tions to force you on this question. What were they, if there were any? Production was good. Never in the history of Canada has production in all its various interests been larger or richer. There was no lack of market for everything that Canada produced. There was a quick sale, easy sale, no glut in the markets, no lying by in bins and cellars, no rotting in our fields. Everything that Canada produced, and she produced richly, found a market and a ready market. There was no compulsion in that respect, there was no lack of transport, everything ready for market had means of transport, there was no compelling condition which sent these gentlemen to Washington. The prices too were good, they were never better in Canada." A vigorous denunciation of the two negotiators followed for going to Washington without any national need, or mandate, or consultation with business interests and there making, in secret conference, this important Agreement. He dared the Government to take a free vote of Parliament upon the matter; to tell its own party supporters to vote as they liked. He claimed that, directly or indirectly, $47,800,000 of Canadian imports and $47,300,000 of Canadian exports were affected by the Agreement. It altered" the fiscal conditions of interchange, not for a few unimportant articles, but a long list of most important products."

It shifted the entire basis and area of Canadian production. What, he asked, is the greatest thing in Canada? "The Inter-Provincial trade which is founded upon the many productions in the East and the wheat, grain and cattle productions in the West-the two complementing each other. What has made Canada so mighty, and so great in her progress is this, that you have filled her bins with the rich blood of Inter-Provincial trade, stimulating production in various parts, and then interchanging these productions one part with the other part. This instrument has for its object, can have no other, the shifting of the base of production and giving, as far as possible, at least one-half to the United States of America." One other argument was presented: "If the effect of this measure is to shift producing centres from this country to the United States, to give us half and the United States half, it means that half of the labour possibility in the way of employment is taken from this country and is shifted to the other side, or kept upon the other side."

On the 14th Mr. Foster resumed the debate. The alleged injury to capital investments and the $150,000,000 a year now coming from Great Britain was reviewed. "Capital is going to be sensitive and careful of investing itself in this country on account of the unstable conditions which are imported by this arrangement, and will go the side where there is the greatest market, where there is the most fixity and stability of financial conditions." Whatever change might be made as to Canada there was no apparent instability in the general structure of the United States tariff. As to the British preference he pointed out that it had

originally included many countries but was ultimately limited to British Dominions; that then, he claimed, the Government went to work to render it as fatuous as possible" first, by raising the duties on the list of articles before they made the preference to Great Britain; later, by the French Treaty, which in some respects scaled down the preference to nothing, and in other respects materially reduced the influence of the preference. Then, in 1910, after Parliament had closed these gentlemen reduced by Order-inCouncil the duties to Belgium, to Holland and to Italy, and so brought in further competition with the preference to Great Britain and to-day, what have they done?" They were now bent upon destroying the possibility of a return Preference in Great Britain. "They have admitted (from the United States) all the articles on which the British people would be willing to include a preference. They have included all those in the free list between the United States and Canada, and every one of them could be sluiced through Canada into the Empire under a preferential arrangement with Canada. And you could not help yourself. A British preference then would not be with Canada alone in these articles, but with Canada plus the United States." Hence the joy amongst British Liberals and free-traders.

A long argument followed on the value of the Home market to the Canadian farmer, on its destruction by Reciprocity and dominance by United States Trusts, on the practical control of Canada's tariff by the United States, on the national and Imperial issues involved. The ideal of Canadian nationality within the Empire was described in words of unquestioned eloquence and power: "Then (in 1868) blood pulsed in our veins, new hopes fired our hearts, new horizons lifted and widened, new visions came to us in the night watches. We faced geography and distance and fought them to a stand-still. We shamed the croaker and the pessimist and the coward into silence, and then re-created him, as a good citizen, at the glowing fires of optimism and of hope. The plains were shod with steel, the mountains tamed and tunnelled, our national arteries were filled with a rich blood of commerce, our industries grew, our workmen multiplied, our villages became towns and our towns became cities, with astonishing rapidity. Across the seas we clasped hands with our sister-nations within the Empire and surrounded as with a cordon of defence the old Empire that gave us birth." All this would now be changed and endangered.

Dr. D. B. Neely followed in a review of the Western Liberal and freer-trade arguments and from the practical, material, standpoint of the value to the farmer of a free market in the United States for his wheat, oats, barley, flax, potatoes, hay and dairy products. He believed that the West, almost entirely, approved the Agreement. Mr. Martin Burrell (Cons.) spoke for the Fruit interests of British Columbia which were said to be gravely

menaced by Reciprocity. "What is our position? Our natural, our great market is the Canadian prairies. We face there competition from our sister Province, Ontario, whose friendly rivalry we do not deplore. But we face, also, a much more dangerous and fierce competition from the Pacific coast States. Absolutely no argument can be advanced to show that British Columbia has an equivalent in the form of a market in those States. Their markets are glutted with their own products, and each of the great fruit-growing States is exporting an enormous annual surplus." The speech by Mr. Hugh Guthrie, K.C., on Feb. 15th, was an able presentation of the policy from the Liberal standpoint.

The rich results of Reciprocity in 1854-66 and the record of both Canadian parties in favour of Reciprocity in natural products, were dealt with; the fact that there was a practical and actual preference in favour of British manufactures because last year Canada bought from Great Britain in manufactured woollens, silks, ribbons, oil-cloth, flax, hemp and jute, fancy articles, earthenware, china, and cottons, $41,250,000 worth and from the United States $6,440,000 worth, was analyzed. As to prices and markets he made this point: "We have two markets now, the home market and the British; but then, when this arrangement comes into operation, we will have three markets, and the one we have not got now, but which we want to get, is by far the largest. We will not send our products to Buffalo, or Chicago, unless we get better prices than we do at home or in the Mother Country. Our western people are not going to send any cattle to Chicago unless they can get better prices there than elsewhere. If they cannot they will send them to Eastern Canada or Great Britain. What is there unpatriotic or disloyal in that proposition? How do business men conduct their business? If the prices in Buffalo are good, they send their wares there; if not they send them elsewhere. Then why should not the Government carry on the business of this country on business lines?" Mr. Guthrie claimed that the British market for wheat was limited and that the United States would soon cease to export wheat. Under Reciprocity a tremendous amount of live-stock would go to Buffalo from Ontario instead of to Liverpool and prices would be better. He admitted that the cost of living in Canadian cities would increase but it would be a part of increased national prosperity and would not be felt.

Speeches followed from Haughton Lennox, J. E. Armstrong and Richard Blain, on the Conservative side of the House and from A. B. Warburton, Michael Clark and J. P. Molloy, Liberals. Mr. Armstrong quoted some interesting figures, which he described as authoritative but of which the source was not indicated, stating that six great Packing establishments-the Meat Trust-of the United States did a yearly business of $945,000,000 with profits of $23,379,644. On Feb. 23 Mr. F. D. Monk (Cons.) after touch

ing lightly on the Champ Clark matter moved a Resolution which, in a few words, Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. R. L. Borden approved and which was passed without opposition or serious debate: "Before resuming the discussion of the terms of the Agreement concluded between the Government of Canada and the President of the United States and with a view to dispel the feeling of unrest created in Canada by comments made in both countries as to the political consequence of the Agreement, the House wishes to affirm emphatically its determination to preserve intact the bonds which unite Canada to the British Empire, and the full liberty of Canada to control her fiscal policy and internal autonomy." In re-opening the discussion on Feb. 21st Mr. G. W. Kyte spoke for the Liberals and Dr. T. S. Sproule for the Conservatives while the Hon. R. Lemieux made an eloquent address in favour of the Government policy.

Mr. Lemieux was as proud of Canada's progress and position as any Conservative speaker could be and he believed the country so sound and strong that it could stand beside and trust the United States in this great issue of the day. "We have the greatest timber resources in the world, 315,000,000 feet of standing timber; wheat-fields 600 miles wide, 1,000 miles long, waiting for the plough, not less than 117,000,000 acres of wheat-land; we have 12,500 miles of coast fisheries, 250 miles of which are in the beautiful County of Gaspe; we have 440,000 miles of fresh water fisheries; in coal alone, according to the statistics of the Department of the Interior, 172,000,000,000 tons; in gold we have produced the worth of $260,000,000; in silver we occupy third place in the world; in nickel we have three-fifths of the world's supply." After reviewing the history of Reciprocity negotiations and advocacy from a Liberal standpoint the speaker dealt with British trade, east and west and north and south, and asked why Canada should be afraid of a progressive policy. As to transportation, diversion of route, etc., he had no fear. "The trade from Canada to the United States will continue to increase, and it requires no unusual foresight to see that this increase will inure to the benefit of our ocean ports. Montreal will beyond all doubt replace New York as the first ocean port of North America; indeed, Montreal has already taken the premier position. That is a decree not of mine; not of the Canadian Government; it is a decree of nature and of geography. There can be no evasion of the fact that the water-route from Montreal to Liverpool is 220 miles shorter than that from New York to Liverpool and that 1,000 miles of the Canadian route lies within the shelter of adjacent shores. During last season of navigation, and the season before that, Montreal defeated New York in the race, for in the export of butter and cheese the port of Montreal leads the way on the North American continent." There would be better markets for the product of the forests and fisheries of Canada, better prices for fish, in particular, more transportation

for railways. United States lines ran east and west; why should not Canadian lines do so and prosper under Reciprocity? This policy would not give a death-blow to Imperial Preference; the British people had already given that. He concluded as follows:

At the end of this century of peace (the celebrations of which will take place in 1912 on the wise suggestion of my colleague the Minister of Labour) this Reciprocity Agreement will be the crowning event of that century. We believe it will be a means of serving the Empire and Canada; we believe it will prove a link between the Mother Country and the great Republic. In the past our loyalty has borne its trials, even with the Mother Country. While we were still suffering from the effects of the abrogation of the Reciprocity Treaty statesmen high in station in England gave us to understand that they would see us part from the old cònnection without regret, but we did not believe that those were the feelings of the people of England, and so we held on. We have fairly won our way into the British brotherhood, and we will not hear with patience that any trade arrangement, however favourable, will turn us from the course we have freely chosen for ourselves within the greatest Empire that has been.

Mr. Clifford Sifton's speech-elsewhere dealt with-followed or Feb 28th and to it the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) replied at length. He dealt with the historical situation and claimed, in the matter of mandate, that there was none for the Preferential tariff of the kind now demanded and yet Conservatives had supported that measure. His analysis of the price of wheat was as follows: "Why is it that the American Congress made arrangements for the Minneapolis millers to grind Canadian wheat in bond for export instead of bringing in the wheat, paying the duty on it and grinding it in the ordinary way? Because the duty is not only a deterrent and impediment but an absolute prohibition of their getting the Canadian wheat and grinding it at Minneapolis and mixing it with their own flour. If Reciprocity is going to result in our north-western farmers selling their wheat to the United States market why will they do it? Simply because the price which the American miller will pay for it will be higher than the price which the Canadian miller has been willing to pay for it." As to small Canadian mills they would suffer no more under Reciprocity than did small American mills in the United States at the present time.

The need of larger markets for the farmer was indicated as follows: "If 1,000,000 people in 1909, cultivating 7,000,000 acres of wheat, produced 147,000,000 bushels, what will the people of the Canadian North-West produce when that country is fairly filled up and we have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains? That estimate of the future population of the North-West is not an extravagant one, nor need we look very far ahead for these results. When that time comes the Canadian North-West will produce 1,000,000,000 bushels of wheat. I venture to say that the farmers will need not only the Home country and the American market, but also