Oh, oh.

Mr. WALLACE.

I did not say that he told them that, but I say that was the logical and straight conclusion.

Oh, oh.

Mr. WALLACE.

Yes, why should he say it at all ? When I address an audience, have I ever told them that I am an Irishman because my father and mother came from Ireland ? Never in my life. Never have I gone to an audience and appealed to them in that way. I have appealed to them as a Canadian-not an Irish Canadian, or a French Canadian, or a German Canadian, but simply as a Canadian citizen -and because the programme I approved was the best for the citizens of Canada. But the First Minister has time and again said : I am a Frenchman, and I am proud of it, and the same blood runs in my veins as runs in yours. What was that said for ? Is it any difference that a Frenchman is First Minister of the Dominion ? What was the meaning of all that? Was there anybody attacking him because he was a Frenchman either there or anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.

Yes, yes.

Mr. WALLACE.

I for one have never heard of it.

Mr. KENDALL.

Let me tell the hon. gentleman

Mr. WALLACE.

The hon. gentleman need not tell me because I have heard him once or twice state some things that were not so, and I do not want to hear that kind of thing again. I say that such language in my opinion is unworthy of a Canadian statesman. It is raising a racial cry. What was this said for ? ' I am a 52J

Frenchman, and am proud of it, and the same blood that runs in my veins runs in yours.' It means one thing and one thing only.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to some of the statements made by those who preceded the First Minister. We listened to the Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Fielding) last Thursday with something of surprise at the change in his attitude. Hitherto he has always been jubilant, he has always been rampant, always spreading himself over the greatness of this Dominion and the prosperity that prevails throughout the country. The other day, it is true, he told of a surplus last year, and said that he had reduced the debt of the country by $770,000. He said that on two other occasions the debt of the country had been reduced. But he did not tell us, as in all fairness he might have done, that in one year, in 1SS2, the debt was reduced by three times as much.

Not so much-the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) might as well be accurate, seeing he likes accuracy.

Mr. WALLACE.

My figures are accurate.

I stated that the debt was reduced by a large sum.

Mr. WALLACE.

But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) did not state the sum, he took care not to mention that it was reduced by several millions.

It was under a million.

Mr. WALLACE.

No, It was over two millions. I said the hon. gentleman might have been more candid and have told the facts, instead of simply stating that there were large reductions. When the hon. minister announced his surplus and said there was to be a reduction of the public debt for the year, the cheers that went up from hon. gentlemen opposite no doubt did his heart good. But this was when he was speaking of the past. He was obliged to face the future. He said : Surpluses may be a very good thing, but we cannot have them always. As to the future, we are going to have a surplus of $6,400,000 next year, but we are going to have an expenditure on capital account of $10,300,000. This would mean an addition to our indebtedness of nearly $4,000,000. But the hon. minister, I do not know by what means figured it out at about two millions-he allowed less for the sinking fund, I suppose, or some little game of that kind. But that was quite a surprise to those behind him. They would hardly understand that the good state of affairs was not to continue. This sent rather a cold blast over the spirits of the new members. But there were some who were ready. The old campaigners were ready to cheer the minister whatever statement he might make. More particularly I noted that the

gentlemen who sit immediately around the ministers, those lire or six who are supposed to be anxious that ermine should he east over their shoulders, those gentlemen who, if report is to be credited, have been clamouring to be appointed to judgeships throughout the country, did not hesitate, but cheered and applauded. They could applaud anything, they could do anything, to help the government out of a difficulty. When the emergency food question was up, they could swallow any quantity of the emergency ration. When it was necessary to burke inquiry into the Huron and Brockville elections, these gentlemen were selected for the task, and nobly they performed their duty. Their friends, Cap Sullivan, Duncan Bole and the rest of the gang were to be protected at all hazards, and these gentlemen protected them in the committee and in the House. And they are ready to do it again. They are ready to do anything. What do they care ? With a judgeship coming up, why should not they earn it V So, things are not looking so well for the Liberal party for the future. The Minister of Finance tells us that we have been going up year after year and that we are now on the crest of the wave. And he said we were going to stay there. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot stay on the crest of the wa've- it is a physical impossibility. If you have ever been a navigator, you know that you cannot stay on the crest of a wave, you know that you have to go somewhere-and you go downward. That is the way that the minister of the nautical metaphor-he is going to go downward. He was warning the people. And why ? Because all his predictions and those of his colleagues were falsified. The hon. gentleman announced that in four years after they came into power they spent $21,300,000 on capital account. And, after the manner of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), who said ' wait until you see us next year,' the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) took us into his confidence to the extent of announcing that he was going to spend about ten and a half millions on capital account this year if I took his figures correctly.

I think it was ten millions.

Mr. WALLACE.

That will make almost $32,000,000 spent on capital account. But these hon. gentlemen tell us: It is true we are spending large sums of money, but we are developing the resources of the country and are enabling the people to earn more. But, with this vast expenditure on capital account and this enormous increase in the expenditure on account of consolidated fund, the Minister of Finance feels bound to come and tell us: You must look out for squalls; you cannot expect that in the future we are going to have a continuance of this era of great prosperity; we are going to take a rest so that we may lie strengthened and re-Mr. WALLACE.

freshed; and, at some time in the future resume our vigorous efforts. And so they see the signs that the prosperity which they did nothing to bring about and which they cannot keep from being overcome by an era of adversity-they know they are helpless- must inevitably decrease.

The Minister of Customs has furnished us with a report of the trade of the country during the past five months, from the 1st of July to the last of November. During those five months, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), there have been decreases in every item of the exports of this country except gold and manufactures, which I presume came from the Yukon, and in which there was an increase of about fifteen million dollars. That large production of gold in the Yukon was due in no sense to the efforts of the government. They had made no roads, furnished no facilities to open up and develop the country, and give the miners an opportunity. They had imposed a royalty of 10 per cent, handicapping- the miners, which they now declare to have been a mistake, because they propose to reduce it to 5 per cent. There were increases in manufactures to the amount of $1,000,000. Our exports of fish decreased in those five months, compared with the five months of the previous year, by $830,000, the exports of the forest decreased by $1,380,000, the exports of animals and their products decreased by $1,507,000 ; miscellaneous decreased by $131,000, and bullion by $580,000; making a decrease in the great staples of the country of between four and five million dollars. No wonder the ministers are becoming alarmed, no wonder they are now sounding a note of warning because the export of the country is leaping up, the expenditure on capital account and for running the government has reached such enormous figures that the people are becoming alarmed.

Now, there is another reason. They said, and the First Minister repeated to-night, that when we were in power we were going to stop all emigration from the country, we were going to give employment to the people at home. So we did, and we prevented these men from going out of the country, because we built up manufacturing establishments and Canadians were employed in them. We opened up Manitoba and the North-west Territories, we sent tens of thousands of young Canadians up there who otherwise would have gone to the Northwestern States. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said last year that they had stopped all that. They have not stopped it. Last year household effects, which is the only test they can give us as to the emigration from Canada, amounted to $1,165,000, notwithstanding the great era of prosperity 'we are enjoying, and that is about the amount under the period of depression when the Conservative party were in power, in 1893-4-5. So, Mr. Speaker, there was reason

why these gentlemen sounded a note of alarm.

They say : Look at the trade of this country, grown to greater proportions than ever before, the business of the country amounting to 8.481,000,000. The total trade of the country is measured by imports for home consumption and exports of Canadian produce. The hon. gentleman put the imports at 8189,000,000. There were to be deducted from that, as the Minister of Finance himself admitted, 84,150,000 of American Indian corn, which they had put as a product of Canada and exported, and which they admitted was not the product of Canada, but simply grain going through in transit. Deduct that from the imports and the exports, deduct the wheat which went through in the same way to the amount of $4,370,000, and flax, $1,039,000, making a deduction altogether of $10,170,000. Now take the exports. There were $191,000,000, and they add to make up that sum, $5,500,000, which they say was short, that was not reported in the customs house. I do not believe they should have any such figure. I believe that the machinery we have in force to-day, with the enormous army of customs officials, and the fact that business is done better than it formerly was, prove that there is really no large amount to be added to exports. I deduct that, and you have $186,433,000. Deduct from that $21,000,000 for exports not produced in Canada, and you have a total showing of $165,000,000 of exports and $176,000,000 of imports. You have $10,500,000 of trade against the Dominion of Canada. The imports exceed the exports by $10,500,000.

Now, Sir, notwithstanding all that has been said about the balance of trade, the peeople of England to-day are inquiring what the balance of trade means. It means nothing more nor less, in the case of Canada, than this : If you import $176,000,000 and export $165,000,000, you are $11,000,000 short in your accounts.

Mr. KENDALL.

Not at all.

Mr. WALLACE.

You cannot demonstrate to me in any way you like that a country is becoming rich, especially a country like Canada, where the exports are millions of dollars every year less than the Imports. Take an individual. He brings to his farm $2,000 worth of goods every year for consumption, and he sells $1,500 worth every year ; in a long course of years he will inevitably become poor, he will become a pauper, he will be driven off his farm. The same rule will apply t.o a nation. They ask us to look at Great Britain. Great Britain is becoming rich, although the imports are very much greater than the exports. That is true. But they are doing a great deal of business for other countries. They have the ships that carry the produce to and fro, they have the control of the banking business, they do the buying and the selling, and they have profits on all this business. But to-day they are asking themselves the question whether they are not living on the profits they have made in former years ; and they will come to the conclusion, when they examine into it, that they are living upon the profits that they have formerly made.

Now, there is another matter. When some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House called attention to the preference that we are giving to Great Britain and criticised it, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) demanded from hon. members on this side of the House that we should get up and move for its repeal, which would be, in his opinion, disloyal and improper. The right hon. First Minister went over the same story to-night. It was something sacred, it was the symbol of the loyalty of the people of Canada to give a preference to Great Britain, and if the Conservative party dared to interfere with it they would be branded with disloyalty. I would like to know, and I would like somebody to tell me, when these hon. gentlemen were put in the position of claiming to be the loyal party in Canada. During every emergency the Conservative party have fairly stood up for the connection with Great Britain, when these men sneered at us, and when the right hon. First Minister told us that he preferred the American dollar to the English shilling, thus sneering at the connection between us and Great Britain. He was looking at the mighty dollar. Their whole course, from the time that they proposed commercial union, that would have allowed American goods to come in free of duty while British goods will have to pay a duty, has been disloyal. That was a disloyal position to take because it would end only in one thing if carried out, and that would be in severing our connection with the mother land. When we dared to say that we wanted a preference in the markets of Great Britain the right hon. gentleman told us that we could not have it, and declared that it was disloyal to even think of touching the preference that we were giving to Great Britain. Who are these gentlemen who are going to teach the Conservative party loyalty ? Is it the hon. Minister of Finance, who, in a speech which he made in Halifax-not in a speech but throughout a whole campaign-advocated the smashing of confederation, advocated the secession of the province of Nova Scotia from the Dominion, and not only advocated the secession of Nova Scotia, but asked the neighbouring provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to Join with him in smashing confederation. Yet, that hon. gentleman comes to us and preaches loyalty. Here is his speech :

The Interests of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are alike in this matter. All these provinces have been sacrificed to the confederation. 1 trust this ques-

tion of separation from Canada will be brought up by independent members in both provinces, and fairly discussed. Bad as is the position of the two provinces in the union, it will become worse if Nova Scotia secedes. Maritime interests will be weaker than ever at Ottawa, and there will be little chance for the New Brunswickers and the Islanders to obtain justice. They will have everything to gain by joining Nova Scotia, and I am satisfied that if the movement be taken up with vigour in our sister provinces the demand for separation from Canada will be made, not by Nova Scotia alone, but by the three maritime provinces. But if New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are content to occupy their present position, or the weaker one which they would occupy after the withdrawal of Nova Scotia, they must be permitted, of course, to take their -own way. We shall take our way, and demand for Nova Scotia alone separation from the Dominion, though we would much prefer joint action, because we have always felt that the provinces down by the sea have a unity of interest, and that in co-operation we might bring about results which would go far to make the people of our country prosperous. I believe the people of Nova Scotia will at the approaching elections throw off the yoke of Toryism, and that in our province particularly we shall have a grand victory for Liberalism and repeal.

That is one of the hon. gentlemen who get up on the floor of this House and preach loyalty to us. I think he would have done much better if, looking at his past record, he had kept very quiet about that question. Then we have the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa), and the two other hon. members who endorsed him the other night and took such a position that the right hon. gentleman had to repudiate it-as disloyal an attitude as an hon. gentleman ever took in the parliament of Canada.

Hear, hear.

Mr. WALLACE.

The First Minister laughs, and says ' hear, hear.' I am glad to have his approval in that matter. Of course, it may be that, as last year it was a little game played on the House and on the country. It may be that the hon. member for Labelle was put up to make that speech so that the Prime Minister could make his superloyal speech and spread himself in the House and in the country. It has been so stated, and the speech of the First Minister rather lent weight to that statement.