Mr. IRVINE:

I shall proceed to indicate what it was-[DOT]" An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ", was the spirit of the hon. minister. This appeal was placed-and here is the tragic part of it-in the name of the faller heroes of Canada. I think I shall have to mention here something which otherwise I should certainly hesitate to do. Among the names mentioned by the Prime Minister of Canada the other day that appeared among the missing I happened to have a brother and so if it is necessary, and I regret that such seems to be the case, that a man must speak from behind the blood of his relations before he can escape the imputed motives of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Labour-of course, I must do it. If then it is a matter of whether I want to sell my brother's blood for a few German marks-which we will never get,-or whether I am to sell my brother's blood for the world peace for which he died, then there is no argument, or there is only one thing, and that is leave the marks out of consideration. Mr. Speaker; to place falsely, in

German Reparations

the name of patriotism, the blood of Canada in the scales and place on the other side the German mark is to my mind beneath the Canadian parliament, it is unworthy of the sacrifice our men made, and I certainly wish to dissociate myself from the sentiments that were expressed by the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre in this regard. The latter gentleman indulged in a good deal of animosity which was entirely uncalled for. I believe, Sir, that there are certain rales in this House which prohibit a member from using certain words, but there does not seem to be any rale which prohibits a man from making certain inferences which, if expressed in words of a certain character, would be quite out of order. It seems to me that a great deal of animosity bubbled out from beneath the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and he seems to think that the resolution as proposed by the leader of the Labour party (Mr. Woodsworth) could only come from a gentleman who was the victim of an economic freak. Did the hon. member for Vancouver Centre give us an exhibition of economics that would warrant us in the view that he has got enough of economics to constitute even a freak? I do not think he did. There was no evidence of any economic wisdom in his pronouncement. I think I can, perhaps, answer the verbosity of that hon. gentleman by a quotation from Emerson and thus save myself a good deal of mental effort. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre put out the historic argument of the Conservative which Emerson states so forcibly in the following words:

The conservative alone remains the only evidence of his own faith, and we are comDelled to discount even him. While his mind remains fixed it is compelled to defend different things.

Conservativism took its original stand in favour of a primeval taboo, but since then it has defended the utterances of the Delphic Oracle, the Athanasian Creed, the inquisition, the geocentric theory, monarchy by the grace of God, witchcraft, slavery, war, capitalism, private property, imperialism.

That is the noble history of Conservativism, and I think the House will agree with me that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre upheld the traditions of his noble party last night in his tirade of implications against the leader of the Labour party, and in his decided opposition to the "new world" policy which substitutes reason and goodwill for blood.

Now, the resolution is really, after all, a most harmless resolution stating it negatively, and positively stated it might lead to a very great deal that would be desirable not only on the part of Canada but on the part of the world. I am not certain that I agree with the

leader of the Labour party's method of introducing it. Personally for the moment I do not care who started the war, we are dealing now with the results of it; and I imagine if we dug down to find out who started it we would have just about as much trouble as we have in deciding who won it, and that seems to be causing the world a great deal of speculation. We have in the causes of war, of this and other wars, a circle a century or two in circumference, and within that circle we have a veritable polyglot of influences which it is impossible to trace to their sources and all of which have a bearing upon the causes of war. I am not going to deal with that; I repeat that I care not for the moment who caused it; I am dealing with the actual situation with which we are confronted at the present time. And what is the question before us? The question before us is that Canada's sons, as was pointed out by the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, died that the world might have peace, died in a war that was going to end all wars. The question, is, then, shall we help the cause for which they died the better by the forswearing of our claims upon any indemnity from Germany, or shall we help that aim forward by insisting that she pay to the last farthing whether by force of arms or by force of economic pressure? That is the question we are considering, and while I have a good deal of sympathy with the expressions of the leader of the Progressives (Mr. Forke), just now, yet I think, perhaps he is missing an opportunity here, for we must not allow any sentiment which we may have against any member of the House to interfere with our intelligent and reasonable analysis of the resolution itself. AVhich course will lead toward world peace is the crux of the question. Taking the thing on its highest possible ground we do not wish to haggle over marks when the world peace is in the balance. The resolution may be considered from two angles. First, it is economic. I refer you to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), with regard to the economic side of the question. The other phase of the resolution has to do with obtaining the aim for which we fought in the last war. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if Canada could see her way clear, regardless of carrying out the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, burying as deep as hell the animosity that seemed to spurt from the Minister of Labour, and could see her way clear to be magnanimous in the interest of world peace, we should be

German Reparations

doing a more glorious thing for those who died and a greater thing for Canada and for the world. That is my position on this resolution.

I would refer, in closing, to an incident of last session, which is pertinent to the present discussion. We had an honoured professor fiom Oxford who came to this parliament last year and was introduced by the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons. They sponsored this professor, and what was his plea to us? Those of us who took the trouble to be present will remember that he outlined the whole economic situation in Europe. He showed us the hopelessness of trying to extract the indemnity from Germany, and he finished in words that were both dramatic and prophetic, suggesting what a great thing it would be if Canada could take the very course which this resolution asks that we should take. I think we can lay aside all animosity, and all unfair criticism and face this resolution on its own grounds. We know that the whole world is affected by the economic! situation in Europe. We know, if we know anything, that the war cannot be paid for to the extent that is hoped by those who are entitled to receive indemnities, and most of us know that if we draw a tooth from Germany to-day, or pluck an eye from the Kaiser, to satisfy the hon. the Minister of Labour, that some day they will probably draw a tooth or pluck an eye from some other nation. We know also that, if we have that magnanimity of spirit which is worthy of our Canadian dead, we will say to the world and to Germany specifically: We will not have your marks, they are worthless anyway, keep them; we will not ask you to pay anything, but we will foreswear our share of the indemnity in the interests of that world peace for which our Canadian soldiers died.

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto):

We must all admire, Mr. Speaker, the Christian sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman from Calgary East (Mr. Irvine), but I am at a loss to understand why such a resolution as this should be presented to a Canadian parliament at this time. Are we pressing for reparations? Are we in any way oppressing these poor Germans, whose ardent friend from Winnipeg is trying to protect them before they are attacked? Why bring in such a resolution as this? Is it his desire that this parliament should give a lead to Europe and to the Imperial parliament as to how it should deal with reparations? If that is his purpose I do not think that the Imperial parliament would be inclined to follow in his footsteps. So far as reparations are concerned, Mr. Speaker, I think that the Dominion of Canada might very well follow the lead given to U3 by the Mother Country and its government, and wait for developments before we begin to express our friendship for the poor downtrodden German. I am not concerned about the reparations, but I must confess that it vexes me considerably to have a man stand up in the House of Commons and tell us that Great Britain and France were as much responsible for the war as Germany. That is substantially the statement made by the hon. gentleman for Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). He read a number of quotations last night, among which I find the following:

The British and French General Staffs had been in active collaborations for war with Germany ever since January 1906.

Does he mean to tell the House and the country that France and Great Britain had contemplated war against Germany in 1906? If that is what he is trying to make us believe, I think he has a task on his hands in which he will fail. There can be no doubt in the minds of men who followed the circumstances attending the beginning of the war that Germany was solely responsible for the war. He referred last night to what Austria and Hungary had done. Austria and Hungary did what the German Kaiser and the German government compelled them to do, and they had to do that right up to the time of the armistice. He knows, if he knows anything at all about the war, which I doubt, that Austria and Hungary would have ceased fighting long before if the Germans had permitted them to do so. But to come into this House and attempt to excuse Germany I cannot regard as anything but a little piece of German propaganda, designed perhaps to create opinion in Canada, and as far as it goes outside of Canada, that these poor people are being oppressed. If that is his object, I want to utter my protest against the House of Commons being used for such a purpose. The hon member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) answered his argument about the poor little children. I need not go into that further than to point out that whenever a man commits a crime his little children and his family are the sufferers, and when the leaders of the government committed that unparalleled crime they brought suffering upon the poor people of Germany.

I would like to draw another thing to the attention of my hon. friend when he is talking about reparations. There is only one argument that a German can understand, and that is the argument of force, and the best

German Reparations

guarantee that Germany will not again invade France is that France has gone in and taken hold of the Ruhr district, and I hope that France will keep it until every last cent of reparations is paid. I never had stronger sympathies in my life than I have for the people of France to-day for wThat they suffered in the war and what they are suffering yet. The question is whether France will be ruined or whether Germany will be ruined. If that is the issue, then my preference is that it shall be Germany. As far as my stand - is concerned, I am with the French, and notwithstanding all the .economists who may speak, on this question, if I were a Frenchman I would glory in the action of the government of that country. I would tell these economists-who do not know half as much as they think they do-because these are the fellows that told us the war could not last three months, that the economic conditions were such that it was impossible to continue it, but it lasted over four years-I would tell these economists that I have great hope that France will win out in the contest that is now going on in the Ruhr. May I also point out to hon. gentlemen that every fifty years of the Christian era France has been invaded by this power, and why should we take our stand now by the side of the invading power and against our ally by adopting a resolution of this kind?

My hon. friend from Calgary East says he is as much troubled now in deciding who started the war as he is in deciding who won the war. Well, I think, Sir, that his mind must be entirely devoted to metaphysics and must be clear of all the practical questions of the day if he finds so much difficulty in deciding that question. I want to associate myself with those who would make Germany pay the cost of the destruction of France and Belgium. I protest against a motion of this kind being brought into the House because it can serve no good purpose and is designed, in my judgment, clearly to try and find a reason in the minds of some people in this country for exonerating Germany for its dreadful conduct in starting the war. What was the cry? "World power or ruin!" That was the issue that the German people under their leaders made. If they had succeeded in getting world power, what would this country be to-day? A colony of the German Empire, and my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth) would not be permitted to stand in the parliament of this country and say against Germany things that he is able to say on the floor of this House against the British

[Mr. Hocken.)

Empire. Liberty, as we have it, would not exist in Canada if this were a German colony. Germany made her choice-world power or ruin. She is pretty well ruined. Still, I think, whether these reparations can be paid now or later on, they should be paid, and the payment of them is the only means by which the people of that country will be educated as to their iniquities and the unwisdom of war.

A provocative motion of this kind should have no place in parliament. I think I understand the peculiar and distorted mentality of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg, and I sympathize with him that his mind, which might have been bright and practical, and of value to the people of this country, has run off until he has become, I think he woul$ not object to my sajdng, a Bolshevist. If his opinions are not of a Bolshevist turn, I do not undertsand what Bolshevism is. I do not think he would object to that characterization, and I am extremely glad that throughout this Dominion of Canada there are so very few of his type.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, there are four conferences, the proceedings of which should, I think, be considered in connection with the resolution of the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth). The first was the conference of Versailles, at which the Treaty of Versailles was drafted and signed by the different countries involved in the war. The second was the conference at Spa, held in 1920, at which the reparations which, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had admitted she should pay to the allied and associated powers were allocated as between the different powers. The third conference was a conference of inter-allied representatives, held at London in 1921, at which conference the proportion of the reparations to be assigned to the British Empire and others of the allied and associated powers, was definitely fixed. The fourth was a conference held in London in 1921, between the British government and the prime ministers of the different dominions, at which conference the proportion of the reparations which Canada and the other dominions and Great Britain were to receive, was determined. For purposes of record, may I mention one or two relevant particulars with respect to these conferences?

Under article 231 of the treaty of Versailles, Germany admitted responsibility for all loss and damage to which the allies and associated governments and their nationals had been subjected as a consequence of the war. Ger-

German Reparations

many's signature stands to-day to a treaty in which she admits that she was responsible for the war and for all the damage that grew out of it. That should answer for all time the question of the responsibility of the war.

Mr. GOOD:

Could it possibly be said that that signature was secured under duress?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think it is unnecessary to answer my hon. friend's question. Article 232 states that the Allies recognize that Germany is unable to pay the full amount of these damages; it is further provided that the allied and associated governments require, and Germany undertakes, to make compensation for all damages done to the civilian population and their property.

Under article 253, the amount of these damages was directed to be determined by the Reparation Commission. The category of damages which Germany undertook to pay was set out in the annex following article 244.

At the conference of the inter-allied representatives, held at Spa in July, 1920, the amount payable by Germany was allocated between the different allied powers, 22 per cent being the amount receivable by the British Empire.

At the conference of the inter-allied representatives held at London in 1921, the amount of damages payable by Germany was fixed at one hundred and thirty two billion gold marks. The provision of the treaty that the amount be fixed by the Reparation Commission was at that time superseded.

At the conference of the British government with the prime ministers of the dominions in 1921, at which conference I think my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) was present, Canada's share of the amount to which the British Empire was entitled, was fixed at 4.35 per

4 p.m. cent of the 22 per cent to which the British Empire was entitled. Seeing that the British Empire at the time that the question was being decided as to what amounts Great Britain and the several dominions were to receive, acted as one; that all the different parts were taken into consultation, would it not appear in every way right and proper, and indeed the only thing that is fitting, that, before any alteration is made by any one part of the British Empire on this question of reparations, they should all have opportunity of conferring together, with reference to that question? I will not take second place to any hon. member in this House as to a desire to see Canada manage her own affairs, maintain in every way and at all times her identity and individuality;

but there are occasions when not only is it right and necessary, but when any other course would appear to be wrong and improper, that all parts of the British Empire should act together as one. In regard to a settlement such as this, dealing with a matter, of war, in which different parts of the Empire fought together, in which their sons died together, where the matter was originally determined in common conference, the only proper way in which to deal with the question at issue namely that of reparations would appear to be by all parts acting together as they did at the time the agreement was made as to the proportion which each should receive.

Indeed, only a few days ago the Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking in France, made reference to the possibility that at some time the British Empire might consider what could be done in this very matter of reparations. But Mr. Bonar Law was careful at the time of making his statement to say that whatever Great Britain might do in the matter, would be done only after consultation with the different British dominions. I think it will be the wish of the British dominions throughout the Emipre to adopt precisely the same attitude towards the Mother Country in this matter as the Mother Country is prepared to adopt towards us.

My hon. friend who has moved the resolution says that his purpose is the furtherance of world peace. I believe he is quite sincere in so stating his position,, but I would say to him that I fear the effect of his resolution, if adopted by this House, would be entirely the opposite of what he would wish it to be in that regard. We cannot as respects any resolution passed by this House dissociate the effect of its. interpretation outside of and within the House; we cannot dissociate its effect beyond the boundaries of and within our own country. My hon. friend says that this would be a gesture. I am very much afraid it would be a gesture which would be construed as anything but favourable to France, and rather strongly in favour of Germany at this particular time. As my hon. friend knows, the relations between France and Germany at the moment are severely strained. The most serious situation that we have in the world at the present time exists because of those strained relations. Is it conceivable that this parliament at this moment could pass a resolution which has a bearing upon that situation without it being construed abroad as an expression of our attitude in that very serious situation?

German Reparations

I would say to my hon. friend that I hope when he reflects upon the views which have been expressed here, when he reflects upon the possible bearing of his resolution in its relation to the situation overseas at this particular time, he will see well to withdraw it altogether. But if he does not see fit to take that' course, I hope this House will see well to defeat his resolution, because I fear were it passed its purpose would not be understood in any such sense as that in which he says he has put it forward.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

I place no importance whatsoever upon her signature as an admission. I judge of Germany's obligation not by what she signed, but by what she did, and so far as it lies in my power, I shall support the view that there should be no remission beyond the point of Germany's capacity to pay.

.There remains an argument that perhaps I might refer to-there are some who hold it, and, I think, hold it conscientiously- that the exactions made of Germany under the treaty went beyond what could reasonably to read into the Fourteen Points promulgated by the President of the United States; that the President of the United States having stipulated that only civilian damage should be held as that for which Germany should account, and Germany having ceased fighting on those stipulations, it was not fair to include in civilian damage the capitalized value of separation pay, and, I think, of pensions as well. This matter was argued at the Versailles Conference. I understand the United States representatives for a time took a stand against the inclusion of those items, but after argument and the fullest debate they conceded the point, and as a consequence those were included. Such was the judgment of the majority-I think it was the unanimous judgment-of those who attended that conference. Such judgment has not been reversed, and I have never been able to persuade myself that it should be reversed. If it could be shown that to include these classes of damages was in any way in derogation of the stipulations on the faith of which Germany laid down her arms, then, whatever the prior crime of Germany, I would be prepared to abide by the real meaning of those stipulations. This as yet has not been shown; until it is shown I think the only principle that should govern is the principle that I have just sought to elucidate to the House. At all events, that is the course I would pursue.

I propose to vote against the resolution, but I do not for a moment suggest that the government of this country should not take its place among the nations of the Empire, or if necessary among all the Allied nations, and seek to have a composition of the whole subject of war reparations, so long as in that composition the principle I have sought to emphasize is not forgotten.

Mr. ANDREW McMASTER (Brome):

I do not intend to delay the House very long this afternoon in the observations which I propose to make on this very important resolution. It seems to me that the quiet, weighty and reasonable remarks of the Prime Minister will find & responsive chord in the

[Mr. Meighen.l

hearts of- nearly all of us present, and I trust that those responsible for bringing the resolution before the House will feel it incumbent upon them to comply with his courteous request.

But things have been said in this debate which I do not think should go without some observations being made thereon. . I have been pained at some attacks made upon the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth). I do not believe he deserved those attacks. I believe he brought' this resolution before the House with the best of good will, with absolute sincerity and conviction of the righteousness of what he brought forward. It has been the glory of British people, Mr. Speaker, that at all times in the nation's history here and overseas there have been men who have been prepared to stand up for what they thought was right, even if it went against the current of popular opinion at the time. Fox withstood Pitt and argued against the continuance of war with France a hundred or more years ago. At the time of the Crimean war, John Bright fulminated against Great Britain's stand at that rime, and history has said that he was right. A few years after, it was the turn of Richard Cobden to protest against the Opium War in China. We should always courteously listen to those with whom we disagree, even if they say things we might not consider wise, or if wise which we consider unpalatable.

Now, that Germany was the immediate aggressor, 1 think we are nearly all in accord. But if Germany was the immediate aggressor in the Great War-and dearly has she paid for her aggression-does anyone in this House composed of intelligent men, believe that Germany was solely responsible for the war?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. McMASTER:

Mr. Speaker, the war came because the European peoples had for years followed a false system. They tried to find security in military preparedness. I grant you that it was enormously difficult when one nation had set the pace for others not to keep step with it. Once Germany believed that Russia was arming against her, it was difficult for Germany not to prepare. Once England believed that Germany was arming against her, it seemed only the part of wisdom to prepare for war and to seek alliances; and we found before the Great War broke upon this world that Europe was divided into two great armed camps-the Central Empires on the one side, who relied at that time upon the adhesion of Italy,

German Reparations

which failed them when the time came, and the Entente Powers, Russia, France and Great Britain, on the other. What appeals to me, Mr. Speaker, is that the lesson for humanity which we derive from seeing this war in its operation, seeing what led to it, and seeing its consequences, is the utter futility for mankind to try to protect itself against violence by military preparation. Surely that is a lesson of the war which has been driven home to all of us. What I would ask this House to consider is, not men who have been our enemies, not men who have been our friends, but suffering humanity, the victims rather than the authors of what has happened to them. That seems to me the frame of mind in which we should approach this question.

I have little more to say. I believe that the great cause of the war was the conflicting imperialisms of Europe, nations striving to extend the ambit of their power, particularly in parts of the world which were only semicivilized or not civilized at all. The conflicts of imperialisms in Africa and other parts of the world w'ere, I think, the cause of the war which has its roots far in the past.

I do not know what the mover (Mr. Woods-worth) proposes to do. I hope that he will withdraw this resolution, not because the lesolution is wrong in essence, but because it is liable to be misunderstood. Why should we be willing to give up any part of our reparations? Not because we think that France should give up reparation, for I think we are all convinced that Germany which devasted northern France owes by every rule of ethics, law and justice, the obligation of restoring those devasted portions of France, and it is but fair to say that the German trade unions have offered to restore northern France, and that that offer has not been accepted.

I have little more to say on this occasion. What I do wish to protest against in all good spirit is the attacks that have been made against a man who has tried to say what he thought right and what he thought in the interests of peace. We may agree with him or we may not agree with him, but let us be charitable one to another. I think that in the last ten years what has happened in this world has shown the truth of what John Bright said fifty years ago in connection with the Irish question, that force is no remedy, and this old world will not have peace and concord until force as an ultimate solution is abandoned and men will rely upon good will and justice to settle their disputes.

Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):

I wish to

associate myself with the hon. member for

B'ome (Mr. McMaster) in requesting the mover of the resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) to withdraw his motion. Personally I find myself in very large agreement with his point of view, but I would find it very difficult under the circumstances to vote for his resolution, for various reasons which have already been outlined, particularly by the Prime Minister. I think that a vote taken under the ciicumstances would not be a vote on the merits of the question which the mover has in mind, and therefore I think it would be unfortunate to call for a vote.

I wish also to protest, as did the hon. member for Brome, against the spirit of hostility displayed, and against the sneers and jeers that have been uttered in this House, in this debate. I know that this is a question which it is almost impossible to discuss without heat, animosity and prejudice, and sometimes it is wise, although not always perhaps, not, to risk arousing prejudices when you are pretty sure that what may be said will only result in inflaming feeling

I do not think I have anything further to say. I do believe that we ought to remember the old truth that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword. That is something that we ought to take to heart nationally, but I am not going to discuss that question. I would once more request that the mover of the resolution do not press for a vote upon it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Before the mover closes the debate, the Chair must give its ruling, which I thought was awaited with considerable anxiety. The point was raised last night by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) that this resolution, under rule 78, was out of order and could not be proceeded with. The resolution is couched in vague language. It reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is in the interest of world peace that Canada should withdraw all claims on Germany for reparations.

As I stated last night, Canada here means the Crown and the Crown has claims against Germany. The rights of Canada are clearly stated in the Treaty of Versailles. Canada was represented at the making of that treaty, Canada's representatives signed the treaty, and the reparations which Germany was condemned to make are set forth in Articles 231 to 244. Annex I enumerates claims that could arise out of those reparations. For instance:

Annex I

Compensation may be claimed from Germany under Article 232 above in respect of the total damage under the following categories:

(1) Damage to injured persons and to surviving dependents by personal injury to or death of civilians

German Reparations

caused by acts of war, including bombardments orother attacks on land, on sea, or from the air, and all

the direct consequences thereof, and of all operations of war by the two groups of belligerents wherever arising.

(2) Damage caused by Germany or her allies to

civilian victims of acts of cruelty, violence or mal-treatement (including injuries to life or health) as a consequence of imprisonment, deportation, internment or evacuation, of exposure at sea, or of being forced to labour, wherever arising, and to the surviving dependents of such victims.

(3) Damage caused by Germany or her allies in

their own territory or in occupied or invaded territory to civilian victims of all acts injurious to health or capacity to work, or to honour, as well as to the surviving dependents of such victims.

(4) Damage caused by any kind of maltreatment of prisoners of war.

(5) As damage caused to the peoples of the allied and associated powers, all pensions and compensation in the nature of pensions to naval and military victims of war (including members of the air force), whether mutilated, wounded, sick or invalided, and to the dependents of such victims, the amount due to the allied and associated governments being calculated for each of them as being the capitalized cost of such pensions, and compensation at the date of the coming into force of the present treaty, oh the basis of the scales in force in France at such date.

(6) The cost of assistance by the governments of the allied and associated powers to prisoners of war and to their families and dependents.

(7) Allowances by the governments of the allied and associated powers to the families and dependents of mobilized persons or persons serving with the forces, the amount due to them for each calendar year in which hostilities occurred, being calculated for each government on the basis of the average scale for such payments in force in France during that year.

(8) Damage caused to civilians by being forced by Germany or her allieg to labour without just remuneration.

(9) Damage in respect of all property wherever situated belong to any of the allied or associated states or their nationals, with the exception of naval and military works or materials, which has been carried off, seized, injured or destroyed by the acts of Germany or her allies on land, and sea, or from the air, or damage directly in consequence of hostilities or of any operations of war.

(10) Damage in the form of levies, fines and other similar exactions imposed by Germany or her allies upon the civilian population.

As the House will readily see, Canada has various claims against Germany, and when Canada is invited to relinquish such claims it is a matter which affects the public exchequer. Therefore it comes under the rule which was quoted last evening by the hon. member for New Westminster. Under that rule in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I find the following:

620. This House will not proceed upon any petition, motion or bill for granting any money, or for releasing or compounding any sum of money owing to the Crown but in a committee of the whole House.

Then I find further:

029. The recommendation of the Crown is needed for such measures as bills relating to the extension of time for the repayment of the deposit which has become liable to forfeiture in the case of a private bill; the release or compounding of sums due to the Crown; the repeal of an exemption from an existing duty, as the

burthen of the duty is thereby augmented; a proposal to repeal an existing drawback on export of sugar, as it effects an incrense ot charge upon the importers who desired to export sugar.

I also find in May 12th edition, at page 461, the following:

In pursuance of standing orders Nos. 66 and 67 a petition praying directly or indirectly for an advance of public money; for compounding or relinquishing any debts due to, or other claims of, the Crown; or for remission of duties or other charges payable by any person; or for a charge upon the revenues of India, will only be received if recommended by the Crown,

And so on. So that the principle of rule 78 is clearly laid down, in May. In Bourinot I also find the following:

Referring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions all authorities agree that it is one "which the House exercises, and should always exercise, with great reserve and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances." Such resolutions are considered virtually "an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should be discouraged as much as possible."

It might be said that the resolution is only the expression of a pious wish. I grant that in an ordinary matter the Speaker might ignore the rule and acquiesce in a debate such as has taken place since last evening. But here we are face to face with a very serious matter. In my humble judgment, if the House of Commons of Canada, under the present circumstances, adopted this resolution it would have far reaching consequences. Internationally speaking, it would be a notice given to the allied powers that Canada relinquishes her share of the reparations. Therefore, I think I am only doing my duty in adhering to the rule and in following the precedents which have been adopted in Great Britain and in Canada, precedents which have received the support of the best parliamentarians in our country such as Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. Holton and Mr. Blake. As Bourinot says:

Sir John A. Macdonald, Mr. Holton, and Mr. Blake pointed out the necessity of considering with the fullest deliberation all propositions which may involve an appropriation of the public moneys.

An appropriation of the public moneys or relinquishing debts or claims owing to the Crown is the same thing in my humble judgment and consequently, following on these authorities, I declare that the point was well taken and my ruling is that the resolution is out of order.

Mr. NEILL:

What is the aggregate value (calculated at par) of all bonds issued by the Government of Canada, exempt from income tax ?

Questions

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

Bonds and domestic issues, exempt from Dominion income tax, $1,103,972,550; of New York issues, $50,874,000.

In addition, $160,000,000 of bonds issued and payable in New York are exempt from Dominion taxes except when beneficially owned by persons residing or ordinarily resident in Canada.

.MINISTERS' AND OFFICIALS' TRAVELS

On the question of Mr. Stansell being called:

1. What Ministers of the Crown have been absent from Canada since the close of last session?

2. What were the several tours taken by each Minister so absent, and what was the object of each trip?

3. What were the names of those who, at the public expense, accompanied each Minister, and what was the purpose ?

4. What officials of the various departments have been out of Canada since the last session and for what purpose in each case?

5. What were the several tours taken by each official so absent, and what was the object of each trip?

6. What has been the cost to Canada of such trips by Ministers and officials, and those who accompanied them?

7. What has been the cost to the Dominion of the various trips made by Ministers and persons who accompanied them since the last session of Parliament: (a) within Canada; (b) out of Canada?

Mr. SPEAKER:

I understood the question was dropped yesterday.

Mr. FIELDING:

I said the hon. gentleman should convert it into a motion, when it would be more conveniently dealt with. I did not say "dropped."

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I did not think the hon. minister said "dropped."