Greenway, who started to build the railway and then transferred it to the Northern Pacific railway, and shouted: We have got competition. They had handed it over to the Northern Pacific, and the competition when they weTe compelled to disclose it, consisted simply of a letter from the president of the Northern Pacific railway that his road would charge no more to bring wheat to Duluth than the Canadian Pacific railway charged to bring it to Port Arthur. Fortunately for the province of _ Manitoba that government was in its dying days, and it died and was buried, thank God, and there has never been any resurrection since. Another able government came into power, and they took hold of the railway situation. They had to buy back that railway, built largely with Mani-tobar money, from the Northern Pacific, and they made a new deal with the Canadian Northern railway by which they controlled the rates, and as a result of which there is in Manitoba to-day more mileage of Canadian Northern railway than there is of Canadian Pacific railway. The Manitoba government have control of the rates, and again there farming now is a paying business. Manitoba benefited, and every province to the west of Manitoba incidentally benefited. The Canadian Northern railway began in Canada, ran through Canadian soil in Canadian territory and terminated in Canadian ports at Port Arthur and Fort William. So that now all our grain instead of going by way of Duluth, by American cities, paying tribute to American railroads, now goes over our own territory through our own ports, over our own railways to the east, through our own elevators, into ocean steamers-, to be carried to the markets of the world, or is carried to our own cities to be ground in our own mills to the profit of the whole people of Canada.
The monopoly clause of the Canadian Pacific railway, although irksome, at the time, was not altogether an evil. At this distance of time we must acknowledge the foresight of that great statesman, who desired to make the channels of commerce between the eastern provinces, and the western territory wider and deeper before that great work would be subject to the competition by diversion of our trade to the United States.
Members on this side of the House would welcome the execution of the government's threat of an election. We believe that the opinion of the people is against this pact, and it is only fair that they should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it before it becomes law. .
I shall touch upon another question which has been referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. With reference to the speech or address of President Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).
Taft at -New York the other day, I am informed by one who was at that meeting that that address was in manuscript, that it was read closely by the president from that manuscript and that that manuscript was handed to the press. Evidently what he said was said with deliberation and not in the heat and excitement of a debate. I think that address ought to be read carefully by every Canadian, that it ought to be in every Canadian home so that^every elector in this country might read it for himself. First the president speaks of wheat, oats and barley. We have heard a great deal of that from northwest Liberal members; they say that we are going to get rich on wheat, barley and oats. Take the province of Manitoba and the states of Dakota and Minnesota, follow that 49th parallel as far west as you like, make an excursion 40 miles to the north amongst our own people, and make another excursion 20 miles or 40 miles to the south, and you will find that, -man for man, our farmers are better than the Americans, they are better educated, they are more intelligent, they are more industrious than the men on the other side of the line. Take farm for farm, and you will find that on our side we have better kept farms, we have better field conditions than they have; we have better and more comfortable buildings and farm houses than they have, and our farmers are getting wealthy and making more rapid progress than the Americans. These, Sir, are not the people with whom we should make a trade alliance. Now, with reference to wheat, barley, and oats, we are told that we should vote for this pact because we will get higher prices for our farm products, and at the same time the consumer will get his bread at cheaper prices. Now, let us see what President Taft says:
With respect to wheat and barley and oats, conditions differ in different parts of Canada and in different parts of the United States. Classing them together as on the whole, the conditions are substantially the same. In prices of farm land the differences are no greater between Canada and the United States than between the different states in the United States. In the matter of farm wages, on the whole, they are about the same.
It is said that this is an agreement that affects agricultural products more than manufactures. That is true, but if we are to have an interchange of products between the two countries of any substantial amount the chief part of it must necessarily be in agricultural products. As it is, we export to Canada more agricultural products than we receive from her and so it will be afterwards. The effect is not going, in my judgment, to lower the specific prices of agricultural products in our country. It is going to steady them and it is going to produce an interchange of products at a profit which will be beneficial.
How is it going to be beneficial when there is to be no increase in prices? The fact is that we have better prices on our side of the line. About two weeks ago, - when I was in Winnipeg, I took up the St. Paul ' Pioneer Press,' which prides itself on the accuracy of its market reports, and I took up the Winnipeg ' Free Press/ which I presume is more accurate in its market reports than it is in its politics, and I compared the prices of the markets in St. Paul and Winnipeg on the same day, and with the exception of wheat, I found that farm products were bringing a higher price in Winnipeg than they were in St. Paul. In St. Paul wheat was two cents higher than it was in Winnipeg. Now, I wish to call attention to an extract in this remarkable speech of President Taft, on the 28th of April. He comes down from his throne, and steps upon the platform, where he talks to the newspaper men, and tells them what kind of a reciprocity gospel he wants them to grind out. There are thousands of them there from all over the United States. Now we have heard people talking annexation, but the spirit that animates the President's remarks is something more than that, it is the spirit of conquest. Now, listen to what he says:
Another and very conclusive reason for closing the compact is the opportunity which it gives us to increase the supply of our natural resources, which, with the wastefulness of children, we have wantonly exhausted.
He is looking with a jealous eye upon the riches God has given us in this Canada of ours. He continues :
The timber resources of Canada which will open themselves to us inevitably under the operation of this agreement are notv apparently inexhaustible. I say apparently inexhaustible, for if the same procedure were to be adopted in respect to them that we have followed in respect to our own forests, I presume that they too might he exhausted, but, fortunately for Canada and for ns, we and they have learned much more than we realized two decades ago with respect to the necessity for proper methods of forestry and of lumber cutting. And hence we may be safe in saying that under proper modern methods the timber resources open to us in Canada may be made inexhaustible, and we may derive ample supplies of timber from Canadian sources to the profit of Canada and four our own benefit.
There are other natural resources which I need not stop to enumerate which will become available to us as onr own if we adopt and maintain commercial union with Canada; and this is one of the chief reasons that ought to commend the Canadian agreement to the farseeing statesmanship of leaders of American public opinion.
But there are other-even broader- grounds than this that should lead to the adoption of this agreement. Canada's superficial area is greater than that of the United States between the oceans. Of course, it has
a good deal of waste land in the far north, hut it has enormous tracts of unoccupied land or land settled so sparsely as to he substantially unoccupied, which in the next two or three decades will rapidly acquire a substantial and valuable population. The government is one entirely controlled by the people and the bond uniting the Dominion and the mother wintry is light and almost imperceptible. There are no restrictions upon the trade or economic development of Canada which will interfere in the slightest with her carving out her independent future. The attitude of the people is that of affection toward the mother country, and of a sentimental loyalty toward her royal head. But for practical purposes the control exercised from England by executive or parliament is imponderable.
Then comes that significant peroration in which the president refers to this as a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. He says:
I have said that this is a critical bime in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because, unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity, it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States.
Might he not have said: We will never
have another opportunity to appeal to a Prime Minister of Canada who is more willing to force this reciprocity pact through parliament than he is to go to the Imperial Conference; we may never have a Finance Minister in the government of Canada again who spent the days of his early manhood in trying to dismember this confederation; and we may never have another Minister of Customs in the government of Canada who will be so easy a mark as long as we protect his cookies and his candies.
The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall