Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):

I wish to say only a word or two regarding this motion, referring to the particular clause which asks the Senate to reconsider its decision with respect to widows who had married ex-soldiers after the appearance of disability. The underlying principle laid down by those who first looked after pension legislation was that any woman who married a soldier after he had been injured or had incurred illness on service, would not upon his death be entitled to a pension. This clause has been considered too restricted and committees of the House of Commons, and the house itself, have on four separate occasions passed legislation to amend the act with respect to this very deserving class of widows.

This year the committee brought in a unanimous report which was concurred in unanimously by the house, and when the discussion took place in this chamber there was no difference of opinion on the principle. The amendment of the committee apparently did not satisfy the members of the Senate, who stated that it was unworkable and that it was perhaps too broad. However, for the first time, I learn that members of the Senate have agreed in principle that, with proper safeguards, the widow who in good faith married a member of the forces who returned from overseas suffering from an injury or disease contracted on service should receive a pension. There is no difference of opinion with regard to the principle, and it seems to

me that if the Senate and the House of Commons have agreed in principle, surely we should be able to find some formula or phraseology which will give a pension to this most deserving class of people. That is the situation as it stands to-day. I freely admit, as chairman of the committee, that fault might be found with the amendment which was sent up to the committee, but I am not prepared to agree that it was altogether unworkable, nor am I prepared to agree that it was too broad. If an injustice is being done a certain class of persons in this country, it is preposterous to go to the country and say we know the injustice is being done but the united wisdom of the House of Commons and of the Senate is incapable of formulating a provision to rectify it.

We have had informal conferences-perhaps they were not constitutional-at which members of the committee, the Minister of Pensions and Health, the Minister of National Defence and members of the house have appeared before the Senate committee. Due to the emphatic and blunt pronouncement of my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) we were able to save one clause from the wreck, that which did away with the limitation of time for making application for pension.

If this house is unanimously of the opinion that a clause should be inserted in the bill to provide for this class of people, we should be able to say to the house, with the assistance of the officers of the Department of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment, that the members of the committee on pensions are prepared to make any suggestion and to discuss the whole question with the members of the Senate or of the Senate committee. More than that, any member of the house who knows the Pension Act is prepared to offer his services. The leader of the opposition, a gentleman of high legal standing, and, may I say without irony, a master of phraseology and a moulder of words, would I am sure be only too glad to join with members on the other side of the house to discuss this question with the members of the Senate in an effort to find a solution of the difficulty.

Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): I have

just one word to say before this motion is allowed to pass. It has been my privilege in the past to be chairman of a committee similar to the one that was sitting this year, and it is needless for me to say that I am in entire sympathy with the desire to give due recognition to the rights and privileges of the soldiers; I want every returned man and his family to receive the pension to

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

which they are entitled. On the other hand, I am against what you might call the speculators; the country must be very careful to see that this class of people are not included in the amendments passed each year.

It must be remembered that in the United States after the civil war a very serious state of affairs developed. I will not go into details because the facts are well known to everyone. I might however point out that at present the amount that the country is paying for pensions to returned soldiers and their dependents is several million dollars more that it was, say, five years after the war was over. One would imagine that ten years after t'he conclusion of the war the amount paid for pensions should begin to decrease; but it is not decreasing, it is increasing every year. I have not the exact figures under my hand but I know them practically by heart. About five, six or seven years ago we were paying $31,000,000, $32,000,000, $33,000,000 a year, whereas now we are paying $40,000,000 a year. Therefore I think parliament should be very careful in the passing of legislation all the time enlarging the number of pensioners. No doubt it is on that principle that the senate rejected part of the bill that was passed by the Commons. In resuming my seat I wish to repeat once more that I am in entire sympathy with returned men and I want them to receive all the good the country can give them, but I am not in sympathy with those who may, under cover of being dependents of returned men, be preying on the country's generosity.

The CHAIRMAN:

The last time the bill was before the committee all the sections were adopted.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed. '

Mr. LUCAS:

Will the minister give an explanation of this appropriation?

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Perhaps a brief statement regarding the progress being made and what is contemplated in the current fiscal year would be advisable at this stage. In 1926, as the committee will remember, the Hudson Bay railway consisted of 332 miles of railway which had been constructed ten to fifteen yeans previously and which had gone completely out of condition. The original ties on the road were all of native spruce and they had all rotted in the intervening period. A large proportion of the construction being over muskeg country, the embankment had gone very badly out of condition. The telegraph line was completely destroyed. There were no water facilities and no engine terminal facilities at any point on the line.

It will be remembered that at the session of 1926 provision was made in the estimates for the rehabilitation of the existing line of railway. That work has since proceeded and it is now well toward completion. Engine terminal facilities have been provided at the commencement of the line at Le Pas and at mile 137, and another engine terminal is now under construction at mile 327. In addition steel has been laid beyond mile 332 to mile 356, whidh is the present end of steel, six miles beyond the Limestone river. It will be remembered that last year there was placed in the estimates a further appropriation to complete the reconditioning of the existing track and at the same time an intimation was given to the house that an investigation would be conducted during 1927 regarding the matter of ocean terminals. That investigation, as was announced in the house last session, was conducted by Mr. Frederick Palmer, president of the British Institution of Civil Engineers. I had the privilege of accompanying Mr. Palmer on the journey to Hudson bay. He and his assistant also spent some time here on the first trip to this country, going through all the records of the department in relation to the whole enterprise, and coming bach again in the month of July and early August to make an actual inspection of Nelson and Churchill on the ground. As a result of that work, Mr. Palmer reported very emphatically in favour of making the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway, Churchill, rather than Nelson. His report was published by the government immediately and was given very wide circulation. I think every member of the house received at least one copy of it, and a number of members more than one, and therein are set out the economic reasons for the recommendations made.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Briefly I can summarize them by saying that there is no question in the mind of Mr. Palmer or of any of the Canadian engineers who ao-oompanied the party that Churchill can be more cheaply, more economically developed into a safer port than Nelson. If in the subsequent discussion further information is desired than that brief statement, which I think a careful reading of the report on the part of any member will confirm, I shall be glad to give the information.

With regard to the extension, of the railway to Churchill, the construction work is in the hands of the Canadian National Railways in the same manner as the reconstruction of the original track. The Canadian National has let the contract for the grading of the last piece of line from the present end of steel to Churchill.

The vote asked for this year is $6,500,000, of which $3,500,000 is for railway purposes and $3,000,000 for port development. It will be understood that in making arrangements for the construction of the port a large portion of the initial expenditure must necessarily be on equipment to do the work. I may say that every effort was made to get ready for active construction work at the port during the fall and winter of 1927. Immediate instructions were given, following the confirmation by the government of Churchill as the terminus, to have the dredge Kennequ-hair which was built many years ago for Hudson bay service', and which was then at Halifax, transferred to Churchill during the fall of 1927, the idea being that if a dredge could be placed at Churchill during 1927 it would be immediately available for work in the season of 1928. Hon. members will understand the difficulty of attempting, with our present knowledge of navigation conditions, to get into the bay before the month of July, it is not practical to expect that a dredge shipped into Churchill in the month of July or August could accomplish very much in the way of dredging work in the season during which she travels from the Nova Scotia coast to Churchill. Unfortunately, although the Kennequhair was sent to Churchill, it was necessaiy, in a storm in the north Atlantic, in order to save the lives of the crew of the tug and the crew of the dredge, for the tug to cut the hawser after three days of very stormy weather, and consequently the Kennequhair was lost. That has rendered it necessary to provide new dredging equipment, and in all probability that will involve some delay in the completion of the dredging work at Churchill. Every effort is being made by the department to speed up the work consistent with the necessary provisions for safety. It

is not an easy task to construct a great engineering enterprise so far from our normal business and industrial bases, and particularly is that the case with respect to floating equipment, because it must of necessity be sent in by sea, and there is the limitation of the navigation conditions ais we presently know them in that regard.

The department conducted an investigation into the loss of the Kennequhair, and we cannot attribute blame to any individual with respect thereto. The loss was incurred not in the straits or in the bay, but in the waters of the north Atlantic. There was, if my memory of the report serves me aright, a continuous storm for three days. The dredge was being towed by the tug on a hawser, a leak developed and this gradually increased until on the third night it was not deemed safe to allow the crew to remain on the dredge. Consequently, when it became dark, those members of the crew who were on the dredge were transferred by orders of the navigator to the tug for their safety, and during the night it became necessary to cut the hawser and let the dredge go. She sank immediately. These are things, of course, which we must expect occasionally in attempting enterprises of this character. Wie hope for better luck in the future.

During the winter arrangements were made to transfer as much as possible of the useful equipment at Nelson to Churchill. For that purpose Lynn tractors, commonly used in large lumbering enterprises, were employed, and a large amount of useful material has been transferred overland from Nelson to Churchill in order that it may be available during the coming summer. Hon. members who are familiar with the sea will understand that the first job to do this summer is to arrange for some landing facilities at Churchill, some temporary pier construction in order that the vessels arriving there may unload economically instead of having to transfer in deep water to smaller boats or scows. The material is being assembled for that purpose, and it is proposed this year to send in approximately 13,500 tons of material by sea. It is hoped by the time the material reaches Churchill that the force now there, with the material now there, will have a temporary pier constructed in such a manner as to enable all material to be unloaded in the most economical fashion.

That is all I have in mind at the moment. I expect a number of inquiries, and shall endeavour to give as much further detail o" the committee may desire.

Supply-Hudson Bay Railway

Mr. CANTLEY:

Would the minister be

good enough to repeat at what point the dredge was lost?

Mr. DUNNING:

I have not the exact

latitude and longitude, but it was in the north Atlantic, a considerable distance off the Labrador coast.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

How many

miles is it from the end of steel to Churchill, and what is the estimated cost to complete the line to Churchill? Secondly, how far would it be from that line when completed to Nelson? The line was originally intended to run to Nelson, but has been diverted to Churchill. Does the government contemplate building a line to Nelson from the main line running to Churchill?

Mr. DUNNING:

I am just looking up

the exact figures which are contained in Mr. Palmer's report. These were all carefully checked, and I prefer to use them rather than to rely on my memory. The diversion to Churchill occurs at a point seventy miles from Nelson, the line turning north at that point to Churchill.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

That would be the nearest point on the line to Nelson?

Mr. DUNNING:

Yes, that is mile 356

from Le Pas, where the northward turn occurs. From that point it is 154 miles to Churchill and 68 miles to Nelson.

Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):

What is the estimated cost of completion of the line to Churchill?