Mr. MEIGHEN:

I said a tariff for revenue and also for protection.

Order.

Mr. CRERAR:

My hon. friend when in Winnipeg is reported by the Winnipeg Telegram to have stated:

I am not a high protectionist; I never was; and I do not believe it appropriate to this Dominion. The reason why I will give you in a minute. I am not a free trader. I never was, and I am perfectly convinced that it is not appropriate to this Dominion now. I believe in a moderate tariff. I believe in a moderate tariff for purposes of revenue, especially at this time.

That is the statement.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Go on.

Mr. CRERAR:

I will continue the quotation :

I believe in it as well for the purpose of assuring the maintenance and expansion of industry.

But my hon. friend believes in a "moderate tariff" for the purposes of revenue. I would like to know where my hon. friend stands on this question.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Exactly there.

Mr. CRERAR:

Well, if my hon. friend stands "exactly there," he gave a most re-

markable performance in this Chamber the other night when he decried the fiscal policy of Great Britain; and if anything was lacking to make clear the policy of the Government on this tariff question, it was furnished in the speech made by the hon. Minister of the Interior during this debate. But, I say, the Government have finally cleared the decks for action; they have come out for the old National Policy of protection.

Who?

Mr. CRERAR:

The hon. member for

Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has declared himself-my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) has not yet declared himself; I would not just at present ally him with that proposition. The Government's policy, I say, has finally emerged from the clouds of doubt and suspicion and mistrust that enveloped it, and it stands revealed before the country. What is it? It is the old National Policy of protection.

Hear, hear.

Mr. CRERAR:

And Germany.

Mr. CRERAR:

I have not the figures

for the years immediately prior to the war, but I am informed that the imports of Germany exceeded her exports.

Mr. MEIOHEN:

Practically even.

Mr. CRERAR:

Practically even; I am

quite willing to take my hon. friend's statement. But it is not the adverse balance of trade that counts in the prosperity of a nation. How has England prospered-because she has prospered, despite all that my hon. friend says-in the face of an ad-vese balance of trade? We find the facts very clearly stated by a noted British economist, no less a person than the editor of the London Economist, which is regarded as the leading financial journal not only of Great Britain but of the world. He says that the balance has been made up in this way:

First: Shipping freights. Our ships carry goods to and from them all over the world.

If Britain had been following a protectionist policy for the last seventy years, would her ships be going into every harbour and port of the world? Without any question they would not.

Second: Interest coupons. The American securities held by English investors yield a constant income in interest, to meet which the United States has to send goods.

My hon. friend practically stated that the other night, but he made this other remarkable statement: that it was the accumulated wealth of Great Britain prior to 1850 that had enabled her to make these investments in foreign countries and thus to overcome the handicaps that free trade had brought to her. There is one other item that helps to make up the balance:

Third: Insurance facilities. The English insurance companies and firms do a large business in the United States and draw thence a regular income in premiums.

Another result of the free trade policy of Great Britain. Then, banking facilities. Why, it is a well known fact that London was the international clearing house for the business of the world; that there was not a bank or a broker in London who did not take toll in some form

of the business of the world. The United States a protected country! If the United States wanted to pay for goods bought in China, she invariably did so by a draft on London; and it was the toll thus taken, the commissions and premiums earned on these transactions, that adjusted the balance o'f trade. I cannot for the life of me understand why my hon. friend bases his argument on the adverse balance of trade of Great Britain. We have a good example in Switzerland. I am told that

Switzerland has nearly always had an adverse balance of trade, yet it is one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. Therefore, the argument that an adverse balance of trade is necesarily bad for a country does not hold water.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Switzerland has tourist traffic.

Mr. CRERAR:

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman refers to Sir William Booth. Is he aware that

upon actual investigation Mr. Booth in his report asserted that 57 per cent of the poverty was due to unemployment?

Mr. CRERAR:

There was a Sir Charles Booth, I know-

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Sir Charles.