 without extra premium. From October 8 to October 15 the extra premium is twenty-five per cent. Thus the season is set for insurance purposes as from August 5 at Chidley to October 15 leaving Churchill.
May I return now to the resolution of the hon. gentleman?


Arthur Leroy Smith: I live out
in that country and I have listened to the statistics given by the hon. gentleman. Would he mind telling us if he thinks this thing is any good or not? I have been utterly unable to find out what his view is.


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. gentleman
would permit me to conclude I think he will learn what my views are on the subject.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I beg
pardon. I thought the hon. gentleman was turning to another subject.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I was about to turn to the first part of the resolution which deals with the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill.
This terminal was transferred to the national harbours board for administration, management and control in 1937, and by 1939 there was in sight the biggest programme of grain shipments from the port of Churchill in its history. At that time fifteen cargo-carrying ships were assigned by various shipping companies to load grain at Churchill for Europe. Nine of them were actually named and before the war it looked as though the port of Churchill was going to enjoy a really busy period. Unfortunately, however, war broke out; after a few cargoes of grain had been shipped, one ship was torpedoed on the way out to Hudson bay and the sailings of the others were cancelled because of the hazards of war. Then followed the long years of war when, although the elevator was filled with grain, nothing moved out until 1942, when between seven and eight hundred thousand bushels were loaded on United States ships and carried to New England ports for United States government account.
Shortly after the close of the German war the Canadian wheat board, the national harbours board, and other Canadian agencies made very strong and persistent efforts to secure ships for Churchill in 1945, but owing to lack of shipping, and the necessary scientific navigational equipment such as gyrocompasses, shipping definitely declined to use the port of Churchill in 1945.
I pause here to say a word about the efforts made by the national harbours board and by the Canadian wheat board to do everything in their power to get shipments of grain to Churchill. As the house knows, during the war and even at this time shipping is controlled by virtue of the united maritime shipping agreement, and is in the hands of the British ministry of transport. Notwithstanding the representations made by both agencies, the national harbours board and the Canadian wheat board, the British ministry of shipping thought there were pertinent reasons why shipping to Churchill should be declined. I should like to give the house some of the reasons why that conclusion was arrived at. They are as follows:
First, the ministry of transport was of the opinion that the hazardous nature of the voyage justified taking into account the possible damage or complete loss of the vessel.
Port oj Churchill

Second, although no damage or loss may be suffered there, it is well known that there is a great risk of delay from almost continuous fog.
The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) suggested that that might be circumvented by the use of radar. That is certainly a suggestion which deserves consideration. I continue with the reasons:
Third, there is no chance-
I emphasize this because it is extremely important.
There is no chance, or very little chance of securing an outward cargo. 'Shippers further insist on having gyroscopic compass, together with an efficient direction-finding installation; and ships should also be fitted with an efficient echo sounder. The number of vessels . . .


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: "Does the minister mean "inward" cargoes?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I am now referring to the reasons why the British ministry of transport think the route is a hazardous one.


Major James William Coldwell: Their outward, our
inward cargoes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask the minister another question. ' The minister stated there was no possibility of obtaining an outward cargo.


Lionel Chevrier: No; I did not say "no possibility".


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Have our trade commissioners in Great Britain ever made any effort to obtain such cargoes?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the answer to that question is that in war time there were few or no possibilities because of the urgent requirements of ships elsewhere. There was no possibility of obtaining the ships. That would apply to them as it did to us.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: But before the war.
Mr, CHEVRIER: As I stated a moment ago, the national harbours board has had the administration of this port from only a short time prior to the war.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: May I ask one other
question?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Have I the minister's
permission?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Is the minister aware that certain English and Scotch cooperative representatives were out to this country this summer looking for business and that they stated they were prepared to ship goods into the western country to help pay for our natural products?


Thomas Reid: Not Scotch; they turned it down.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Saskatoon City, that such is the case. If it is so, I can assure the hon. gentleman that no one will be happier than myself. I wish to assure the house that I am not trying to make a case against the port of Churchill; I am pointing to some of the difficulties that lie in the way. I may say that it is the view and the opinion of the national harbours board that if the western people could get commodities to go out to the east it would then be much easier to obtain owners of ships to go in and out of Churchill.
I was dealing with the last reason given by the British authorities, namely, that the number of vessels suitable for proceeding to Churchill during the war, and even to date are extremely limited. In the pre-war days these suitable vessels worked into position weeks or months prior to a contemplated loading date. To-day that is not possible because of existing conditions. Shipping companies do not like to put their ships into a trade which will mean only one-way cargoes. Unfortunately this [DOT] one-way cargo operation has been the experience in the port of Churchill. However, if the people of the prairie provinces would find the need of British manufactures, and have the goods shipped through the Hudson bay route and over the Hudson Bay railway-


Major James William Coldwell: And a low enough tariff to get them in afterwards.


Lionel Chevrier: -it would be one of the biggest aids toward popularizing this route, and I emphasize this point as one of the main remedies for the inactivity of the port of Churchill.
I now come to the second part of the resolution, which I think is more or less of a hypothetical nature.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Before the minister leaves the first part, may I ask if he is for or against it?


Lionel Chevrier: If the hon. member will read the resolution he will see that it is couched in such terms that it is not the easiest thing to reply either in the affirmative or in the negative. But I did state a while ago that the policy of the government is to aid the port of Churchill and to use the facilities there to the fullest possible extent.


Mr. SMITH (Calgaiy West):: "Now, have I answered your question?"


Lionel Chevrier: I am not sure whether in the second part of the resolution the hon.

Railways and Shipping Committee
member meant to include, although he did not, the Hudson Bay railway. I presume, however, that he did because one goes with the other.


Major James William Coldwell: Not necessarily.


Percy Ellis Wright: Not necessarily.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, that may be so. The port of Churchill would not be worth very much if the Hudson Bay railway were not there.


Major James William Coldwell: Nor would the port of Montreal without the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian National railway.


Lionel Chevrier: Nevertheless I wish to emphasize by way of explanation what I meant by referring to the second part of the resolution as hypothetical. It is this: so far as the Department of Transport is concerned there never has been a policy in western Canada agreed to collectively by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, requesting the federal government to transfer either the port of Churchill or the Hudson Bay railway to the three prairie provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: One would not be of much use without the other.


Lionel Chevrier: I have on my desk would indicate that the elevator as well as the other facilities at Churchill are in very good condition. I need only refer to what the hon. member for Davenport said in reference to the elevator. In his own words, he said that there was no finer in the world than that constructed at Churchill.
It is the intention of the national harbours board to use these facilities. Up until this time it has made every effort, in conjunction with the Canadian wheat board, to bring shipping to Churchill. It has already made representations for shipping early next spring, and I am hopeful that ocean-going tonnage which is still pooled will be released for shipping by next year. If that is so, then I feel sure that an allocation of tonnage to move the existing stocks at Churchill will be forthcoming early next year.
I have attempted to deal with this resolution in as fair a manner as possible. I started by saying at the outset that I was not familiar or conversant with the local history, as my hon. friends were, but I wish to assure the hon. member for Saskatoon City that the department of Transport and the national harbours board are fully sympathetic to the use of the facilities there and will do everything in their power to maintain those facilities.


John Bracken: Perhaps the minister
would answer one question before he concludes. I did not gather from what he had to say that he gave the record of storage grain in that elevator since the war began. I wonder if in a few brief words he could summarize the situation there.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether the hon, gentleman was in the house when I tabled the statement covering total exports and imports. It covered the number of bushels of wheat shipped out of Churchill from 1931 to 1944. The total was 20,772,041 bushels, and, roughly speaking, the individual amounts were:
Year	Bushels
1931		   500,000
1932		 2,500.000
1933		 2,500,000
1934		 4.000.000
1935		 2.500,000
1936		 4,000,000
1937		 600,000
1938		 900,000
1939		 1.772,000
1940		 None
1941		 None
1942		 None
1943		 740,000
1944	  None


Percy Ellis Wright: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement just given by the minister with respect to the route, but like the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith) I am still in doubt where he stands on the matter. He spent about one minute of his time, when he started, saying that the government was in favour of the route but that he himself knew very little of the topography and very little about the circumstances of the route, and then he proceeded for thirty minutes to give facts and figures supplied to him by his officials, w'hich are an absolute condemnation of the route. It has been in the minds of a great many people in western Canada for a number of years that there are certain officials in the department at Ottawa who are doing their best to kill the Hudson bay route, and certainly the minister's statement to-night would bear out that contention. I think anyone who listened to the minister's statement could not help agreeing that he -tried, in an indirect way, to show that the route is not feasible. He gave us figures showing a deficit in 1944, for instance. Of course there was a deficit; and probably he used that year because it showed the largest deficit they ever had on that route, simply because it was not used because of war conditions; it could not be used. If the route were given a fair show; if the government would go all out, by means of their trade commissioners in the old country, to see that tonnage was brought into that port as well as going out of it, if they would encourage the cooperatives over there to make shipments through that point, and take action in other ways, there is no doubt that the deficit as far as Port Churchill is concerned could be reduced materially.
The resolution placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Moore) states:
That, in the opinion of -this house, the gov-ment should take into immediate consideration the advisability of encouraging the fullest possible use of the harbour and port facilities at Churchill, Manitoba-
That is the first part of it. Then it goes on and suggests that if they fail to do this-
-or the transferring of the management and control of the said port -to a joint board appointed by the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
The last part is inserted just in case the government are not prepared to go ahead and see that this port is used to the greatest possible extent. If the government should be prepared to do this, then the second part of the resolution does not become operative at all. For a number of years in western

Port oj Churchill
Canada we have had an organization which, has been particularly interested in this port at Churchill. It was organized back in the 1920's, after the last war, when it seemed that the government of that day were going to abandon the project entirely. It was then called the "On to the Bay" association, and was organized to arouse public opinion in western Canada to the point where the government would be forced to continue the route and develop it for shipments to the old country. The association was successful in this. Fort Nelson, which had proved a failure, was dropped. Lord Palmer, I believe it was, carried on an investigation for a suitable port, and Churchill was chosen; the railroad was continued to that port, and the development of the route continued. To-day this organization is known as the Hudson bay route association, and again it is organizing public opinion in western Canada so that the route will not be dropped after this war as it was after the last war. It is urging that the development be continued, because the new inventions brought out during the war, together with the investigation carried on through the meteorological branches established in the north during the war by the United States forces, have placed a great deal of new information at the disposal of the government, and in western Canada it is felt that this route can and should be used now that the war is over.
This organization suggests that if the government at Ottawa are not prepared to go ahead and do the necessary advertising and, if necessary, charter vessels to come to Churchill, the management of the port-not of the railway-should be turned over to a western organization. They have some definite proposals with respect to the type of organization they would like to see take charge of the port, and those proposals have been set out in a brief they have prepared and submitted to at least all western members. They say:
A change such as is proposed should seem highly desirable to the dominion government. The Hudson Bay railway, the railway's port at Churchill, and the bay route in its entirety, are likely to remain a matter of contention, embarrassing to the dominion government as long as that government remains responsible for the success of the bay route . . .
To the provinces assuming administration of the commercial facilities of the port of Churchill it is suggested that they set up an ordinary joint stock company. A full half of the shares should remain with the government, or governments, and this form of organization allows a simple method for dividing and allocating shares he-tween two or more provinces.
Of the remaining half of the shares, a portion, or all, might be offered to such business organizations as are mentioned previously, to be acquired by actual purchase. Such shares, to
add to their attractiveness, might have priority rights for dividends up to a moderate limit such as five per cent. Capital so raised would provide a working fund; and a cash investment would guarantee the continuing interest of the contributors. With assurance of such interest on the part of practical businessmen, many of ,the minor problems of administration would be removed from the shouldeTs of the provincial governments, to be carried by those whose training fits them to deal best with such problems.
The governments should have a majority of directors. Three might be enough, if one represented business interests.
Title to government-built properties should not pass to a joint stock company. Its rights to use of the Saskatoon and Churchill facilities should be limited to leasehold rights, with provision for cancellation.
In other words, they have definite suggestions to offer in regard to the development of the port and the facilities established there. The minister has said that the government have given sympathetic consideration to the port of Churchill. I want to point out one way at least in which they have failed to do so. If I, as a grower of grain in northeastern Saskatchewan, desire to ship to Port Churchill, the freight rate from my shipping point is eighteen cents per 100 pounds, while the freight rate to Fort William or Port Arthur is twenty-one cents. If I sell a carload of grain to go through Churchill, however, I pay the twenty-one cent freight rate to Fort William, even though my grain goes to Churohill. Therefore I do not reap the benefit of having that port contiguous to my farm in western Canada. The same applies to the whole of northeastern Saskatchewan. If the same consideration were given to the port of Churchill that is given to Fort William, Port Arthur and Vancouver, then those of us who live closer to Churchill would pay only the freight rate to that port, just as the people in Alberta who are closer to Vancouver pay the freight rate to Vancouver, even though their grain may be shipped to Port Arthur. Therefore I say that if the government were prepared to give a fair deal to the port of Churchill they would amend the Canada Grain Act of 1940 in such a way as to put shipments to Churchill on the same basis as shipments to any of the other main exporting ports.
Another way they could help material!}' would be by the extension of the Canadian National railway line which runs from Saskatoon to Carrot River, on to the Pas in Manitoba, to connect with the Hudson Bay railway. This would mean that the haul for . grain from the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta would be much shorter. In addition, if this railway were continued from Carrot River to the Pas a large area of very good
Port of Churchill

agricultural land would be opened up. As a matter of fact, this is the largest agricultural area in any part of Saskatchewan remaining uncultivated. It is very good land and would be opened up and developed if the railway were continued from Carrot River through to the Pas.
Those are only two ways in which the present government, if they wished to develop the Port of Churchill, could assist in that matter.
The organization in western Canada known as the Hudson bay route association, is entirely non-political; and I am glad to note that the debate in the house to a great extent has remained non-political. It just so happens that members of this group' represent many of the constituencies which are particularly affected by this matter. Nevertheless, when members from, other political groups represented the same constituencies they, too, spoke in favour of this route.
I have under my hand a speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) back in 1926, at which time he strongly recommended to the dominion government that the port be developed for shipments of both outgoing and incoming cargoes. For many years the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) has been a supporter of the Hudson bay route. The former Minister of Mines and Resources in the house, who is now a member of the senate, and represented Churchill for a number of years, was also a strong supporter of this route.
I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Ohevrier) to give this matter sympathetic consideration, and not to listen to everything that may have been said by members of his department and staff. He, himself, should go to Churchill, see the position there and judge for himself whether or not this is a feasible route. We in western Canada are never going to be satisfied until it is definitely proven that it is not. I contend that, to date, that has not been proven. As a matter of fact, with modern radar and the new meteorological stations which have been established in the northern areas, we feel quite sure that this route can be used to a far greater extent than it has ever been used in the past.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in the debate. I always feel that people who are most familiar with the subject under discussion had best not impose their views in a manner that may tend to ruin an exchange of theories.
My association with Churchill dates back to (he middle twenties. I have been there, not
(Mr. Wright.]
only at the end of August or in early September when all the tourists visit there, but also in April. I may say my face is still scarred from a frost-bite I got while walking from the train at Churchill to the nearest bunkhouse; and that was in late April.
There are certain facts in the situation which, I suggest, must be faced, particularly in view of the suggestion that the government has not endeavoured to develop Churchill as a port. June is a lovely month in Churchill; the sun shines day and night; there is no hour of the day or night when one cannot read a newspaper. But at that very time ice stretches as far as the eye can see, and that continues on to the end of June. In early July the Churchill river begins to discharge its ice. The ice breaks up and drifts out in large blocks, blocks of a size that no icebreaker with which I am familiar could be expected to cope.	'
The result is that insurance goes in effect on August 5, and I believe no ship would venture into the port earlier than that date. Those are facts; they are not theories in the mind of any official of the Department of Transport. I can vouch for those facts, personally; and I hope my reputation as an engineer is such that I would not be guilty of stating a fact, of which I had knowledge, without stating it correctly.
The season is closed in the fall by slush ice coming down from the Churchill river. The ice forms in the river and is carried out by the current. It would be an unfortunate boat, indeed, which got caught in that slush ice, because most certainly it would have to remain there during the next winter. It is impossible to manoeuvre.
Therefore the length of the season is pretty well determined. It is a matter of about two and a half months; and it would be an exceptional season, indeed, when navigation would be possible for a full three months.
However, we realize that much can be done in two and a half months. The government is aware of the facts, and it was aware of them when it went there. It did not make only a gesture toward developing the port; it made a magnificent job of developing it. Anyone riding to Churchill on the Hudson Bay railway and viewing the harbour facilities would not accuse the government of not having built the port in the full belief that it would be a valuable asset to Canada.
The railroad is as well built as any similar railroad in Canada. The harbour facilities are first-class. Some 1,200 feet of dock were built, and were well built under great difficulties. A grain elevator having all the facilities to be found in any grain elevator in

Port of Churchill
Canada was built at that port, and was built with the knowledge that the season would be short and that the handling of grain must therefore be rapid. With that in mind four automatic car dumpers were installed there, at a time when car dumpers were a novelty in the grain trade. Loading facilities are exceptionally fast. A boat can be loaded at that port in a day without any difficulty. It was known that boats could not afford to stay long at the port, and ample loading facilities were provided so that boats could be cleared quickly. So much for the port facilities.
As I have said, they were built by a Liberal government, and they were built well. They were built with the intention of making Churchill a port of continuing value to Canada. I know something, too, about the efforts made to send business through that port. I know of the negotiations which went on with British shipping lines. Out of all those negotiations we were able to interest only one shipping -line in sending boats to that port; that was the Dalgleish line. The government did make an earnest endeavour to do business through Churchill, and succeeded in doing a considerable amount of business in each season until war conditions made it impossible to operate.
The fact that no other shipping line would interest itself in the port is an indication to me that the shipping profits on the route could not have been fabulous. I know something of the efforts made to bring down insurance rates. Rates were coming down each year, until a boat was lost in the strait, and the insurance rates zoomed up again. Hon. members will understand that insurance rates are based upon the average experience of the route, and the experience on the route into Churchill has not been good, measured in terms of percentages.
I contend that every effort has been made to make Churchill an asset to Canada. Despite those efforts, however, I think hon. members will agree that up to the present time the movement of grain through Churchill has not increased the price of grain at any country loading points in Canada. There are certain points in northern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta which furnish the movement. If the shipping rates could be reduced, that area served would widen. But for the greater part of the west, the movement through Churchill can mean very little in the matter of increasing the price of grain at country points.
There are certain factors that have emerged from the war that will offer opportunity for a more intensive use of the route in future years. We now have a considerable fleet of
ships suitable for trading into Hudson bay. These ships are owned by the government, and it will be at the option of the government whether it wishes to insure them or not. We have operated boats through the war years without insurance, and I presume the government will not hesitate to operate into Churchill without insurance.
There are certain devices that have been developed during the war, such as radar, which make it possible for a ship to detect floating ice and to obtain its own position without the use of a compass. In that way a ship is in a stronger position to undertake ventures into new routes than was the case before the war. All this will be in favour of a real trial to make the Churchill route the success that was hoped for when the facilities were built.
In spite of the short season I think it may be possible to reach the objective of those who developed the route, which was a movement of 20,000,000 bushels of grain in the season. That does not sound much when compared with the movement through Port Arthur and Fort William or through Vancouver, but 20,000,000 bushels is a considerable movement for any port. Few ports on the continent have larger movements than that. Therefore I am not suggesting that the outlook for Churchill is hopeless; far from it. I feel that in post-war years the port will develop as far as its physical limitations will permit, and I can assure the house that the government will make every effort to see that that development is pressed actively and vigorously.
As far as the "On to the Bay" association is concerned, I think the government has accepted all the practical representaitons which that body has made. It was suggested at one time that the government should employ an active agent who would be located in the western provinces and who would seek for imports into Canada. I recall that for some years the government employed one of the officers of the Saskatchewan government to perform that duty. The grain office for the port was located in Winnipeg, and a competent officer of the board of grain commissioners was given the exclusive duty of developing grain business to move through Churchill.
I hardly think the latter part of the resolution is a practical suggestion. I can assure my hon. friend that if he believes that is the best way to develop Churchill, and he can find a responsible group who wish to lease the facilities of Churchill on a basis of $1 a year, I will do my best to influence my colleagues to accept the proposal. In saying
mo
Port of Churchill

that, I am mindful of the fact that it is an expensive port to operate. There are no year-round residents at Churchill. All operators must be moved in at the beginning of the season; they must be gathered up all over the prairies and moved to the port. While the power plant is maintained in operating condition during the winter, the real crew must be moved in in the spring. The crew for the grain elevator must be moved in. All supplies must be moved in, as well as all coal to bunker ships.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And all the water drained out of the mains.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is done at places besides Churchill. Before any boat can come in we must send one of our large icebreakers to patrol the strait. We must send up supplies of oil for the icebreaker and for other emergency purposes. Operating the port of Churchill is not a simple operation, and in my opinion its best chance of success is in the hands of the dominion government.
This has been a most interesting debate and I hardly think the mover of the resolution will wish to press it to a vote. I suggest that he withdraw his resolution.


Mr. JACKMAN:: How long would the
lease be that the minister mentioned, for 999 years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: An offer has not been received.


John Bracken: I do not know whether the hon. member who introduced the resolution is going to withdraw it. The Minister of Transport was good enough to try to answer a question I asked, but he did not answer it completely. He gave the exports of grain from Churchill, but it was the storage I wanted. My information is that the elevator was filled at the early part of the war and that it remained substantially full during the whole period of the war.


James Angus MacKinnon: I think that is correct.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is true.


John Bracken: Is it full now?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the United States ships moved out less than a million bushels, so that it is perhaps two-thirds full now.


John Bracken: The capacity is what?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Two and a half million
bushels.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw his motion?


Mr. COLD  WELL@: He has not asked for leave to withdraw it.


John Bracken: I am paired with the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the
Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Lionel Chevrier: I was paired with the
hon. member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Casselman). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Mr. McGREGOR:: I was paired with the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) Had we voted we would have voted for the motion.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I was paired with the hon.
member for Colchester-Hants (Mr. Stanfield). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GREEN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Eraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John George Diefenbaker: I was paired with
the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. McCulloch). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South, (Mr. Mutch). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.



ST. MARY RIVER PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF RESERVOIR

John Horne Blackmore: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of proceeding with the construction of the St. Mary river reservoir, the key structure of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project in southern Alberta.
He said. May I give the house somewhat of the background of this resolution. There are in southern Alberta wide areas of land rich and easy to work, relatively near to railways and schools; lands most of which have already been settled and brought under cultivation. But the rainfall in that area is scanty. Crop failure is far too common. The climate is well adapted to the production of field crops of various kinds, including sugar beets, canning crops like peas, beans, corn and tomatoes and all manner of vegetables that grow in moderate climates, alfalfa and grains. As a result of all this, the area is one of great productive potentiality. It would be possible to make that particular region one of the finest sources of food in the
dominion and perhaps on the North American continent. But it requires more water.
There are in the Lethbridge district four major irrigation projects; Lethbridge, Coal-dale, Raymond, Magrath and Taber, comprising in all 120,000 acres. All of this land is irrigated from the St. Mary river through a canal which was constructed early in this century, about 1901 or 1902, by what was known at that time as the A.R. and I., or the Albert Railway and Irrigation company. In most years there is too little water for the area which has been brought under irrigation, so that in the months of July, August and September there is frequently such a scarcity of water that great loss results. Sometimes the scarcity is most acute. Especially is this so when the snow supply, which ordinarily is found in the Rocky mountains, is melted away for one reason or another, thereby causing the water in the river to be low. Sometimes the shortage will be forty per cent, at least, below what it ought to be.
It happens that in the system which they are using there is no reservoir. Water has to be taken out of the river just as the river runs, and consequently when the ri%rer is low the water supply is also low.
There is considerable water available in Alberta, enough of it to turn great stretches of semi-arid land into verdant blooming garden land. There are four international rivers in my constituency flowing through southwestern Alberta: Waterton river, Belly river, the St. Mary river and the Milk river. From these rivers there is available for the project which we are discussing to-night, namely, the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project, a total of 795,7.00 acre feet of water. This quantity, allowing for wastages through evaporation, seepage and the like would be sufficient to supply 465,000 acres of land.
To the waters of the St. Mary river and

the Milk river the United States has a considerable claim. This is how it came about. The two rivers rise, of course, in the United States, but the United States made no serious claims to the waters of these rivers, so far as I know, until back in 1901 when the Alberta Railway and Irrigation company began to build the canal from which Magrath, Raymond and Lethbridge are now watered. Then the United States people began to be concerned; a reclamation act was passed by congress in 1902, and the St. Mary and Milk river project in Montana was authorized in 1903. There then arose protests of citizens on both sides of the line, each thinking that the other nation was getting too much water.
St. Mary River-Reservoir

I should like now to read from the recommendations of the committee, as they are found at page 8:
The construction of the main reservoirs and connecting canals would provide the necessary facilities to store in Canada, Canada's share of these international waters and would thereby be an insurance against the loss of a valuable resource.
Near the bottom of the same page I read as follows:
That the dominion undertake and assume as a 100 per cent responsibility the construction of the main reservoirs and connecting canals to provide storage facilities for Canada's share of the waters of the St. Mary and Milk rivers as apportioned under the order of the international joint commission of October 4, 1921.
Again on page nine:
That the dominion's part in the construction of the project be carried out as a federal postwar development, and that the cost thereof be . regarded as non-recoverable.
I believe the material which I have given is such as to justify the house in passing this resolution, which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the advisability of proceeding with the construction of the St. Mary river reservoir, the key structure of the Lethbridge southeast water conservation project in southern Alberta.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). I am happy to see the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) in his seat because, if anything is done in connection with the St. Mary river project, it will be done under his department. I am going to direct my remarks principally to him and I know the other members of the house will not mind. After all, it is always good politics and good business to talk to the man who has to do.
If you convince the man who has to do, then you have the job half done.
To advocate irrigation for southern Alberta should not be a difficult job, nor should it be particularly hard to convince anyone who knows anything about the problem of southern Alberta. It is a great problem. I intend to go a little outside the resolution and be more general than the resolution. I do not believe the Minister of Reconstruction can separate this one project from another project which is equally important. They should both be carried on at the same time. The irrigation of southern Alberta is a vital problem. It is of vast importance to Canada. Much of the business built up in eastern Canada, in your own city, Mr. Speaker, and in many other cities in eastern Canada;

many of the plants in your city and in my city-if I were dealing with my own riding I could speak most forcibly-have been expanded because of what little irrigation-it is not little, except when compared with what has been done south of the line-has been done in southern Alberta.
I shall first confine my remarks to the resolution which asks for the construction of a reservoir on the St. Mary river. The -previous speaker has already told the house that four rivers flow into Canada from the United States, all starting in the same glaciers south of Waterton park. The three westerly rivers are the Waterton, the Belly and the St. Mary, and these are the most important to Canada, more so than the Milk river.
I shall say a word about the Milk river and then leave it out from the rest of my argument. The Milk river enters Canada and after flowing through Canada for about 150 miles, or about 125 miles in a straight line, it returns to the United States. The water in that river is all United States water except for the water of some small tributaries that flow in in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. None of these Canadian tributaries has water of any great volume. In my opinion the duty of Canada is to proceed with that which will mean the most to Canada, namely, the St. Mary river project.
On the St. Mary river, about ten miles more or less north of the beautiful little town of Cardston, there is an. excellent site for a reservoir. I do not like to make any comment about engineering problems without knowing something about the matter, and I have visited this site. The banks are quite high and the engineers who were with me said that they could build a dam 150 feet high. They showed me where they had drilled to find foundation sites. If that could be done they could store in that reservoir about 270,000 acre feet of water. What is an acre foot of water? It means the water sufficient to cover one acre of land one foot deep. To convert
270,000	acre feet into cubic feet you would have to multiply 270,000 by 43,560, which is the number of square feet in an acre. In other words, this would be a vast volume of water.
But it is not sufficient to take care of the land which is irrigable but which is not now irrigated in southern Alberta south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river. More reservoirs would have ter be built. Besides the Spring Coulee reservoir north of Cardston, to which I have just referred, other reservoirs could be built southeast of Lethbridge, one at Chin Coulee, which would be sufficient to conserve 150,000 acre feet, and

St. Mary River-Reservoir
one at Verdigris, good for 140,000 acre feet. There are quite a number of other smaller sites, some of substantial capacity.' The total of all reservoir capacity that could be built south of the South Saskatchewan river- quite apart from the Milk river project which I am not dealing with at the present time- is about 650,000 acre feet. That is more than would be required to take care of the possible acreage which is irrigable but which is not now irrigated, namely, about 345,000 acres. This would take care of all the additional irrigable land south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river-Old Man river. Old Man river is the principal Saskatchewan tributary in that part of Alberta. As I say, those 345,000 acres could be irrigated by water stored from * the St. Mary river, plus water diverted from the Belly river and sent into the reservoirs just mentioned. The engineering plans are ready for this project. In other words, Canada will have no trouble whatever in finding reservoir capacity in southern Alberta in which to store sufficient water to take care of the
345,000	acres of irrigable land in southern Alberta south of the main line of the Saskatchewan river.	[DOT]
Something was said about the cost of the Spring Coulee reservoir on the St. Mary river. The cost of all the additional reservoirs and irrigation canals in southern Alberta south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river necessary to store water to irrigate right down to the neighbourhood of Medicine Hat would be around $15,000,000. If that can be done for $15,000,000, the Minister of Reconstruction would receive the support of this whole country. There is not a question of doubt in my mind as to the wisdom of entering into agreements and contracts for the building of irrigation works south of the main line of the south Saskatchewan river. I do not mean that Canada should pay for that, nor do I think the province of Alberta would expect to pay for it, nor do I think the people of southern Alberta would expect Canada to pay for it. But they are not in a position to do it themselves. Therefore the money required to construct these works would have to be guaranteed by the dominion government. It would not in the last analysis cost this country one dollar. Take the Taber area, where the present irrigation canals end just a short distance east of the town, south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river. From there to Medicine Hat is a fine country, with A-l land, containing all the chemical ingredients required to produce in abundance. That has been clearly demonstrated in the vicinity of Taber itself, where the products produced on irrigated farms are
marvellous. I visited a field where something new not only for that part of the country but for Canada was being produced, namely a field of large cucumbers-I believe they call them dill.


Mr. WEIR:: Dill pickles.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. They have recently built in the village of Taber, a thriving village that clearly demonstrates the tremendous business that accrues to any village, town or city in an irrigated area, thirty very large vats, each one capable of containing some twelve tons of large cucumbers. They have also started to grow sweet potatoes in that area and are having success, which goes to show that the land in southern Alberta is A-l, excellent land. All that is required is the water. That district in southern Alberta around Taber would not grow anything of any consequence were it not for the irrigation canals that are there now. In 1943 the precipitation for that area was a little over three inches. You could not grow anything on land with a precipitation of only three inches a year, except perhaps prairie grass, wild sage and rose bush. But with irrigation, see how that area has developed! The same can be done elsewhere. There is just as good land around Raymond and Magrath and Cardston. The whole area in southern Alberta which is now irrigated demonstrates clearly what the land will produce if it has water. If it has water and produces like the one or two examples I have given anyone can readily see that the cost of irrigation works would be liquidated in time.
I am also going to ask for consideration for the territory on the north side of the river, south of the Red Deer area, which I am not going to touch at the moment. I am in favour of irrigating the Red Deer area of Alberta too, but at the moment I confine my remarks to the present irrigation canals north of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river, all of which I have covered very carefully.
The water is taken out of the Bow river on the north side of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river and diverted first to McGregor lake and from there into Little Bow lake. These two lakes have a capacity of 350,000 acre feet of water: In the area, north of the general line of the South Saskatchewan river there are 245,000 additional acres of land which is just as good land as that south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river, and it should be covered by this general irrigation scheme for southern Alberta. You would have north of the river
245,000	acres, for which there is ample water
St. Mary River-Reservoir

and ample reservoir capacity, not all developed but all of which can easily be developed, and then south of the main line of the river you would have 345,000 acres, or a total of about 600,000 acres in southern Alberta which could be and should be irrigated and for which an ample supply of water is guaranteed, provided that the reservoirs are built, particularly commencing with one at Spring Coulee on the south side of the main line of the river; second, at Chin Coulee; third, at Yerdegris, and fourth, at any' of ten other reservoir sites.
The north side of the river is peculiarly suited right now for the extension of the irrigation system because the main line of irrigation canals are already constructed. The first area to 'be taken in by the new project would be the Retlaw-Lomond area, with which my hon. friends from Alberta are quite familiar. That is an excellent area of land. I have been over it, and I observed that it has an excellent fall which is peculiarly and particularly adapted for irrigation purposes. I am convinced1 that God Almighty in His allwise providence, when He designed that part of Canada and endowed the soil of Alberta with that richness in chemicals which enables it to grow anything, knowing that it did not have the water it requires from precipitation, provided for it to have water, first, by providing the water in the mountains from which the South Saskatchewan river starts, and then by giving a fall to the land for not less than two hundred miles so that the water could flow down without having to be pumped.
The first area, the Retlaw-Lomond area, can easily be taken care of. It is just lying there waiting for the subsidiary canals to be built from the main canal that flows south and east from McGregor lake and from Little Bow lake. The main canal is completed right east to the Bow river, but when it reached the Bow river it stopped, for lack of money. That is to say, the connection of the canal west of the Bow river with the canal east of the Bow river did not take place. The water stops west of the Bow river, but the canal itself is completed east of the Bow river and for another fifty miles in a direct line, but perhaps sixty miles following the circuitous course which the canal takes to within sight of Medicine Hat. If the minister pays a visit to Medicine Hat and takes a motor trip on the north side of the Saskatchewan river with that brilliant and capable irrigationist, one of the ablest in Canada-I do not think there is a better one anywhere-Mr. David Hayes, of the Canada Land and Irrigation Company, he will take him, as he took me, over the route of the canal which ends very close to

Medicine Hat, having started east of the Bow river. It is not connected with the water canal west of the Bow river, as I said, because of lack of money.
In my judgment the first project that should be completed is the Spring Coulee reservoir on the St. Mary river. After the works south of the river are completed, the second project is to proceed to the north and connect up with the main canal of the Canada Land and Irrigation Company so that the water will then syphon east over the Bow River and connect up to the present dry canal east of the Bow river. By that means you would place under irrigation another 100,000 acres of land. In other words north of the ' South Saskatchewan river you would have
245.000	acres of irrigable land, and south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan river you would have 345,000 acres of land also irrigated; in other words, about 600,000 acres of new land.
That will be an additional 600,000 acres of what I call "sure crop" land. It is just as sure crop land as it is possible for land to be. The sun shines nearly all day long. I have never travelled anywhere where I have seen as much sunlight as I saw in southern Alberta. It is no wonder that their flag contains the sun bursting in the sky. The sun as I say, shines nearly all day long. With the sun, the land and the water what place in America could ensure more certain crops than southern Alberta can? For that reason I would not hesitate at all in proceeding with the construction of irrigation works for southern Alberta, both north and south of the main line of the South Saskatchewan . river. [DOT]	.
Now Mr. Speaker, when we know what the land produces-my hon. friend, I believe, told us what the land produces and perhaps I should not repeat it-


John Horne Blackmore: I did not tell it all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member referred to corn. Vast crops of highgrade corn are grown there. They are developing a market for Alberta corn. It is called Taber sunshine table corn and it is in great demand all through the west and right down to Ontario. In sugar beets they produce up to eighteen tons per acre. In potatoes and all kinds of grains the crops are tremendous on the irrigated land, while across the road, so to speak, on the non-irrigated lands, sage and wild rose and grass grows.
Some will say that you can irrigate that
600.000	acres of land, but what about other millions of acres of land? I believe the time

St. Mary River-Reservoir
is coming, perhaps not yet, when we can do the same thing for Canada that they are doing south of the border. The minister is perhaps better posted on the marvellous results in the half dozen or more states south of the international boundary down to southern Arizona than most hon. members, but I am familiar with it too. There they have built some thirty-six major projects, and they are irrigating over three million acres of new land. On to those three million acres they are transferring over a million citizens, if one counts their families, from the dried-out areas in the dust-bowl. They are going a lot farther; they are now introducing into congress at Washington a bill asking for the expenditure of $1,900,000,000 for irrigation in the California valley drained by the St. Joachim and the Sacramento rivers. That gives the house an idea of what our United States cousins think of the value of irrigation. They have created an enormous market in the last few years for the products and the manufactures of the eastern states. They have created in brand-new business of manufactured goods a new yearly market to the total of over $200 million. That is a lot of new business. That is a lot of jobs in the towns and cities of the eastern states.
If we irrigated 600,000 acres of land that are ready for irrigation in southern Alberta, that are crying out for irrigation, we would create in Alberta alone a market that would affect not only every factory in Ontario, but in Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, because they all manufacture and ship material out there. I have seen and have made it my business to go into the merchant stores, wholesale and retail especially, to ascertain what they had on their shelves that was made in eastern Canada. If they did not 'have a market for it they would not have it there, would they? We can greatly increase that market by irrigating the 600,000 acres of land. But I would not stop there. I think the grand old province of Saskatchewan needs consideration. If there is any province in Canada to-day that needs consideration it is Saskatchewan. Again this year what have they? One-third of their whole southern area depressed by drought. It is heart-breaking. I myself have travelled slowly south from Regina to Estevan, and I have been very muoh depressed with what I saw, all dried-out land upon which farmers, with all the hope that their hearts could have, have sown their seed in the expectation that they would receive some return, but they have received little. It is land that has less than ten inches of water a year; it is land that should have
a minimum of eighteen inches of water a year. That would not be enough to give them great crops, but it would give them somethnig. Take a route straight from the South Saskatchewan river from Riverhurst, right through to IJstevan. There are two million acres of land that could be sure crop land. If it were irrigated it would be sure crop land. Why is it not irrigated? It could be done.
The minister is an engineer; it is fortunate that he is, because he will know better than any other member of the government of the possibilities of engineering. I count on him standing up against anybody telling him that a dam could not be built there. I could build a dam on that river if I were given enough money to do it. That is all that is required. What does it matter if the dam at Riverhurst does cost $5,000,000? What does it matter if the dam has to be 2,000 feet wride, rather thick at the base; what does it matter if it has to be 3,000 feet thick? It does not matter what the width has to be, for they have them on the Tennessee river far wider than that; they have them in the western states far wider than that. What does it matter anyway? The cost is a capital investment. I would build a dam on the South Saskatchewan river somewhere near Riverhurst, and I would build it high enough to divert water not by flow but by pumping. They are doing it down through the United States. Look at the Black Canyon dam in Idaho. That dam is 183 feet high and is irrigating 20,000 acres of land complete and another 20,000 acres of land by pumping. If they can do it there we can do it here, and I would not let anything stop me. I would give those good people between Riverhurst and Estevan a chance to live. I would carry the irrigation works in southern Saskatchewan across that country and provide a sufficient domestic water supply for Regina and Moose Jaw, giving those people also a chance to live, and an opportunity to expand, which they cannot do at the same rate as they would if they had an adequate water supply.
I am sure that if the Minister of Reconstruction would take the bit in his teeth he could do it. He could build irrigation works that would be successful in both southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan. I am very happy indeed that the minister is here, and it is encouraging, at this late hour, to see the large number of members in the chamber. It goes to show that the heart of the House of Commons is sound. It shows that there are enough men in this House of Commons-I include the lady member alsoms
St. Mary River-Reservoir

who are thoroughly alive to and interested in giving the western provinces a chance for existence. I may say that I was associated vith manufacturing in a big way in eastern Danada, and I know perfectly well what vestem Canada has meant to the building jp not only of that plant with which I had been associated but of every other large manufacturing concern in the east. I know, from close contact with business which came from the west, that the plant with which I was issociated grew from a small beginning to *iuge proportions, and I know that the same 'a true of scores of others, through the develop-nent of the west.
The people of the west have been up against ,t pretty hard. They must have hearts of steel to stand what they have stood. I could not do it. I could not plant crops year in and year out without having any return. Those people must come of a strong and nigged race, and I can well imagine what they would be as a greater buying population if they were assured of huge crops every year: wheat, fifty bushels to the acre; sugar beets, eighteen tons to the acre; corn, 750 cases to the acre, each case containing twenty-four cans; peas, twice as much; dill pickles, sweet potatoes and everything that goes to make for wealth in the country. Millions of new dollars additional could be produced in the west by means of irrigation, wealth which otherwise could not be produced. To me it looks as plain as a-b-c, a matter of ordinary business. The money invested in these projects would give these people a chance to live.
The first job, in my opinion, is the Spring Coulee-St. Mary river reservoir. If we do not tackle that first job to begin with, then I do not see why we should expect our United States cousins to put up with the present situation much longer. They have completed their reservoirs. I know, because I have seen them. They have stored everything they can store and they want more water. Is it not natural, therefore, for them to look across the line and say^ to us, "You are a prodigal people, allowing all this water to run to the sea since 1921; now the time has come to call a halt and we shall have that water ourselves unless you conserve it." And they could take it by the international treaty already signed by us.
In conclusion, let me express my faith in the minister. He is an engineer and he has go; I repeat, if he will take the bit in his teeth and begin by building the Spring Coulee and Chin Coulee project, and the other little reservoirs, and go on to the north side of the river and complete the programme

there, there will be water to the Medicine Hat area and the whole programme will cost about $20 million, which is not much more than we paid for one cruiser. And three or four cruisers belonging to Canada or Great Britain were sunk off the coast of France and we never batted an eyelash. Why should we bat an eyelash at spending $20 million to rehabilitate southern Alberta? Or why should we bat an eyelash at the expenditure of the necessary millions to start a similar programme in Saskatchewan so that we might give the people in Alberta and that part of Saskatchewan a chance to live in the sun?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have only a minute or two to say what I have to say. I had hoped to make some remarks on this subject, but I may say that the government has rather anticipated this resolution by taking active steps to build the St. Mary river dam, -which, as the resolution suggests, is the first step and the key to the entire project. Plans have been prepared in years gone by, perhaps never very seriously, because it was quite impossible to divert the man-power required by the project during war years. But the plans are well advanced. They are being studied now, and discussions are taking place with the province, because on a project of this kind the province and the federal government must work in complete agreement. It is no small engineering project. As I recall, the dam is 120 feet high, which for an earth dam is a substantial engineering undertaking.
Hon. members will agree with me that the best engineering opinions must be had from men experienced in that type of work. Not only is it a difficult engineering project to build such a dam, but the conditions under which the' dam must operate are very trying in connection with an earth dam. There is a fluctuation of head that is considerable, a fluctuation of head under extreme weather conditions. The danger, as regards a dam of that type, is that the earth will slough as the water level rises and falls, and if that begins nothing can save an earth dam. Therefore the particular material must be studied carefully. It has been studied, and in my opinion the best expert engineering judgment must be brought to bear on the problem. That is being done, and I sincerely hope that a real start can be made toward the construction of the dam during the next building season.
I have given some study to the project. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) seems to study every interesting project and has given the house a good deal of the back-

Railways and Shipping Committee
ground of this question, and I should like to show the house how much I know about it. But since it is now eleven o'clock I shall have to reserve that for another occasion.



ADJOURNMENT

John Bracken: I should just like to say, that one of the two best governments in Canada has been returned to power to-day in one of the best provinces of Canada. The latest report I have indicates that the government in question has elected twenty-one members and is leading in fifteen constituencies, while the opposition is leading in four. It has been a great day for democracy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Bracken: I hope hon. members will applaud after the next statement. The government of Canada defeated as well, by the representatives of the common people.
It being three minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, October 16, 1945.