Mr. CAMPBELL:

In 1908, June 23rd.

Now, Sir, in view of the fact that the rail-

way will have to be paid for out of the sale of these lands and by the grain and cattle to be produced by the men who purchased these lands, I want to say that we are not here to-day as humble suppliants asking this parliament for favours; we are here demanding our right. This railway is ours, and I maintain lhat no other part of the Dominion has contributed anything towards its building. The grading has all been done, the bridges are all in, and only 92 miles of steel remain to be laid to complete this road. The then Minister of Railways when asked the question in the year 1920 as to the estimated cost of laying this steel gave the figure of 81,750,000. But as material and labour costs have decreased since that time, I presume the work could now be done for.less. I understand of course that a great deal of the road already built has been allowed to fall into disrepair, and that a considerable amount of money will be required to put it again into proper shape, but the least we can expect is that this railway should be completed to the bay and put in running shape and local traffic allowed to develop-the traffic from fishing, mining and lumbering industries. In that way we would get a very fair chance to try out the project and convince those who are still doubtful that it is quite feasible.

I should like to observe that the townsite at Fort Churchill has unfortunately been allowed to pass into private hands. The town-site at Port Nelson is still in the possession of the government, and I trust that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will see that it is retained until such time as it is needed for actual use instead of being allowed to pass into the hands of speculators.

The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) asked one hon. member on this side of the House what would become of the Canadian National Railways if the Hudson Bay railway were completed and in operation. Now, Sir, that question carried with it the implication that the scheme was feasible, and I was almost pleased to hear the hon. gentleman make the inquiry. It appears to me that those opposing this project are divided into two classes: those who think it is feasible and oppose it because it is feasible-I do not imply of course that the hon. member for Bonaventure is opposing the resolution; he did not say so-and those who, perhaps honestly, think the project is not feasible.

In going over the estimates that we have been dealing with recently perhaps I may be allowed to observe, without appearing sectional in any way, that after carefully elim-

Hudson Bay Railway

mating all the items that could in any way be considered national, and dealing only with those that I could class as gifts or bonuses or subsidies to the provinces, I find the figures are as follows:

Ontario and Quebec $2,775,000

British Columbia 2,295,000

Maritime provinces 1,921,000

Of this amount I might observe that Prince Edward Island gets only the small portion of $33,700 and the prairie provinces-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta-only $305,377, the total being $7,298,062.

To this total I might add the steamship subsidies, because in looking over them I do not find any of really national benefit. They serve the small ports, and therefore are only of provincial account. The large trans-Atlantic steamship systems that handle our grain and other products are made to pay their way by the freight charges they collect from our grain and cattle. These steamship subsidies amount to $1,128,275, giving us a total of $8,426,337. In looking at those items one may perhaps be pardoned for observing that the prairie provinces with approximately 25 per cent of the population of the Dominion receive only about 3i per cent of that total. This is a further reason why the government should give favourable consideration to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

In conclusion, I might refer to the fact that we are approaching a by-election in the constituency of Moose Jaw. I predict that the Liberal candidate will be promising the people that if he is elected the government will complete the Hudson Bay railroad. Therefore I hope the government will express themselves a litttle more frankly on this project, because it is certainly going to be an issue in the Moose Jaw election, and I do not want to see the Liberal candidate making any pledges unless he has the government behind him.

As for the criticisms and the doubts levelled at this project, we are quite prepared to meet them. In fact we have been meeting them for the last forty years. Doubtless there are and always will be such scoffers and doubters, and had it not been that men of vision overruled the skeptics the great country west of the Lakes would still be a fur preserve, the Canadian Pacific railway would never have been built. Indeed, we may go back a few hundred years and say that America would never have been discovered. And as we now criticise those who opposed or supported in their day, these other great projects so posterity will judge us for our decisions here to-day.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Before the vote is taken, Mr. Speaker, I wish to declare my position on this resolution. The resolution has not the definiteness and meaningfulness that one would like. Its firet demand is that the government consider a report of a Senate committee for the purpose of saving an investment in the Hudson Bay railway.

11 p.m. It would be a strange government in the Hudson Bay railway, solution to that extent. There is no commitment involved; the government accepting it is just where it was before. .

The second part of the resolution has more meaning. It calls upon the government to recognize the priority of the undertaking with reference to other transportation projects started subsequent to the Hudson Bay railway. The meaning of that as well could stand further explanation. It may go beyond what the ordinary man would interpret it as conveying. I take it to mean that the completion of the Hudson Bay railway should be a charge upon this country prior to the prosecution of other transportation projects of a similar or larger character. That is to say, the road should be completed before we put through any similar project whether in the .East or West; but not that its completion should be held to be a charge prior to the completion of minor, local, auxiliary and subsidiary projects of a transportation character, many of which are under way or should be in various parts of the Dominion.

Now assuming that I have not misinterpreted the resolution, I will make very clear where I stand myself. I hope in that regard I shall have more success than did the Acting-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) in his address a short time ago. I will try to imitate his brevity, but I will try very seriously to excel his clearness and finality.

In the first place I favour the Hudson Bay railway. It goes without saying that this would be my position. I do not purpose to canvass the merits of the undertaking, as one would be compelled to do if the whole project were in the future. I do not propose to discuss at all the feasibilty of the route. I know there are many still who doubt that feasibility. I know there are some who doubt it whose opinions from a practical standpoint would be better than mine. On that phase I only say this: The matter has been debated acd investigated, investigated and debated, not for a few years but for many years, for a whole generation. For forty years it has been the subject of dispute, and in that forty years, four decades, this country has come to

Hudson Bay Railway

the conclusion in so far as a country can express a conclusion, and come to it more than once and at the hands of both great parties.

The Senate of Canada has rendered a special service in this connection. Committees of that body have deliberated, listened to evidence, listened to professional opinion, have delved to the very heart of the question on more occasions than one. I think the most thorough -inquiry was at the hands of the Senate committee of 1920. There were those of the Upper House who viewed most pessimistically the feasibility of the navigation of the Hudson straits and who doubtless sought to bring before that committee the weightiest evidence that could be adduced against the practicability of that transportation route. Notwithstanding this, notwithstanding every effort, after very patient and prolonged inquiry the Senate committee reported favourably, and so far as the report shows, it was unanimous.

The Senate committee may be wrong. I know it is impossible lightly to pass aside much that is now brought forward arid has been all through these years tending to establish very considerable peril and to lay in the mind doubt as to whether, after all, there may not possibly be failure. Consequently, I would not base my support wholly on the certainty with which any person or any bodies can arrive at a decision on that phase of the question. I think the weight of evidence,_ the weight of the verdicts that have been given by competent bodies, is in favour of the route.

Then what else is there to be said? On the question of the utility of the road, outside of its utility as an export and import transportation means, there is testimony of a convincing character. I do not say that if it totally fails as a transcontinental means of transport, if it totally fails in its primary purpose, its usefulness for these other purposes would justify its construction were we at the point of determining whether we would undertake it or not but its usefulness for these auxiliary purposes is a real factor and is established beyond all question. The mineral development has been great. The mineral development has so far exceeded all reasonable expectations. That it will increase, there can be no question. In gold, in copper, in ivory, in many lines of minerals there is undoubtedly going to be great production in that region. As well there is prospect, indeed there is certainty, of substantial agricultural development, though by no means is that prospect as bright as it is for mineral development. There is also the exploration of the whole fishery resources of Hudson bay. That

[Mr. MeighenJ

these will amount to something there can be no reasonable question. What it will amount to is problematical as yet. As well for the transport of western coal into the heart of Ontario, there is sound reason, not fantastical at all, to hope that a feasible and a practicable route will be found along the Hudson bay. The extension of the Ontario government road up to Moose Factory will form a means of connection by which there can be transport from Nelson to Moose Factory by water over Hudson bay, and over these government roads by land, very much shorter and undoubtedly cheaper than in any * present means of transport. Of course there will be ice difficulties there, but by no means of the character or moment of similar difficulties to the north through the straits.

On account of these other services that the road renders, a second very powerful argument can be adduced in support of the project. But I do not rest on these two arguments at all. Indeed, I can quite understand the mind that resting on these two alone would feel that at this time we should not undertake such a venture. I base my position upon other ground upon which I place more importance than on anything I have said so far. We are not at the commencement of the venture. We are well on toward the conclusion of the venture. This country is committed to the project. This country has been committed to the project for at least fifteen years. This country has made a contract with many citizens that the road will be built, and it is a matter of good faith with a large portion of our population that the covenant of the Dominion be kept.

The history of the undertaking is long; the history of the subject is very long, but passing over the early period when perhaps it was the sport of political adventurers, and coming up to 1908, the Conservative party at that time became committed to putting through the Hudson Bay railway. The Liberal party about the same time-I am not certain about the priority of dates, but I know that both parties made it a portion of their platforms about that year. I know that prior to the election of 1911 the government of the day made a contract with a firm for the construction of a large section of the mileage, I think 187 miles. I do not think any practical work was done. I think the hon. gentleman who just sat down did them credit overmuch in this respect. I fancy that if the Minister of Railways turned the first sod, he turned about the last sod too under Liberal administration, but upon the change of government the contract was for the time being suspended in

Hudsort Bay Railway

order that the matter might be looked into from a practical standpoint, with a .view to determining chiefly what the best port was, and with a view to ascertaining the merits of the contract in every way. That done the contract was gone on with. That done the covenant of the Conservative party was implemented, and that mileage, and as well a further considerable mileage, was constructed, I think, totaling 332 miles. As well the grade was laid for the balance, or for almost all the balance; I believe I am right in saying that the entire balance of mileage was constructed, as far as the laying down and the grade was concerned.

Then the war came, and by unanimous consent-for I do not think there was any objection; I believe western Canada knowing, or believing, at least, that it was serious for that part of the countrj'-, quite acquiesced-* it was determined that the project could not be gone on with at all during the continuance of the struggle. The war lasted until the close of 1918. But the burden of the conflict was heavier financially when the war was over than during its continuance. The burdens incident to taking care of the returned men, and all the other problems .that followed in the wake of the war, made it impossible to pursue the project further for some time.

During the period that succeeded the war, pressure was brought to bear upon the government of that time to devote moneys to the construction of the road. The government did not see its way to accede to such pressure. Parenthetically let me say that the determination of the building or the taking up of rails and all else is a matter for this government and this parliament. It is a matter solely for our decision; it is not a matter for the decision of the directors of the National Railways at all. It has been a government project frtim the beginning, it is a capital undertaking, consequently it is an undertaking for which this government and this parliament are responsible, and in respect of which neither can shelter itself behind the Board of Directors of the National Railways.

I said that the late government did not feel that it could justify acceding to the pressure to continue the building of the road during its term of office. We were subjected to considerable abuse for taking that course. The then member for Nelson (Mr. J. A. Campbell), I recall was most insistent-and not only most insistent but I am sure hon. members who have spoken in a totally different vein in this debate will agree most unreasonable-in his attitude toward the late administration on this subject. During those years, because of the fact that we had to rehabilitate

the Canadian National system, we had to overtake years and years of deferred betterments and years and years of deferred equipment, we had to build branch lines without the completion of which almost indescribable hardship would have existed-during those periods when money by the hundreds of millions had to be applied to make our railway system that we now own the system that it is to-day, a, system that we are proud of, pressure was determined and unrelenting upon the late government, at the same time, to complete the Hudson Bay railway. The situation is rather different to-day. I am not saying that even yet the time has come-I observe this resolution does not say that even yet the time has come-when the capital moneys necessary to immediately complete this railway, should be provided.' The situation is however wholly different to what it was some three years ago. Now the moneys that are necessary for our Canadian National Railways-because of the position they have been brought to, because of the patronage they are receiving on account of the service they are able to give-those moneys are much less-less by scores of millions than they were in those other times; and now this House is evidently of the opinion, if this resolution is to express its view, that the time is even not yet at hand when further capital should be expended on extending this route.

I have given a history of the subject up to the present time. We find ourselves now within about eighty miles of the completion of the laying down of the rails to Port Nelson. We find ourselves fairly well agreed that the right port has been selected as the terminus at Hudson bay. Very much doubt existed as to that, but I fancy from the tone of this debate, that it is generally conceded that Nelson is the correct port. We find, as well, that even though the money necessary-some four or five millions-to finish the construction and complete the terminals at Hudson bay has been expended, even after that is done, to put the harbour in shape as originally contemplated will take some nine millions more. That totals about fourteen or fifteen million dollars, and in addition the building oi a terminal elevator will be essential in order to provide facilities for the export of wheat. These are not small figures; they are large.

And here let me make this observation: It would seem to me, and it has seemed to me for some time, that it ought to be possible with completion of the railway mileage to provide-perhaps not on the scale originally contemplated but on some less pretentious

Hudson Bay Railway

scale, perhaps some less permanent scale-* facilities by which the route can be 'tested, the feasibility of the navigation of the straits as a commercial venture can be tested, and all these obstacles be tried out. There should be some way by which-with a less expenditure, on a less extensive, possibly, let me say, a less permanent scale,-the whole plant could be put to trial.

Now, assuming so much let me say that it should have priority in my judgment, over other national ventures of a major kind. I do not think good faith will be kept with western Canada unless that is recognized by this House. Men have gone in there, families have gone in, settlers have gone in, on the faith of the determination of this parliament that the road would be built. Whatever may be the average judgment of a member here to-day, there is no disputing the fact at all that the three prairie provinces of the West are a unit, virtually a unit-behind the feasibility of this scheme. They to-day look to the Hudson Bay railway with the same enthusiasm, with the same confidence, that they displayed at the time they were able to persuade this parliament to undertake the venture. Settlers have gone in; large sections are to-day more populated than they would have been had the word of parliament not been given in this regard. Not only have settlers gone in but those already there- farmers of western Canada-relying upon the policy to which parliament was committed have extended their operations, have made investments and commitments on the face of the project. Of that there can be no question at all. This is the case over a large area of land; it applies to many tens and hundreds of thousands of our population. When we get that far we have not the option of turning back. It is the duty of this parliament to go on with the project and complete it, and parliament cannot say "We will do so in the long distant future, we will do so when we feel good and ready at some indefinite time." Such a course would not be keeping faith with western Canada. Parliament, of course, is justified in saying "We cannot do this now. We cannot commit ourselves to similar ventures now; the state of our finances will not permit." Such was the attitude assumed by the late administration. Such an attitude on the part of this government is less defensible because at the present time our railway commitments are by no means what they were, more time has elapsed and longer delay has occurred. While it may be defensible for a while, it would not do for this government and parliament to say

[Mr. Meighen.l

"We leave ourselves free to launch on hny venture whatsoever; we leave ourselves free to assume large national undertakings of a transportation kind, and let the Hudson Bay railway, to which we have been committed for 20 years, stand indefinitely in abeyance." I do not think such a course would be justified, and I think a negative to this resolution would virtually be a statement by this House that it left itself open to adopt such a course. Consequently, it does not seem to me a negative should be given. With the reservation, that I stated at first, that the completion of branch lines or local undertakings, proved essential in any part of Canada, is not necessarily affected by the passing of the resolution-with that reservation, I support the affirmative.

I believe, aside from all I have said, that every portion of our country is entitled, just as soon as the financial strength of the country justifies it, to the shortest, the best, the cheapest, let me say in one word, the most efficient lines for the transport of its surplus that can be procured, subject only to this qualification, that transport through Canadian ports west, north or east, should always have priority over transport through the ports of another country. With that reservation, I say the farihers of the far West have a right to reasonable facilities for the best transportation of their produce, namely, through the Pacific. Farmers through the central part of the West have the right to the best transport on the shortest line that can be provided for them. Canada has determined that this route furnishes that requirement for at least a considerable section of the country. Consequently Canada must comply with her undertaking in this respect. The same thing applies to eastern Canada. That is the general principle which is followed. In pursuance of this principle, relying mainly on the engagement this country has entered into, relying on the fact that we must keep faith, or respect for parliament will be lost, I support the resolution.

Let me express my regret that the minister has gone no further than to state that the government is not purposing to abandon the route. If I fully understood his remarks, he did not go beyond that assertion. I do not think such an assertion on the part of the government is sufficient. I think the House has a right to expect something more definite from the administration. Does the administration accede to the resolution or does it not? As far as I am concerned, there can be no mistaking where I stand, and it is not too

Hudson Bay Railway

much to ask members of the government to tell us where they stand.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

I very much regret that engagements elsewhere prevented my having the pleasure of being present this afternoon, and consequently I have not heard the debate. I have no doubt it was very instructive and interesting. But with very much that the right lion, leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said I cordially agree. I think it is too late to discuss the merits of the scheme. I am not so enthusiastic in my belief as to its value as a grain carrying route as some others, but this matter has been threshed out in years gone by, and rightly or wrongly this House, under various governments, has consented to the building of the Hudson Bay railway and the government of which I was a member began the construction of the railway. I think if one looks at the map of western Canada it is not difficult to find a reason why the western country should seek an outlet to the nearest and most attractive tidewater. If I lived in the West I should feel that we should have access to that route. Both parties have accepted the responsibility of it, and have done something in the way of building it, and both parties should see to it that it is one of the things we must undertake and in a reasonable time complete. I would hesitate to vote against it, because there is the danger that if one should vote against the resolution it would seem to imply a denial of the commitment of the past. I do not wish to be put in that position. In the resolution a clause has been inserted about priority over other projects. I am not sure what are the other engagements over which this is to have priority, but there are really commitments all over the Dominion, and it is the duty of the government to consider them all. I am anxious that the Hudson Bay railway should be undertaken but my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) made some reservation, and I should like to make a reservation. We must have some regard to the financial condition of the country, and I ask the House to keep that reservation in mind. .1 am going to support the resolution, because to vote against it would seem to me to be an indication that we were denying responsibility for the Hudson Bay railway. I do not want to deny it. I want to accept it, and the only reservation I make is that which applies to all large enterprises in Canada, namely that you must have regard to the financial situation of the country.

Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):

Since the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has

made a few remarks, I feel much better than I did before. I was about to rise to remark that there would not be very many people in the West who would throw their hats in the air when they read the remarks of the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). Hon. members representing the northern part of the western provinces have .addressed the House and laid the facts well before the House; in fact there has been considerable repetition, but I do not rise for the purpose of repeating any facts which have been presented to show the feasibility of the route. I firmly believe in it. It has been a part of my teaching in the West. I believe in it and see the need of it. But speaking as one who comes from near the international boundary, I might state that we in the West, know no party politics. Politics have no connection with the question; neither is it Progressive, Conservative, or Liberal. Each and all believe in the feasibility and propriety of the route. I have before me a resolution passed by the Estevan Board of Trade, that being the largest commercial centre in the electoral district of Assmiboia. I wish to read a few notes from a letter from the secretary of the Board of Trade, which accompanied the resolution. He says:

We feel strongly that this is a matter that should have the hearty support of every western member, and trust that some action may be taken by the government to ensure the completion of this project at an early date.

That is a sentiment we have had in common for a long time. I believe in the immediate completion of that road. I believe in the immediate completion of the facilities whereby at least a real good test of that route may be had. Further than that I am not going to ask the government to commit themselves tonight, but it seems to me that the 118 miles that it is proposed by the Acting Minister of Railways to have repaired does not go far enough to satisfy the needs of the country or the wishes of the people there, or to fulfil the promises that have been given to the people in the past. Now, I must protest to-night that it is not a fair thing to the people in that western country. They have a right to expect and do expect more, and I do hope the government may see in their wisdom ways and means whereby they can make provision for the road to Port Nelson this year. As I said before the ground has been well covered, and no arguments, I think, have been adduced to counter those which have been advanced in favour of the project.

Mr. ANDREW KNOX (Prince Albert):

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the

Hudson Bay Railway

House much longer on this question. The debate, I think, has covered the ground very fully, and in fact has been illuminating in many - regards. I believe some benefit has been derived from this discussion and although I have made some notes in regard to some remarks that have been made I will be very brief in dealing with them.

Practically the only opposition to the motion was offered by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). He assured us that he was with us on the tariff. Well, I must say that sympathy on the tariff is of very little use unless something else goes with it. He gave us to understand that he was opposed to us on the question of the Hudson bay project; possibly his opposition there will be about the same as his sympathy on the other question. Speaking of the tariff, it does seem too bad if we are restricted both in our buying and in our selling; because I am convinced that the restriction in our selling is brought about by the restriction in our buying. And along with these two restrictions, we shall suffer a further handicap if we are restricted in our outlets.

The hon. member for Lunenburg made reference to Captain Anderson's report on his trip in 1914, and emphasized the difficulty Captain Anderson had experienced in connection with getting stuck in the ice. Well that does not establish the impossibility of navigating Hudson straits. We know that many sea captains have got stuck in ice on the Atlantic. I am not a seafaring man, but I have had a little experience in that regard myself; I was on a vessel which was stuck two days and two nights in ice and fog on the Atlantic.

I might go further into this report, but I think it would be better to close the debate. I was disappointed that the Acting Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) did not go further than he did. We were to glad to know that the government had no intention of abandoning the project and that the 332 miles would be brought up to standard. But when we get that far we are no further ahead than we were in 1918, and I would like to see some indication that something further is to be done in that regard.

Mr. GRAHAM:

You will be a good deal

further ahead than you are now-118 miles ahead that otherwise would be gone.

Mr. KNOX:

There will be some delegations down here shortly from the West asking for something more than what is embodied in the minister's statement, and I hope the government will accede to their request.

In looking over this resolution I cannot see anything in it that the government cannot accept, having in mind the remarks made by the Acting Minister of Railways as well as by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). I do not think, therefore, that it is too much to ask that the resolution be adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Is the House ready for the

question?

Mr. MARLER:

Mr. Speaker-

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member may not speak at this stage without the unanimous consent of the House.

Go ahead.

Question.

Motion (Mr. Knox) agreed to, on division.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.

Tuesday, March 13, 1923