Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):

' I should like to ask the government whether any new practice has been adopted in connection with questions on the order paper. There was a question put on the order paper as to stamps on cheques. I notice that it has been dropped. It was not answered by the government. It was answered in so far as the Department of Customs and Excise is concerned, but that is not the department which has to do with it. I should think that the department concerned was the Finance department.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :

The initiation of legislation in these

matters falls within the scope and duties of the Minister of Finance; the administration of the law falls under the authority of the Minister of Customs, and I suppose that was the reason my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) answered it. If there is anything, however, which is not answered that comes within the scope of my department, I shall have the matter looked into, and assure my hon. friend that he shall have the information.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

I think that the ruling has been given without a doubt. I assume that the question may stand until full}'' answered.

Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :

The press announces that a certain

number of delegates to a trade union conference have decided to start a campaign to fight the movement to attract settlers to this country. I notice that a protest has been lodged with the Minister of Immigration and Colonization. It is pointed out by the resolution that this protest is to apply not only to city dwellers, but also to farmers and proposed farmers. I should like to know if the government has anything to say in the matter, and what their attitude is in regard to it.

Hon. C. A. STEWART (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):

I have no know-

ledge beyond what is contained in the press report mentioned by my hon. friend.

Mr. LADNER:

With reference to the

word "necessary" in the last line but one or this section, I presume that refers to such terminal facilities as are deemed necessary b\ the corporation. The corporation lays out its plans, and then the next section provides foi the "approval of the proposed expenditure. Is not that the meaning?

Mr. LAPOINTE:

This is the language usually used in all these bills.

Mr. LADNER:

It may be the usual language, but somebody may get a freakish or obdurate turn of mind-and this is a very important matter from the point of view of Vancouver. There is no reason why the law should not be explicitly clear. I suggest that the words "by the corporation" be inserted after the word "necessary".

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Nothing can be done, of course, without the approval of the Governor in Council. I am a reformer, but in matters of language, especially the English language, I would hesitate to make any change in what has been the custom.

Mr. CALDWELL:

I think it would be very inadvisable to change the language of this clause. The House cannot pass over to any harbour commission rights which are vested in this parliament.

Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):

Mr. Speaker, in resuming the debate on the reso-

German Reparations

lution submitted by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), I may say that the hon. member was no doubt actuated by the best motives in proposing the motion that he did, although the effect has been different, perhaps, from what he expected. I have no intention of talcing up any considerable time of the House in discussing this very important resolution. I rather regret a good deal of the language that was used by the mover in presenting his case-language that was unnecessary, arousing many strong feelings, harrowing our feelings, I might almost say, by recalling many of the things which happened in the past. The sufferings endured and sacrifices made by the people of Canada and many other countries in defence of their liberties are too recent to enable them with calmness to hear them lightly passed over at this time. When we think of the sacrifices that were made, when we remember some of the early scenes in 1914 and 1915 when Germany began her march across the plains of Belgium; when we remember the stories of atrocities and other accounts that appeared in the papers of that time, many of which we know to-day were true, we must realize that this is not the time to begin to say we must forget everything and be just as we were before. I do not think anything can be gained by keeping alive the smouldering fires of hatred; it would be as well for the world if we could forget some of these things, though it may be hard to do at this time, and look toward the future and toward a brighter and better and happier condition everywhere throughout the world.

I do not think any good purpose would be served by my speaking at length on this subject. I may say, however, that in many respects I am not exactly in sympathy with the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). I have known that hon. gentleman for a great many years, but I believe that in this case his point of view is altogether wrong; the end he seeks will never be accomplished by the method he has taken. At the same time I believe him to be in earnest and, although mistaken, working in the best interests of the common people. I want to say that in justice to the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is very patriotic, and no doubt he meant all he said, but as he warmed up his patriotic sentiment got uppermost and he lashed the member for Centre Winnipeg in a very vicious manner. I am ever willing to forget and forgive, and I do not think any good purpose is served by that kind of debate in this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having made that statement, I can only say that I feel I must vote against the resolution; and I am sure I speak for a great many hon. members on this side when I say that we wish to dissociate ourselves from some of the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything on this resolution until I listened to the tremendous outburst of hysteria which took place on both sides of the House last evening, but having listened to that outburst with a good deal of sadness at heart-because I do not think it was creditable to the Parliament of Canada-I feel that I have to say a few words. I shall not enter into any prolonged debate upon the economic aspect of the question; that would be wasted effort. But I do wish to express a few opinions on the resolution itself and some of the arguments that were advanced. Hysterics in my opinion are the expression of argumentative penury. It gets us nowhere. It is an incentive to a spirit which leads away from truth rather than towards it. The Minister of Labour made a passionate plea which, to my mind harked back to the days of savagery.

Oh, oh.

What savagery?