Mr. SPEAKER:

Yes, another question.

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):

That is what

I am doing. Will the minister have the matter thoroughly investigated in a formal manner, rather than submit a statement of the circumstances, by wire exchanged between him and his officials. I feel sure it would be much more satisfactory to the people of Nova Scotia if such a formal investigation were held.

Mr. CARDIN:

Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):

Mr. Speaker, it is so seldom that I find myself in a position to return thanks to this government that I take the first opportunity this session to thank them for the compliment done my native province in selecting one of the younger members from Nova Scotia to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) spoke fluently and with considerable self-assurance, not even hesitating to cast some reflections upon the premier of the adjoining province of New Brunswick for certain statements made by him with which the hon. member told the house the great bulk of the people of Nova Scotia were not in accord.

I think the statements made by the premier of New Brunswick on the occasion referred to met with the cordial support of the great bulk of the intelligence of Nova Scotia.

Again, the hon. gentleman in referring to the outcome of the Liberal-Conservative convention at Winnipeg last November stated when referring to the resolutions passed at the convention:

This I cannot help thinking is an indication that even the opposition is coming around, getting into line, and that henceforth it will be more constructive, more truly national in its efforts and activities.

This, Mr. Speaker, is a striking example of the ignorance and arrogance of youth. More constructive, more truly national indeed! May I ask him which party and what party leaders brought about confederation? Which party in 1869 bought the lands of the Hudson's Bay Company and opened up and largely peopled the great lone spaces of the northwest? Which party built the Intercolonial railway? Which party in 1870 brought the province of Manitoba into the Dominion? Which party built the Canadian Pacific railway? Which party conceived and executed the Grand Trunk Pacific railway scheme?- and when it failed and threatened to bankrupt the national credit, opposed taking over the road and its incorporation in a national system of railways?

a system of which our friends opposite are now so proud? Which party advocated unrestricted reciprocity? Which party advocated continental free trade? Who played the "Linger Longer Lou" comedy in Washington? What was the Liberal election cry of 1911? Which was the more constructive, more truly national? Canadian history will say that beyond all question the Liberal-Conservative party was always the most constructive, the most truly national of any party in Canada. May I advise the hon. member

Mr. ILSLEY:

To what year did my hon. friend refer?

Mr. CANTLEY:

The year 1921 as against 1925. If I took the yearn of the war, from 1914 to 1918, the figures would be much

greater. ' .

Regarding the Duncan report, it will be noticed that the continuance of the money grant made last session is recommended. May I point out that so far as Nova Scotia was concerned, the grant which the Duncan repoit recommended should be paid forthwith was not paid during the session, or indeed until some months later. Then only one-quarter of the sum recommended was forthcoming. The sum of $133,000, representing the amount in dispute between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government, then the subject of proceedings before the courts, was deducted in a most unfair and highhanded manner. Afay I say that I consider this action on the part of the government hasty, miserly ill-considered and decidedly highhanded.

I am always glad to be able to congratulate my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I can congratulate him now on the prompt, and I believe wise, decision at which he arrived in connection with the terminus of the Hudson Hay Railway. Nelson as the terminus of that railway was impossible. Of that w'e had ample evidence. On the other hand Churchill, so far as I am able to judge from the information available, is a much better port. I wish to say that if we in Nova Scotia have silently acquiesced in the Hudson Bay railway scheme it was by way of a concession to what we know to be the cleaily expressed views and wishes of the people of the west who believe that, that project is practicable. Many of us in Nova Scotia do not so believe, but. we are loath to thwart the hopes and aspirations of the people in the west, and prefer that even larger amounts of money should be spent rather than that

discontent on that score should be created in those western provinces. I should like our friends in the west to remember that when considering the causes of unrest and dissatisfaction in the maritime provinces.

As to immigration the Prime Minister a few days ago warmly defended the deputy minister of the department concerned. Nobody on this side of the house, so far as I can recall, made any complaint with respect to that official. Speaking here last year, or possibly the year before, I expressed my views quite clearly in regard to the capacity and character of the Deputy Minister of Immigration and they were not derogatory. The man primarily responsible to parliament for any shortcomings in connection with immigration is not the deputy, it is the minister, and perhaps the less I say in expressing my estimate of his capacity the more charitable I shall be. The best immigration policy this country could have, and we certainly need more people in Canada to support the burden of taxation due to the war expenditure and our overdeveloped railway systems, is not the expenditure of a larger amount of money on immigration-although probably that is desirable if such expenditure is wisely made and planned-but a sound fiscal system such as will provide work for our own people, and permit of the manufacture of our raw materials within the confines of Canada, as against the policy of sending out hundreds of millions of dollars for raw materials which we ourselves could supply. If we adopted such a policy as that, we could repeat in this country the successful results which have been witnessed among our neighbours to the south. Consider, Mr. Speaker, the humiliating position we witnessed last year when our new envoy to Washington went down on his knees and begged the United States government to allow some four thousand Canadians to cross the international boundary line each morning and earn their daily bread. Why should we be in that humiliating position? Why not provide work within our own country for our own people? We have been told on most excellent authority that $1,300,000,000 of the savings of the people are lying in the banks of Canada practically unused. We have in Canada more than sufficient capital to provide the facilities or the machinery to employ not only all the labour that we have here to-day but an immigration from Europe as

The Address-Mr: Cantley

great as that which we had in 1913 when it was at its peak. Why do we not make use of this money?

As regards the Saint John and Halifax harbour commissions, all I wish to say at this time is that, as established, they in no way meet the intentions as expressed by Sir Andrew Rae Duncan and his fellow-commissioners who reported to the government in that connection.

We welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne as to the intentions of the government in regard to industrial Und scientific research. I only hope that the facilities provided' will be ample; that they will be under one competent head and that, in addition, adequate buildings, adequate accessories in the way of scientific instruments and that sort of thing will be provided, so that we dhall have in this country an institution of scientific and industrial research commensurate with our position in the world to-day.

I wish to refer for a few moments to one of the follies of the government as illustrated in Bill No. 233 of last year, to encourage the production of domestic fuel from coal mined in Canada. Most of us will remember that this bill was submitted to and passed by the house last year. Let me ask the government: What progress has been made in that connection? What real encouragement does it give to the establishment of a coking industry in Canada? We on this side pointed out last year the entire inadequacy of the legislation to bring about the condition which its sponsors said would be effected. I repeat that what is needed in that connection is not such legislation as is provided by Bill No. 233, but an adequate duty on coke and on all forms of coal. If we are given that, no bounty will be desired or required and none ought to be paid.

Let us consider the situation for a moment. We have to-day in Cape Breton great numbers of miners who are idle due to the fact that, following the close of navigation on the St. Lawrence river, our maritime coal cannot reach the consuming centres of Quebec and eastern Ontario, no adequate provision having been made to reach those markets by rail after the season of closed navigation. What we need to meet that yearly recurring difficulty is that a rate should be given which will permit Nova Scotia coal io be carried to the eastern townships, Montreal and nearer Ontario points by rail during the winter months. Were we, given a rate of one-third of a cent a ton per

mile-and I particularly call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) to this,-a rate equivalent to that asked by our friends from Alberta, who ought to get and who I hope will get what they ask for, we would be able to bring up to the eastern townships, Montreal and the nearer points in Ontario, Ottawa and perhaps as far as Cornwall, sufficient coal to maintain our miners during the winter months with not full work, but with four or five days' work a week, which would be a godsend to them. This coal question will never be settled until some scheme is devised whereby we can move coal by rail during the winter months.

A few years ago we brought up some 260,000 or 280,000 tons of coal through Portland, but that was at a time when freight rates were less than one-half what they are to-day, when the cost of hauling in other directions was less. An attempt was made the year before last to do the same thing, with the result that the cost of shipment in the way I have indicated ran up to figures that made the business impossible. There is no use in our endeavouring to put the question to one side because it will not down. Any government responsible for carrying on the affairs of the country must face the situation and deal with it, and I trust the Minister of Railways will take the matter into consideration and make some effort to deal with it effectively. The Canadian National Railways sends down to the seaboard of the eastern provinces large numbers of cars loaded with material to be exported from this country, and a very considerable proportion of these cars are returning empty. What we ask for is that such rates will be given as will employ those returned empties in moving eastern coal to the eastern townships, Montreal and eastern Ontario. Last year we paid foreigners to mine for us 18,000,000 tons of coal, a quantity greater by more than 2,000,000 tons than all the coal mined in the Dominion of Canada during the same period. Why did we do that? To ask the question is practically to answer it, because every man of intelligence in this house knows why we did it. We gave to another set of foreigners orders for $226,000,000 worth of iron and steel. We had Mr. Massey begging at Washington that 4.000 of our people should be allowed to go over there to obtain a livelihood. A sane policy would give them three meals a day at home and would bring back a million of our people who have migrated to the other side. Why did they have to go over

The Address-Mr. Cantley

there? Simply because most of us at home were fools.

Referring again to the question of winter coal, we landed at Montreal this past, season 1.634 tons of English coke, nearly 5,000 tons of German coke and 13,000 tons of so-called Dutch anthracite. In all we landed at Montreal during the past season nearly 700,000 tons of European fuel. If our miners in Nova Scotia and Alberta had had ordiers for that quantity of coal to be mined during the winter, wre would have less difficulty, less unrest and less suffering, than we have there to-day.

I would like the house to consider for a moment our situation in regard to iron and steel and the recovery made by Germany since the war.

Mr. DUNNING:

Perhaps my hon. friend

would permit me a question. As he knows, it is not intended to embarrass him because he knows the keen interest I take in this question of coal. I cannot quite understand the application of his last remarks with reference to coal imported into Montreal, presumably during the open season. Could not Nova Scotia coal have competed there, having a shorter water haul in the summer than the water haul from Europe? What is the deduction my hon. friend draws from that fact he cited?

Mr. CANTLEY:

I quite understand the

question, and I think I can give the minister a satisfactory answer. We in Nova Scotia, in Cape Breton particularly, mine during the summer months all the coal that we can mine with the number of men and the equipment that we have. But it is a seasonal business. We nre busy for possibly seven months out of the year, and for four months we have no outlet. Now if that seven hundred thousand tons of coal had not come in, and the government would move in the way I suggested, we in Nova Scotia could have supplied that amount of coal. Is that a sufficient answer?

Mr. DUNNING:

But the people who

bought that coal bought it in the summer time. It came in by water. Why could they not have bought Nova Scotia coal?

Mr. CANTLEY:

We produce all we can during the summer but are idle in the winter time; that is the answer. If I had five minutes' conversation with the minister, his intelligence is so great that I am sure I could convince him.

I was going on to refer to the recovery of the German steel industry after the war. 1 think it will be within the knowledge of most members of the house that, due to the Versailles treaty, Germany lost about forty-three per cent of her producing capacity in iron and steel. Notwithstanding that setback, Germany is rapidly regaining her position as a steel producer. Basing an estimate on the rate of progress towards the full recovery of her productive capacity, as shown by the figures for 1927, leaving aside the output for preceding years-there is every reason to believe that her production in 1928 will be considerably greater than it was in 1913 or in any other pre-war year in the history of the German empire. I would like the government to compare our stagnation, indeed retrogression, in Canada with the prosperity of the German empire so far as iron and steel is concerned, or even with that of Great Britain, or with that of the United States, although the latter country is not producing as much steel this year as they did two years ago. It would appear to me that the government seldom make a tariff change without hitting the Nova Scotia steel industry, as instance the drawbacks on agricultural implement steel, and later on the changes made in the tariff in favour of the automobile manufacturers. The policy of the government seems to be one of less and less protection for the basic industry which of all industries in this country has been sacrificed in favour of secondary industries.

I would now like to call the attention of the house to the matter of maritime unrest, and ask them to consider the case of Amherst, where in 1921 the Liberal candidate made his declaration as to coal duties and coal transport, and then visit the towns of Trenton and New Glasgow in Pictou county, where, during the same election campaign, the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, in the course of addresses in New Glasgow, Trenton and Stellarton, stated that the duty on coal was a fake duty and pledged himself, if returned to power, to put on a real duty of $1.50 per ton on coal, and also to give real protection to the steel industry. Then view Sidney Mines, where Mr. Kelly, during the same election contest, made promises of a similar character. Indeed, practically every supporter of the Liberal government in the province of Nova Scotia referred in much the same terms to the same subject, with the result that "a solid sixteen" supporters of the present government were returned to the house, with the subsequent result that while here they were as dumb as oysters in regard to the needs of their native province.

Within the last few days, if indeed they are not here to-day, a delegation from the town of Dartmouth, in the province of Nova

The Address-Mr. Cantley

Scotia, has been, pleading with the finance minister to save an industry in their town which has been established for well nigh a century, an industry which was in vigorous growth long before confederation, and which to-day, under a greatly reduced scale of tariff, is employing one hundred and sixty hands, representing a community of from six hundred to eight hundred persons, all of whom are entirely dependent on this industry, and will be thrown out of employment in the midst of the rigorous winter unless the finance minister comes to their assistance and extends to that industry the protection they ask. If he fails to do so, Dartmouth will be added to the tragedy of Amherst, New Glasgow, Trenton and Sydney Mines. I appeal to him to save the establishment, for he alone caD do it, and no attempt to pass the responsibility to the maritime members, as was last week attempted, will avail those threatened with the loss of their livelihood and homes.

Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Finance that to bring into this country enormous quantities of coal and coke, quantities greater in the aggregate than we ourselves produce, and this while our miners both in Alberta and Nova Scotia are out of employment, is a matter of vital importance, and is viewed with alarm and grave discontent.

Speaking in this chamber on March 18th last, the first minister intimated that his government hoped that by accepting as they had the recommendations of the royal commission on maritime claims, virtually in their entirety, parliament and the country would recognize a wish to remove that question as largely as possible from the arena of sectional discord and party strife. Referring to this matter from my place here on April 12th last, I ventured to point out to the house that in effect but a small proportion of the recommendations of that commission, had the proposals of the government at that time really implemented. The situation differs now in no important respect from the position at that date, and, Mr. Speaker, I now again appeal to the first minister at once to carry into full and complete effect all the recommendations of the Duncan commission, and that in no niggardly way. If he do so, he and his government. will do much to relieve a difficult situation in the maritimes and will bring to him the thanks of a million and a half of people who, as regards energy and achievement, have no superiors in this broad dominion.

Before closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the feeling in my native province has been well voiced by the four lines of Claude McKay's White Houses:

Your door is set against my tightened face, And I am sharp as steel with discontent,

But I possess the courage and the grace To bear my anger proudly and unbent.

The Prime Minister, if he would take counsel with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Railways, and some others of his cabinet, could completely change the situation, and thereby earn the gratitude of the maritimes. I appeal to him to do so.

I wish to thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Speaker, and the House for the careful attention which it has been good enough to accord to me.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):

I hope the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley), for whom I have a great deal of respect, will not charge me with any discourtesy if I do not follow him in his speech, first because most of it was devoted to a question upon which he is an authority, and secondly because it is a question of a local nature which I expect will be treated by other members cf the house who are equally familiar with it.

With regard to the mover and seconder of the address, I have already told them privately that I would spare them the dose of soapy tepid1 water which they have received every forty minutes since the opening of this debate, reserving to myself the right to express privately my admiration for the manner in which they have accomplished their duty.

With regard to the speech itself, my good friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) has, in a somewhat critical or ironical vein, staged that he was looking for the day when, perhaps, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Labelle, (Mr. Bourassa), would move and second the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Well, with due respect to the throne, to the speech, to those who prepared it, and to the house, may I say, sir, that if the member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself ever have anything to do with the speech from the throne, it may be a little more crazy than the present speech but somewhat less stupid. I mean to say that it is a tradition of parliament that the speech from the throne should contain as few ideas and thoughts as possible, and as many words as may cover a certain number of pages of Hansard. In this respect the speech of this year is a modele du genre. In fact, in my somewhat radical way of looking at things, it would be more practical to do away with the old custom of bringing in a so-called speech- which is not a speech-in the name of the crown, although the crown has nothing to do with it-talking about the times and the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

weather and so forth, which we all know about by going out or remaining in. and about the great crops, some of which we know about and some of which we do not know about, according to the part of the country in which we live. In a so-called democratic country, supposed to be governed in a businesslike fashion, it would be simpler and more to the point if the government would bring down a ministerial program saying, "During this session we intend to propose such and such matters." The opposition might have a counter program, or if they saw fit to act on the lines designed by the able leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), they might decide not to prescribe until they were called on.. But I suppose if any government attempted to do away with the old-time custom some of the members of this house who are attached, and especially those w'ho pretend to be very much attached, to British precedent would have to cry out against revolution, because, as far as my limited knowledge of the history of parliament goes, the only practical and effective speech from the throne I have known of in the last three centuries is the one which Cromwell delivered when, pointing to the mace, he said, "What shall we do with this bauble? take it away." We have not reached that point of the English precedent yet.

With regard to the prosperity of the country, of course there i3 prosperity. You and I, Mr. Speaker, might remember that when we came here as young, unsophisticated youths we heard a speech from the throne; and it was then stated by the government of the day that the good times were to be attributed to the policy of the government, and that statement was contradicted by the members of the opposition. I think it was customary in past centuries, and it has been customary ever since. In the time of Louis Philippe in France, when Marshal Boult was head of the government, the French press stated that he had lost the battle of Toulouse, but when he was out of power they claimed he had won the battle of Toulouse-always the same battle.

There are indications of prosperity in the country. I think some of the elements of prosperity are>

due to the policy of this government. Some may be dated back to the policy that was in force when the hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. But I think the share of the government, of any government, in the growth of the country is not such that either party should boast about it from day to day, and week to week, at every session of parliament. In my mind,

ignorant as I am on most questions, but having given some little thought to this issue, we consider too much the outside results of economic activity and do not look enough to the basic laws of economics. We should endeavour more than we do to generalize and harmonize as much as possible the elements of prosperity, from year to year, as between the various parts of the country and the various classes of people contributing to that prosperity.

I have heard with interest the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the leader of the opposition. May I take advantage of my older age to praise both of them for the general tone of those speeches? I agree with a good deal of what both have said, and perhaps a little more with what was said by the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Gardiner). I will give one instance for example. The leader of the opposition insisted very strongly on the importance of increasing immigration into the country in order to enhance and support that prosperity. The. leader of the government replied by insisting on the importance of importing capital as well as population in order to maintain that prosperity in a proper balance. But I think the leader of the progressive group went to the root of the question when he said that most of us had a wrong view of the nature and importance of the role played by capital, or what capital is. Capital is not money,, as a matter of fact. The proportion which gold and silver, or even bank and state bills representing money, count in what is called capital in the world to-day is but a drop in a sea of water. Unfortunately, what is called capital, what is supported as such by legislation in most countries, and too often by a venal press, is not capital really representing the accumulation of real wealth, or the accumulation of productive labour, but fictitious capital represented by paper, which enlarges the so-called capitalization of industry and financial institutions, and calls upon the masses, the consumers and the ratepayers to bonify that capital. It is useless to talk about permanency of prosperity, about the real prosperity of this country, till this parliament and all the parties composing it have sufficient humility to understand that very few of us are capable enough, as parliamentarians, to deal with that tremendous problem, and that we should take time to borrow what enlightenment may be given to us by men most versed in problems of economic and social adjustment, in order to make a review, not only of the budget, not only of this or that source of public revenue, not only of this or that part

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

of our economic system, but a whole and comprehensive review of the complete economic fabric of this country.

Canada, situated as it is beside that tremendous country to the south of us, and connected with Great Britain, who in spite of all remains the centre of finance and trade in the world, can borrow from these countries true elements of prosperity and at the same time avoid the traps into which they have frequently fallen. The so-called prosperity which reigns, either in England or in the United States, produces these two evils- pauperism and extreme capitalism; and I claim that pauperism generally and extreme capitalism-capitalism too highly protected by the state-are the two evils which are threatening the economic balance of this country, as well as undermining social justice and the moral and physical happiness of the people. I shall not dwell further on this point, which may be dicusssed at greater length in connection with the budget.

With regard to taxation, I merely state now, what I have said in previous sessions: I

will not allow to go unchallenged the argument so frequently advanced, that the province of Quebec is bound to a policy of high protection. I have said time and again, and I repeat it now, that every occasion on which the tariff issue has been before the people of Quebec, the vast majority of them have voted either for reform, or for reciprocity, or for some other form of reduction in protection. I do not want our western friends to remain under the impression that the mass of the good people of Quebec are led blindly by the nose by a handful of capitalists in Montreal.

As respects immigration, I submit respectfully to those gentlemen in this house who have discussed this phase of our national problems, that in my humble judgment they are taking but a very partial view of the situation. Immigration is but one of the factors of the dominant problem facing our people to-day. The thing of importance is what I would call the population difficulty. Everyone agrees that we have a territory vast enough to maintain millions upon millions of people, although regarding the manner in which we should set about increasing our population opinions vary. The most thoughtful men and women of my native province, to whatever party they may belong, hold the antiquated view that the best way of solving the population problem, is the one which was devised by the Creator of mankind in the beginning: I mean the cradle

policy, if I may say so. There I am skating

on pretty thin ice, when we see the leaders of both the great parties who have done so little to help in the solution of the problem. I do not know about the other leader; if he is in the same case the matter is worse still. It is time to cry, " Go forward." The second point I wish to make in this regard-and it is an important factor in our population problem-is the advisability, not so much of bringing more people in from outside, but of keeping at home our own people. I claim that it is the duty of the government, of the opposition, of all parties, the duty of all right-thinking Canadians, to see to it that economic and social conditions in Canada shall be such that Canadian-born citizens, or those who are Canadians by adoption, of whatever race or of whatever creed, who are living to-day in Canada and struggling to make the best of their situation, shall be given a fair chance to carry on. Whether these people live in the east or in the west, whether they make their homes in the city or labour on farms, we should see to it that economic conditions are such as to promote their welfare in some reasonable degree. Under a proper regime of social and economic justice in Canada there should be room for all wellthinking and right-acting citizens, but no room for sharks, beggars and exploiters.

The third factor to be considered in relation to this problem is one which I suggested many years ago in the old house and which I repeat now. It is this, that instead of offering such abnormal inducements to foreign immigrants, whether they come from the British Isles or from continental Europe, we should offer advantages, at. least equal if not superior to those extended to outsiders, to the farmers of Quebec and Ontario as well as of the maritime provinces, who have a taste for the west and are desirous of settling in that part of our dominion where they feel that there is likelihood of their prospering. Many years ago, I once applied to the Department of the Interior for transportation facilities for a good sturdy farmer of my own constituency who desired to go west with his wife and five children; and to my amazement I discovered that it would have cost him five times more to go west than it would an immigrant from Liverpool or Manchester to come from England across the ocean and take up residence in Manitoba. It would cost, I say, five times the sum required in the case of such an outsider to take a Canadian from the province of Quebec to western Canada, where he could assist in developing our western territories. There is no reason why thousands of our own farmers who cross the border into the

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

United States, simply because our cities are over-populated and our farms are unsuitable for one reason or another, either because they are too small or because conditions are not just right, should not be enabled to move to western Canada and take up suitable land there. They will not take up bush lands, but they would go west if the conditions were favourable.

Now I come to my fourth point. Before going to Europe tq look for immigrants, why not let us endeavour to bring back to this country Canadians-I mean, those willing to come back-who have had to settle abroad? They are not numerous, there is no use in deluding ourselves in that regard, but such of our fellow citizens as have gone away either from Quebec or Ontario, from Manitoba or the maritime provinces, who are willing to come back should be offered the best chances. The old maritime provinces have been bled for the last fifty years of some of their best blood. I have visited probably fifty towns in New England in the last half century or so, and have discussed the matter with various American citizens, formerly Canadians; and I have most invariably found that they had been obliged to emigrate from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, merely because no inducement had been offered them to go to western Canada. In parliament, of course, the advice had been very heartily given-go west! But when these people wanted to go west-no. The tramp in England, the revolutionary in France, or the socialist in Germany, these were all offered more attractive advantages than were held out to the natives of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, to go to Manitoba or Alberta and become Canadian citizens. I repeat, we should make a serious effort to bring back some of our Canadians, especially those who have not been out of the country for too long a time. Most of these people went to the United States under distressing circumstances. By birth, by habit, by tradition, by instinct, they are fit for a living in America generally. It ought therefore not to be a difficult matter to induce them to come back and settle in this country, if reasonable advantages were put in their way.

So far as British immigration is concerned, this seems to be a sore point with the leader of the opposition. However, I am going to speak my mind on this question, just as I will do on everything else, here and elsewhere. From a purely individual point of view-and we have of that many instances

in this very house-we can get from the British Isles some of the best samples of manhood; and as far as I am concerned they will always be welcome to this country. But it is equally true that owing to the social and economic conditions which have been prevailing in the British Isles for years past, due to the fact that no government there has yet dared to offer to the millions of free citizens of England and Scotland the opportunity to possess an inch of their native land, the land for which their forefathers have laboured and bled for centuries, but which remains in the possession of His Grace the Duke of Westminster, or His Grace the Duke of Sutherland, to such an extent that at the present time there is more grazing and hunting land upon which the masses of England cannot settle than there is vacant land in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan in the hands of the grabbing railway companies and other speculators,-I say that due to that condition of affairs in the British Isles, you have now millions of people in the cities of England and Scotland who have been disconnected from the soil for generations. It is against their instinct, it is against their aspirations, it is against their very temperament to become again tillers of the soil. They talk about socialism and- radicalism and communism in England; these are the outgrowth of the selfishness of the possessing classes. But I do not think that heretofore the efforts of all good Canadians, whether English or Scottish, or Irish, or French, or of any other blood, should toe directed to making Canada an easy cure for the social evils of England and a safety valve for the selfishness of the possessing classes of that great country. From a social point of view, therefore, let us beware before we open our doors to anyone who may come from England with a heart full of hatred against all British institutions, with a heart full of rancour against every thing connected with the British system of government. Of course, if you wish to hasten the day of secession, if you want to precipitate Canada into a crisis with Great Britain, bring as many as you can of that kind of people to this country.

Mir. CLARK:

What did the poorest of England do in the war; did they not fight for their country?

Mr. BOURASSA:

Yes.

What did you do?

Mr. BOURASSA:

They fought for their country, not for another country. Suppose Canada is at war-

The Address-Mr. Bourassa

They fought for

France and for you.

Mr. BOURASSA:

They fought for England, and did it well.

They fought for you too.