Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette):

Mr. Speaker, the occasion of the Budget speech gives to the House and the country the opportunity to review the state of financial health of the nation. A Budget speech, because of what it may contain, is always of interest at any time; but on an occasion such as the present, when the country has passed through four or five years of war that was a new experience for us; when that war has added greatly to our debt; when it has disturbed our economic conditions as they have never been disturbed before;-a Budget under such circumstances as these, is a matter of interest, and profound interest, to the people of any country, and particularly to the people5 of Canada.

Before I discuss the proposals contained in the Budget delivered by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) the other day, I wish to refer to one or two statements made by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and, I think, by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Casselman) in his speech the other evening. These hon. gentlemen directed some criticism against my administration of the Department of Agriculture when I was a member of the Government. Their criticism was that I had failed in my duty to the agricultural people of Canada, in that I had permitted their products to be sold in the markets of the world, to the Allies at prices greatly below their actual value; and they therefore chided me and held me up to reproach because that condition had existed. Well, I bear in mind that my

, ;

hon. friends supported the policy of that time because it was the policy of the Government of the day and not of the Minister of Agriculture. They supported it in the past, and it is rather a late occasion now on which to rake up criticism of this kind. What were the facts that faced the country under those conditions of war? They were such that there were no free markets -for our products. The Allied countries of Europe, as every one in the House and out of it knows, were buying their requirements through one or two agencies who controlled the shipping on the high seas and absolutely controlled the prices that producers in either Canada or the United States could get for their products. Under those circumstances, therefore, there was no other course for the Government of the day to follow than to make the best arrangements possible with the buyers in Europe; and I am free to confess that, in my opinion, in the great majority of cases the Allied purchasing agents, wielding the power they possessed through unified control in buying, dealt fairly generously with the producers on the North American continent.

I desire now to deal with the Budget statement delivered by the Minister of Finance the other day, and I am bound to say that my hon. friend, in the statement he has presented to the House this year, has fallen far short of the standard he set in his Budget speech of a year ago. At that time his speech was clear and courageous; it contained a note of courage and encouragement to the country. On the present occasion, however; these qualities are entirely lacking. A year ago my hon. friend made this declaration:

The duty to-day is not only to carry on the government of the country without any additions to the debt, but, on the other hand, to promote measures which will reduce the nation's obligations.

Now, that was a sound declaration of policy at that time. It contained two things in particular: First, the view that there should be no increase in the debt, and, second, that steps should be taken to reduce the nation's obligations. But what do we find in the present Budget speech? Do we find that ideal carried out by my hon. friend? Not at all. We find, on the contrary, that our debt has increased by over $100,000,000, and we find, as I shall show presently, absolutely not one word by way of provision for the future as to how we shall care for our heavy commitments that fall due, within the next few years. Now, in this statement my hon. friend

figures out a surplus. One would almost imagine that this Budget was the precursor of an election,-and I am not at all certain but that the Government, in the rather uncertain times that lie ahead of them, are making a.virtue of necessity and have dressed up their Budget proposals so that they will have the finest possible appearance to the country. What does my hon. friend claim? He claims a surplus of $69,000,000, and other hon. gentlemen who sit behind him have played upon this string and have pointed out what a splendid thing it is to have a Government that can produce a surplus of $69,000,000 in a year like this. But how does my hon. friend reach his surplus? He has reached it by charging up to capital expenditure items, and very large items, that should be paid out of ordinary revenue. We are faced with our railway situation, which every one admits is serious. Now, one principle, absolutely, should Ibe laid down in the financing of this enterprise, and that is, that the deficits that occur in operation, and the sums that are necessary to meet interest on fixed charges, should be paid out of income and! not charged up to capital. That is only the position which any ordinary business house would take But does my hon. friend do that? Not at all. We find that the interest on these obligations and the operating deficits have been charged up; and after charging them up my hon. friend arrives at a surplus of $69,000,000. If these charges had been met, as they should have been met, and would have been met by a courageous government, there would have been no surplus, and the facts would have been placed frankly before the people that our income last year did not meet our expenditure.

Have we any hope of improvement for the future? My hon. friend is budgeting this year for a considerable sum of money. He hopes to raise the same revenue that he raised last year, namely, $432,000,000, and he details the items. He speaks of estimated consolidated revenue expenditure $343,000,000-I am giving round figures-estimated capital expenditure $27,000,000; estimated demobilization expenditure $7,000,000-a total of $378,000,000. He sets that down as the amount that should be paid out of current revenue, but he goes on further and he has an item of $50,000,000 for the Canadian Northern railway, $89,000,000 for the Grand Trunk railway, and $26,000,000 for the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Some of these charges in respect of the railways are of

the nature of capital improvements and therefore could properly (be charged to capital; but many of them-I venture to say half of them although the House has not the detailed information from my hon. friend-are charges to meet interest on investments, or to pay operating deficits; and to that extent the statement is not a sound statement to place before the country. My hon. friend practically makes that admission a little later in his Budget speech, and I submit that his statement of our national finances is not such a statement as should be placed before the people at this time. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when Parliament and the Government should deal frankly with the country in respect to the question of expenditures and revenues it is now, because only by sustaining the courage and receiving the support of our people throughout the country can we hope to pass through the difficult times that lie ahead of us.

And what is the prospect for the coming year? My hon. friend has estimated a revenue of $135,000,000 from customs against $165,000,000 a year ago, a decrease of $30,000,000. But what are the facts as far as the months of March and April are concerned? The month of March, it is true, was in the last fiscal year, but it gives an indication of what we may expect in the few months that are immediately ahead of us. The customs revenue in March declined over $10,000,000 as against March a year ago and the customs revenue in April last declined over $7,000,000, as compared with April a year ago. There is $7,000,000 gone in one month of the $30,000,000 reduction which my hon. friend has provided for. And the same thing will apply to other sources of revenue. There is bound to be shrinkage in our income, and the Government has made absolutely no provision to meet it. They are going along making extravagant expenditure without any regard for the future; and I am afraid that when we come to the end of the present financial year, my hon. friend will have to come to this House with a deficit unless he can improve his book-keeping methods to a greater extent than he has done in the year that has gone past.

But there is one other criticism I wish to offer my hon. friend: He has made no provision whatever-indeed there is no reference whatever in the Budget speech to the matter-for the needs of the future immediately ahead of us. And what are

Mr. BALLANTYNE:

Hear, hear.

Mr. CRERAR:

My hon. friend says

" hear, hear", and he is building ships as to which, before they are completed, he can write off two-thirds of their value and he will not have them over-valued then. When we protest against this and when we demand economy on the part of the Government, what do we get?

The closure.

Mr. CRERAR:

Yes, we get a shrug of the shoulders, a cynical smile, and the closure.

My hon. friends opposite are just as careless in the little things as they are in the big things. We had an illustration of that the other evening in this House when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways was dealing with his Estimates, and asking for an increase for rqad supervision by a road department that did not exist in the Department of Railways until a year or two ago. For that department $25,000 was asked a year ago, and $55,000 is required this year, and there is no more need for it than there is for the Minister of Marine to have a battleship. The whole Budget is discouraging. And Sir, it is largely misleading; it is not giving the facts to the country as they should be given. What do the members of the Government have to say in connection with it? The Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he spoke, did not offer to' make any defence of if whatever. When the Minister of Marine spoke, he extolled the virtues of protection, and he told how they were going to win elections in the province of Quebec-that is what largely concerns the Minister of Marine. Then the Minister of Militia spent an hour and a quarter the other day endeavouring to convince the House and the country that Canada is not nearly so war-like as many other

nations in the world, notwithstanding- the fact that the Permanent Fopce to-day is almost 1,500 greater strength than it was the year before the war. And then we had the Prime Minister; I must not forget him. He came to the defence of the Government. What had the country a right to expect from my right hon. friend at this time? It had the right to expect some definite lead, some note of encouragement, some declaration as to the need of public and private economy. It should have had a high sounding note from my right hon. friend. But what did the country get? Well, Sir, we got an exhibition of cheap political vaudeville for over two hours and a half.

Talk about inconsistency! My right hon. friend throws his taunts around very freely and very lightly, and he was good enough to direct some particular attention to the hon. gentlemen "who sit angularly opposite" as he describes them. First of all he said that hon. gentlemen "angularly-opposite"-that is, the Progressives-and the Liberals are in the same boat; the next moment he said that one is protectionist and the other is free trade; and then he described us as "servile tools and minions, a dilapidated annex" of my hon. friends who sit to my right. Finally he completely reversed his position and wound up with the assertion that the Government and those who sit behind him were more low tariff than any other party in the country. A more amazing mass of inconsistencies could scarcely be imagined. And he concluded with this pious declaration, "Let this game cease. It is not doing any credit to the politics of Canada."

Was my right hon. friend doing any credit to the politics of Canada while he . was endeavouring during the past six or seven months to annex a number of hon. gentlemen of the Liberal Opposition who sit on this side of the chamber? My right hon. friend is anxious to get representation in the province of Quebec; I do not blame him for that. But let me ask him and this House in all sincerity: Have the methods which he has followed been any credit to the political life of this country? Perhaps he took his inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken). Both those hon. gentlemen are supposed to have a peculiar liking for the province of Quebec.

Servile tools and minions! Where was my right bon. friend in 1911 and the party that he thm gave adherence to? In that

year he and his party made an arrangement with the Nationalists of Quebec. Not only that but he and his party financed the Nationalists, their allies. The question of reciprocity was not an issue in Quebec. On what did his allies, whom he and his party financed at that time, make their appeal? Scarcely on grounds that would commend themselves to my hon. friends from Frontenac and West Toronto. It was an attack on the Empire. But my right hon. friend was not backward in seeking the assistance of those who then were willing to "shoot holes in the British flag." It does not lie in his mouth to lecture any one in this House upon political morality.

But let us go a step further. My right hon. friend describes us as a "dilapidated annex of the Liberal party, servile tools and minions." .Were those who sit, as he says, angularly opposite, "servile tools and minions" in 1917, when at their country's call, be their judgment right or wrong, they assisted my right hon. friend and his Government when it was on the brink of ruin and in despair? I should like to know if my right hon. friend considers we were "servile tools and minions" at that time. Let my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) answer. He knows better. And what about the "dilapidated annex"-where has if been? Where was the "dilapidated annex" in Assiniboia two years ago?

Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :

Where was

the Government?

Mr. CRERAR:

And where was the Government? Why, the Government was under the barn.

And is still there.

Mr. CRERAR:

We at this corner of

the chamber stand for definite principles, and we are not afraid to fight for those principles. In Assiniboia we fought one of the leaders of Liberalism in Western Canada, but my right hon. friend's Government was not represented in that election. And where were we in East Elgin-another "dilapidated annex"? My right hon. friend had a candidate in that constituency and appeared twice in his support, but where was his candidate when election day was over? Then we had the "dilapidated annex" operating again in West Peterborough. I will admit that it was not quite as successful there, but my right hon. friend did not get much comfort out of that election. And what about Timiskaming, where the "dilap-

idated annex" was again in operation? And what about our record and our votes in this House? My right hon. friend knows that he has no right to hurl that epithet across the floor.

He taunts us with not having moved our platform in this House, but he knows very well why it has not been moved. Two years ago when we sought to introduce an amendment to the amendment on the Budget we could not do so. My

right hon. friend knows that my hon. friends to the right of me have first claim to speak in the Budget debate. We could not move our amendment two years ago, and my right hon. friend was mighty glad that we could not. At that time he had just gathered a few wavering converts into the fold permanently-my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders), my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Lang) and several other hon. gentlemen from Western Canada.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

They will never come back.

Mr. CRERAR:

My right hon. friend

did not want our amendment to the amendment moved upon that occasion, for he thought his new converts might be frightened. Then he says, "But why did you not move it on going into Supply?" Does not my right hon. friend recall that two years ago last March my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) moved a tariff amendment on going into Supply? And does he not recall the position the Government took, at that time? I was then supposed to be among the faithful, and I spoke in that debate, my right hon. friend, I think also spoke, at any rate the leader of the Government of that day did; and the position every hon. gentleman on the other side took was that the amendment should be voted down, on the ground that the Budget debate was the place to discuss tariff matters in this House.

I can quite conceive of the pleasure it would give my right hon. friend to have us move an amendment on the tariff when going into Committee of Supply. Immediately he would get up and remind us of the speeches we had made on a former occasion that such an amendment should not be moved, and he would appeal to the loyalty of his supporters to vote our amendment down on the ground that the proper time to move it was when the Budget debate took place.

Now, why is all this suggested now? Why did my right hon. friend make that re-

markable speech the other day? I think he expected it might have some effect on a by-election which is now being contested down in the Maritime Provinces. He knows that his chances in that constituency are very slim indeed, but he hoped that he could influence a number of the electors there who have hitherto given support to him and to his policies to vote against the farmer candidate. On what platform is his candidate running in York-Sunbury at the present time? Does the tariff take a leading place in the discussion? Not according to the best information I get. My right hon. friend's candidate is running on a new -no, I will not say an altogether new, platform; it is an old platform of some of my hon. friends opposite. His candidate is saying privately to the Protestants of the constituency: I do not want any Catholic support; are you going to vote for the man whom the Catholics are voting for?

Shame.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

The hon. gentleman

has made a very serious assertion. He will be good enough to support that assertion by quotation.

Mr. CRERAR:

I have no doubt that my right hon. friend can get witnesses to prove it.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I never heard it.

Mr. CRERAR:

I accept at once my right hon. friend's statement; but I am stating what his candidate is saying down in York-Sunbury. And did not my right hon. friend within the past eight months, through his agents, approach the Catholic Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick with a view to having him come into his Government? Did he get that inspiration from my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) ?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Will the hon. gentleman repeat that statement, please? I did not quite catch it.