Mr. SANDERSON:

The letter my hon.

friend read referred to the port of Churchill, not Nelson.

Mr. MANION:

Yes, I understand Churchill is a very much better port than Nelson.

Mr. SANDERSON:

That is not my hon.

friend's opinion.

Mr. MANION:

I have not offered my own opinion. I have not said anything about it

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

personally, but I say, in view of the information we have received from reports from engineers and others and from the newspapers, neither my hon. friend nor myself can have any absolute conviction as to what the most feasible route would be.

At six o'clock the committee took recess.

After Recess

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. McINTOSH:

As the representative of a riding which may be described as being in the backyard of the Hudson bay territory, and as a western member of this national assembly, I feel it my duty to take part in the debate to which we have been listening for the last two days. The speeches on the other side of the House remind me of a story in which the element of doubt is the most conspicuous feature. There was a good-natured, well developed and exceedingly corpulent coloured gentleman named Cy Stoutin who, after a life in which spirituous refreshments played a prominent part and in which he had as good a time as possible, finally lost control of himself and passed off the stage. Upon his death a lady friend of the family called upon his widow to offer her condolences. This good soul, who happened to be a spiritualist, said that in a vision the night before she had seen Cy in the company of spirits. The widow said this could not possibly be; there must be some doubt, for Cy had been of such a nature and had lived such a life that he certainly could not have left any spirits behind him. In this debate, although there is an element of doubt as to where some hon. gentlemen stand, the western contingent in this House are deeply pleased to observe that this question has taken a hold on many members in the party to the left of the Speaker. With that support, and with the solid support of Liberals, Independents, Progressives and members of the Labour party, we need have no misgivings as to what will be the outcome if this matter is pressed to a vote.

The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) before the committee rose at six o'clock, said that the best speeches that had been made on the subject had come from the party on the left of the Speaker. Well, so far as this side is concerned, I may inform the hon. gentleman that there is no necessity for Liberals from any of the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta to put themselves on record as being in favour of the Hudson Bay railway, inasmuch as we as a party have for years advooated the project.

fMr. Manion.]

Personally I have supported it in the newspapers I control in my own riding, and I have espoused it as well from time to time on the platform. Last night the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) suggested that the government in asking for a vote of $3,000,000 to complete the first lap of the road was not going as far as it should. In his opinion the government should ask parliament for $6,000,000. Now we know what would have happened if the government had come down with such a request. We know that sections of the eastern press-our western press is wholeheartedly in favour of this project-daily and weekly would have said to the country: Six million1 dollars is too big a sum of money to vote, $3,000,000 will be sufficient, for we ought to put the road first in shape, we ought to recondition it and lay the foundation well, and then next year complete the road by putting through another estimate for $3,000,000. I think the government has taken the right stand in asking for a vote of $3,000,000, which will demonstrate to the people that they mean business. I believe this is the common sense way of approaching the problem. I do not believe it would be good business to ask for a vote of $6,000,000 and rush the road through to the bay, instead of making a complete job of it as we go along. The people of western Canada from Winnipeg to the mountains, and beyond the mountains to the Pacific, are thoroughly satisfied with this estimate of $3,000,000, and they are daily putting themselves on record to the effect that the Liberal party is standing back of its pledges to see this road completed.

The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) asserted last night that before we tell the Dominion we are going forward with the completion of this road we ought to secure all the facts through investigation after investigation, and if we fall short of one fact we should not proceed. He said:

We must -have all (the facts before we could prove to the world and prove to the Dominion that the navigation of the straits would be a commercial proposition.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you could have investigation after investigation from year to year, from decade to decade, but even after securing all the facts available it is quite probable that many members would not be satisfied and would still make this a controversial proposition. I claim we have sufficient information to prove that this will be a successful road, and I say this government is doing the correct thing by submitting this estimate of $3,000,000 and telling the country:

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

We are going to get down to business and make a start on this all-important project.

The hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Foster) asserted last night that if he cast in his lot with the majority of this House for this estimate his vote would be based very largely on sentiment. There are three factors in the life of any individual,-and what con-ce-rns the individual concerns the nation, because the nation is simply the individual writ large-they are intellect, which gives vision; sentiment, which adds fire; will power, which manifests itself in action. And by action we capture objective after objective in life. So I say to the hon. member that he is not basing his vote on a broad enough foundation. I should like to see him go further and say that so far as his vision and his sentiment and his will power are concerned, he intends to put them together and tell the people of the west that he is wholeheartedly back of this proposition, and by his vote will do his best to put it through the Commons.

The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was good enough to tell the House that the representation from western Canada was an important representation, that we try to take a wide view of things, that we honestly stand back of what we think should be done for Canada. I thank the hon. gentleman for those sentiments, but I would remind him that as representatives from western Canada we are simply carrying out the desires of our electorates in the stand we take on this important question, because there is no doubt about it throughout Manitoba, throughout Saskatchewan and throughout Alberta, the people want the government to go forward and complete the Hudson Bay railway without further waste of time. The people of the west expect us to cease talking and to show our faith in a greater Canada by moving northward-because our destiny is in that direction as well as in the east and in the west-and tap that great area, thus proving to the world that we are ready to overcome the difficulties that lie before us. That is the only way an individual or a nation can be successful. You know the saying, "He who doubts is damned already." If we are going to have doubts regarding great national projects of this nature, then I say we are not going to make history as our fathers did in days gone by.

The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said that the completion of this road would add to the obligations of Canada, and on that argument he based his advice that we should pay off all our debts before we proceed further with this undertaking. But, HOll-272

Mr. Chairman, that is not the way we do business. A business man pays his debts as he goes along, and he reaches outward and beyond his present area of activity continually. It is men of this type who are successful in their own undertakings or in the management of great corporations. Therefore I do not think the hon. gentleman's advice should be accepted either by the government or by the country, for it would entail (Jelay and ultimately stagnation. Let us go forward and meet our obligations as they mature just as we have met them in the past.

The hon. gentleman also said he would like to see a further investigation made of this project. We talk about commissions and committees of investigation, until we are gradually getting into the condition of losing faith in the power of our own initiative. We must rely upon the individual and collective enterprise of our people. Without wasting further time in talk, let us go ahead as quickly as possible with this undertaking.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I notice the same hon. gentleman mentioned the agricultural and fishing possibilities of the Hudson bay country. As to the former, I can assure him that the experimental farm branch of the Department of Agriculture carried on investigation work during 1925 throughout the area along the Hudson Bay line. We find tests were made with several varieties of wheat, oats, barley, peas, mangels, turnips, beets, carrots, sweet clover, alsike, red clover, brome grass, timothy and western rye grass. The seed was sent forward early in May, together with directions for its use.

Mr. DICKIE:

I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question. How many settlers are along that road from The Pas to rail end, aproximately?

Mr. McINTOSH:

I never took a census of those settlers, so I could not say definitely. But it is not the settlers there now about whom we should concern ourselves; we are concerned about those who will be there ten, fifteen or twenty years from now.

Mr. DICKIE:

These settlers have had railway facilities for three or four years.

Mr. McINTOSH:

The railway facilities have not amounted to anything for years. This $3,000,000 is going to give them some real railway service. But to return to the investigations of which I was speaking. These were carried on at Hudson Bay Junction, mile 137 and mile 1S5, and the results were wonderful. I would like to place them on

Mr. DAVIS:

Would the hon. member kindly inform the House what acreage these crops were grown on?

Mr. McINTOSH:

They were just small' plots. I am not sure of the size, but they were calculated on the basis of the acre. A person can sow 25 square feet of land and get a product which can be measured in terms of the acre, if he is any kind of a scholar, it only takes a little arithmetic.

Before taking my seat I would like to give some reasons for an expenditure of S3,000,000 this year for going forward to the bay and an expenditure of $3,000,000 next year to land us at the bay. That wilL complete the road and help make that route one of the international highways of commerce. I have not the slightest doubt what the results will be; from what I have read on this question I am more of a believer now than when I began to consider it years ago. I believe that in ten years the men standing up in this House and decrying the Hudson Bay railway will be ashamed of their statements.

The first reason is that this road will increase the flow of immigration from the United States, the United Kingdom and the northern areas of other countries from which Canada should hope to draw population if the unit of our people in the years to come is to be racially, mentally, morally and in initiative what we hope it will be. Another reason is that it will most certainly contribute to the development of western Canada between Winnipeg and the mountains and even beyond that bulwark of rock, timber, minerals, and precious stones, dividing the prairies from the great province of British Columbia. It will also, by becoming a part of the Canadian National system, make better and fuller use of its equipment thereby energizing the road as a whole and acting as a by no means inconsiderable factor in paying the operating expenses. It will help -wonderfully in placing the people's railway on a more solid and enduring basis. And1 it will tell the world and this continent of which we are a conspicuous part that our future as a nation is not only eastward and westward but northward

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

as well, thereby at least making a small attempt to make good the appellation bestowed upon us by Grant Balfour when he wrote:

Dominion of the north, how vast! -

Unequalled in the distant .past By proud, imperial Roane.

That is a great name, and we should do our best to merit it. Further, the completion of this railway will prove to mankind now and hereafter that the evidence some hon. members of this House profess such a great desire to have in their possession-scientific and engineering data enough of which we already have to go resolutely on with the project-is objectified before them. How? By the lands to be developed, the mines to be opened, the fisheries to be tapped, the water powers to be harnessed and the gas and; oil possibilities to be discovered, apart from the geographical quotient of the entire problem which when worked out will constitute all the factors required of the business and commercial equation compatible with the reason and faith which should characterize us as a people. And it will be a fitting testimony to the genius and vision of Canadians, because it will be a visible sign to all nations that we intend to prosecute a vigorous and forward policy in the settlement and development of our northern heritage. By the very process of development of our natural resources it will gradually increase our .exports, thereby aiding in obtaining a more favourable balance of trade. This is something for which Conservatives and Liberals alike have been proclaiming the need from the housetops since confederation. It will internationally make Canada a more popular trading ground1-a very important thing. It will make way for a great tourist traffic, which is bound to arise when we prove to the continent and the world at large that we have tapped that great country and are ready to receive from all parts of this continent and from all parts of the world tourists who can spend weeks in that territory not only enjoying themselves but in contributing to their health as well. Lastly, it will add immensely to the principle of national unity in the Dominion, something which is devoutly desired by the adherents of all political parties in this country.

Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that I am back of this project, and I intend to vote for it, if it comes to a vote, as I believe every member of the Liberal party from western Canada, without finding it necessary to speak on this subject, is back of it, and will do his best to support it and thus help make the project one of the most successful in the histoiy of Canada.

14011-272i

Mr. MacLAREN:

Mr. Chairman, the

Hudson Bay railway has been under discussion for two days. That is a very brief period when we consider the fact that this same railway and the Hudson bay have been under discussion in this parliament and in the country for the last forty years. The views that are held are most conflicting, first, as to the commercial feasibility of the route, and secondly, even if it is commercially feasible, whether the project is commercially sound and of advantage to the country. I am satisfied that all members of this House and the people of the country are prepared to examine a subject such as this in a fair and broadminded way, but I believe also that it is equally important for the members and the people to be satisfied that this is a sound, sane and prudent project.

The first thing to consider, I believe, is what is the proposal of the Minister of Railways. He proposes now that a grant of $3,000,000 be made to restore the portion of the line on which the steel has already been laid to the standard of a branch line. He further proposes that the balance of the road, which is graded, but on which the steel has not been laid, should be completed up to a similar standard. That woidd make in all an expenditure of $6,150,000. He also gives us estimates for terminal facilities and equipment, amounting to $20,000,000. I notice that in those estimates there is no reference to the steamers, I presume of special construction, which will be needed to carry on the trade. Nor do the estimates contain a reference to a dry dock. I doubt very much if the grain trade could go on from the Hudson bay, so far away from all other ports, unless a dry dock is provided. The minister says that when this expenditure of something over $6,000,000, and the expenditure of a certain portion of the $20,000,000 has been made and the equipment provided, he proposes to test out that route. Evidently the minister has some doubt in his own mind, because he says: We will go only so far as this point, and then we will make the test,

If the test proves the route to be feasible, it will be necessary then to do two things. It will be necessary to re-lay the whole road to bring it up to first-class standard, for otherwise it would be impossible to do an intensified grain traffic over that route, and secondly, he will need to build his terminal facilities, adding considerably to his estimates that are now before the House. But I will consider this question on the basis of his present estimates. I suppose in every case where large construction has gone on, the original estimates have been exceeded three or four times. I do not think I would be

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

making a wild guess if I were to say that $100,000,000 will be needed to complete this project if it is carried on to finality. Now if the minister's test is successful, he will require to re-rail the route and provide further facilities. If it is not feasible, then we have spent a large sum of money almost to no purpose.

I believe that the minister in his proposal is starting at the wrong time and from the wrong end. I would submit to the House that the time to make the test, which he proposes to make after the construction, is before the construction; in other words, that the time to make the test is now. Surely we will all agree to that. He also, I submit, begins from the wrong end. The wrong end is to make the test beginning from the Hudson bay outwards. I submit that the proper end at which to begin is from the Atlantic inwards.

Now what might be done? I would advise that several ships-not one ship, as was suggested here to-day, because that would be no test; it would not be fair that the whole project should depend on the success of one ship, because something might go wrong with it-proceed to the Hudson bay at intervals of a week or thereabouts during the period in which the bay and the straits are supposed to be open. I believe in that way we would get evidence that we have not got at the present time which would give our people, if it succeeds, some assurance. Let me say to the committee that a large section of the people of this country regard this project as an obsession and as a chimera. They are not satisfied that the project has been sufficiently supported by evidence. I submit that we should take means not only to satisfy the people but to satisfy ourselves by getting the evidence in connection with a project such as this which has been postponed now for so long, by testing out the route, by sending in the ships that we now have through the straits and the bay. By testing out the route in that way we will be prepared, if the evidence is favourable, to support .he project, but at the present time and on the present proposal I feel that I shall be compelled to oppose it.

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I am one of those in the House who have been from the outset a supporter of the Hudson Bay railway. I well remember the initial steps in connection with this route. I well remember the Right Hon. George P. Graham, then Minister of Railways, turning the first sod of the railway. I think at that time we were all impressed with the importance of the proposal, and perhaps some of us were somewhat too optimistic. I am

inclined to class myself even now as one of the supporters of the proposal. But if my confidence has been somewhat shaken by the reports which have been developed over a period of the last ten or twelve years, I think an equal lack of confidence is felt not only on this side of the House but by very many hon. members who sit on the other side. I judge that from the remarks which have been made directly to myself, from items which we read from day to day in the daily press, and from reports which have come to hand over a period of ten or twelve years, and I for one feel now that we are either taking the first step in a tremendous outlay, or else we are merely completing a line of railway which ought to be completed and the expenditure on which can be kept within reasonable bounds.

I should like the minister, for my own sake and I think for the sake of a good many hon. members of this House, to make a little more clear his declaration of the policiy of the government with respect to this undertaking. I listened to the remarks of the minister yesterday with great attention, I have read his remarks again to-day from the columns of Hansard, and so far as he has given the committee any indication of the policy of the government in regard to this proposal it is all contained in very few words, capable I think of more than one meaning. I refer to his language as reported at page 4192 of Hansard, where he says:

Now, dn connection with these figures I want it distinctly understood that I am not committing the government to this expenditure.

That was the expenditure in regard to the Port Nelson harbour. Then further on the minister said:

It is the policy of the government rto complete this route as economically as possible, in order to enable a fair trial o-f it to be made.

To complete what? Is this the route to Europe, or is it only the route to Port Nelson? Later on he says:

When I spoke of a fair trial being made I meant a fair trial of the sea route to Europe from a Hudson bay port.

To my mind it is evident that the policy of the government is really the extended plan, the ultimate object of the government being to establish a sea route from Port Nelson to Europe as a commercial undertaking of this country. It is a proposal which according to all experts, whether they be the experts of the government or otherwise, is going to involve an expenditure in regard to the sea route and harbour improvements of from twenty millions-the figure announced by the

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

minister, although he said he was not committed to it-up to the estimate of forty millions, placed upon the undertaking by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), who gave figures in this connection last night. For my part I should like to have some plain declaration by the minister before I am called upon to decide this question, either by vote or by silent assent without a vote.

I am in favour, as I think every member of the House is, of the completion of this line of railway, a railway upon which this country has now expended-I think this is a reasonable statement of the fact-$20,000,000. To have that railway lying there practically worthless after such an expenditure is an absurd situation. We have gone so far that we must go farther; and if it requires $3,000000 to put that road in running shape as a branch line railway I do not think anyone would hesitate to vote the money. If it requires another three millions to continue the road to Port Nelson I for one would not hesitate to grant that money. But there I stop, because from the evidence which has come to me, and from what I have heard and read, I do not think we have sufficient information to justify the larger expenditure from Port Nelson to Europe.

I think there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend (Mr. MacLaren) said a few moments ago. Why not try out the feasibility of this water route before we go further? Why delay the matter? Surely it is not an impossible thing in the course of a season to find out just what the possibilities of the route are-if a ship could not be bought for the purpose, surely one could be chartered [DOT]-before we launch the substantial expenditure which .is proposed. I think that in the minds of the most sanguine there is doubt as to the feasibility of the route. I believe there is doubt in the mind of the minister; I know there is doubt in the minds of some of his colleagues. This is not a new question; it has been discussed, considered and' turned over time and again during the last five or six years. Deputations have come down from the west in regard to it. The matter cannot be made free from doulbt unless some money is spent in actual experiments, in making a fair trial. Then I appeal to the minister: Why not have that trial made now? It could be done from the eastern end, it could be done from the ocean approach. Let us see from actual experience what could be done in the way of navigation of Hudson strait, what could be done in the way of navigation of Hudson bay, what could be done at present

with regard to Port Nelson without further expenditure. Go ahead if you will with this $3,000,000 expenditure, but let it be understood that it is only for the purpose of rehabilitating that portion of the road upon which the steel is laid. I think we will all agree to that. If the minister would give the committee a declaration that the policy of the government is not to plunge this country into a larger expenditure, that the outlay is merely to be confined

in the meantime at least, until further experiment is made-t.o the rehabilitation of the road, avoiding any commitments in regard to the larger issue, I do not think there will be very much difference of opinion in regard to the question in this committee.

Mr. DICKIE:

Coming as I do from British (Columbia I may be pardoned if I do not display the same enthusiasm for this "On to the Bay" project as some gentlemen do who are greatly interested in it. I have sat here patiently listening and hoping for some information that would convince me that I was probably a little wrong in the impression I had formed with respect to this route. I expected to receive from hon. gentlemen opposite, from the ministers or from the gentlemen sitting behind them, some information with respect to the project. We have heard nothing of the kind except from the Minister of Railways. Surely the members from Quebec have something to say with respect to the proposed expenditure of such an immense amount of money. Surely these gentlemen have met with hardly voyageurs who have been up in that country and who know something about the Hudson Bay route, much more than those of us who belong to British Columbia. I would have welcomed any information from hon. gentlemen opposite. We have received none, nevertheless we have the assurance that these hon. members are going to vote solidly for this large expenditure. I am a little disappointed in that respect. I should like to have heard from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). He spoke last year with reference to this subject and I should like to quote a few of his remarks. In the House of Commons on April 7, 1925, the Minister of Agriculture said:

I do not know why we are not now going to Churchill instead of going ,to Nelson, and I am going to read and puit on Hansard some of the authorities whose (testimony makes that question still more puzzling. Again I ask, in view of what these authorities say, why did they go to Nelson? I do not know. Some of our western friends are impatient on this subject, and I do not blame them because they have really been thwarted on this matter so long. I do not blame the late government for suspending work

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

in 1917 and 1918. I recognize that I run the risk of being misunderstood in casting doubt on the practicability of Nelson as a proper harbour. I have come to the conclusion that there has been a big blunder made in going to Nelson. Why did they do rit?

That- is from the Minister of Agriculture. Why does he not give us some information to-night with respect to the matter? I remember that he made a very excellent speech with respect to the resources of that route alongside the railway. He told us of the grain that could be raised there at the experimental farm. He also spoke very dramatically about the great possibilities up in that country. He said he saw an apple growing there. There was just one small little apple, but it was an apple. He spoke twice with respect to it, and I could not help feeling pity in my heart for that little lonely apple in that Laurentian country, waiting for the railway to be built. Then the thought occurred to me that perhaps some pre-nCambriaini iserpent had (beguiled the Minister of Agriculture and he "did eat" the apple. He said nothing more about it. Perhaps he spoke allegorically, I do not know. I know he spoke very glowingly with reference to the agricultural possibilities alongside that road. I will go further and quote some further remarks that estimable hon. member made. He said:

Well, I am going to quote what was stated in an annual report of the Department of the Interior in 1884:

"The Nelson, in the last thirty miles of its course expands like a funnel, from half a mile ito many miles in width at its mouth so that it offers no natural advantages or facilities for a harbour, but rather the reverse." ,

Then he quotes an extract from the report by Lieutenant Gordon in 1886, where he said:

I consider the estuary of the Ndlson river is one of the most dangerous places in the world for [DOT]shipping to go.

He also quoted Captain Bernier, and we all know the reputation of that intrepid mariner. He knows this district very well indeed. The quotation reads:

In the Hudson bay, as ifar as my experience has gone, there are two ports-Port Nelson, which will never be a port, because the river gives so much sediment and every spring when there is a heavy thaw there is a wush-out which changes the channel of the previous year. Therefore, a vessel coming in would need to have full knowledge of the present spring before she could enter, and she might be obliged to discharge outside. I consider that Canada is too ipoor to maintain a iport like Nelson.

How in face of this information are we from British Columbia, who are relying on facts and figures as to whether this is going to be a proper project in which to embark many millions, going to decide? I have listened to

many arguments on the floor of the House in favour of the project. Hon. members spent more time in criticizing the efforts of those who could not see eye to eye with them than in adducing argument in favour of the project.

Mr. HANNESSON:

What has that to do

with the question?

Mr. DICKIE:

It has everything to do with it. I quote a few more words from the Minister of Agriculutre in connection with this matter:

Here is Nelson, exposed to the sea, an uncertain channel, better, it is true, than we thought it was a few years ago. The season opens up a little earlier at Nelson, but there are low tides, great mud flats, with a channel away off from dry land, with half a mile of steel trestling to get to it, quite a considerable quantity of dump to get to the steel .trestling, and an artificial .island at the end of that. Imagine that! Just a row like these desks for half a mile of steel thestles to go across a mud flat to the channel which is constantly changing at Nelson. Then you have to build a great island on which to erect elevators like those at Montreal. The man who built on sand was, it seems to me, a wise man in comparison with this one. Why did they go there? There has been spent on that harbour up to date about six million dollars, and it is believed that Churchill could be established at a port for one-half of what it would take to complete the harbour at Nelson. Those of you who know what dredging means will realize how slow a government dredge can be, especially if you have ever gone down the St. Lawrence and looked at some of the locks there: the lock-keepers have to put up a picket to see whether the dredges are moving or not. As to dredging Nelson haibour, you would have to wait *fro.m now till the crack of doom to get results.

That is the idea of the minister with respect to this project. Wha/t are we to expect? How are we to be guided if we have to rely on such expressions of opinion as that?

The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George quoted Mr- McLachlan at length; there are however some things he overlooked to which I would like to direct attention. In Mr. McLachlan's report of September 17, 1917, I find the following:

Port Nelson was tills year blocked with ice on August 29, and 'there was still ice around the harbour entrance on September 6, .proof of which I enclose.

Now we have the hon. member for Nelson this afternoon telling us there were no difficulties, apart from those in the straits, in navigating the Hudson bay. They were the principal difficulties, but I consider the greatest difficulty is at the mouth of the Nelson river.

Mr. HANNESSON:

In dealing with the navigation, would my hon. friend quote from Captain Bernier or Mr. McLachlan, specifying the qualifications of each?

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Mr. DICKIE:

Yes. It is hardly necessary for me to dilate on the qualifications of Captain Bernier, the man whio has made many trips into the Hudson bay and is more familiar with it, perhaps, than any other navigator in the world.