Mr. EULER:

Would the hon. member contend that the shipping charges after reaching Port Nelson or Fort Churchill are as low as those from Montreal?

Mr. KNOX:

We have really nothing to go on at the present time, but we see no reason why there should be any difference. We fully expect there would be a higher insurance rate at the beginning, but the elimination of so much rail transportation would far more than offset this extra expense.

Now, as to the sentiment in the West in regard to the completion of this road. I need only point out that the legislatures of Manitoba and Saskatchewan after fully debating the matter have both passed resolutions urging that the Dominion government complete this work. The organized farmers-the United Farmers and Frain Growers' associations-in all three of the prairie provinces have passed similar resolutions. I have copies of resold tions passed by many boards of trade in the West, by the Associated Boards of Trade of Saskatchewan and by numerous other organizations. There can be no question about the sentiment in the West in relation to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

I could quote many extracts from western papers, but I do not think it necessary to do so. In fact I am confident that before the debate closes the House will be convinced that the West means business in this matter. In proof of that statement I would point to the resentment which was expressed in the West when the order was given last fall to lift one hundred miles of rail from this road. Happily that order was countermanded. I should like, however, to read two short extracts from eastern papers which go to show that even in the East the importance of this railway is not overlooked. The Toronto Star some six weeks ago contained the following editorial:

More grain last year poured into Port Arthur and Fort William by rail, and poured out of there by boat than ever before. But the cost per bushel to the western farmer of getting his wheat from his front gate to the docks at Liverpool is regarded by him as a handicap almost fatal to his hope of success.

The West wants and needs cheaper access to Europe with her grain. How is it to be had? Competition with grain from everywhere fixes the price of Canadian wheat at Liverpool; the railways and boats fix the price of hauling the grain to Liverpool; the producer of the grain gets what's left. It isn't enough. What the western grain growers see in this Hudson Bay route is that in shipping their grain to Europe they can cut out the long haul from Fort William to Montreal and place their farms as near tidewater as the farms of their competitors in Australia, Argentine find southern Russia.

Isn't it too splendid a possibility to be left untried, or abandoned when so nearly completed? The West is growing insistent about this enterprise and eastern Canada must consider it seriously. Canada has not at Montreal a large enough spout for the trade she has to pour out and will have to pour out in the future.

The other extract is from the Port Arthur News Chronicle, and I would particularly draw the attention of my hon. friend for Fort William (Mr. Manion) to the following;

In ordering the stripping of the road of rails and material the government has flown into the face of the West. It is- not surprising that the West looks with suspicion and fear upon the attitude the government has adopted towards the Hudson Bay road. Whether

Hudson Bay Railway

we believe the road will prove a failure or success is beside the question. The whole matter may be concentrated into the statement that the West wants the Hudson Bay Railway and will never be satisfied until it gets it. Give them what they want. It will not break Canada, the few millions that are required, and it will do more to remove western suspicions of eastern motives than anything else in the world.

If this only were the result it would be worth far more than all the completion of the road will cost. The eastern provinces can form no conception of how fierce is the demand of the west for the Hudson Bay Railway. That road must be completed and an appropriation of the necessary funds for that purpose should be made at the forthcoming session of parliament.

Mr. MANION:

If I may interrupt my

hon. friend for a moment-I do not wish him to think that I am opposing the completion of this railway; I. was merely trying to elucidate the point regarding comparative distances.

Mr. KNOX:

I quite understand that, Mr. Speaker, I also have a short quotation from an Old Country paper, the Monthly Trade Review of London. This appeared in its issue of November, 1917-not of recent date, it is true, but it is interesting as indicating the view taken in England:

. At the moment, when the Canadian government is pressing forward the completion of the new railway from The Pas to Port Nelson on Hudson's bay as a new outlet for the gigantic wheat fields of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, it is opportune to focus attention on an undertaking which will need every encouragement and support from the home government.

Canada's prairies to-day are the crucible of the nations, the imperial granary, the nearest and most prolific wheat-producing areas of the empire. What, therefore, can be done to ensure that they shall be developed for enormously increased supplies remunerative to the Canadian fanner and making the Briton's bread at home secure and more reasonable in price ?

The most direct and practical answer is, develop transportation-transportation on the railways and lakes of Canada and transportation from Dominion ports to the ports of the United Kingdom. The completion of the state railway from The Pas to Port Nelson on Hudson bay and the est ablishment of a line of grain-carrying and other ships by the Hudson strait route is the beginning, therefore, of a movement of enormous importance, both to Canada and to the United Kingdom.

It is evident from this, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Old Land are not unmindful of the importance of the wheat-growing provinces of the Dominion and realize that they are within much easier reach of tide-water ^nd much nearer the Old Land than the present route would suggest.

A few days ago the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Evans) instanced the cost of transporting a steer from Saskatoon to Liverpool-$51 and some cents. Since then I have been making a little investigation, and I find that the portion of that amount which would be attributable to the rail haul from Saska-

toon to Montreal would be something like $18. Applying that to the rail haul from Saskatoon to Nelson, at the same rate there would be a saving of something like $12. But that is not all. The shrinkage on such a rail haul amounts to at least five per cent. The average shrinkage between Winnipeg and Montreal is between three and five per cent, and the longer the haul the greater the shrinkage. The shrinkage, therefore, between Saskatoon to Montreal is easily five per cent. Now, five per cent is a very important item in connection with the price which the farmer would receive, and adding that to the saving on the rail haul which I have just mentioned, we can easily see that there would be a great saving if we could cut off something like twelve or thirteen hundred miles of rail haul. If we could save only $10 per head on these cattle to the farmer who produced them, I want to emphasize that that would mean the difference between success and failure to the stock industry of the West to-day. We in the West have been urged to go into mixed farming; it has been said that we cannot possibly succeed ' by continuing with grain alone. Now that the embargo has been lifted I see a great opportunity for bringing the stock industry into something like the condition we had some years ago, but unless something of this nature can be done the stock industry is doomed in the West. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I have a right to know because I am interested along that line myself.

Along with the shipment of our beef, we have also our dairy products, and a number of other products which will benefit very, very largely if we can make this route work out as we believe it will work out.

There is one other point I would like to make, and it is this. The Ontario government at the present time is projecting a. line of railway to the southern extremity of James bay. We in the West are determinedly looking forward to the completion of the Hudson bay lines, thereby giving us 'connection with that great Canadian sea at the other side. When these are both accomplished .facts, we shall have something more in common with the East, and I believe that is urgently needed at the present time. We also look forward to the development of great natural resources in that country, a development which I believe would justify the completion of the road even if the route to the Old Country was never opened up. The resources of that north country are something wonderful. We have assurances of that from every man who has gone up there, and we

Hudson Bay Railway

look forward to the development of these great resources.

Speaking on this subject last year I expressed myself as somewhat doubtful if the proper selection had been made of the port, but since that time I have convinced myself that the port of Nelson will supply all the necessary requirements of a shipping port.

I was confirmed in this view by a conversation which I had with a gentleman who was in charge of the machinery for several years while working at the bay. This man informed me that there would be ample room and ample protection for the shipping there and for .the ships which would lie at the harbour. The harbour was being constructed alongside the main channel, and he said that it would be a crime to abandon the work which had already been done, and which was still standing up well. Consequently I am convinced that the government should carry on the work which has been in progress there. As I pointed out before, there is 80-pound steel on the road, and the grade is four-tenths.

To sum up, I would just like to say that this project has been found feasible after repeated investigations, and nothing has ever transpired to prove it otherwise. The people of the prairies claim the completion of this road as their right and as a national enterprise. Money was provided for it by the sale of lands in the West especially set aside for that purpose. We believe there is no great opposition to the road except possibly among a few doubting Thomases and those who may be directly interested. Conditions demand that if we can get a shorter and a cheaper route to the European markets we must take advantage of it, and this fact is all the more emphasized since the tariff barrier has been increased between us and the United States market. We believe that with an increase in the British preference, coupled with this shorter and cheaper route, much of the handicap imposed upon us by the American tariff would disappear, and that a better, brighter day would dawn for the western provinces and incidentally for the whole of Canada.

Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):

It is usual

for the opponents of the Hudson Bay railway to magnify the usual difficulties of the engineer and the navigator into insuperable obstacles. I am reminded of an incident which occurred during the original survey of the railway. The engineers came to a soft place that required considerable filling. Of course, the engineers took it as part of their ordinary day's work, but a certain eastern journal, which I think is still hostile to the project, immediately announced that the engineers

had come to a standstill before a bottomless bog. The matter was taken up in this House, and it was found that the bottomless bog had no existence except in the mind of the editor of that journal.

Before I go on to deal with the feasibility of the route, w'hich I think is a very important, in fact, a crucial matter, I want to say a few words as to the question of expediency as it has been applied to this matter. We of the West, Mr. Speaker, have sometimes had an uneasy feeling that we have been bamboozled by this plea of expediency. Up to 1917 it was thought expedient by two successive governments which to all appearances entered upon this enterprise with the feeling that they were doing sc^in the national interest-up to that time I say two successive governments spent over $20,000,000 upon the enterprise. Then suddenly in 1918 it was thought expedient to close down the whole thing, and from' that time onward it was thought expedient to neglect the work done, to allow it to deteriorate and decay; and to crown everything, it was found expedient last fall to add human devices of demolition to those of nature, and to make an attempt to blot the whole thing out of the remembrance of man. During all that time yearly expenditures were made, amounting to tens of millions of dollars, upon other projects which had not one whit more claim than the Hudson Bay railway had. One is disposed to exclaim: "Oh expediency what wrongs have been committed in thy name! " and we of the W est feel that there is a good deal of explanation to be made on that score. So much for the plea for expediency.

What has been the actual condition in regard to this matter financially? The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) has referred to this. The impression that the construction of the Hudson Bay railway up to date has run the country into a debt of something like twenty millions, with enormous interest charges, is, of course, >

totally false. I think it is well understood in the House here, that every cent that went into construction was paid out of current revenue, and that current revenue was amply reimbursed by the provision which the hon. member (Mr. Knox) has referred to-that is the setting aside of certain lands, certain homesteads and preemptions. So the plea of economy can only apply to the small amount it would have taken to complete the route; and I think it can scarcely be denied that four or five millions, or six millions, would have been ample to have placed the Hudson bay route in a condition that would have allowed of an operation of at least an experimental kind.

Hudson Bay Railway

Therefore, the amount of saving that has been accomplished amounts to that four or five million dollars spread over two or three years; and when you set that over against the amount of deterioration that has taken place in four or five years one fails to see where the saving comes in. There is an old saying that "a dollar saved is a dollar earned"; but in this case a dollar "saved" was a dollar wasted.

Now, let me deal more particularly with the question of feasibility, for I know that in the minds of certain members there is some doubt as to the feasibility of this route, although it is a matter that has been discussed for a good many years. I want to say that the sources of what may be termed exact knowledge concerning the feasibility of the Hudson bay route consist of the reports of the several expeditions that have been sent out by successive governments. - A vast amount of money has been spent, at one time and another, in sending out competent people, properly equipped, to ascertain the truth about this route. It is no use contending that the governments-the Liberal government and the Conservative government-undertook this thing for purely political reascms, and went into it blindly and inadvisedly, because there is evidence that is readily accessible to show that all the material facts were at hand, and those facts are very well set forth in these reports. Now the more important of these reports are * the Gordon report of 18845-6, the Wakeham report of 1897, and the repdrts of of the Hydrographic surveys under Captain Anderson, and others, from 1910 to 1914. I know that attempts have been made, at times, to discredit these reports. Partisan zeal has sometimes led people to try to discredit these reports, but I say that any candid student of them must admit their great value, and, I would add, to a certain extent their finality. The evidence which they give is cumulative and progressively convincing, and you cannot get away from it. They vary as regards details but on essential points they pretty nearly all agree. I think they may be taken as being trustworthy, and practically nearly all that you need to consult-I think they may be said to be a compendium of all that can be said for or against this route. Another thing I might interject is this-that these reports have an added value because they contain, embedded within them, all the available unofficial evidence, evidence that has been gleaned for a long period from sea captains, from Hudson's Bay Company officials, and from others that are qualified to fMr. Bird.]

speak. All this evidence is to be found in these reports.

Now, having carefully studied these reports the conclusion I have come to-and I hope my bias in favour of this route has not in any way interfered with my judgment; I do not think it has-is that, as was stated a few moments ago, the months of reasonably safe navigation are July, August, September and October. Indeed, in some favourable years you may add part of June and a part of November to that period. The opening and the closing of the straits for navigation depends upon the Arctic stream of ice, coming from Baffin's bay, which closes the eastern entrance to the straits from the latter part of November to early in July. . In the early part of July, usually in the first week of that month, the ice opens out and permits steamers to enter, and the date of that opening is fairly constant. Reports that extend away back for two hundred years show that the first week of July is a fairly constant date for the opening of the straits. Sometimes, indeed, steamers can go in there in the middle of June and instances of this having been done can be quoted. The closing of the straits is also pretty constant and takes place every year about the last week in November, although sometimes the closing is extended ' to December, and in some cases the beginning of January, on one or two occasions in fact the straits might have been cleared in the first week in January. These are the facts concerning the navigation of the straits, and although I believe that on the west end of the straits the Fox channel ice is a factor, yet from the evidence given it cannot be said that the Fox channel ice governs the navigation of the straits. Whatever you prove of the eastern end of the straits applies to the western end also. In establishing this, one does not contend that the route is such that it will not require a certain amount of adaptation on our part. The difficulties are great of their kind, but they are not at all insuperable. They can be overcome. They have been overcome and are being overcome. The reports of Captain Anderson of the Hydrographic survey prove that with every successive season of investigation something of value is discovered concerning the navigation of the straits, and perhaps the most instructive thing is this: that in 1911 when the Minto went into the straits it had a very difficult passage and suffered considerable damage, but in 1912 under similar conditions the Minto, benefiting from its previous season's experience, went in and made the passage with the

Hudson Bay Railway

greatest of success. Another matter that is very-instructive is the experiences of different steamers in the same season and at the same time. These experiences which are in documentary form can be examined and are very instructive. For instance at one time the Acadia was hopelessly stuck in the ice between Mansell island and Coats island, and yet practically at the same time the Bona-venture found a passage five miles wide at the same place. In the eastern end of the straits Captain Anderson-I think it was in 1914- was badly stuck in the ice, and at exactly the same time there was a fleet of five ships, including the Sheba which is an ordinary unprotected tramp steamer, went through unscathed. So that you see these incidents prove that with every season of navigation something new is learned, and the conviction that comes to one is that continued investigation with its accumulated experience, and with the advantage of modern methods, the navigation of those straits will be increasingly safe and practicable.

Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the Senate report of three years ago. Now I will admit the weakness of that report from an argumentative point of view. It has its limitations. That has to be conceded, but I think it was an honest attempt to co-ordinate all existing evidence on material points. One of the things I might refer to briefly is the fact that it confirms unequivocally the opinion that has prevailed for over a generation that the straits are navigable for at least four months of the year, and the only point on which it is inconclusive is that respecting the comparative merits of the two ports. I want to interject a word here to show this much disputed question of the comparative merits of the two ports is not such that it need retard the completion of the Hudson bay route. The choice that exists between them is not very important. Take, for instance, the initial cost. There are some figures in existence that were given by the present hon. Minister of Defence (Mr. Graham), I think in 1909 or 1910, showing the comparative estimates for these two ports. The estimate for Churchill was over $4,000,000 more than the estimate for Nelson; that is, for the initial expenditure. Then with regard to operation, does it not seem reasonable that the additional mileage that would be required at Churchill would cost at least as much as the dredging that would be necessary from year to year at Port Nelson? *

As to the question of terminals, we have been told on official authority that development at Churchill on a small experimental

scale would be no more favourable than at Nelson, and at Port Nelson, development on a big scale would be distinctly favourable. I would not have hon. members forget also that $6,000,000 had been spent on Nelson harbour, that the railway had been headed in that direction and is nearly completed to Nelson. As to navigation of these ports, I may say that it is a delicate matter for a layman to deal with. One does not even begin to understand the technical words used, but I think it is self evident that, from the point of view of natural accessibility, Churchill has the advantage. Nature meant it for a port. But then the difficulties that are associated with Nelson are not insuperable, and by no means formidable. Before any survey was made it was not difficult for a skilled mariner to approach the port, and an accurate survey exists to-day. It has been properly charted, and with the addition of the necessary buoys and beacons, and perhaps, radial stations, the accessibility of Nelson will be beyond the shadow of a doubt. Without expressing any personal bias in either direction, I simply want to point out that the choice between these two ports is not such that it need retard the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

I would like to say a word as to the desirability and urgency of this route. I do not know whether I should detain the House by giving some idea as to the enormous natural wealth that exists in the country bordering on the Hudson Bay railway, but in a brief way, without giving many figures, or reading many quotations, I think I can convey to the House some idea as to the natural wealth that does exist there, which certainly some day will be a contributing factor to any railway that runs into that region. Taking the country that is already traversed by the Hudson Bay railway, beginning at ' Mile 82, we find that wonderful country called The Pas mineral belt. It commences a few miles west of Mile 82 and stretches to the Saskatchewan border. In that district there have been invested in the last few years over $2,000,000. At one period during the war $2,000,000 worth of copper was taken out of one mine under most difficult conditions. The area called The Pas mineral belt is rich not only in copper but in gold, and has big promise for the future.

Then, if you proceed to Mile 130, you enter that large area-I think it is 10,000 square miles-of valuable agricultural land-good clay land that is capable of producing and ripening wheat. That alone is a consideration that ought to have influence. Then, proceeding from that valuable agricultural area toward the bay, the railway actually

Hudson Bdy Railway

parallels-indeed, twice crosses-the Nelson river with its wonderful water-power potentialities. At the very place where the railway crosses the Nelson river, Kettle rapids, there is a possibility of developing over 1,000,000 horse-power. That northern country is perhaps richer than any other place in Canada in that respect, with possibly one or two exceptions.

Mr. GOOD:

What about the development of water-power in the winter time at those places?

Mr. BIRD:

I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Nelson is a mighty river; it is one of the biggest in the world, and has a very strong current. While I have not investigated the matter in detail, I believe the government reports refer to minimum flow in connection with this potential power development. I suppose that means that it is the flow all the year round.

Mr. MACLEAN (York):

May I interpose an answer to the question? I was talking with Sir Adam Beck less than two weeks ago, and he tells me that it would be possible to generate over" 4,000,000 horse-power on that slope to Hudson bay. That power can be used for the mining country to the north all the year round, as well as for the railway.

Mr. BIRD:

I have seen the total available horse-power in the north of Manitoba estimated as over 6,000,000; I think the government report gives it at about $3,000,000. All that power is adjacent to the Hudson Bay railway and may be utilized at points where the railway crosses the river. In addition to these major resources there are minor ones, such as fur, fish, and possibly pulp, which will in a smaller way be contributing factors to the traffic that will some day maintain the Hudson Bay railway.

' When we get beyond the railway we have the Hudson bay. Although the extent of the resources of the bay itself is somewhat problematical, it is the only means of access to an area in Canada comprising over 2,000,000 square miles-an area the extent of which almost baffles the imagination. I say that the Hudson Bay is the onl}' means of access to this vast territory which everywhere show's signs of being richly mineralized. This is not imagination; it is not especially got up for the purpose of debate. To prove that, I will read my only quotation; it is from Dr. Corless. President of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, an utterance he made only last year. He said:

We can well afford to stand off for a few moments in order to try to estimate the probable significance to

mining of the enormous region surrounding Hudson bay, with an area of 2,000,000 square miles, occupying considerably over one-half the entire surface of Canada.

I will summarize by saying that Dr. Corless emphasizes the fact that not 10 per cent of this area has been investigated and that only a small proportion of that 10 per cent has been thoroughly investigated. ' But the result of the investigations made goes to prove that this vast area is very similar to the area in northern Ontario that has already produced such vast wealth for this country. Further on he says:

Fortunately, enough is known to make reasonably certain that the broad average formations of the less known parts will closely resemble those of the part already more fully examined. In the only parts where any detailed geological examination and prospecting have been carried out there have already been discovered fabulously rich deposits of iron, nickel, gold and silver containing many thousands of millions (billions) of dollars in gross value of these metals.

If anyone desires further information respecting the character of that country I would commend to his perusal a publication issued by the Department of the Interior in 1914, entitled The Unexploited West. It would make all of us better Canadians if we knew that this vast country, equal, as Dr. Corless says, to one-half the total area of Canada, and often represented on our maps by a blank, is not totally devoid of use, but is full of splendid possibilities. And the only key to that area is the Hudson Bay railway.

I would like for a moment to divert my remarks to the accumulated traditions that have gathered around this route during centuries of adventure and of trade. From the splendid old sea-dogs of Queen Bess right down to the modem Yankee whaler, there have been those who from one motive or another have been prepared to brave the obstacles of this route. In those days it was , not only the play writer who was of such stuff as dreams are made of, but every bluff sea-master who went down to the sea, sometimes to do grim business, was animated with vision. It is often difficult to know which to admire most, their splendid seamanship or their visionary power. Such men as Frobisher and Davis and Hudson dreamed of Cathay and the route thither, and dreaming of it were able to accomplish things that they could not otherwise have accomplished. Those northern waters had a fascination for them; they played upon their imaginations in such a way that unconsciously they began the process by which Canada has become what it is to-day. We would not know Canada as it is now had it not been for the vision of those brave men of old. The spirit of those olden times speaks to us now;

Hudson Bay Railway

It has been enshrined imperishably in story by such men as Hakluyt and to-day it is voiced in thrilling song by such men as Sir Henry Newbolt, from whom we had the privilege of a visit the other day. Sir Henry Newbolt is Britain's finest interpreter of the spirit of those early days; through his verse it seems to call to us like a "far bell a-ring-ing," imploring us not to become urbanized and sophisticated, not to allow ourselves to suffer the blight of soul in which vision perishes and heroic effort languishes.

Coming down to a later time, we find this route associated with traders who for generations enriched themselves through its natural wealth and associated' with their prowess was the vigorous contention of the nations of Europe.

I would pause here just to express my appreciation of the decision arrived at by the Department of Interior to preserve for all time to come Fort Prince of Wales on the shores of Hudson bay. There it stands and will continue to stand, we hope, for all time as mute evidence of what this bay and this region meant to minds of the eighteenth century. Surely a route which the ill-equipped Elizabethan seamen conquered, which has enriched generations of traders, and for which nations have contended, has something for the imagination of the Canadian of to-day.

Returning again to the urgency of this route I want to say that for the West it is primarily a matter of transportation. The western farmer has slowly realized that the profits of his toil from year to year are fated to be continually precarious; and that fact has worked upon the mind of the western farmer and the residents of the West generally. The western farmer has felt himself in recent years constantly ground between the upper and nether millstones of high cost of production and high cost of marketing. With respect to the high cost of production, he scarcely knows to-day whether the fiscal system, against which he has protested so many years, or the financial system is his greatest enemy. If he has as much success in attacking the financial system as he has had in attacking the fiscal system a great deal of sympathy is coming to him. With respect to marketing, last session something like a gleam of hope came into the breast of the western farmer, although I am afraid it was almost entirety illusory. He asked the Dominion government for a wheat board and it was granted him, but granted him grudgingly and with much opposition, and, I am afraid, in such a way that it will never be of any use to him. And then as to transportation, he did get some satisfaction, but he had the

chagrin last season of seeing the advantage filched from him by the predatory interests of the Great Lakes. Now, it is this hopeless fight in order to stabilize the products of his toil that has worked upon the mind of the western farmer; and it explains to a large extent the phenomenal revival of interest in Hudson bay which took place last winter. The farmer realizes that this fight is almost hopeless, and the Hudson Bay railway fascinates him because he thinks, and rightly I believe, that it offers at least a partial remedy for the malady of distance from which he suffers. And distance to the western farmer is a malady. It is a blight, just as much as the rust on his wheat is a blight, just as much as foot and mouth disease would be in his cattle; and a few million dollars that the Dominion government might expend in removing this blight would bring a benefit not only to western Canada, but to the entire Dominion.

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):

Has the hon. member considered what effect the opening of this route would have on the Canadian National railways?

Mr. BIRD:

Well, I have not; other considerations have had precedence ip my mind; and having watched the writhings of the western farmer upon the grill of economic conditions during the last few years I think his case has a right to have precedence over the National railways. I believe a way could be found to solve the problem of the National railways, but in the meantime I think the western farmer has a right to go ahead and deliver himself in the most speedy manner he can. The western farmer has come to the point where he sees in the Hudson Bay railway a gleam of hope denied him in other quarters, and the reason is that the Hudson Bay railway brings his farm, his cattle and his grain just one thousand miles nearer to his market. I have read somewhere that the Parisian truck farmer, when he goes from, one farm to another, takes his soil with him. He digs it up and carries it away to the new farm. Suppose the western farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta could dig up that wonderful soil of theirs and transport it one thousand miles nearer Liverpool, imagine what that would mean to them. You will see, then, why they insist on this thing. In conclusion, let me refer to another aspect of the question which is not quite so tangible as those I have dealt with, but which is just as important, and that is the psychological effect that the completion of the Hudson Bay railway would have on the western farmer. We have heard recently some talk about the discontent of the

Hudson Bay Railway

West in comparison with the contentment of the East. I imagine that the placidity of eastern conditions has been somewhat exaggerated; and I am convinced also that the discontent of the West has been misinterpreted. I think that trivial causes have been alleged to explain that discontent. But the real causes are not trivial; they go to the very roots of western life. The fact is that the West, like every other spot on earth, has been endowed by Providence with certain advantages and certain disadvantages. And this is what has happened. Under the pretext of a national policy, in the name of Canada, we have ruthlessly cut through natural conditions, emphasizing in every case the disadvantage and nullifying the advantage. That is what we have done in the name of a national policy. Shut out absolutely from its natural outlet to the south; its outlet to the east preyed upon by the bold, bad, barons of the " Big Sea-waters ", and its only outlet to the north too often made the sport of political caprice, you cannot expect the West to be content under conditions of that kind. No intelligent and vigorous people ever have been content under such conditions. The West suffers from its isolation and it knows it. Buried, so to speak, in the depths of a continent,-people who live in the East cannot realize what this means-and with no outlet "to the outside world except such precarious ones as are controlled by other people, how can you expect the West to be content? The sentiment which an isolated people develops towards its natural outlets is the most potent sentiment that can actuate any people; and to tamper with it, to make it a political question, to refuse it in the supposed interest of any other section of Canada, is almost utter recreancy to the best interests of the Dominion as a whole.

We often hear-at least I have heard more often during the past year than ever before- irresponsible talk about separation. There is a stirring in the tops of the mulberry trees which our statesihen would do well to n6te before it becomes a tornado. Now if, this irresponsible talk be folly, it is only surpassed by one other folly-the constant refusal of this spontaneous and universal aspiration of the West. I repeat, its refusal under any pretext whatsoever is a species .of folly that surpasses even the folly that I have mentioned almost under my breath.

Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we have listened with a great deal of interest to the excellent speeches of both the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) with regard to the possibilities and

the feasibility of the Hudson bay route. Before dealing with the question I should like to say that as far as I am personally concerned I have a great deal of sympathy with the aspirations of the western people. On one subject which is very close to our hearts -the tariff-I think I would go almost as far as they would. I realize too the handicaps under which they suffer by having to bring their grain and other farm products such a long distance by rail to reach the European markets. We in the Maritime provinces suffer just the same in that we are kept out of our great market to the south, with the result that any goods we might find an outlet for in Quebec, Ontario or the western provinces we cannot very well sell on account of the high freight rates. So in any remarks I shall make I want my friends to understand that my sympathies are entirely with the West, and if I thought for one moment that this Hudson bay route was feasible I would support the resolution.

Now, Sir, it seems to me that this matter may be dealt with in three phases. The first is, whether it is feasible to build the line of railway from The Pas to the terminal at Hudson bay. I think everything any government can do should be done for the people of northern Manitoba. If, as the hon. member for Nelson says, there are great possibilities of development in that part of the province, and if it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the railway authorities, of parliament and of the government, that it would be wise for the line to be completed, then I think the work should be undertaken. But I cannot deal with this phase of the question satisfactorily because I do not know very much about it.

The second phase I should like to discuss is the feasibility or otherwise of the water route from the terminals at Port Nelson to Europe. As the hon. members have both said, a great deal has been written in the past two years in regard to this route. The hon. member for Nelson quoted what Captain Anderson, who was out there for several years, wrote with regard to the Hudson bay and strait. I have under my hand his various reports from 1911 to 1915, and I intend to deal with them in a few minutes. The hon. member for Nelson said that some years this route was navigable for four or five months of the year, and he added that during that period whilst one vessel could not get in for a long time another vessel came in a day or two afterwards without any difficulty. If the hon. member had had the slight experience I had in the ice fields for

Hudson Bay Railway

about two seasons he would understand exactly what that meant. In my opinion it was a very poor argument in support of his case because it proved that the bay was full of ice at the time both these steamers attempted to get in. While one was jammed in the ice, the other vessel, perhaps on account of pressure of wind from a certain direction making a lead in the ice, was enabled to get through. I have under my hand some photographs taken of Hudson bay, showing ice conditions there, from 1911 to 1915, and if any hon. gentleman thinks that the Hudson bay route is feasible for ordinary steamers, then after looking at these photographs I am confident he will change his opinion. In every one of these photographs where the Minto, the Acadia, the Bonaventure and the Boethic are trying to get through the ice, it will be observed that this ice is not merely five or six inches thick, but extends to a thickness of ten or twelve feet, and it is impossible for any steamers to get through such a solid obstruction without a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. KNOX:

Has the hon. member never seen conditions of the same kind in the straits of Belle Isle?

Mr. DUFF:

Yes. If my hon. friend and I could this afternoon travel by aeroplane to the Isle-au-Bois, in the straits of Belle Isle we would find the channel completely blocked with ice. If we went down to Quebec this afternoon we would find there that although the lower reaches of the St. Lawrence right down to the straits are blocked with ice, at Quebec it is possible for any vessel to get part way to Montreal by working her way through what is known as drift ice. So although a ship may be able to navigate a way through the ice flows, out in the mouth of the strait near Button island and cape Chidley practically throughout the whole year the ice blocks that strait. It is quite true that after a southwestern gale when the wind blows at a high velocity for four or five days the ice is shoved away over to the northeastern side, and if a vessel arrives at that particuliar time she is able to work her way into Hudson strait and reach the bay.

My hon. friend from Nelson said that if this railway was completed and the terminals built the farmers of the West would be a thousand miles nearer their market than they are at the present time. That is quite true so far as distance is concerned but he forgot to take into consideration the fact that even if steamers were able to get into the bay and take aboard their cargoes they would be two or three days longer navigating out past cape Chidley, even 67

if there was little or no ice. The captains would not navigate their ships after dark fearing ice conditions. Consequently there would be so much more time taken in navigating the passage which would offset the saving in distance. I might say that the photographs to which I referred were taken during the months of July and August, right in the height of the season when if this route was at all feasible there would be no ice in the bay or the strait yet every one of these photographs shows a heavy field of ice covering practically the whole of the bay.

The hon. member for Nelson said that if they could get the railway built to Hudson bay and the terminals constructed a route would be established between Hudson bay and Fjurope which would be a great thing for the western country. I do not think it would make very much difference. If parliament and the government decided to complete this road and make a test of this route, what would we have to do? In the first place, after the railway had reached Port Nelson, which it has been acknowledged here is better than Fort Churchill for the purpose of terminal facilities, it would be necessary to construct there docks and terminals. I am told by men with whom I have talked, and who have worked in Hudson bay for several seasons on the dredges, that it is practically impossible to get proper dockage facilities at that place, and for several reasons. The first reason is that although $6,000,000 has been spent practically all on dredging at Port Nelson, yet to-day there is very little if any more water there than there was when the dredging started. It is also a well-known fact that it would be necessary to build miles of terminals, not miles in width but in length, because the water at Port Nelson where the railway is supposed to end is very shallow. The result is that perhaps miles of dockage would require to be constructed. That would take a large sum of money.

But even when these docks were constructed I am told that the current coming down the Nelson river is so strong and the velocity of the wind in Hudson bay so high most of the time, that it wbuld be practically impossible to hold these vessels to the dock for loading and unloading except in very unusual weather for that part of the country. My hon. friend perhaps knows himself that in Hudson bay we hardly ever get summer breezes. The wind blows at a terrific rate of speed practically every day, and what with the strong current coming down the Nelson river and the wind and undertow from the northwest blowing across these docks where the steamers would

Hudson Bay Railway

lie, it would be almost impossible, I am told, to hold them at the docks for loading.

But supposing all these difficulties were overcome. What next do we have to contend with? I think everybody will agree with me that the ordinary cargo steamer would not be suitable for this route on account of the ice conditions. A special kind of ship would have to be constructed and especially strengthened from the bow to the fore rigging and perhaps further aft. These steamers, of course would cost very much more than the ordinary tramp steamer or cargo boat and as they would only be able to operate in Hudson bay, as my hon. friend himself says, for four months at most during the summer, what would they do during the other eight months of the year? They would not be practical business carriers for this reason: They would cost about twice as much as the ordinary boat to build, and when they went into competition with other steamers on other routes after they had finished their charters on the Hudson bay route for four months, in order to pay dividends and even make expenses they would have to get higher freight rates than competing boats. It would be impossible to let these boats after only four months on the Hudson bay route lie up for the rest of the year. It is hard enough now for people in the shipping business to make both ends meet with their boats running twelve months in the year instead of only four. Consequently, I say that unless my hon. friends expect the government to build these steamers and spend large sums of money in building proper dockage facilities no shipping man is going to invest in boats which would have to be specially constructed for the Hudson bay route.

If the government did construct these boats, or if shipping men did, "what would be the result then? I think every hon. gentleman will agree with me that no boats are going into a dangerous business, no steamers would go over this route unless when their charters were made with their agents or with the railway companies, they were guaranteed a higher freight rate than if the Hudson bay were all clear of ice and they could go in and out night as well as day without any difficulty. Consequently, special steamers having to be constructed, operating only four months in the year and demanding a higher freight rate, the insurance companies also asking a higher freight rate both on the steamer and cargo, my hon. friends would find that instead of getting lower freight rates than at the present time the freight rate on the Hudson bay route would be much higher than the rate via Quebec, Montreal, St. John or Halifax.

I think it is unnecessary for me to say much more. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) has referred to what Captain Anderson had to say about this route. I do not wish to weary the House by quoting at length, but I hold in my hand Captain Anderson's report for the year 1914, and I shall give a few extracts to show what he thinks of the feasibility of the Hudson bay route. He says:

After clearing the ice about Belle Isle, the course followed was from 75 to 100 miles off shore and little or no ice was seen until we hauled in for cape Chidley, on Sunday the 19th.

That is the 19th of July. Cape Chidley is the cape outside of Hudson bay.

At 3 a.m. light winter ice was entered and passed through without difficulty until 7 a.m., when about 90 miles southeast from cape Chidley and 60 miles off shore, heavy winter and Arctic ice was entered, making progress slow and hazardous. Later in the day, the rudder received damage by coming in contact with a large pan while "backing up" and the ship was hove to for repairs.

Backing up means that when the steamer cannot get through the ice she has to back, up in the water behind her and go ahead a second time.

Mr. SHAW:

What was the name of that

boat?

Mr. DUFF:

The Acadia, but I can also quote from the experiences of the Bcethic, the Minto and the Bonaventure. It goes on:

It was found that the rudder stock had been twisted, necessitating the removal of the quadrant and cutting a new key slot. This operation took the remainder of the day and the night.

The ice fields appeared very extensive, no open water being visible from the mast-head. The steamer Bonaventure, chartered by the Department of Railways and Canals for carrying supplies to the Hudson bay terminus at Port Nelson, was picked up by wireless and reported that Bhe was icebound about 25 miles southest of the Button island.

The Bonaventure was icebound about twenty-five miles away from the other steamer, showing conclusively that this was a very extensive field of ice covering practically the whole of Hudson bay.

Mr. HOEY:

You mean Hudson strait.

Mr. DUFF:

The water outside Hudson

bay.

Mr. BANCROFT:

The location the hon.

member is speaking of is Hudson strait, which is a good many miles from the bay.

Mr. DUFF:

How can you get into the

bay unless you pass through the strait?