Mr. MILLAR:

There will be plenty of grain for all of them.

Mr. DICKIE:

Why spend money on the

hypothesis that we are going to have a port up there that will bring transportation relief? It is absolutely money thrown away.

Mr. HAY:

Mr. Chairman, personally I am supporting the vote, and I am doing so for the very good reason that I have an abiding faith in the possibilities of the Hudson bay route. I am in rather a unique position in my faith in this route. Three generations of my ancestors came into Canada through Hudson bay

as pioneers, my great grandfather almost a century and a half ago. In conversation with men who were actively engaged in the early days in transporting goods from Port Nelson I have secured information that confirms my faith and convinces me that the route is practicable and feasible and will ultimately become one of the highways of the North American continent to Europe.

A number of hon. gentlemen are opposed to this expenditure. I can understand some of the opposition coming from eastern Canada, whose representatives fear that perhaps the completion of the Hudson bay route will interfere with the trade which is now going through the port of Montreal and other eastern ports; but like many others who have had some experience of the west and its possibilities agriculturally, I believe that every avenue of transportation will be necessary to handle the grain and other produce of the west when it becomes fully settled, or even when another 500,000 farmers are located on the western plains. Consequently I do not think there is any reason for eastern Canada to fear the effects of any competition from the Hudson bay route; I think there will be ample traffic for all our ports when the west is properly developed.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the greatest factor in the development of western Canada will be the completion of the Hudson bay route. The Hudson's Bay Company have realized the possibilities of this route for over two hundred years. This summer it will be 258 years since their first vessel sailed from England 'to the bay, and ever since their ships have each year safely navigated the straits to Port Nelson with goods for that northern region. Recently I noticed in the press what seems to me to be a significant item. It is dated Winnipeg, January 21:

The board of directors of the Hudson's Bay Company announced that a large steel icebreaker will be put into service in the Hudson bay next summer.

That is, the present summer.

The icebreaker is now under construction in England, and it is expected will be completed by July.

Then I notice another significant press despatch, dated London, March 9:

Colonel J. Obed Smith, former director oi European emigration for the Canadian .government, has been retained as special adviser by the Hudson's Bay Company Overseas Settlement, Limited, the newly formed unit of the Hudson's Bay Company, which will carry out the company's own migration scheme in Canada.

I repeat, Mr. Chairman, those two articles are somewhat significant, particularly in view of the intention of the government to complete the line to Port Nelson at the earliest possible moment. The minister has assured us of that.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

*and personally I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. I am naturally a little disappointed that an effort is not being made bo complete the road to the bay during the present summer. I think it would have been possible to do that had an amount of $6,000,000 been included to complete that line. In view of the fact that the harbour commission of Montreal is asking this government for a loan of some 412,000,000, and in view of the fact that the Welland canal appropriation for the present summer amounts to $14,000,000 I do not think it would have been out of the way if $6,000,000 had been asked for the completion of this road this summer.

A number of members of this House speak .of the completion of the Hudson Bay railway as a concession to the west. I disagree with and resent that statement, because that is not so. We do not look upon the completion of this railway as a concession to western Canada; it is a right which belongs [DOT]to us, a right which the western people have bought and which their lands have paid for. .Consequently it is wrong to speak of it as a .concession.

A good deal has been said, Mr. Chairman, -with respect to the feasibility and navigability .of the route to the Old Country by way of Port Nelson. Some of our friends say we have not sufficient information to warrant .such expenditures, while others say we should satisfy the people of the country before spending more money. The governments of this country have been trying to satisfy the people for a number of years with respect to the navigability of the route. As far back as 1884, during the regime of the late Sir John A. Mac-donlad, a committee was appointed to investigate and gather information with respect to the feasibility of this route, and I am going to .quote some of the evidence placed before the government by that committee. I may say that they gathered information from all reliable sources and presented a report to the .government, and a part of that report was to the effect that the government would be well advised to send an expedition to Hudson bay to find out whether the straits and bay were navigable and whether the route was feasible. In 1885 the year following the report, something like forty years ago, an expedition was sent to Hudson bay. The vessel arrived there in June, I believe, and cruised around the bay and straits until the following October. Observatory stations were established at different points, and I would like to give some of the information gathered. I think this will be of interest, because we of the west are vitally interested in this proposition

and believe that it is necessary to the future development of western Canada. So we cannot allow such statements as were made in the House yesterday and to-night to go unchallenged.

I want to quote first of all from Dr. Robert Bell, who was senior assistant director of the Geological Survey of Canada, and who was examined at length by this committee:

He had, -in the course of his professional duties, visited the immediate shores of Hudson bay, or the country surrounding it, each of the six years from 1875 to 1881, both inclusive, and was therefore in a position to give much valuable information to the committee. Besides, he had passed through Hudson strait, and had been to considerable trouble an collecting information from others concerning the navigability of those waters.

Having travelled much over the country, he gave it as his opinion, based on an extensive knowledge of engineering, that there were no great obstacles in the way of the construction of a railway from Winnipeg to Hudson bay. He further stated that the bay and strait were open long enough each year to be utilized for ordinary commerce, or to the extent of four and a half months, and .possibly longer.

The doctor's own language was:

We know them both to be open for four and a half months at least, say from the middle, and certainly from the end, of June until the middle of November.

He also gave a full account of the resources of that country. I want to quote further, and I think the information I intend putting on Hansard should convince at least some hon. gentlemen who are opposed to this route that the contentions of the hon. member for St. Lawrenoe-St. George (Mr. Cahan) particularly, together with those of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicho'lson) and one or two others, are not borne out by the facts gathered by this commission. The information I am now giving with respect to navigation and ice conditions in Hudson bay was gathered by this committee from the most reliable iinformation, the log books of the Hudson's Bay Company ships which had been plying these straits for a number of years. The information covers a period of something like thirteen years, from 1871 to 1883, or eighteen trips in all. I will just give some of the outward bound trips together with the conditions which prevailed in these years. On August 16, 1870,, the ship Prince Rupert passed through the straits and met some ice; in 1871 the same vessel passed through the bay and straits and met with no detention. The same conditions were met in 1871, 1872, and 1873. The Ocean Nymph entered Hudson bay and passed through the straits on August 10, meeting with heavy ice, and the following year the same ship also met with ice. The Lady Head, another Hudson's Bay Com-

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

pany vessel, passed through the straits in 1876 and met no ice, and the same conditions prevailed from 1876 to 1880, a period of six years; there was no detention at all from ice and in some cases no ice was sighted. In 1881 the Prince of Wales passed through the bay and straits and was not detained, while in the following two years this ship met with some ice. Of the eighteen trips outward

bound on only five occasions were the ships detained by ice, or ice was sighted only five times. Consequently you will see, Mr. Chairman, that the navigation of the straits is feasible at that time of the year at any rate, and for a much longer period, I believe.

I want to quote now from the log books of the Hudson's Bay Company vessels-and this evidence was also given before the committee :

There is no record in any of these logs-

That is, logs of the Hudson's Bay Company's vessels:

-as to the date of the closing of the strait. The latest given of passing out was October 27, 1883, having sailed from Moose Factory October 7 th. No loose ice was seen in the bay or strait; only a few icebergs in the strait.

In other words, almost until November 1 mo ice was seen with the exception of an Iceberg in the straits. It goes on:

It will be seen from the evidence submitted to the 'Committee, that there was a difference of opinion as to the duration of navigation in Hudson strait. Mr. McElhinney, with the log-books of the Hudson's Bay [DOT]Company's ships, covering thirteen years from 1870, to guide him, said that "three months' navigation is all" that can be counted upon; while Dr. Bell, from personal experience, to a certain extent, felt sure that four and a half months, at least, could be relied [DOT]on.

The title of this book is Our Northland, and it was written by Charles R. Tuttle, who was employed as observer with the expedition by the Dominion government. This is how fee sums up the whole thing:

Ice, in certain seasons of the year, will always be an obstacle to Itihe navigation of Hudson strait; but I hold the opinion that having acquired a full knowledge of the character and movements of the ice, and being furnished with steam vessels suited to those waters, the mariner will have but little difficulty in making expeditious voyages from the west shore of Hudson bay to the ports of Europe, during at least eight months in each year.

That is the evidence of a man who was employed for the special purpose of observing conditions in the Hudson bay and straits during the time the Dominion government expedition was cruising in those waters. That is the opinion I also personally hold, after speaking with men who have been through those waters, and have lived in that territory for a great many years.

I do not wish to take up any more time, Mr. Chairman. I simply wished to place on record these facts, which may be helpful in showing that the Hudson bay and straits are practicable for navigation during a large portion of the year. The hon. minister can count on my support in any attempt he makes to complete the road, not only to the bay, but so far as the ocean part of the route is concerned as well.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

Permit me, Mr. Chairman, for a very brief time to occupy the attention of this House on this very important item of expenditure. I remember for the last three or four years that every report, written or verbal, ever made on this subject has been given to this House. I also am acquainted with the history of this question, and know that there are three periods especially in Canadian history which have brought a revival of this question before the people of Canada. But first let me say that if the minister would rise in his place now and take the responsibility for the statements just quoted by the last speaker to the effect that this is a navigable route for eight months of the year, I will sit down at once and say not another word. But I know he will not, nor will any other person who is acquainted with this subject assume that responsibility or take that position.

Those three periods in Canadian history to which I have referred are, first, the period when a charter was given to the Hudson's Bay Company to trade in this part of North America. There was no other route by which that company could reach the tract of land chartered to them; consequently they had to use that route, and they brought to this country settlers of whom we are all very proud, and of whom the last speaker is a very worthy example.

The second period in our history which brought a revival of this route was in that strenuous contest between two nations of Eurqpe for the possession of this part of the continent-the contest between Great Britain and France. The British had no route by which to reach their part of the Dominion except by means of the Hudson bay and straits, and it was therefore absolutely necessary for them to use that route.

The third period was when the traffic began to flow freely, too freely, from the north west through St. Paul, Minneapolis and Chicago, owing to the very expensive rates through our own Canadian ports.

These three periods in history have practically passed, Mr. Chairman, and therefore the great urgency for that route has passed,

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

except for this reason-and I am surprised that those in favour of the route have not brought this forward as an argument for the completion of the road-that it will give us another British route by way of the Hudson bay and. straits, one of importance to our empire for military purposes and tactical reasons. I am very much surprised, I say, that that argument has not been used by those who advocate this route.

Coming to the statement of the Minister of Railways, he has placed upon , Hansard and before the people of this country the facts on this question that have been available for a, great many years. Complete data have been available for many years he said, for the decision of this matter, and in view of those statements I am very much surprised at the position that has been assumed by this government during the last three or four years. I would like to examine and review the position of this government and of their followers during that period.

Let me begin first with the statements made during the late compaign by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs while touring the west. The Minister of Customs, as reported in the press, said:

Had there been fourteen or fifteen Liberals from Saskatchewan to urge the necessity of the Hudson Bay railway, the railway would now have been ibuilt. It had been discussed in one or two caucuses-

I would like our friends to the left to listen to this:

-and Mr. Motherwell was always in favour of it, but he had no support. There was no one to heflp him out.

The Prime Minister made use of these words:

Do you wonder that the Hudson Bay railway was not completed when there was no one to speak for it?

Let us see. From 1921, Mr. Knox, who occupied a seat in this House, was a persistent advocate of the railway, and how much assistance did he get from the Minister of Agriculture? Mr. Knox moved a resolution as follows:

That in the opinion of this House it is expedient that more effective consideration and recognition be given to the resolution adopted by parliament on March 12, 1923, recognizing tlhe priority of the Hudson Bay railway with reference to the transportation projects started subsequently.

Now let us consider the statements by Mr. Knox as to the party which is now expected to put the Hudson Bay railway through/ In the first place Mr. Knox expressed himself as follows:

A party like the Liberal party which has made no further advances during the four years in which it has held office in the carrying into effect of its platform

and policy published will certainly not be received with oipen arms by the thinking portion of the electorate, especially in that part of Canada lying west of the Great Lakes.

Here we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs saying that they received no support during their four years term of office for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and on the other hand an expression of opinion by Mr. Knox that they did nothing. But additional interest will be found in the remarks of the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) who has so consistently and strongly voted confidence in the government this session. The hon. gentleman's remarks will be found to be of great interest in view of the statement of the Prime Minister and his colleague, when they went west, that they had received no support in connection with this project. Mr. Bird said:

Where does the Liberal party stand in regard to the Hudson Bay railway? Who knows? Who can tell?

Answer, nobody. He said further:

There is such paralyzing influence within the ranks of the Liberal party which makes it impossible to proceed with this venture-

Mr. Knox also made a reference in this House to the party that were supposed when they went west to be strong supporters of this railway. With respect to the Minister of Agriculture he said:

I have often wondered why the hon. minister could not see his way to give us his influential support.

Who is right, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Customs who went west and said that Mr. Motherwell was the only one who was pushing forward the Hudson Bay railway and got no support from the Progressives, or Mr. Knox who wondered why the minister could not give his support? Mr. Knox continued :

In 1925 after the Minister of Agriculture had made a trip to Kettle Rapids he became an out and out believer in the scheme.

Listen to further remarks of Mr. Knox:

We are almost forced to the conclusion that the minister had his line of action already decided upon before he started for Kettle Rapids. Such a statement coming at the present time to me looks somewhat fishy -too much of the red herring variety-a further excuse for further delay.

The foregoing is the opinion expressed by Mr. Knox of a member of the government who was supposed to be the only member pressing for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. Now the hon. member for Nelson remarked with respect to Mr. Motherwell in 1925:

The minister is one of those gentlemen, and there are a great many of them, who form their opinions first and collect their evidence afterwards.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

This with reference to the man who was the only supporter of the Hudson Bay railway. Now listen to this as showing the strong sympathy of the Minister of Agriculture for the Hudson Bay railway:

lie quoted evidence that Port Nelson was not a port. To-day after having investigated the matter further he quotes other evidence which proves exactly the opposite. Two devils were at work, the big devil Mr. MeMaster and the little devil Hon. Mr. Motherwell, against this project.

We are assured that Mr. Motherwell assumed a dangerous attitude, especially for a minister of the crown. However, the minister went to Kettle Rapids, where he consulted trappers who gave him his opinion that Port Nelson would never make a suitable terminal for this railway. We would like to hear from other hon. gentlemen opposite, who now seem to be anxious for the completion of this railroad, why they have changed their views expressed during the past three or four years. I notice the Chairman of the committee has just gone out. I should like him to have an opportunity of showing whether or not he was a supporter of this railway. The hon. member recommended two proposals-first, a special committee to consider the matter; and second, a committee of business men to go into the bay themselves and see the feasibility of the project. I have failed to hear the hon. gentleman expressing one word in regard to the attitude the government has assumed to-day.

Then there was the Minister of Agriculture with his suggestion. He wanted to load one or two Atlantic liners, or boats as large, to go up the Labrador coast to Fort Churchill before coming to a conclusion in regard to the matter.

Mr. BENNETT:

It might be a valuable route for shipping Saskatchewan and Alberta horses purchased by the minister for European customers.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

I do not know as to that. This is the opinion he gave here. This strong advocate of the Hudson Bay railway who could not get any support for the scheme, was going to have these tests made before he could come to a conclusion and advise as to one route or the other. In any event he was quite satisfied that Port Nelson was not suitable.

The Hon. Mr. Graham, former Minister of Railways, was not going to be driven into a corner on this question by hon. gentlemen to the left. Consequently he did nothing except what I am going to state later. Then we come to one hon. gentleman very prominent in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite, one who aspires to be Minister of Railways-

I refer to Mr. Euler. He made the statement I am going to quote as far back as 1921, but we fail to hear him and others giving expression to their sentiments this session. Why such secrecy? What is the matter? Is there any explanation for the silence they are maintaining to-night? Listen to these words from Mr. Euler. The proposition had been made to discontinue the grant for further work on this railway, and then the hon. member for North Waterloo says:

I may say at the outset that if the Minister of Railways had stated to the House that the government had definitely decided not to continue the construction of that railway at any time, I believe he would have met the wishes of a large majority of the people of Canada.

In view of this strong stand taken by very important members of the party opposite in the last few years, how can hon. gentlemen on this side who have doubts upon the question be expected to support this item unless these gentlemen explain why they have changed their minds, or if they have not changed their minds that they will not support the item? Is it fair to expect that we on this side, after such strong statements have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite, should support this vote? The same hon. gentleman, speaking of a member of the Progressive party who had brought forward the motion to go on with the project, said that he quite expected the grandchildren of that gentleman would be heard in the House expressing a wish for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

Mr. EULER:

I said I hoped they would, I did not say I expected they would.

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

There is not very

much difference between a hope and an expectation. One step has been taken in that direction by not sending back to parliament this particular gentleman to advocate the completion of the Hudson Bay railway.

Now let us go further. What has been the attitude of the government towards this question? In 1923 Mr. Knox brought forward his annual motion, and this government placed in the estimates $350,000 for the same purpose that the present Minister of Railways would lead us . to believe the item now under consideration is inserted in the estimates, namely, to put upon a solid basis the road as it is. Yet what was their strong enthusiasm, and what did it amount to? After getting this vote of $350,000 they spent $60,(X)0 on the railway. And what was that to do? Partly to replace the rails and the ties that they had taken away from it for the benefit of the Canadian National. If the government got a

Supply

Hudson Bay Railway

vote of $350,000 from the House and only-spent $60,000, how much heart had they in the proposition or why this change of attitude towards this scheme?

I was glad to hear the hon, member for Saskatchewan say he was sick of committees and commissions, but his heart was not strong when the measure came up, because even in his time in this House he has already seen two commissions appointed, a tariff board and a commission on Maritime rights. I have no doubt he is getting very sick of it and not willing that any other commission be appointed to investigate this matter.

Having dealt with what this government has done and what it has not done, and what it has promised to do and has not done, I would like in a word to express my own attitude towards this proposition. I am not so bigoted or biased, if sufficient reasons were shown that there was anything to be gained by this expenditure, that I would not vote for it. I am Canadian first, last and all the time, and I do not care where the expenditure is; if it will benefit Canada I am ready to vote for it. But when a vote is given which the government has jockeyed with for three or four years, and now comes along and makes up its mind to an indefinite programme, I have my doubts as to whether I should support it or not.

I am going to take up two arguments presented in favour of this road. First, it is said that it is a colonization road. If this is the best place we can build a colonization road, I would discontinue the construction of any further colonization roads. With so many extra districts in Canada which are superior to the country here concerned-and I know those parts of the country, where roads would bring colonists, while, and this proposed road will not-I am going to oppose the Hudson Bay road as a colonization project. Further than that, if we should, by some good fortune, get colonists along that road, would it be a favourable place for them? Not at all. In the first place, supplies can only go to this district for a certain part of the year, and for the remainder of the year the expense of bringing supplies to them would be too great to make it an advantageous place for any colonization work. Secondly, it is claimed that it would be a grain route-because I do not think any person in advocating the road has separated it from a sea route via Hudson bay and the straits. Therefore the

10 p.m. second factor in the advocacy of the road is that it is a grain route. Speaking of it as a grain route, I am going to place before the House what I think are the

conditions. I am expressing my views; they may not be the views of other hon. members and may not be sound, but I think .1 know something about grain routes. Even the St. Lawrence as a grain route has one disadvantage so far as routing from ports south is concerned, and that is the insurance. The higher insurance is a factor against the St. Lawrence route, and what will it be on a route like the Hudson bay and straits? I have heard hon. members argue that there are no icebergs. That is quite true, but I do not think an iceberg is as dangerous as a field of ice. Navigators can circumvent an iceberg, but not fields of ice. So that the insurance rates on this route will be greater than on the St. Lawrence; therefore it is not so feasible as a grain route. The third point is the uncertainty of the arrival of vessels. I am not going to discuss the feasibility of the route and will not say whether it is navigable or not navigable, but there is an uncertainty as to the arrival and the clearing of vessels. Now that is a very important point with grain dealers and certainly it would be a great disadvantage to the Hudson bay and Hudson straits route. The fourth point is the uncertainty of getting a cargo. We know the disadvantage of the lake route, as far as it affects us as Canadians. We could contend easily with the Americans if we had a certainty of a return cargo to points such as Fort William and the north or the head of the lakes, and undoubtedly this route will be under a greater disadvantage in the uncertainty of cargoes inward.

My attitude is this: the government have not given us any idea of their complete programme in this matter. We are all agreed that perhaps it would be a good thing to complete what is of use of that road. Further than that, we are in the dark so far as this government is concerned. In spite of the many promises of the government, the minister will not stand up and say. "We propose to build this road, to put the terminal there, and to make a complete route to Hudson bay". All speakers in the past number of years have stated that the completion of the route to Hudson bay would be of very little use without a complete arrangement for the routing through the Hudson bay to Europe, and I find therefore that I cannot go much further than did the Hon. Mr. Crerar in 1921, when he said:

I believe this route will ultimately become a great highway, and if the financial situation of the country warranted -the expenditure I would be disposed to support the motion, but on account of the considerations I have mentioned I think it is well to postpone further expenditure for the present.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

I think that would be the platform upon which a great many members of the House would stand if they expressed their opinion. We have had under the present government in the last four years expenditures that are staggering, and I think we can quite well say, "We will go no further on account of the financial situation of the country."

Mr. BENNETT:

Both parties have in times past been in favour of the construction of the railway to Hudson bay. I do not regard the vote now before the House as in any sense committing me to the construction of a single foot of railway in addition to what has already been laid. It is true that the minister has declared it as the policy of the government to construct the line to the bay, but the fact is that the vote under consideration will not carry the road a single foot beyond where it now is. The money he now asks us to vote is for the purpose of reconditioning and rehabilitating the line already constructed. I am not opposed to that being done, but lest it should be thought that by acceding to this grant I am agreeing in principle to the completion of the line to Hudson bay, I desire to make a few observations.

We have at the moment some $20.000,000 odd invested in the road. If the records are correctly read, about $14,000,000 of that money came out of the sale of preemptions in western Canada. As a matter of business in an ordinary transaction most men would consider an expenditure of $3,000,000 somewhat large for the purpose of saving an investment of $20,000,000 amounting as it does to 15 per cent of the whole. I do not think it will be necessary to spend $3,000,000 for that purpose; less money than that will recondition the road and restore it to proper working condition. That is my view after hearing the estimate of the work that has to be done to put the road into shape. The kinked rails, decayed ties, ruined road-bed, the light steel-all these are matters that can be looked after by an expenditure of less than $3,000,000. I therefore support the vote as it is proposed by the government. But from the information I have I could not under any circumstances vote to extend the railway a single foot beyond the present end of steel. I could not vote to send the railway to Nelson. I say that because I have not adequate information that would convince me that the expenditure of the money necessary, some $29,000,000 or $30,000,000, would be in the public interest. We have no such data as would warrant a board of directors, in the case of private corporation, speaking for

intelligent, sober minded shareholders, in arriving at the conclusion that the expenditure now proposed was justifiable. And as I have frequently observed, we in this parliament in relation to railway matters are in the capacity of shareholders. We are shareholders of the Hudson Bay railway. Speaking from that point of view I should not be prepared, upon the information which has been submitted to us, to vote if I were asked to,-I am not as a matter of fact called upon to vote, at the moment-in favour of an extension of the Hudson Bay railway to the bay.

My miind is open; I have no preconceived notions, no prejudices and no bias with respect to this question. On the evidence as I have read it-I have read all the evidence that ha3 been available-there seems to be a marked conflict of opinion. These points are apparent: first, that since the opening of the Panama canal and the movement of wheat from as far East as Maple Creek, and perhaps a little further, to the Pacific slope there is no longer that urgent demand for the movement of grain west of that point to the Hudson bay or Fort William. Rather the desire is to move it to Vancouver. In the second place it must be remembered that the population of the country is not expanding as we should like, and that any movement that takes place of grain toward Hudson bay must necessarily involve a corresponding diminution in traffic on the two roads that now operate. And the Canadian National Railway system cannot afford at this juncture to lose any traffic. It is now costing the people over $40,000,000 a year, notwithstanding the claim which is occasionally made that the figure is as low as $7,000,000. The fact is that last year it cost us over $71,000,000 in interest, of which, as has been said, but $33,000,000 was earned. So that when we realize that we are paying every year the substantial sum of $40,000,000 or thereabouts in interest for the maintenance of the Canadian national system, we can readily understand that any thoughtful man must view with apprehension loss of traffic, whether it be diverted in the direction of Hudson bay or be incurred in any other way.

I do suggest to the minister that inasmuch as-if he is permitted to remain in his office, as I trust he will not be-he proposes to submit to parliament some day a vote for the construction of the road to Hudson bay, he take steps immediately to demonstrate beyond any peradventure the feasibility of navigation in the straits. The minister has indicated, although not in so many definite terms, that he will at some future day ask parliament to support such a vote. We are not asked to do

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

so to-night, but before that moment comes may I suggest to the minister that he take a few of our Canadian merchant marine vessels and send them to Hudson bay to make a practical investigation of the question. Some of these vessels we sold last year at 140,000 each, and it is not too much to ask that four or five of them be specially equipped and strengthened in proper docks and shipyards and dispatched to the straits to ascertain under capable supervision what may be expected in the way of navigation in the straits and in the bay. That would be the path of reason. I do know that large private organizations desiring to carry on trade in the orient send out skilled men to study the conditions of the market, and I know also that the railways in days gone by, desiring to extend their lines, have engaged men to explore new territory, to examine the conditions and to estimate the traffic possibilities, all this being done with a view to ascertaining /whether or not the undertaking contemplated would be warranted.

No one in this House can say authoritatively that from the evidence we have before us it is an economic certainty that the Hudson Bay railway if constructed to the bay would successfully, efficiently, or economically serve the purposes in mind. That, it seems to me, can be ascertained only by a thorough examination on the part of those competent to make such an examination, not on the land but on the sea. Let us remember that the sea traffic is what is of importance in this case; it is the dangers by sea that have to be considered. The dangers incident to navigation in the straits and in the bay must be carefully analysed When therefore we have ships of our own for which we have paid large sums of money and some of which, as I have already remarked, we sold last year for $40,000, might it not be possible to equip four or five or half a dozen of these vessels, strengthening them especially for the purpose, and have them systematically study the conditions in Hudson bay and straits from the standpoint not only of climate but of navigability, so that we might decide with certainty, aefore asking the people to expend further sums of money, whether or not the completion of the road would be justifiable? Let properly qualified and thoroughly competent men investigate the question, not on the ground but on the sea. Let them look carefully into the conditions incident to the safety of navigation at Port Nelson and in the straits. Have a careful investigation made of all the circumstances-the nature of the port and the channel; the shifting character of the sand bars; the possibility of erecting proper docks; the availability of material for

the construction of such docks; the cost of elevators; the time required in the movement of grain from Port Nelson to Liverpool; the dangers that would be encountered in transportation, so that the insurance rate might be determined; and other allied questions. All these questions could be studied at firsthand by men specially deputed to carry out the investigation.

This, I submit, is not an unreasonable suggestion to make at this time. I will concede that the minister is as desirous as any other hon. member to avoid any unnecessary expenditures. I believe my friends who support so strenuously this route are just as anxious as I am that public money should not be wasted, are just as desirous as any person could be that this route, if established, should be a success. But I do ask them to support the representations to the minister that we should not rush into this enterprise without having that measure of information, that extensive knowledge which private business men as directors of a well-defined body of shareholders would be required to have before they would recommend to their shareholders the expenditure of these sums of money. I do this to-night because, fortunately, it is not that vote which is being considered by the committee. That vote will come, perhaps at another session, but in the meantime I do implore the minister to ascertain whether or not the commitment of this country to the expenditure suggested, namely, some $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, would be warranted from the dangers incident to navigation, from the conditions that prevail, and from the availability of the route measured by every test that would be imposed by a competent and skilful navigator in determining whether or not he would be warranted in taking his ship and cargo into and out of this port in the season of the year when the straits and bay would be open. That is all I suggest. We have ships that we are now triying to sell; they are no longer valuable from the standpoint of trade and commerce-and my friend from Kingston suggests to me that the cabinet might take a trip in one of those ships for the purpose of ascertaining the conditions of navigation.

Mr. DUNNING:

We might take the board of strategy along also.

Mr. BENNETT:

I assure my friend the

minister that if he takes the board of strategy along they will then be the government.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

They have

not made much success in that direction so far.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Mr. BENNETT:

There are evidences not

wanting of the measure of success that one might expect, namely, the consciousness of having clone one's duty to his country regardless of attempts to secure support by means that might easily be questioned; and there are not lacking very striking evidences, in fact they have been apparent during the last few hours, that we have achieved some success at least in the effort to protect the industrial life of Canada from destruction. But I can readily understand my friend the Minister of the Interior, who sounded "the death knell of protection" a few years ago, making such an observation.

But let me proceed. I doubt not there are gentlemen within sound of my voice who would gladly take a trip in one of these ships for their own edification. I say that in no jocular sense. I do know there are members of this House with whom I have discussed the matter who have very strong personal opinions, based not on personal knowledge but on conviction arrived at from what they have read and from what they have been told. I think the minister and the government would be well advised to afford us an opportunity to have firsthand information derived from competent sources as to the availability of this harbour and of this bay for navigation for the purposes we all have in mind, namely, to afford us the cheapest possible route for the transportation of the commodities of western Canada to the markets of the world. If I believed that were possible I would support the proposal regardless of governments or parties. Because I have no such evidence as I would require if I had to consider it as a judge in an impartial way, I believe the whole matter is impracticable. And because of that fact I suggest we should utilize the means we now have at our disposal for the purpose of thoroughly testing this port, for the purpose of thoroughly testing this route, and for the purpose of enabling the government, as a board of directors, to recommend to their shareholders-the taxpayers of this country-a scheme, based not upon the land observations of people who do not know, but upon practical observations and experiments conducted by men who have sailed the seas and know whereof they speak.

That, however, as I said when I first rose to address the committee, is a matter which must be considered at some future time. The vote now before the committee is to rehabilitate the line as it now stands; it does not add a single mile to the Hudson Bay railway, but it saves the investment we have already made of upwards of $20,000,000. For that reason, and that reason only, I shall 14011-273

support this vote. But as to any further expenditure, I reserve to myself the right to have before me better evidence than I have yet seen introduced to justify it, believing that the country in its present economic condition, with the demands that are made upon the taxpayers by reason of the deficits that have to be met yearly on our National Railway system, believing, as I say, that we are not in such a position as warrants an additional dollar beyond the amount of this vote being spent on the route until we have evidence to convince our shareholders that such expenditure is warranted in the light', not of sentiment but of economic principles and of economic reasons.

Carried.

Mr. BURY:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate just as keenly as any member on either side of this chamber that the committee has listened very patiently to the long debate on this question, and I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House to any extent. I would not now have risen to speak but for the fact that the member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh)-with the best intentions in the world I have no doubt, and being himself assured of the truth of what he said *-told the committee that the whole of the west was solidly behind this proposition, and he specifically mentioned the province of Alberta. Now, I cannot let that statement go unchallenged, because there is at least one member-and indeed the House has heard another in the person of the member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett)-who does not believe in the project, of the Hudson Bay route as a grain route. I cannot concede 'that it will be an economic grain route. Apart altogether from positive evidence either for or against that proposition, there is the undoubted fact that at the present moment the reports dealing with this aspect of the project are contradictory, that reports even from the same authorities are contradictory, and that the statements and sentiments of the ministers and the members behind the government who are supporting it are contradictory and inconsistent. If there was nothing else, that of itself would be sufficient ground for members on this side of the House who have no personal knowledge of the matter to pause before they could give support to the proposition as a grain route.

I have personal and specific reasons why I do not believe in the project as a grain route, but I am not going to trouble the House with them because, as the member for West Calgary stated, that question is not now before

Sup-ply-Hudson Bay Railway

us. I do want to say, however, in respect to this project that even as a colonization road I am not altogether in sympathy with it. The member for North Rattleford has assured the committee that as a colonization road the project is justified, not because of the settlers who are there now but because of the settlers who will come after the road is completed. May I remind the House that there are great extensive tracts of this country, tracts the most fertile, the most promising, that are waiting to-day for railway outlets and cannot get them; tracts that have been colonized for ten, fifteen and twenty years and even longer, tracts from which the settlers have for years been going away because of lack of an outlet for the .produce of their farms. So long as the Peace river country, the Grande Prairie country, and the High Prairie and Spirit river country are settled with colonists of the very best class, possessing lands which cannot be beaten and in few cases can be paralleled anywhere else in Canada, who are without railway outlet, I for one think it is wasteful to spend money on a colonization road with no settlers. That is my sentiment. I do not know that it will even meet with the approval of some of the -hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party who represent Alberta or the other western provinces, but I want to make it perfectly clear that, either as a grain-carrying route or as .a colonization road, I do not believe it is warranted or that the money to be spent is justified in view of the fact that there are other settled portions of the country crying out for railway facilities. I am not going to oppose this vote, but I could not let it pass after the statement of the hon member for North Battleford without letting the House know where I stand as a member from Alberta. I congratulate the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) upon his perspicacity when he said that that province always adopts and maintains a strictly judicial attitude on this question.

Mr. MURPHY:

I had not intended to speak during this debate at all, when there was a prospect of this vote, which I am going to support, carrying. But when I hear hon. gentlemen, especially those of the legal fraternity, arguing so strenuously against certain aspects of the matter, with regard to the completion of the road and the route in general, I feel that I cannot give a silent vote on this question. When the matter came up on Friday only a few were on this side of the House. I was fortunate enough to be one of them and I took a certain stand upon that occasion. I regret to say that an injustice [Mr. Bury.l

was done by the press to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). He was reported as being absent on that occasion and as not looking after his parliamentary duties while to my personal knowledge he was sitting just across the aisle from me.

We have some objections raised to this route, in the first place with regard to the railway itself. These objections have centred mainly in the suggestion that this railway must be put into first class main line shape before it is ever used; that was one argument advanced last night. Are all railways first class when they are built Are they not sometimes built very shakily at first and later developed into main line condition? That has been the history of almost every railway in Canada, but of course the Hudson Bay railway must be in first class main line condition; nothing else wall suit these gentlemen. Then the next point was that Port Nelson is not suitable; some hon. gentlemen think there should be further investigation with regard to the respective merits of Nelson and Churchill. The fact that they have been investigated and reported upon several times, and decided upon, counts for nothing; these gentlemen must be individually convinced, and the port must be selected to suit them. In this connection I would like to read from a report made by the Minister of Railways of the Borden government, Hon. Frank Cochrane. He looked over the ground personally and inspected the proposed terminals, Nelson and Churchill. On his return he spoke enthusiastically of the project. He said:

I have every faith in the scheme, and I will push the Hudson Bay road for all it is worth. We intend to make this a good road. We have four-tenths grade. We are using eighty pound rails. I believe that the Hudson Bay route will mean much

Now hon, gentlemen who have never been over the route either by land or sea must be convinced; even the evidence given by the Minister of Railways under whose direction most of the work was done is not acceptable. In all seriousness I ask what kind of evidence could be adduced to satisfy men of that type.

Certain other gentlemen in speaking to-day against Port Nelson have used the name of the engineer in charge there, Mr. D. W.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

McLachlan and I am going to read something which has not been read so far. These men pose as unbiased; they are adopting the judicial frame of mind. They are going to listen only to the evidence, and then they get up. and argue-at least one hon. member argued-for a period of nearly three hours. During that three hour talk he did not bring forward one single bit of evidence, in support of the project, but read everything against it. He simply adopted the lawyer-like attitude of arguing before a judge, bringing out everything in favour of his client. And he was adopting the judicial attitude! Here is what Mr. McLachlan, the engineer, at Port Nelson, said in his evidence before the Senate committee, among other things:

La-st winter we knew tihat t'he chart which was prepared and published was not right, and we went back and thoroughly surveyed the entrance to Port Nelson all over again, with the result that we got the channel in a different place from the one shown on the chartt. The result is that we effected a great improvement in the entrance to Port Nelson.

We have a channel there that has 20 feet of water at low tide. That means that when you have the height of the least tide to be expected you get a channel that is 33.7 feet deep. You can come into Port Nelson at any time. The new channel is a natural channel without any dredging. The depth as 20 feet at low tide, 33.7 at high tide and about 40 feet at spring tide. The great advantage of the new channel is that at first it leads towards one shore and then towards the other shore and finally up the centre of the estuary.

These extracts do not occur in sequence in the Senate report, but they will all be found there. This is the gentleman who has been quoted most copiously to-day as absolutely damning the whole project.

There has been opposition to the railway; there is opposition to the port and' now the navigability of the straits is questioned. I would also like to put on Hansard a few extracts with regard to the navigability of Hudson straits. Here is the evidence of Commander A. R. Gordon, who made several trips there in the Neptune:

The ice has been supposed hitherto to be the most formidable barrier to the navigation of the Straits, but its terrors disappeared to a great extent under investigation. We met no icebergs in Hudson bay nor did we hear of any being seen there; in the straits a good many were seen. The icebergs seen in Hudson straits in August and September would form no great barrier to navigation, nor do those met with off the straits otf Belle Isle, nor were they more numerous in Hudson straits than they frequently are off Belle Isle.

Commander William Wakeham said:

Steam has no-w effected a complete revolution in ice navigation, and the most advantageous time for pushing on is when the ice is loose. Under similar circumstances a sailing ship would be utterly hopless.

The nature and consistency of the ice in

Hudson straits are such that, with an efficient steamer, 14011-273}

the passage should be accomplished with very little delay or difficulty .... I absolutely agree with Captain Gordon in fixing the date for the opening of navigation in Hudson straits for commercial purposes by suitable vessels at from July 1 to 10. I consider that navigation should close from October 15th to 20th.

Here is the evidence of Doctor Bell:

It is impossible that there should be at any time in the twelve months difficulty in navigating the

straits, for they are upon tide water Why,

navigation through the straits should be particularly easy, because, while there may at times be floating ice, there are no rocks and no islands upon which to go ashore.

Here is the evidence of Mr. J. W. Tyrrell, who has gone through the straits several times:

The straits can, in my opinion, be reilied upon for unobstructed navigation if ram Juiy 15.th to November 1st, with a possible extension of two weeks at either end.

Captain Bernier says:

The Hudson bay and straits are open to navigation the year Tound, but as far as the strait is concerned icebergs block the way in pieces according where the current into or out of the bay drives them. Witli wireless stations established so that ships 'could foe directed in their course the Hudson bay ports would rank amongst the most important on the continent, owing to the very appreciable difference in distance to Europe compared with that of other ports.

There is evidence in regard: to the navigability of the straits; yet hon. gentlemen have said that there is no evidence in the record which they can accept as to the navigability of the straits or of the bay. Here we have the evidence of men who have gone in there, not once or twice, but many times.

We have heard during this debate that before we can test out the route and decide whether it is a feasible proposition, it must be put in ideal shape; everything must be finished; the road 'be made a first-class main line, the port fully established, with special ships constructed, and everything put beyond the possibility of a doubt. Conditions must be ideal. I would say to hon. members that if that had been the spirit which actuated our forebears, Canada to-day would be a wilderness. I would like to know how many farms would have been opened up in Canada if before the pioneers of this country started in to farm they must have a barn, thirty-five to forty feet wide and a hundred feet long, a two-storey brick house, furnished with the finest furniture, equipped with electric light and water works, and the farm with so many acres broken; with so many thousands of dollars worth -of machinery and stock, and an automobile to run around in. Imagine having to take all these things into consideration and to have them on hand be-

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

What does the main act do?