Mr. KELLNER:

I mean that article the hon. member is reading from in regard to trade balances.

Mr. HUGHES:

I read from no article.

Mr. KELLNER:

Well, the paper you quoted the figures from then

Mr. HUGHES:

I have no objection to showing it to my hon. friend or anyone who wishes to see it. The figures will all be on Hansard to-morrow and be available to everybody.

Mr. KELLNER:

The hon. gentleman's views are entirely in accord with my own, but I thought it would be well for him to hand the statement to some of his colleagues.

Mr. HUGHES:

When two nations go to war and one wishes to injure the other, and injure it very effectively, if they are maritime nations particularly, the one blockades the other. That blockade is established, not for the purpose of preventing exports, but for the puropse of preventing imports, it being instinctively realized that you can injure an enemy nation far more quickly and effectively by preventing its imports than by preventing its exports.

The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forks) said a good thing the other day, though I suppose he was not the first to say it, when he said: You cannot sell unless you are prepared to buy. The greatest fallacj that it is possible for any man to hold has been enunciated this session and in all previous sessions in which I have held a seat in this House by the Conservative party in regard to trade matters. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition and other gentlemen in his party say that they never change their views. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was a line of kings in France a few years ago of whom it was said they never learned and they never forgot-and they did not go down in history as being very intelligent men.

If what I have said is true, and I think it will bear critical examination, there is nothing

The Budget-Mr. Hughes

that we could do that would so promote the interest of the world or of two nations lying alongside each other like Canada and the United States as to have free trade qr as large a measure of free trade as we can have between the two nations. I have not lost faith in the intelligence of our neighboui ? to the south, and some o' ay or other they may repeat the offer they made to us. They are * quite justified now in being indifferent in meeting our offers because they made an arrangement with us that was certainly to our benefit-was to their own benefit and to ours -to a very much greater extent than we ever expected to receive from them-and we turned it down. I do not know whether reciprocity got a fair hearing in the country at that time or not, I do not think it did. It was the former member for West Peterborough, Mr. Burnham, who told us in this House that he never heard reciprocity mentioned in his part of the country but that other issues entirely were raised by the Conservative party, and issues that were not very creditable to any party. In the province of Quebec also reciprocity was hardly mentioned. There was at that time in that province a political school headed by a man named Bourassa, called the Nationalist party, and our good friends the Conservatives who wanted to defeat reciprocity joined in an alliance with the Nationalists. That alliance was afterwards called "The unholy alliance" but I am afraid the Conservative party would join in any alliance to defeat a Liberal government no matter what the consequences might be to the country.

We cannot expect world-wide free trade. Perhaps we cannot even expect free trade between Canada and the United States. The question naturally arises, if we cannot get that and if other countries maintain high tariff walls against us, would it be in our own interest to raise high tariff walls against those countries that are not willing to trade with us. Would it be in our interest? I do not think so. I have often heard the argument made that if we reduced our customs duties other countries would flood us with their cheap goods, let us examine that argument and see what is in it. For the sake of argument let us take an extreme case. Supposing other countries could send us their goods for nothing. That would be flooding us purely but would that injure us? If we could get the things we require to import for nothing, if we had to give nothing for them, manifestly that would not injure us. Supposing we got those imports very cheap at

25 per cent of their value? That would not injure us either, could not possibly injure us, and to the extent they took something in return would not injure our industries. Supposing we got those imports for half their value the same thing would apply. Supposing we got them for 75 per cent of their value the same thing would apply. Nations do not trade with one another but the individuals that compose nations do. No two men will carry on a trade unless it is beneficial to both of them, and if it is beneficial to the people that are carrying on that trade then it must necessarily be beneficial to the respective countries; there is no getting away from that fact.

The other day in the committee on Banking and Commerce I heard the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman), speaking in regard to a motion that was made there, say that we should not legislate to protect grown up red-blooded men from doing that which they wanted to do themselves. That was good sound doctrine. To-night he proposes to raise tariff walls, to impose high customs duties, to prevent men living in Canada from trading with their neighbours in the United States if they want to do so and if they find such trading to be to their advantage. The two positions do not agree. Either the hon. member was wrong in his statement before the Banking and Commerce committee or he was wrong in his argument to-night.

However, we are not living in an ideal world and some $400,000,000, or nearly that amount, have to be raised in Canada to meet our obligations. The Minister of Finance has to raise that money in some way or another. Under the circumstances would he be justified in reducing the customs duty, in lessening the amount he expects to receive from that source? I question it very much and, free trader in principle as I am, I will tell you why. Any government must be guided by the people from whom it is legislating. In the case of the government that was in power from 1896 down to 1911 every change it made in the tariff was in the direction of reducing the duty. Many people in Canada thought the Laurier government was not going fast enough and far enough. A large delegation came to Ottawa in 1910 or 1911, very largely composed of farmers from the province of Ontario and aggregating some seven or eight hundred in number. They asked for lower duties and particularly that efforts should be made to bring about reciprocal trade relations with the United States. A number of men in that delegation represented the fruit growing industry. The government heard the representations of the deputation and a few months later was in a position to carry out their wishes. Did these men respond? No, they took the earliest opportunity presented to them to turn the Laurier government out of power, they were not ready to receive the legislation for which they asked. The province of Manitoba also turned down the reciprocity agreement, and I am sorry to say the province from which I come sent half of its members to parliament to vote against reciprocity, although there is not a province in Canada that would have benefited to a greater extent from it than Prince Edward Island. Therefore, no matter how convinced you are of the soundness of certain legislation, no government can proceed faster than the sentiment of the people warrants. I think it was Solon who said that his laws were not the best possible, they were not even the best he could write, but they were the best the Athenian people were capable of receiving. Take the constituency of the present Minister of Finance who negotiated that reciprocity agreement. The province of Nova Scotia, including the county of Shelburne and Queens, which is largely engaged in the fishing industry would certainly have benefited largely by reciprocity, yet that constituency voted against the government. Even if it were not necessary to raise the large amount of money which is now required, would any government be justified in going faster than the present government is doing in the direction of freer trade or of making efforts to obtain reciprocal trade agreement with the United States.

That is a question which our Progressive friends will have to ask themselves. I want to say this to them: Did they show their sincerity to the extent of 100 per cent in regard to this matter? They blame the present government for not adhering more strictly to the platform of 1919. That platform surely appealed to the Progressive party in western Canada, but was the appeal sufficiently strong to attract their support? No, in every constituency in western Canada, or in most of them at all events, a candidate was put up to try to defeat the Liberal candidate and to defeat the party that framed that platform, and that had given the proof years before that they were in favour of such trade conditions.

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

The hon. member was endowed with his spirit of prophecy then.

Mr. HUGHES:

I did not catch the observation of the hon. member. I will mention an instance which comes nearer home. Since I have had a vote I have always voted for freer trade, because I was convinced it was sound policy. I voted for reciprocity. I was elected on that issue, and I came to parliament and advocated reciprocity to the best of my ability. Every vote that I ever gave was in favour of it. What did my Progressive friends do in the last election? The leader in the Progressive party came down to Prince Edward Island and assisted bis nominee against me. The gentleman who opposed me had voted against reciprocity, had stumped the country against it, and had voted against the Liberal government on every free trade measure that they introduced. Did that show 100 per cent sincerity?

Mr. GOULD:

He got what was coming to him.

Mr. HUGHES:

He got what was coming to him. He was licked because he was insincere, but he had the full support of the Progressive party and had the endorsement of the leader of that party.

Now our Progressive friends should not expect so much. They should not expect any more than they have got, and they should be sincere in this matter. If this question is fundamental with them, if they are convinced that it is one of the best things Canada could obtain, then they should support the men who have proved by their work that they are sincere in this matter, and if our iriends have made a mistake in the past, let them try to rectify it in the future

These are my views on these questions, and if our Conservative friends would come to us and acknowledge that they are largely responsible for the debt and taxation of the country at this time, if they would strike their breasts and acknowledge their guilt, we would feel like forgiving them to a large extent, and forgetting their record in the matters to which I have referred and in many other matters to which I might refer. Now actions speak louder than words, and under all the circumstances I do not think our Progressive friends are justified in moving an amendment to the budget. However they are the best judges of their own conduct. I belong to that party which has consistently worked for those measures which have been dear to us all for so many years. I am convinced of the sincerity of the members of our party, and am convinced that they are doing the best they can under the circumstances in which they find themselves placed. Therefore, I am going to vote

Private Bills

against the amendment and for the budget, believing that I am working and voting in the best interests of the principles which I have placed before the House this evening.

On motion of Mr. Morrison the debate was adjourned.