Mr. GRAHAM:

At any rate, they urged

the government to pledge itself to the completion of the Welland canal at the earliest possible date. That was the state of public opinion in that part of the country then, however it may have changed. I say emphatically that the WTelland canal was started largely at the request of the western people to reduce the cost of carrying their commodities. My hon. friend objects now and he gives as the reason for his objection the fact that the Hudson Bay railway is not getting a vote.

Mr. KNOX:

That is one of the reasons.

Mr. GRAHAM:

Well, that may be an excuse but it is no reason; it is not a reason that will carry my friend along. Suppose when the Hudson Bay railway started, members in parliament had refused to vote anything -for it because votes were not being asked for in connection with other undertakings. Would that have been any reason for not voting expenditures for that railway?

Mr. FORKE:

The point on which the

committee would like some information is whether it is absolutely necessary that the canal should be finished right away.

Mr. GRAHAM:

The longer it waits the

more it will cost. When the war came on the government of the day stopped construction and they had to settle with the contractors. After the war regular construction started again. I think hon. gentlemen have a wrong idea of the Welland canal, and I believe that no part of Canada would object more than the west, particularly those there who send their grain eastward, if we now stopped construction or retarded it. At the present rate it will take four years to finish the work. Does any hon. member think it would be good business to leave one section unconstructed? We -might as well stop work altogether, because the canal cannot be opened for use until every section is completed. Suppose we let up on the work, the canal could not be utilized and our investment would be idle.

Mr. KNOX:

Does the minister say it will take $15,000,000 annually for the next five years to complete the work?

Mr. GRAHAM:

I do not think it will.

Mr. COOTE:

A little more I think.

Mr. GRAHAM:

The contracts will be

completed as we go along, and as there is only one new contract to be let a less amount will be required each year. I think hon. gentlemen will see the wisdom of getting this work completed. I have not lost faith in the conviction I have expressed many times, that the completion of the Welland canal, so that grain can be carried in bulk down the St. Lawrence, will reduce the cost of carriage to a very marked extent.

Mr. SPENCER:

The minister stated that

most of the requests for undertaking this work came from the western provinces. Was it from members of parliament, boards of trade, or the organized farmers' associations?

Mr. GRAHAM:

I think I am safe in saying that in one section of the west that Sir Wilfrid and I visited there was not one single point where we were not urged to start construction of the Welland canal. There was another body of people-a small body, but they have increased greatly in the meantime-[DOT] that urged the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. These were the two things urged on us throughout the whole trip. Of course, it is a matter of history now that the Pacific coast route has opened up. On my return

Supply-Railways and Canals

from that trip, even coming through the prairie provinces, I was laughed at for saying that in a few years they would be shipping some of their grain to the Pacific coast, because it was then objected that we could not ship grain through the tropics in bulk, it must be put in sacks, and so on. But as to the east bound traffic, I am still of the conviction that the men in the west who asked for the Welland ship canal were wise, and that we ought to complete it as soon as possible.

Mr. MORRISON:

Was it mainly at the

request of western people that the government of the day started this project, or did not eastern representations have equal, if not more, weight with the administration? The minister says the contract was stopped when the war came on. That happened with the Hudson Bay route, too.

Mr. GRAHAM:

That was stopped afterwards, I think.

Mr. MORRISON:

The government saw

their way clear to resume work on the Welland canal, but they forgot all about the Hudson Bay railway. I think they should treat both projects alike.

Mr. MILLAR:

I am a little in doubt what course I should take towards the amendment. There is one aspect that I would point out. At the present time the cost of carrying grain from the head of the lakes down to Port Colbome runs from two and a quarter to four cents a bushel; that is for about a thousand miles. It costs about ten cents a bushel to carry that same grain a little over a third of that distance from Port Colborne to Montreal. There is a hundred and fifty miles of lake Ontario in the route that takes the higher rate, simply because the Welland canal will not permit of any more than light loading. With the completion of the Welland canal, that hundred and fifty miles of lake Ontario will belong to the route that takes the lower rate. For that reason I have felt a little more favourably inclined towards the Welland canal than perhaps have some of my colleagues because I believe it will be a greater benefit than some now realize; while I am convinced that the benefit from opening the St. Lawrence will be less than many anticipate. While I have no doubt whatever that the minister has ground for his statement that this canal was started largely because the west were asking for it, yet as against that I would say that although I was connected with farmers' organizations as far back as 1901, I never at any time heard any demand for this work; at least, I cannot remember any. However, the project has been started and a lot of money

invested in it, and unless it is completed a lot of the investment will stand idle.

The same with the

Hudson Bay railway.

Mr. MILLAR:

True. I think both should be completed.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Mr. Chairman, I am

not at all convinced that the completion of the Welland canal will be any material factor in reducing grain rates on the lakes. One thing stands out clearly in the study of the situation, that the only real factor in keeping down the rates on traffic between the head of the lakes and Montreal is the competition from American sources. Grain is always carried at a cheaper rate on a mileage basis to the American ports than to our ports, and that again is determined almost entirely by the amount of coal and iron ore that is handled on the lakes. Anyone studying the situation will be struck with that fact. When the coal and iron ore traffic falls off, it leaves more shipping available for the handling of grain, and consequently the grain rates automatically go down; while during the period of active traffic in iron ore and coal those rates go up. One thing that has a great deal to do with this on the Canadian side is our coastal laws, Which prevent American ships bringing grain to Port Colborne, and is a great factor in diverting our grain to United States ports. After giving the matter a good deal of study, I am still to be convinced that this canal will ever he a factor in determining grain rates on the lakes.

Mr. WARD:

Mr. Chairman, I am sure it

must be patent to all of us that if the Welland ship canal is to be of any real economic benefit to western Canada we must start to deepen the St. Lawrence river down to Montreal. I have stated on previous occasions that I do not believe the construction of the Welland ship canal will reduce the carrying Charges on grain one iota. The minister has accused us of not being sincere. Well, I do not think he is sincere when he tells this House-

Order.