1947-02-14

PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That Messrs. Adamson, Arsenault, Aylesworth, Baker, Beaudry, Bertrand (Prescott), Bertrand (Terrebonne). Boivin, Bradette, Bradshaw, Brunelle, Campbell, Castleden, Church, Clark, Cote (St. John-Iberville-Napierville), Dubois, Emmerson, Fontaine, Fraser, Gauthier (Nipis-sing), Gibson (Hamilton West), Golding, Halle, Hansell, Healy, Henderson, Hlynka, Kidd, Kuhl, Lacombe, Lalonde, Lapalme, Lapointe, Lennard, MacLean, MacNaught, (Maloney, McCuaig, McCullough (Assiniboia), McDonald (Parry Sound), McGregor, McLure, McMaster, Nicholson, Robinson (Simcoe East), Ross (St. Paul's), Sinclair (Vancouver North), Sinnott, Strum (Mrs.), Tustin, Viau, White (Hastings-Peter-borough), Winters, be appointed a committee to superintend the printing of parliament during the present session and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament.
Motion agreed to.
Inquiries of the Ministry

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That Messrs. Black (Yukon). Bradshaw, Breithaupt, Cote (Matapedia-Matane), Cour-noyer, Coyle, Gamon, Gariepy, Gladstone, Hark-ness, Jutras, Kirk, Laurendeau, Leger, Lennard, Lesage, Marshall, Mayhew, McGregor, Mclvor, Richard (Ottawa East). Strum (Mrs.), Wright, be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reword section 14 of the Aeronautics Act so as to give effect to the intent of parliament at the time the section was enacted. This is the section that was supposed to provide for the separation of air lines from ownership by railway companies within one year after V-E day. The section as it stands says that this is to take place within one year after the termination of the war in Europe as fixed by order in council. The delay in proclaiming the end of the war has made the effective date of this section an indefinitely movable feast. This bill settles the matter by inserting a definite date for section 14 to come into effect, namely, December 31, 1947.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should like to supplement the information I gave the house on Wednesday in answering a question of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) about displaced persons in Salzburg camp, Austria.
The government has communicated with the director general of UNRRA who has supplied the following information concerning this matter: No information is available at UNRRA headquarters, Washington, to identify the 3,500 Ukrainians in question. UNRRA, Washington, have therefore undertaken to cable this complaint to their headquarters in London, where they should be able to get the further necessary details.

The following is the additional information I wished to give. The Salzburg area is under the control of the United States military authorities, who have the final responsibility for the screening of all displaced persons. It is the United States military who have the entire responsibility for screening collaborators. UNRRA screening is done only to determine the eligibility of the individual for entry into the camp under the terms of the UNRRA resolutions. Officials of the Soviet Union are not members of either of these screening groups.
This information, I think, will be of interest to those who were so much disturbed about the matter, because they were under the impression that these screening groups were controlled by Soviet officials.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State in connection with the citizenship act. I have received a number of complaints with regard to delay in the forwarding of application forms to those who were citizens at the time the act came into effect. Would the minister give consideration to accelerating the forwarding of these applications-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member should not make a statement but should proceed to ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: That was my question, Mr. Speaker; and also whether consideration might be given to issuing these certificates free instead of charging the fee which is collected at the present time.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Secretary of State):: When the Canadian Citizenship x\ct was passed last session the vast majority of the people of this country became Canadian citizens. Under the act provision was made for the issuing of certificates of citizenship, but at that time it was not expected that there would be any great demand for these certificates in proof of citizenship on the part of those who automatically became Canadian citizens under the act. However, there has been a very great demand from all parts of the country for these certificates; and while it is not necessary to obtain a certificate to complete a man's citizenship, yet they are available to those who wish to apply for them.

Militia Act
There has been delay in the issuing of the application form. In the first place it was not expected the demand would approach anything like the extent it has reached, and there has been delay also owing to the fact that we have slightly changed and simplified the forms. Consequently it will be a week or so yet before the new forms are available in all parts of the country.
In reference to the fee payable on receipt of a certificate, I may say that under the first tariff of fees approved under the regulations the cost of securing a certificate was $5. It was considered that this was too high in cases where a man was merely securing a certificate in proof of his citizenship, and that fee has been reduced to $1. I think any person obtaining a certificate should pay some fee to take care of the overhead costs that are incurred in examining the application and in issuing the certificates. I should like to add that during the war provision was made under which any alien serving in the Canadian forces who took out his naturalization papers would receive his naturalization certificate free. Consequently we have felt that the same privilege should be extended to other Canadian veterans who were on active service; and when they apply for certificates in proof of citizenship they also get them free.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may ask one supplemental question, was the fee changed from $5 to $1 by order in council?


Colin William George Gibson: It was by order in council pursuant to the provisions of the act.


Mr. GRAADON:: Has the minister given consideration to following the lead of the government of Ontario, which is issuing birth certificates in the very attractive form I hold in my hand-a small card? I believe this is regarded by Ontario people as a great convenience, and I suggest to the minister that even though he may not do so in other matters he might follow the lead of Ontario in this regard.



MILITIA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 14, to amend the Militia Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. MERRITT:: Last evening the minister gave a statement, in response to our repeated inquiries, rvhich in some measure covered the policy of his department since he took over. To the extent that he dealt with the consolidation and reorganization he has in view I believe the statement cleared up many questions in the minds of hon. members on this side of the house, but he did not go on to give us that statement of policy and purpose in regard to our forces for which we have asked him and his predecessor ever since peace broke out-and for that expression I am indebted to the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario.
In his speech last evening the minister mentioned that there was a great deal of idle speculation and imagination in many of the questions asked from this side of the house. I do not believe that is correct, but if there were any speculation or imagination it was forced upon us because of the fact that the minister had not made the statement he so obviously should have made. The thing comes down to this. Great changes have been made in the administration of this department and in its policies since the minister took office. I want to say right now that I would have thought changes of this nature would have called for an expression of policy, perhaps along the lines of the white papers which are so often issued in Great Britain, one of which was issued in connection with defence at the end of the war. The minister also said that he thought his statement last evening was premature, because the matter could have been discussed on the estimates, and he still seems to have in his mind the idea that members of the house are not entitled to the information for which they are asking. It is not a matter of being premature. The first opportunity should have been taken by the minister to make a statement, not on estimates but on policy. This was the first opportunity. The only statement he has made about the future set-up of the forces, and the policy he is following, apart from the departmental organization, is that had he recruited up to 100 per cent of his predecessor's irreducible minimum it would have been difficult later to make a change. I find great difficulty in understanding that statement, unless it means that the only change the minister was contemplating was a reduction in the force that he might have recruited, had he gone up to 100 per cent. I do not believe there is anyone in Canada who believes that the figure set last year was one which should have been open to any reduction whatever, in any one of the services.

Militia Act

It seemed to me, too, that as far as he did explain the decision not to recruit up to strength, he placed it only on the ground of economy. He did not give us any other grounds as to why 75 per cent of the establishment was satisfactory. How long does the minister expect that the country will not be able to afford more than 75 per cent of that minimum?
If there has been any concern, either in the forces or in the country, it has been because we live in the future. In everything we do, the question whether we have confidence in what our government is doing, or in what we are doing ourselves, depends upon how far we can see into the future, and whether we can see that what we are doing now is leading us to a condition of security and progress. That applies to the army, just as much as to anything else.
I ask the minister the direct question, whether this twenty-five per cent cut or, as he wishes to describe it, the decision not to recruit up to strength, is based solely on economy. Did the minister make the decision himself, with the consent of the government, or did he ask the advice of the defence council before he decided not to recruit up to strength?


The CHAIRMAN:: I must point out to the committee that under the standing orders, when the house is in committee of the whole all discussion should be directly relevant to the clause under consideration. We are now considering section 1. In previous sessions it has been the custom to have a general discussion on the principle of the bill when section 1 has been called, and when such discussions has not taken place in the house. In this instance, however, there was a full discussion on the principle of the bill on the motion for second reading. Accordingly in committee of the whole discussion should be relevant to the clause under consideration.
I can understand that on some occasions hon. members may wish to ask questions pertaining to the principle of a bill which could not be asked on one of the clauses. In such circumstances I believe it would be in order for an hon. member to ask a question on the first clause. Normally however, according to the standing orders all discussions on this bill should be relevant to the clause before the committee.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I think my question is one which comes under the general classification. I find nowhere else in the bill where this question could be asked. It is this: Was the decision to recruit up to seventy-five per cent taken only by the minister himself, or was

it taken after discussion with and on the advice of the defence council? Was it economy only which prompted that decision?


Mr. FRASER:: Is the minister going to answer the question?


Mr. CLAXTON:: I understand Mr. Chairman has ruled that there could not be this general discussion. I am quite prepared to discuss that or any other question at the proper time. Here, however, we have a bill which is both specific and detailed, the provisions of which have no relation whatsoever to the question my hon. friend has just asked. The provisions of the bill are textual amendments to sections of the Militia Act. If we are going to enter into a discussion such as would properly develop on the estimates, then the committee should so decide, so that we may know where we stand. I submit however that we are still proceeding under the rules of the house, that the chairman has referred to the rule, and that we should abide by it, having our discussion at the proper time and in proper order.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Speaking to the point raised by the minister, in the first place, after what he. heard yesterday. I do not know why the minister would not try to shorten this discussion by giving us the reasonable information for which we have asked. Speaking directly to the point of order I would say that we are dealing with section 1, of which paragraph (a) reads-[DOT]
"Active force" means the portion of the Cana-diaii army that is on continuous full-time military service.
I am asking a specific question with respect to the portion of the Canadian army which is on full-time military service, and I say my question is well within the rules and within the section before the committee.


William Ross Macdonald: If the question comes within section 1, then no doubt the minister could answer it. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard. feels that his question falls under paragraph (a).


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, with respect I point out that the hon. member's question does not relate to the definition of "active force" but relates to the policy of the government-an entirely different matter.
The new section 2 (a) which states that-
(a) "Active force" means the portion of the Canadian army that is on continuous full-time military service

-is a definition. The change proposed in this paragraph is a change to "active force" from

Militia Act
the expression "permanent force". Consequently the question asked by the hon. member does not arise.
My reason for making the point is that if I proceed to answer the hon. member in this instance I have no doubt we shall go over the ground covered yesterday and enter into a discussion along lines exactly the same as those we shall follow under the estimates, ranging over the whole field of defence policy of the three services. That discussion would go on interminably, thus extending the work of the committee by having it done at a time which, according to the rules, is improper.
I submit therefore that the rules should be enforced.


Mr. MacINNIS:: On the point of order I should like to say a few words, because I believe I can speak without bias. I am not going to speak on the bill, because I prefer to leave that subject to other people. In the discussion of all bills, however, so far as I can remember, the definition section has been considered an omnibus section on which one may discuss almost anything related to the bill. Then there is the further factor that the whole act is before the committee, not merely the amendments. We are amending the Militia Act and the whole act is a matter for discussion under this bill. I think there has been a ruling in this house before to that effect. Whether there is or is not economy in the use of time. I think the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is in order.


William Ross Macdonald: A point has been raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that any matter relating to the Militia Act should be open for discussion at the present time, but in my opinion that is not a proper interpretation of the standing order. If that, were so, then when an amendment to the criminal code was before the committee any matter relating to the criminal code could be discussed and questions asked in connection thereto. I do not think that would be in order.
The bill before the committee has been considered on second reading. As I stated previously, when a bill has not been discussed on second reading it has been the custom to permit wide latitude in the discussion, particularly as to the principle of the bill, when it is in committee of the whole and the first clause is being considered. Hon. members are aware that this bill was widely discussed and that full latitude was given when it w*as up for second reading. The principle of the bill was discussed at that time. Unless the committee decides otherwise I must be bound by the 83166-271
standing orders, and I would refer hon. members to standing order 58, subsection 2, which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
Accordingly I must rule that all discussion at the present time must be relevant to the clause under consideration. The section before the committee is section 1, and questions must be relevant to that section,


Mr. BENTLEY:: I think it is evident to everyone that the minister's refusal to answer is saving a lot of time. There is certainly a lot of conservation. Can you, sir, or can the minister tell us whether there is a section in this bill under which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard or any one else can ask that specific question? If not, why cannot his question be answered?	[DOT]


William Ross Macdonald: Of course it is not my place to answer that question. All I can say is that if there is no place in the bill where the question can be asked, then it is not relevant to this bill and cannot be asked.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman-


William Ross Macdonald: Just one minute, please. If there is no place where the question can be asked, surely hon. members must see that it would be irrelevant. If it has nothing to do with this bill, then it cannot be asked. I have made my ruling, and of course there cannot be any further discussion. We are discussing section 1.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would you explain your ruling, Mr. Chairman? Have you ruled that my question is out of order?


William Ross Macdonald: The question is out of order on section 1.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then I must respectfully appeal from your ruling.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have appealed from your ruling.


Mr. BRADETTE:: It is pitiful, that is all.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Perhaps Your Honour did not hear me; I am appealing your ruling.


William Ross Macdonald: Hon. members understand that when there is an appeal from the ruling of the Chairman it is necessary for the Chairman to call in the Speaker and the division is taken in the house on the written report of the point of order which has been decided.
Militia Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker took the chair and submitted the question to the house in the following terms:
During the discussion of section 1 of Bill 14 the chairman of the committee of the whole ruled that the hou. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) could not discuss the question whether the reduction of the forces of Canada took place on the advice of the militia council. The hon. member appealed from that decision.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: I was paired with the hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster). Had I voted I would have voted to support the ruling of the chairman.


Mr. BREITHAUPT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chairman.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. HEON:: I was paired with the distinguished member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Lapalme). Had I voted, with deep regret I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Dionne). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). Had I voted I would have voted against the chairman's ruling.
And the house having resumed in committee:


William Ross Macdonald: For the benefit of the committee may I read the rule which pertains to discussion in committee on the matter of relevancy. It is standing order No. 58, clause 2:

Militia Act
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
May I ask hon. members, as far as possible, to adhere strictly to that rule.
On section 1-Definitions.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I shall attempt to stay
within your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and certainly this question will be within it. What is the reason that the minister requires the extensive power to make regulations referred to in the explanatory notes? Why should there be a change from the old practice?


Brooke Claxton: The only change in section 1 is a change in paragraph (j) of section 2 defining regulations:	"Regulations" means
regulations made by the governor in council or the minister under this act. That is the only change in section 1, and the reason for including the minister is that for a considerable number of years, even before the war, the minister did make regulations with respect to the organization of units. He was given power by the governor in council to change the establishment of units provided that they were kept within ten per cent of the ceilings fixed by the governor in council. There was also a regulation regarding the redesignation of units providing for changes of names. There was a regulation dealing with reserve force training, extending it to sixty days instead of thirty. There was a set of regulations dealing with standing courts martial, and with regard to the confirmation of sentences by overseas authorities; also with regard to the return to Canada of military prisoners. There were also regulations with regard to secret documents. Those are the only regulations I know of that have been made by the minister in the past, and it is suggested that the act should be changed in order to make it clear that that power exists, but only in respect of matters that are expressly provided for in the act itself.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then under this paragraph (j), is it within the power of the minister, without advice from the defence council, to make a regulation changing the establishment of units, say, to seventy-five per cent?


Brooke Claxton: Paragraph (j) gives no
power.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Did the minister, under
this paragraph, exercise that power?


Brooke Claxton: No, the minister did not have that power. I should explain to the committee that the defence council has no statutory existence. It was set up under order in council for the purpose of advising the
ministers of defence, and it has been a useful organization. Whether or not it will be continued in that form is not yet decided. But I should assure my friend, and I feel certain he will appreciate that I am stepping beyond the bounds of relevancy, that the decision with regard to such matters as the major structure of the armed forces of Canada will be exercised, as it has been exercised, by the government itself.


Mr. PROBE:: Under paragraph (h), on service, will the minister indicate to the committee what are the present periods of service prescribed for the reserves and for the active force?


Brooke Claxton: The periods of service are three years in each case. It is desired to extend the period of service in certain classes at least of the active force. But at the present the limit fixed by statute is three years, and the period is three years.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Mr. Chairman I should like to draw your attention to the fact that I believe the minister has answered my original question.


Mr. BROOKS:: Paragraph (k) says "unit" means a military body organized on a separate establishment. Does that mean that the term "corps" will not be used in connection with the pay corps, the army service corps and the medical corps?


Brooke Claxton: Those will all be retained.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Then what really is the meaning of paragraph (k) ?


Brooke Claxton: "Corps", as it was used in the Militia Act from 1868 on, referred to a unit. We referred to a corps of troops.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That is the army corps?


Brooke Claxton: No, when this act was passed in 1868 we referred to a corps of troops instead of referring to a "unit" or regiment. Now that term has ceased to be applicable in that sense. The correct word now is "unit". But the historic names of the army pay corps, the Canadian ordnance corps and so on will be kept as the names of these arms of the service. There will be no changes in those names; there is only a change in the legal definition, from "corps" to "unit", as the term used in the act to designate a unit.


Mr. HAZEN:: This section defines the following words, among others: active force, in paragraph (a); on active service, in paragraph (g); on service, in paragraph (h). There is no definition of the words "general service" and I rise merely for the purpose of getting
Militia Act

information. I would like to ask the minister the definition of the words "general service" that are found in section 9 of this bill.


Brooke Claxton: That is for general service, service anywhere. It is the active force. The phrase is not used in any technical sense.


Douglas King Hazen: What is the difference between active service and general service?


Brooke Claxton: Under the Militia Act-active service has a definite meaning, in view of section 64, which reads:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
The effect of doing that, as the hon. member knows, is to make the soldier continuously subject to military law; it changes a number of punishments for various offences, and so on.


Douglas King Hazen: The only thing I had in mind was whether there should be a definition of general service. I am just asking for the sake of information.


Brooke Claxton: The act does not use the term "general service" in any specific legal sense. It just uses it in the meaning of "general."


Mr. MASSEY:: Paragraph (j) reads:
"Regulations" means regulations made by the governor in council or the minister under this act.
As I understood the minister a moment ago, he said this meant he had the power to amend establishments. The amendment of an establishment means an increase or a decrease, and the amendment of all establishments right across the board would mean a reduction in the strength of the army. In other words does this clause mean the minister has within his own power the right to reduce the strength )f the army?


Brooke Claxton: I certainly would suggest to the hon. member that the minister could not do that if it were not the policy of the government and still remain a member of the cabinet. Such a thing would come about only in consequence of a government decision. With regard to the legal power, I do not think any question of legal power arises. There would not be a reduction made in consequence of a ministerial direction. But I should make it plain that it is necessary to change establishments very frequently. There are some hundreds of units in Canada, and their establishments have to be changed from time to time. That is done by the military authorities, but it has to have the approval

of the minister. Those changes, however, would be minor in character. Of course any major change would be made by the government.


Denton Massey: I fully appreciate what the minister has just said, but at the same time if his statement, as to his power to amend establishments is correct, though it may sound rather silly to stand here today and even consider the reduction of all establishments simultaneously, nevertheless as I see it that is a possibility. In other words though we suggested in the discussion last evening that the power and supreme authority to determine the strength of the army of Canada should remain within the four walls of parliament, nevertheless in this rather innocuous subsection power is given to the minister which would permit him to reduce the strength of the Canadian army.


Mr. PEARKES:: Conversely does that give the minister power to increase the establishment, and therefore to increase the size of the Canadian army? I suggest that might be one reason we were so insistent on having a ceiling established.


Brooke Claxton: The matter to which my hon. friend has referred is dealt with by section 8 of the bill, replacing section 20 of the act, which reads:
The maximum number of personnel of the Canadian army and of each rank or trade group therein shall be as from time to time authorized by the governor in council.
' (2) Subject to -the provisions of subsection one of this section	_
(a)	the Canadian army shall consist of such units as are from time to time named by the minister, which units shall be organized on such establishments as are from time to time authorized by him;
(b)	the minister may at any time disband or redesignate any unit or revoke, amend or restrict any establishment if he considers it advisable to do so.
That is the provision.


Denton Massey: I have read that section carefully, and the minister will appreciate that if carried to its ultimate possible conclusion it could mean the disbandment of the army. I am not thinking of today or tomorrow; I am thinking of an amendment to the Militia Act which is going to stand on our statute books. It seems to me that with the powers given the minister under this act he could disband the army single-handed, and still be within the four corners of this act as it is being amended. I think we might as well face these facts. In introducing the bill I believe the minister said a few changes were being made to make it more flexible, and so on, but I regard it as

Militia Act
an insidious bill, because it places in one man the power to disband the Canadian army, according to the minister's own statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister might explain the necessity for the change at all. In the past the governor in council has been able to operate under the Militia Act and make the necessary regulations. Certainly the number of regulations that have been made would not indicate very much holding back by reason of the fact that power rested with the governor in council. For what reason do these various sections now provide that the minister may make regulations? I looked up section 139 of the act, and it indicates power to make regulations. It says:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying this act into effect, for the organization, discipline, efficiency and good government generally of the militia, and for anything requiring to be done in connection with the military defence of Canada.
That is what the section is at the present time. But it is to have an addition whereby the governor in council may empower the minister to make regulations for the purposes mentioned in subsection 1 of this section. In other words, all the governor in council has to do is to pass a general order in council granting the minister powers so wide that they permit him to do everything he considers necessary' for efficiency, organization, discipline and good government, and anything in connection with the military defence of Canada. That makes the minister an absolute dictator in respect of the defence of this country, once he secures an order from, the governor in council granting him the right to make regulations. Why does the minister now ask that the Militia Act be changed so that henceforth he may make the necessary regulations, instead of as heretofore, I believe for about eighty years, having that right remain in the governor in council? What is the reason for it? What is behind it? What are the purposes?


Brooke Claxton: The purpose of the bill is to enable the administration of the armed forces to be carried on in a direct and efficient manner. I am informed that during the war there were thousands of submissions to the governor in council making minor changes in establishments. That required a good deal of paper work, and much time, of the governor in council and of everyone concerned. Most of these were minor changes, such as changing the establishment of an infantry battalion from one having, let us say, three carpenters to one having only two carpenters, and that kind of thing. The submissions came down to detail as fine as that, and most of the changes
were of that kind. In order to make the operation simpler this provision was drafted in its present form. It will be noticed that the definition of "prescribed" in the Militia Act was this:
(j)	"prescribed" means prescribed by this act or by regulations made hereunder.
And then "regulations" was defined in this way:
(k)	"regulations" means regulations made by the governor in council under the authority of this act.
We ran into a number of instances in which powers to do certain things were prescribed, and frequently they were minor, unimportant and technical. In those instances it was felt that the governor in council might delegate authority to the minister.
I should tell the hon. member that this is a usual provision in legislation in force in other countries, and also that it is modeled on the Xaval Service Act, which was passed by parliament in 1944.
The main characteristics and size of the armed forces are dealt with under an entirely different provision. Here we are dealing with units. But the main characteristics are dealt with under section 5 of the bill, which would explain section 14 of the act, and states-
The organization of the Canadian army shall be as from time to time prescribed by the governor in council.	,
And that power rests with the governor in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the
answer for this departure from the provisions of the Militia Act, which has been in effect for more than eighty years, is that it is in the interests of efficiency, and arises also out of the multiplicity of regulations which have to be certified by the governor in council. Perhaps we can find out how much work there is in connection with this, and how much saving of time and of paper-and it is most laudable that the minister has in mind the saving of paper and of time. At least one of the lessons we have tried to teach from this side of the house has borne fruit. How many regulations were passed under the Militia Act in 1946? According to the minister, so many have been passed that instead of having the governor in council busy all the time signing them, it is now suggested that it would be simpler to have the minister do it.


Brooke Claxton: We would have to look that up, but there might be several thousand if everything is included. We are not sticking to
Militia Act

Mr. Chairman's ruling, but in our discussions we are anticipating the various provisions in the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: We cannot discuss this section without reference to the other provisions dealing with regulations.


Brooke Claxton: That is why we have led ourselves into some confusion. It will be noted that paragraph (j) states-
"regulations" means regulations made by the governor in council or the minister under this act.
Reference was made to the possibility of disbanding the army-and that was put forward as an extreme situation. In section 8 of the bill, there is reference to establishments and the fixing of establishments, of which there are some hundreds or thousands,


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister say that there were seven thousand?


Brooke Claxton: No, several thousand. If the hon. member for Lake Centre has in mind regulations having general application and continuing effect, then the regulations envisaged as likely to be made under the act, if amended by the bill, would be those connected with the naming of units, the authorization of establishments within the veiling fixed by the governor in council, the leasing of lands held by the Canadian army for a period not exceeding one year, the authorization for the formation of school cadets corps, the appointment of officers to command cadet corps, prescribing drill and training, the furnishing of arms and the like for cadet corps, and regulations regarding the place of incarceration of persons sentenced to imprisonment.
Those are the only powers I recall that are granted under the bill in addition to those with regard to commands and military districts.


John George Diefenbaker: According to the Militia Act these regulations must be published in the Canada Gazette-and let me tell the minister that I get the Gazette each week. Does the minister say that the several thousand regulations which he now speaks of were published in the Gazette last year?


Brooke Claxton: I think what I just said covers that. Of the regulations having general application, continuing effect and applying to more than one single situation there are only a limited number.


John George Diefenbaker: How many of those were there?


Brooke Claxton: We can find out. In addition establishments are fixed from time to time, appointments are made and other things of that sort are done by governor in council. Some of them are regulations and published in the Gazette; others are not regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: A moment ago they were regulations, and when I asked the number I was told there were several thousand. Now they are not regulations when I ask whether they were published. Section 139 says:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying this act into effect, for the organization. discipline, efficiency and good government generally of the militia, and for anything requiring to be done in connection with the military defence of Canada.
My first question was: How many regulations were passed under that section in 1946? The answer which the minister purported to give me was: several thousand. The next section reads:
Such regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette; and upon being so published, they shall have the same force in law as if they formed part of this act.
What the minister is asking for is power under section 139 to control the organization, discipline, efficiency and good government generally of the militia; to do anything requiring to be done in connection with defence by regulation. I return once more to this very simple question, because the minister has said that the reason for this section was to make for efficiency and to save the governor in council work: How many regulations that came within the ambit of section 139 were passed in 1946? That is a simple question, because according to the minister only a few were passed.


Brooke Claxton: We will find out.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I should like to know how many similar orders were passed in 1938.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: I understood the minister to say he was getting the information.


Alan Cockeram: Then we cannot carry the clause.


Georges-Henri Héon: I should like to have an explanation of an apparent difference between the French and English texts of paragraph
(g), section 1. The English text says "enrolled, enlisted, drafted", while the French text says "...veut dire qu'il est enrole, engage, appele..." Am I to understand that the

word ''drafted" in this paragraph would have the same meaning as it has in sections 8, 14 and 24 of the Militia Act?
(Translation):
With the permission of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lapointe), I shall ask a question in French. Subsection (g) reads in part as follows: Subject to military service means whenever a person is enrolled, enlisted, drafted-" and in the French version "drafted'" is translated by "appele." Has this word "appele" (drafted) the same meaning as in sections 8, 14 and 24 of the Militia Act?
Section 8 of the act provides for the "levee en masse." Section 14 subdivides the Militia into corps raised by voluntary enlistment and corps raised by ballot. Section 24 refers to the necessity of resorting to the ballot method. Is this what is meant in the new bill by the word "appele" (drafted)?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: In answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), I must say that there is no change, no amendment applying to that part of the act. The wording remains as before and the French word "appele", a translation of the English "drafted" as used here, has the same meaning as in the last line, I believe, of paragraph 1 of section 24, referred to by the hon. member.


Georges-Henri Héon: In other words, sections 8 and 24 are not amended and remain as they are at present?


Hugues Lapointe: Precisely.
(Text):


John Oliver Probe: I should like to refer for a moment to subsection (k) which gives the definition of "unit." During the war a service was formed overseas, and I believe extended here, or vice versa, known as the Canadian army educational services. I am not too familiar with what constitutes these units at the present time, but the educational services did an excellent job during the war in upgrading personnel who were deficient in normal education. Will the minister indicate what units, if any, there are at the present time of these educational services, and if there are none, what provision is being made to carry on equivalent upgrading duties?


Brooke Claxton: The educational services were handled during the war by the Canadian Legion. They are to be carried on for the immediate post-war period under the Department of Veterans Affairs which is handling similar educational services for the veterans. There is not a complete educational service in 83166-28
Militia Act
the armed forces, but consideration is being given to our having such a service after we get through this interim period.


Mr. GREEN:: The Canadian Legion educational services did splendid work. Have they been disbanded?


Brooke Claxton: I understand they are carrying on but are to be taken over by veterans affairs.


Howard Charles Green: Would not through them be a good way to carry on educational services for the members of the three forces and also to help the Department of Labour and possibly the Department of Veterans Affairs in the future?


Brooke Claxton: That is the way it is being done now.


Howard Charles Green: Is it intended to have the Canadian Legion educational services continued?


Brooke Claxton: We have made arrangements for the immediate post-war period and that envisages their being continued during that period. After that the question will be considered.


Howard Charles Green: I understood they were being terminated on March 31.


Brooke Claxton: No; the services will continue.


Howard Charles Green: Has there been some change? Are they to be carried on for a longer period? It seems a shame to wipe out a splendid service which could be most useful in the future.


Brooke Claxton: My understanding is that they are to be transferred as of that date to veterans affairs, to be carried on in exactly the same way and with much the same personnel. It does not come under me, but that is my understanding.


Howard Charles Green: Would the service then be available to the men in the forces?


Brooke Claxton: Yres.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister think that would be as efficient as having it handled by the Canadian Legion educational services?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman. I am still waiting for the information I asked for, and until we have it we cannot deal with paragraph (j).


Brooke Claxton: Should we allow paragraph (j) to stand while I get the information, and proceed with the other clauses?

Militia Act


George Randolph Pearkes: While the minister is getting the information, may I ask a simple question regarding section 2(b). Do I interpret the word "all" to mean all, the total, not 75 per cent or 50 per cent?


Brooke Claxton: "All" means all.


George Randolph Pearkes: "All" means all, and "military" means military where it does not apply to the navy or the air force?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then I take it that the Royal Military College would be included now in the Canadian army?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Randolph Pearkes: Then "all" does not mean all.


Brooke Claxton: It is not a military force within the terms just used by the hon. member.


George Randolph Pearkes: Do I understand that the Royal Military College is not a military force?


Brooke Claxton: Right.


George Randolph Pearkes: And therefore it is not included in "all the military forces of Canada"?


Brooke Claxton: The students are not members of the forces.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is a military college, is it not? Is that not a military force?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member should read the whole definition of "unit", which says:
"unit" means a military body organized on a separate establishment as an individual military organization and which has been named as a unit of the Canadian army.
That is necessary in order that an organization shall form part of the armed forces of Canada. It must be named as a unit.


Mr. FULTON:: I wish to refer to the naming of units under paragraph (k). Do I take it that that definition read in conjunction with (j) would give the minister power to name, say, a certain infantry battalion a unit of the army or to name it as ceasing to be a unit in the case of either an old battalion or a new battalion, and would it give him power to bring into existence new and further units as defined in paragraph (k), with power also to disband units, used again in the same sense? Would these two paragraphs give the minister that power?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: Might I refer the minister to a book entitled "The King's Regulations

and Orders for the Canadian Militia, 1939". Paragraph 1365, under section XIII-Ceremonial, says:
The following is the order of precedence in the Canadian militia:-
Then immediately under that is the heading "corps, regiment or unit," and number 1 is "The Gentlemen Cadets of the Royal Military College of Canada." Will the minister now please say whether the word "all" includes all the corps or units as listed in the order of precedence in the king's regulations and orders for the Canadian Militia.


Brooke Claxton: The order of precedence has no legal effect in making into a unit or a part of the armed forces something which is not part of the armed forces of Canada and has not been designated as such.


Howard Charles Green: The purpose of this bill is
explained as being "to enable the present plans for the reorganization and training of the Canadian army to be effectively carried out", and so forth. It appears that the minister is to be given certain powers by regulation in connection with the organization, discipline, training and efficiency of the army. Further it would appear from the statement made by the Prime Minister on Wednesday last that there is to be coordinated training between United States forces and our own. He referred, for example, to the establishment at Churchill and said that both armies would be using it. He also stated that there would be mutual and reciprocal availability of military, naval and air facilities between the two countries. At another point in his statement he mentioned that these arrangements being made with the United States were similar to arrangements between Canada, Great Britain and the other dominions. He said:
The similar arrangements envisaged between Canada and the United States in no way interfere with or replace our commonwealth connections in matters of defence training and organization. Given the geographical position of Canada, it is important that measures of cooperation should be undertaken both with the United States and the United Kingdom.
During the last few months there has been some talk of the United Kingdom wishing to train some of her mechanized units outside the British Isles and also giving training in projectile warfare outside the United Kingdom. Are the Canadian facilities available to the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa for training of that type just as freely and without restrictions as they are to be made available to the United States?


Brooke Claxton: Here again, Mr. Chairman, we are getting well outside the scope of this bill, and I would call your attention

Militia Act
to that fact. The hon. member for Vancouver South is an old parliamentarian and he must know the rules. The answer I think is indicated by the Prime Minister's remarks that there is close cooperation.


Howard Charles Green: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am not outside the rule because the regulations give the minister power to direct the training of our forces, and I think it is admitted by everyone in the house that nowadays that training must be not merely the training of Canadian forces alone but coordinated training with the forces of other nations, notably the United States and Great Britain. All I am asking is whether the facilities for coordinated training of that type will be made available to the United Kingdom and the dominions in the same way as they are being made available to the United States. Surely there can be no harm in that question, which is of the utmost importance to the country, and I would ask the minister to answer it.


Brooke Claxton: It is not a question of
harm. It is a question of the orderly conduct of the committee's business by sticking to the rules of the house. I think I have been fair in answering questions freely which have been put in the course of the discussion, but we are anxious to get on with the actual text of the bill before us.
If the committee will permit me I shall answer the question briefly. There is not the same need or opportunity to exchange personnel and that kind of thing, with Australia, South Africa or New Zealand as with the United Kingdom or the United States because their defence needs and opportunities are different; there is not the same advantage in it. But we have close arrangements for cooperation with-


Howard Charles Green: What about the United Kingdom?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; the same as with the United States.


Alan Cockeram: I wish to draw the minister's attention to section 141 of the Militia Act which reads as follows:
The regulations shall be laid before both houses of parliament within ten days after the publication thereof in the Canada Gazette, if parliament is then sitting; and if parliament is not then sitting, then within ten days after the next meeting thereof.
In reply to the hon. member for Lake Centre, the minister said there were several thousand of these regulations passed during the last year; therefore a large number of them were passed while parliament was in recess. Will the minister tell us when he 83166-281
proposes to present to the house the regulation which were passed during the recess? Why have they not been placed on the table up to date?


Brooke Claxton: The situation regarding the regulations which have been adopted- their number is being looked into, and as soon as I get the information I will give it to the committee-is this: I believe we shall find that the law has been complied with completely. I also believe we shall find that some matters which have been referred to in this discussion as regulations will turn out to be orders and not regulations. I am looking into that and, as soon as we get the information, I shall tell the committee.


Denton Massey: I do not want the minister or the committee to think I am flogging a dead horse, but I refer again to section 1, paragraph (j) which gives certain powers to the minister. I fully appreciate-and I have reason to be able to appreciate it-the desirability of having flexibility in connection with a great many "regulations", and having those regulations brought to finality by the minister. I am quite aware of what the minister pointed out as to the powers under section 8 of the bill, which amends subsection 2, paragraph (a) of section 20 of the act to read:
The Canadian army shall consist of such units . . .
And so forth, and also section 32 which reads as follows:
Section one hundred and thirty-nine of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Except where the power to prescribe or make regulations is by other sections of this act reserved exclusively to the governor in council, the governor in council may empower the minister to make regulations for the purposes mentioned in subsection one of this section."
Taken in the extreme-and I repeat it, it is the extreme case-the minister has power to disband the Canadian army. It is all very well for the minister to say that that is exaggerated and that no minister who ever did such a thing could live, but I again point out to him that I am not talking about today or even tomorrow. If this house writes into the act section 1, paragraph (j) it is possible that there could come a time when, under some other form of government, perhaps, if you wish, different from what we have at the moment, if one can conceive of such a government coming into power, it would be possible to disband the Canadian army without regard to parliament or even to the governor in council. There has been altogether too much said about "it cannot happen here." Some of us are realists enough to appreciate the fact
Militia Act

that strange things can happen. Therefore, if there were to remain in the Militia Act that which gave the minister power to take such an extreme act as I have suggested, namely that of disbanding the Canadian army,
I think we are justified in our stand in trying to prevent such difficulties which might conceivably arise. I am in no way desiring to obstruct the giving of power to the minister to create efficiency within the Canadian army, to set up that type of machinery which will permit the normal flow of regulations to pass over his desk and become effective in the army. But I do think that if at the same time we give the minister virtually unlimited power in regard to reduction by means of the discontinuance of an establishment and carrying that to the limit, ultimately disbanding the Canadian army, we are writing into the act that which the minister himself does not want written into it. The point remains, and I strongly suggest to the minister that there be some qualification in regard to regulations which does not appear in section 32 and section 22. It should definitely appear there, qualifying those regulations by which the minister and the minister alone has the final power. I do not think it takes away one iota from the purpose of the bill, and it does protect the Canadian people from the extreme action which would be possible were this particular subsection to be permitted to remain in its present form. Will the minister be good enough to tell the committee what he thinks of that point?


Brooke Claxton: With reference to what the hon. member has just said I should point out that section 2, paragraph (j) of the act, if amended in accordance with this bill gives the minister absolutely no power at all. It is simply a definition. That is made clear, if it is necessary to be made clear, by the hon. member's own remarks in which he referred to powers conferred by sections 22 and 32. These sections do purport to confer powers; but section 2, paragraph (j), confers no powers whatever. It defines regulations as being in two groups, one that can be made by the governor in council and the other by the minister. It is purely a defining section.
With regard to the extreme case, the hon. member suggests that under one of these other provisions such as section 8, amending section 20, the minister can disband the Canadian army. I must submit that that is not so at all. What he could do would be to change individual units, as has happened, but this section certainly would not give him any such power as was suggested.


Denton Massey: Let me read section 8.
[Mr. Massey.l


Brooke Claxton: Might we not deal with it when we come to it?


Denton Massey: I still maintain that I am not quibbling on the point, nor am I flogging a dead horse. There is a vitally important matter here. I am not yet satisfied with the minister's reply.
The minister has referred to section 8 which, in its terms, refers to section 20 of the old act. Section 20, subsection 2, paragraph
(a)	reads as follows:
The Canadian army shall consist of such units as are from time to time named by the minister, which units shall be organized on such establishments as are from time to time authorized by him.
The minister says that under this bill he could not disband the Canadian army. Of course he could. Suppose he designates no units.


Brooke Claxton: The bill itself designates all existing units as units of the Canadian army.


Denton Massey: As units of the Canadian army, yes.


Brooke Claxton: For this bill; as they are today.


Denton Massey: I quite agree. But does the minister not agree with me on what it says? Suppose he does not designate any unit.


Brooke Claxton: But this bill does not.


Denton Massey: I quote:
The Canadian army shall consist of such units as are from time to time named by the minister.


Brooke Claxton: For the future.


Denton Massey: That is right. But suppose the minister does not name any unit and reduces the establishment of these units which do exist, "which units shall be organized on such establishments as are from time to time authorized by him." If he does not name any new units and he reduces the establishment of the existing units to zero, does that not disband the Canadian army?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Denton Massey: Why not?


Brooke Claxton: Because he could not do that.


Denton Massey: The bill says he can.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Denton Massey: Perhaps I am one of the benighted members of this committee, but I do not feel lonely. I cannot read anything into it but that. If the minister can make it clear to me, I would appreciate it.

Militia Act


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that section 1, with the exception of subsections (i) and (j), is carried?


Brooke Claxton: Just with the exception of (j). There is no change in paragraph (i).


Mr. LENNARD:: Did I understand the minister correctly when he said some time ago that he had the same sweeping powers under the Naval Act passed several years ago as he is asking for under these amendments to the Militia Act?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The powers are similar but they are not sweeping.


Frank Exton Lennard: Well, that is all I wanted to know.


William Ross Macdonald: Paragraph (j) of section 1 stands. Shall the remainder of the section carry?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I have a question to ask the minister in connection with paragraph (g), "on active service", in regard to the matter of drafting. Is the latter part of paragraph (g) not unnecessary? The latter part reads, "or when he is on duty, or has been warned for duty in aid of the civil power." Is it not true that he would be called out in aid of the civil power for a riot or insurrection, real or apprehended? I thought possibly that latter part was a redundancy and would not be necessary.


Brooke Claxton: There is no change in this.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I know there is no change.


Brooke Claxton: We are not making
changes unless we really consider them desirable and necessary in order to operate during the next year.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Of course there would be no harm done. I realize that: It was only the question of drafting, and I thought that latter part was unnecessary. Paragraph (e), "man", is the general interpretation clause and includes "woman", or does it?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In our army today we know we have women as well as men.


Brooke Claxton: The Interpretation Act covers that point, but today we have no women.


William Ross Macdonald: Paragraph (j) stands. Otherwise section 1 is carried.
Section agreed t-o with the exception of paragraph (j).
On section 2-Occupation of property on emergency.


Mr. WRIGHT:: Before dealing with section 2, which deals with section 7 of chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, I wish to offer an amendment to section 4 thereof. Section 4 reads:
The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the king, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the governor general as his representative.
We all know that in actual fact that has been put through and by the advice of the privy council, but I think when we are amending the act we should make it clear that that is carried out. I would therefore move an amendment to section 4:
That section 4 of chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada of 4927 be amended by adding after the said section 4 the words "acting by and with the advice of the king's privy council of Canada."


Brooke Claxton: I am not sure that the constitutional concept on which this amendment is based is correct. I have not taken advice on it, but I believe that our present form, although it dates back to 1868, must be read in the light of today's conditions and must be read in the way in which my hon. friend wants it to be read. I would submit that if he wishes to bring this forward it would be necessary to introduce a bill to that effect; and I would submit that it is not possible to insert an amendment to a statute in a bill which does not introduce that amendment or deal with it at all.


John Oliver Probe: We are dealing now with amendments to the Militia Act. That being the case, it would seem to me that the minister might at least consider including this amendment along with his own, in the event that it could not be considered except by introduction of a special bill.


Brooke Claxton: I assure the hon. member that the sense in which this term is used in section 4 is the sense in which he would1 like to see it used. Consequently no amendment is necessary. In the Naval Service Act, for example, which was passed as recently as in 1944, the same expression was kept. It is an historic form.


Percy Ellis Wright: I know it is a form, and I know that in actual fact, the practice is as indicated by the minister. But it seems to me that it is going back to colonialism to leave the act in its present form. I believe that we should state what we mean when we are making amendments to the act. If that is what in actual practice is done, I think the act should so state.
Militia Act


Brooke Claxton: Furthermore, this section is textually taken from the British North America Act and has been copied into the statutes dealing with the armed forces of Canada. It has not embarrassed us in any way; it does not lead to any constitutional or legal difficulty; and we do not believe it has affected our status. Short of changing the British North America Act, it would not be adequate simply to change this bill, even if that course were in order at this time, which I submit it is not. In view of this, I wonder if the hon. member would not feel that, by bringing this to the attention of the government so that it can be considered when a complete revision is undertaken, he has served the purpose he had in mind. Would he not let the matter stand there?


Percy Ellis Wright: I am prepared to do that. That was the object in bringing the amendment forward, so that the government should take it into consideration when they were making a complete revision of the act. It seems to me there are many things in the act which appear to take control out of the hands of parliament with regard to our armed forces and place it in other hands. In practice I know that command has always been with parliament, and we believe it should remain there. I am prepared to withdraw the motion.


Brooke Claxton: Thank you.


William Ross Macdonald: The amendment is withdrawn. Shall section 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Volunteers-exception.
Mr. GILLIS:: I find myself pretty much in the same position as the hon. member for Melfort. We are now dealing with the Militia Act, chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada, and we are 'attempting to amend it. I am not disagreeing with what the minister has in this bill; my objection is to what he does not have in it. Section 3 defines the age of youths who may be taken into the services with the consent of their parents. That is subsection 1 of section 8 of the act. In my opinion, subsection 1 carries with it the same implications as the amendment the hon. member for Melfort just tried to move; that is, if the country is in a state of war the calling up of the Canadian people is completely in the hands of the governor general without any reference to the cabinet or the House of Commons.
I think the requisitioning of human life for any purpose should be the prerogative of the representatives of the Canadian people in this House of Commons. As the minister pointed

out to the hon. member for Melfort, the practice has been that the people of this country were not conscripted for military purposes without reference to this parliament. That is the practice, but it is not the law, and I believe we should be clear and specific about that. If that is the intention of parliament; if it is the intention of the Canadian people; if it is the intention of the government to continue the practice of consulting parliament in matters of that kind, then we should write the laws of Canada so that we shall understand them. We may not always have on the government benches people as liberal-minded and with as much concern for the public as we have at the present time, and we would like to guard against the election of our hon. friends to the right, for instance, who might not consider the wishes of the Canadian people but who might enforce the laws of the country as they are written. I should like to offer a suggestion to the minister also, not in the form of an amendment but just as a suggestion, that at some time in the future, wrhen they are proposing to give the Militia Act a thorough overhauling and build a modern army, section 8 might be considered and these words added to what is already there:
Provided that the governor general, acting by and with the advice of the king's privy council of Canada may, if parliament has passed on act authorizing such action, require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
I suggest that these words be written into section 8 in order to make it clear to the Canadian people that it is the prerogative of the House of Commons to declare if and when human life should be requisitioned for military purposes.


Brooke Claxton: I take it we are both out of order now, but I would say that clause has never been used and I do not think it ever should be used. I would go farther than the hon. member has suggested when we come to write the Militia Act anew and take it right out, so that calling up could be dealt with only by some other means. However, there is this safeguard, if it ever did come to be used; that is, that within fifteen days parliament would have to be called, under section 66.


Mr. MACDOXNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: Am I wrong in thinking that it was laid down in this house not many months ago that all power came from the crown, in any event, and not from the people?


George Randolph Pearkes: In this section reference is made to the enlistment of boys with the consent of the parent or guardian. Is it not

Militia Act
the custom to get the consent of both parents? Should that be "parents" rather than "parent"; and if it is to be the parent, which parent?


Brooke Claxton: Under the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural, but I do not know if it includes both parents. During the war I understand it was the father only or, if he was dead, it was the mother.


George Randolph Pearkes: Are boys being enlisted now?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; but I understand at present only in two classes, the reserve and the C.O.T.C. This has particular regard to the desirability of boys continuing from cadet work into the reserve forces, and also of providing for the training of men in the C.O.T.C.


George Randolph Pearkes: In the active force?


Brooke Claxton: I do not know of any, and I believe there are none.


George Randolph Pearkes: In the permanent force there used to be a certain number of boys enlisted in the ordnance corps so that they might learn a trade, and I was wondering whether that practice is still being followed, because we got some excellent men in the permanent force by that medium.


Brooke Claxton: I am told that we no longer enlist boys. They are enlisted as men and paid as men, in the active forces


George Randolph Pearkes: They are not enlisted before the age of eighteen?
' Mr. CLAXTON: No.
(Translation):


Georges-Henri Héon: Mr. Chairman, would the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lapointe) allow me to ask him a very simple question? It is a matter of interpretation with regard to section 3 and the explanation given on the following page concerning the objects for which one may enrol, the English text uses the word "guardian", while the term "tuteur" appears in the French version. According t-o our civil code, I believe those two words have not quite the same meaning. However, what would happen -this is just an example-in the case of a young man orphaned both of father and mother, who might be entrusted to some institution, let us say the Institution Saint Antoine? Would the "guardian" of that institution have to give his consent? Who would be the "guardian" where there is no "tuteur"?
I am merely seeking information. I have no intention of embarrassing any one, but I do not think that the word "guardian" has the same meaning as the French word "tuteur."


Hugues Lapointe: In the case which my hon. friend has brought up, the superintendent of the institution where that boy lives would be the guardian, that is, the person having the necessary authority.


Georges-Henri Héon: My hon. friend admits that
such a case can arise.


Mr. LESAGE:: Would it not be possible to add, in the French version, the words "tuteur ou gardien"?


Georges-Henri Héon: I am of the same opinion as my hon. friend.
(Text):


Brooke Claxton: We will ask the translators to watch that.


Mr. McKAY:: This section definitely provides for the voluntary enlistment of male persons under the age of eighteen. I understood the minister to say that no boys under the age of eighteen were enlisted now, and of course I accept that, but there does not seem to be anything to prevent the enlistment of boys under the age of eighteen. My point is simply this. I note that in the explanatory note on the opposite page it states:
It is considered desirable in some cases to enlist boys under that age for the purpose of training.
I do not think many of us would have any particular objection to that, but would the minister assure us that there is no intention of sending any of these boys under eighteen years out of Canada on military service.


Brooke Claxton: They are not being
enlisted in the active force at the present time. This applies only to the reserve army and the C.O.T.C., and there is no likelihood of their being sent out of Canada against their will; I do not see any possibility of it.


Eric Bowness McKay: My point is simply this, that the experience in the first world war with boys under eighteen years of age was that they were hardly physically mature enough to carry on in the great majority of cases.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: Oh, nonsense.


Eric Bowness McKay: I said, "in the great majority of cases". If I remember correctly, a battalion of boys under eighteen years was set up in Great Britain and they were held until maturity before they were sent into the regular fighting services. That is a fact which should be given consideration at this time.
In the past war our own experience was that many of these boys who were quite young were scarcely amenable to the discipline of the service. It seems to me that there are plenty
Militia Act

of boys above the age of eighteen years to send out of the country, without sending boys under that age.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I want to tell my hon. friend the member for Weyburn that the finest soldiers in the first great war in the Canadian army were boys under eighteen years of age.


Eric Bowness McKay: Because you happened to be one?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Their services were purely voluntary. I had to cry to get my mother to give me permission to go. Don't tell me that stuff about boys not being physically fit; they were out there fighting.


Eric Bowness McKay: I did not say they were physically unfit. I said they were physically immature; and I am using the words which were expressed to me by a recruiting officer when I tried to enlist in 1018.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You should have come to Vancouver. They took them, out there.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Rinfret):
That this section be amended by adding in the English version the word "tutor" after tne word "parent." and in the French version the words "gardien ou" before the words "tuteur."


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does not the word "guardian" in this section mean a legal guardian who would be appointed? Would "tuteur" have the same legal meaning as "guardian"? We have a guardian appointed by law, who would be in the same position as a parent. But I cannot conceive of a "tuteur" being in the same legal position as a guardian.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: In our civil code in Quebec the translation of "tuteur" is tutor. It is not "guardian". In the French version of this section there is only "gardien".


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member is asking that "guardian" be left in the English version and that "tuteur" be put into the French version.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes, and that "tutor" be added in the English version.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thought the hon. member was including both "tutor" and "guardian" in the English.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Yes, the word "gardien" is not sufficient in the French version.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 4-Exemption from service.
Mr. BLACKMORE:: I would draw the minister's attention to the classification of "clergy and ministers of all religious denominations". Who would define the meaning of "clergy"? There was a good deal of difficulty about this during the recent war, and much uncertainty as to who had authority to define who the clergy should be. Under this act, who has that authority?


Brooke Claxton: This section has never been used. People have never been called up under section 8, and consequently it has never been necessary to use section 9. It is hardly conceivable that it should be used. But if it were to be used, "clergy and ministers of all religious denominations" would follow the ordinary dictionary meaning, I take it.


John Horne Blackmore: The difficulty arose in this way, that any given religion naturally concluded that it had the right to define who among its number constituted the clergy. But there were officials in the department who disagreed, and thought they should be able to define what constituted the clergy in a given religion.


Brooke Claxton: Under this section I think it would be left to the courts.


John Horne Blackmore: If that is so, why was there so much unhappiness among certain people in Canada because people they considered to be clergy were drafted?


Brooke Claxton: I take it that was under the mobilization act passed by parliament.


John Horne Blackmore: What is the good of this act if, as soon as a war is declared, we pass another act which makes entirely different regulations. Did we have a section similar to this in the act under which we fought the recent war?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; when people were called up to serve in that war it was done under legislation passed by parliament during that war. The act was the National Resources Mobilization Act. Then regulations were issued under the act. But no one has been called up under the Militia Act which is now before us, which has been in force since 1868.
(Translation):


Georges-Henri Héon: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring section 4 of the bill to the attention of the house and more especially of my hon. friends from the province of Quebec who sit on the opposite side and, I might add, of whom I think very highly.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: The feeling is mutual.

Militia Act


Georges-Henri Héon: This afternoon, while I was reading the bill now before the house, the amendment I want to introduce occurred to me.
Under section 9 of the Militia Act, "Professors in colleges and universities, and teachers in religious orders" are exempt from liability to service. I submit to my hon. friends- and you will admit that the matter is worth considering-the case of teachers in the primary, secondary and normal schools of our province. It so happens that during the last war, three lay teachers on the staff of a primary school in Saint Philippe d'Argenteuil were called up in one month. As a result, needless to say, school schedules were upset and one school even had to be closed. In addition to the listed categories, would it not be advisable to exempt for the duration of their current contract which, according to the school code, runs for one year, except where special agreements are in effect, teachers employed by the Department of Education.
Should an emergency develop in February or March, necessitating the calling up of teachers in our primary schools-and everyone knows that- they are more numerous than our secondary schools-what would happen if they were called up all at the same time? In all fairness, and without prejudice, I believe that we must take into consideration the plight of our school boards, normal schools and secondary schools in such an emergency.	By
secondary schools, I mean "high schools", because at home, in Lachute, half of the high school staff is made up of male lay teachers who would therefore be called up. I wish, therefore, with the leave of this honourable house to submit the following amendment: "That section 4 be amended by adding the words "and teachers of secondary and primary schools, duly accepted by the appropriate provincial department of education, for the duration of the current school year" after the words "religious orders" at the end af line 45, page 2.
I do not ask for a permanent exemption, but I feel that our school boards should not run the risk of losing a teacher during the school term. Such an amendment would not be unfair since, under our school legislation, teachers are hired for one year only. In order to avoid placing the school boards in an embarrassing situation and possibly depriving children of their education, it would only be fair to grant such teachers an exemption until the end of the school term, that is until June of each year; this would give the school boards four months, that is May, June, July and August, to hire female teachers.
With the permission of the house, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel) the amendment which I have just read. If my hon. friends feel that this amendment is irregular I am prepared to withdraw it, but I should like to know why it cannot be considered.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Mr. Chairman, while the mobilization campaign was going on, during the last war, the cases of two male teachers employed in the primary schools of Quebec city were brought to my attention. I do not know what happened in all cases, but I do know that some of those who were called during the school term had no difficulty in obtaining from their exemption board a deferment until the end of the term. I speak with knowledge. I have no information as to what happened later on, but they secured an exemption, at least for the current year. It was just a matter of procedure.


Georges-Henri Héon: I admit that the hon. member for Montmagny-l'Islet (Mr. Lesage) has stated the facts correctly. Some similar cases have been brought to my attention. However, I must point out that an emergency measure was then in force, the Mobilization Act. We are now discussing the Militia Act.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I understand.


Georges-Henri Héon: I know of one case on which the decision was altogether different from the ruling referred to by my hon. friend.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: Perhaps it was a bad decision.


Georges-Henri Héon: I have no objection to withdrawing the amendment provided it be further considered at a later date, but I wish to emphasize the importance of this situation.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.
(Text):


Georges-Henri Héon: I am prepared to withdraw the amendment if it will unduly retard the business of the committee, but I ask that the subject matter of the amendment be studied carefully.
(Translation):


Brooke Claxton: I feel, Mr. Chairman, that in moving his amendment the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) attaches undue importance to this section of the act. However, his proposal will receive the most earnest consideration when the whole act is up for revision.
Militia Act


Georges-Henri Héon: I thank the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) for his comment, and especially for the courtesy he has shown me by replying in French.
Amendment withdrawn.
(Text):


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to revert to a point raised a moment or two ago. Are we to understand that we are passing an act which will be used only in peace time, that in case of war in all probability an act similar to the National Resources Mobilization Act will be passed? That is what happened during the last war.


Brooke Claxton: As far as calling people up is concerned I am quite sure that the provisions which now exist in this act could not and would not be used. If any such necessity arose some other legislation would have to be passed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Organization of Canadian army.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is one of those sections to which some of us referred yesterday when we said that the bill was giving too great power to both the minister and the governor in council. The result of this would be to create not an army of parliament but an army of the government. This particular section provides that the governor in council shall have certain powers, while other sections provide that the minister shall have certain powers.
I suggest that under this section the control of the army, in fact the whole organization of the army, is being taken out of the hands of parliament and placed in the hands of the governor in council. It is obvious on reading the section that that is the case. Parliament might make provision for organization and administration of the army along certain lines, but under this section- the governor in council could pass contradictory regulations and orders in council and undo the will of parliament. The section immediately following this one brings the point I have in mind out in the open because by that section parliament will surrender to the governor in council the power to say what shall be the term of service during peace.
According to the explanatory notes, the parliament of Canada under the old act laid down just how the army should be organized and I do not see why that power should not be reserved to parliament. Why should we hand over to the governor in. council the right to make all regulations as to organization?

We should draw a distinction between what is proper-administration by order in council- and what is improper-legislation by order in council. I submit that the power to organize the army given here confers the power to legislate. The power to administer is an entirely different matter. The governor in council must have that power.
I think there is contained in section 5 a principle which we should not sanction and I ask the minister to explain why he has not used the words "administration of the Canadian army" rather than "organization of the Canadian army". I think "organization" is the wrong word to use here because it gives the governor in council the power to legislate and undo what parliament has done.


Brooke Claxton: I have the greatest respect for parliament, but I doubt if parliament would like to be entrusted with the work of organizing the Canadian army. I do not think that is a proper function of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What does the minister mean by "organization"?


Brooke Claxton: That means the major establishment of corps, divisions, commands and brigades and setting the main characteristics of the army. It refers also to their relations to each other.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not altogether agree and I direct the attention of the minister to the explanatory note. The old section laid down the principles by which the army should be organized and the minister did n-ot have the power to depart from those principles. He had the power to make detailed regulations as to the administration of the army on the basis of the legislation passed by parliament. I submit it is a dangerous principle to allow the organization to rest in the hands of the minister.
We have said in effect that the army shall consist of an active force and a reserve force. That is organization. If we give to the governor in council the power to organize, the governor in council can say that the army shall not consist of an active and a reserve force but shall be all active or all reserve. That is what organization means. I most certainly think the word "organization" should be changed to "administration". I should like to hear some better explanation from the minister before I change my mind. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, that the word "organization" where it appears in the proposed new section 14 be deleted and the word "administration" substituted therefor.

Militia Act


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: In addition to what the
hon. member for Kamloops has said, if hon. gentlemen will look at the explanatory notes comparing the old section 14 with the new they will see that the old section dealt with two types of military forces which can be raised in the country and with the manner of their raising. But the new section 14 is very general in its terms, dealing with the whole organization.
Again, section 8 proposes a new section 20 in the act, which we find is more similar to the old section 14 than the proposed new section 14, because the new section 20 deals with the maximum number of personnel of the Canadian army and of each rank or trade group therein which is to be laid down from time to time by the governor in council, and it is stated that the army shall consist of such units as shall be named by the minister. This new section 20 really seems to be the one that should really replace the old section 14. I would ask the minister to state why the amendment should not carry and, second, why we need this new section 14 at all because it seems to be incorporated in the new section 20.


Brooke Claxton: The reason for the proposed new section 14 is, as I stated before, that it was felt desirable that the major organization, the characteristic corps, brigades, number of divisions and all major matters of that kind, should be dealt with by the governor in council as a matter of major policy and not be dealt with as a matter of administration by either the minister, if it comes within his power, or by the various military commanders if it comes within their scope. It was because this was regarded as a matter of major importance that it was put into this form, so that the power of dealing with the organization of the Canadian army shall rest with the governor in council, rather than within the power of the minister or of a military commander. I hope, in view of that explanation, my learned friends will not press their amendment because the word "administration" means something quite different.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I realize that, and that is why I moved the amendment. Administration is so different from organization that I did not feel it was proper to give what I regard as purely a legislative function to the governor in council. I think the proper place for the provision which the minister has in mind would be under section 7 which proposes a new section 19 of the act, where power is given to the governor in council to lay down commands and headquarters of commands and to change them from time to time. If the power which the minister is now seeking were
limited in that way and put in as a new section 19 or perhaps 19A there would be no objection, if the power were specifically restricted to the power to make changes within formations. But merely to use the word "organization," is giving far too wide a power because, as I pointed out, under section 9, which creates a new section 22, parliament itself lays down what shall be the organization of the Canadian army. I do not think the minister will quarrel with that interpretation. I suggest that there is no use in parliament laying down what shall be the organization if the minister reserves to the governor in council the power to change that organization. If the minister will restrict the sphere within which the governor in council may have power to organize I will withdraw my amendment.


Brooke Claxton: The suggestion that the new section 22 confers upon parliament any right to determine the organization of the army surely cannot be seriously pressed for a second by the hon. member. All that that section does is to provide that there shall be a ceiling on the active force. It says that the active force shall not consist of more than so many men, and we are going to amend that so that the number will actually be stated there. But that has nothing to do with organization. It just imposes a ceiling. I hope I have not correctly understood the hon. member to suggest that parliament is the place where the active force should be organized. I submit with some confidence to this house that parliament does not want to be charged with the task of organizing the army. It is not the place to do it. What is involved here is a description of the corps, how many divisions and that kind of technical thing, which parliament, I am sure, would not like to see itself take up its time with. In view of this explanation I hope that the hon. member will not press his amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In view of what the minister has said, I think there is probably good ground for not pressing the amendment. I should like to point out that I had not intended to imply that the proposed section 22 organizes the army. What I am saying is simply that here is a sample of a section which does describe the organization of the army; another sample section which describes the organization is new section 19. That was my point. It gives to the governor in council the power to make regulations within that specific sphere. What I had in mind was that section 5, new section 14, gives to the governor in council the power, if he wished, to change what parliament has laid down as the basic organization of the
Militia Act

army. I should like to have a confirmation of this from the minister. On the assumption that by the word "organization" he means no more than the laying down of how many brigades there shall be, how many battalions in the brigade and so on, I shall have no hesitation in withdrawing the amendment. I should like assurance on that because that is the point I wish to urge.


Brooke Claxton: That is what I have said, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I withdraw the amendment.


William Ross Macdonald: Does the committee agree- to the hon. member withdrawing his amendment?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. BLACIvMORE: I should like to ask a question to clarify a problem in my own mind. I notice that in the explanations the following appears:
Section fourteen of the act presently reads as follows.
And there follow statements which indicate that the voluntary system was to be used, I notice that there is no mention of the words "voluntary system" in the section as it is now proposed. Would that be by design or by accident? Does the wording of the proposed section imply that conscription is the accepted method of organizing the Canadian army?


Brooke Claxton: Apart from the provision of section S which I think we have referred to before, there is no possibility of the active or reserve forces of the Canadian army being other than voluntary.


George Randolph Pearkes: Surely that is covered by sections 8 and 9 where the authority is given for the organization of the Canadian army. If not, if a clearer definition is required the addition of the word "units" in the newly amended section 20 would cover the whole subject.


Brooke Claxton: Section 8, which would amend section 20, deals with the maximum number of personnel, and then, later on, with units. It does not deal with organization in the sense that I have described to the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the words "or formation" were added to new section 20, subsection 2, paragraph (a), would it not cover what the minister has in mind, and make it quite clear that the governor in council shall have the power to organize within the meaning of the words which the minister has used, namely, units or formations?


Brooke Claxton: The power to organize as set out here does not consist only of describing the corps, divisions, brigades and units, it also consists of describing their relationship and how they function.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You do that when you lay down a formation.


Brooke Claxton: A formation is a perfectly static thing on paper until it is made to work in relation to other things.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Or until the minister changes the formation, and this gives him the power to make it flexible. I have withdrawn my amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I think the minister must recognize the point we have in mind. We do not want to give the governor in council power to change something laid down by parliament. That is the danger we see in section 5, and it is a perfectly good point. They never had such power under the old act; they are bringing in something entirely new here. We are now suggesting that the minister could get the same power by a small amendment to a section of the act. I think the minister should give some consideration to that point before he asks us to pass section 5.


Brooke Claxton: ' They have always had the power before. Under section 139 as it now stands:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying this act into effect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Administrative regulations.


Brooke Claxton: Let me read the rest of it. My hon. friend should hear what follows. It is as follows:
The governor in council may make regulations for carrying -this act into effect, for the organization, discipline, efficiency . . .
And so on. It expressly says that the governor in council may make regulations for carrying this act into effect, for the organization, and so forth. The reason why "organization" is taken out of section 139 is to make it clear that "organization" must be dealt with by the governor in council and not by the minister.


John Horne Blackmore: When I asked the minister whether or not section 5 as it is proposed to amend it meant that we might have conscription in Canada without any further action by parliament, I understood the minister to say that section 8 made it impossible for Canada to use any method other than the voluntary one. I am unable to find in section 8 any words which would indicate that. Would the minister mind pointing out

Militia Act
where in section 8 as proposed it is obligatory on the Canadian government to use only the voluntary method?


Brooke Claxton: I will try to make the situation clear to my hon. friend. Section fi has no bearing whatever on the question of voluntary or non-voluntary service. It makes no change in the existing situation; it has nothing to do with it. The kind of army we envisage as being raised in virtue of this legislation is entirely a voluntary one.


John Horne Blackmore: What I am looking for in the bill is something which says that.


Brooke Claxton: There is no provision in the bill for compulsion.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall section 5 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Six o'clock.
Section stands.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
(Translation):


Mr. HAMEL:: I wish to say a few words about section 5. I realize that, when in committee of the whole, we have to limit our remarks to the section being considered; however, as the scope of this section has an extremely wide scope, I believe it will permit me to discuss with sufficient thoroughness the question I would like to submit to the house. The objects of section 5 are twofold: first, fully to entrust the organization of the Canadian army to the governor in council; second, to remove section 14 from the Act. What was the purport of section 14 of the Militia Act which is to disappear? It was worded as follows:
14. The militia of Canada shall be divided into active and reserve militia.
2.	The active militia shall consist of,
(a) corps raised by voluntary enlistment;
(b) corps raised by ballot.
3.	The reserve militia shall be raised and maintained under regulations prescribed by the governor in council.
To remove section 14, is, for all practical purposes, to abolish the distinction between the active army and the reserve army. The upshot will be that Canada will have a single army, the Canadian army as defined in paragraph b of section 2, which is as follows:
"Canadian army" means all the military forces of Canada other than the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force and the reserves thereof.
And to show that we are really doing away with the reserve army, it will be noted that on several occasions the word "reserve" was deleted. As to the army, the Royal Air Force or Royal Navy, they all remain, but in connection with the army, the reserve does not enter into the picture. May be called upon to serve in the militia, according to section 8 of the act which reads as follows: All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt
It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if there are in Canada three million men between 18 and 60 years, they will not all be called under arms at the same time. However, they are all liable to be called, and as soon as they are called, by lot or otherwise, they form part of the active army, and become subject to the requirements of the present active army as they were to those of the active militia which are being done away with.
In granting the governor general power to organize as he sees fit the Canadian army, and by reason of the fact that we abolish at the same time, to all intents and purposes, the distinction between active army and reserve army, he is given the power to enrol or call under arms, in peace time as well as war time, all the men of Canada between the ages of 18 and 60.
To those who claim that my interpretation is wrong I say read again paragraph (b) of section 2 and you will see that I am right.


Hugues Lapointe: Not at all.


René Hamel: Read section 47 of the
Militia Act. Any man who has been called, enlisted or drafted belongs to the active army and may be called upon to serve anywhere within or without the country, in peace time or in war time.


Hugues Lapointe: That is wrong.


René Hamel: I say that section 5 empowers the governor in council to enforce in peace time as in war time the most absolute and radical form of conscription which any government can devise. I am convinced that no government-


Hugues Lapointe: May I ask the hon. member on what grounds he makes that statement? I heard him mention a section, but I am not sure which one it was.


René Hamel: My statement was based on section 5 along with the other sections of the bill. I say that the organization of the army is entrusted to the governor in council, to whom every authority is given.
Militia Act


Hugues Lapointe: What other sections did you quote?


René Hamel: Section 47 of the act.


Hugues Lapointe: That is not in the act.


Mr. RINFRET:: Not at all.


René Hamel: Read section 47 of the
act. In the bill now before the house, section 16 refers to it.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That deals only with
training.


René Hamel: Mr. Chairman, I submit that no government whatsoever, and not even the Russian, German or Hitler regime, could work out a total conscription system of a more drastic character.
I should be guilty of treason if I did not object as strongly as I can to the passing of the bill and more especially of section 5; in fact, I should be ashamed to go back to my constituency.


Hugues Lapointe: Perhaps there is some
confusion in the mind of the hon. member. What was commonly known to us as the reserve army and officially designated as non-permanent active militia was never mentioned in the Militia Act. The reserve army was part of the active militia. Under section 139 of the Militia Act which authorized the governor in council to draw up all necessary regulations dealing with "the organization, discipline or good administration" of the army.
The king's regulations and orders were drawn up and applied to all non-permanent forces, and the active militia was divided into permanent and non-permanent forces. They existed under section 1 of the king's regulations and orders and not under the Militia Act, especially not under section 14. That which my hon. friend finds in the old section 14 is called "the reserve militia", which is not the same thing as the non-permanent force. What used to be the non-permanent force is now the reserve army. The governor in council was authorized to call up and organize that force, known as reserve militia, but never did so. When the Canadian army as it now exists was renamed it was designated as the active army and the reserve army under section 139 which was and is still in force. The said section is still in force and authorized the governor in council to control, administer, and organize the army. In fact, section 1 of the king's regulations and orders has simply been amended or changed. As regards the permanent force and the non-

permanent force the section states that the Canadian army consists of the active force, a field force, a brigade group, as was mentioned last year, and the reserve force. It corresponds exactly, under a new name, to the non-permanent active militia which existed before the war. The reserve force is in no way abolished, as my hon. friend believes. It will continue as before.
There is another point that I would like to stress. My hon. friend claims that under section 5, in repealing section 14 and replacing it by the new provision set out in the bill we are authorizing the governor in council to pass drastic measures after the manner of Hitler. I would point out to him that there is no connection whatever between former section 14 and the new provision. Former section 14 is repealed. It had become obsolete and impractical. The new section has been introduced- in order to facilitate an efficient reorganization of our militia. The new section bears the same number as the provision which is being repealed, but this is purely coincidental. It is not supposed to serve the same purpose as former section 14.


René Hamel: Does the reserve army
actually exist?


Hugues Lapointe: Certainly.


René Hamel: What units does it include?


Hugues Lapointe: All reserve regiments, which formerly made up the non-permanent force. I could give the hon. member the name of several regiments if he wishes.


René Hamel: Would it be proper to say that the reserve forces now include all male citizens from eighteen to sixty years of age?


Hugues Lapointe: No. The present reserve forces, known as the reserve army, include all regiments designated by the governor in council as being part of the regular reserve army. It is a service in which men volunteer for a fixed period, as was the case before the war. There is in fact no real change.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: I am afraid that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Hamel) is under some misapprehension with regard to the purpose of the bill. In my estimation it is a bill of which we should be proud as its chief purpose is to replace the words "Canadian army" by the words "Canadian militia". The term militia just as aptly applies to an army or any organized unit within a non-sovereign state. In the United States, for instance, it applies to the forces of the various states, because they are not sovereign. The American army is that. . . .

Militia Act


Mr. HACKETT:: The states are sovereign.


Joseph Arthur Lesage: . . . which is established by the federal government in Washington. I feel therefore that discarding the term Canadian militia in favour of Canadian army removes the suggestion of colonialism.
As for the concern voiced by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche over section 47, it must be remembered that the new section 47 simply states that:
The governor in council may order the Canadian army or any units thereof to drill or train for such period in each year as he may prescribe.
Which means that at a given period of the year the governor in council may prescribe that a certain artillery reserve or active force regiment must go into training at Petawawa from such a date to such a date. That is what it means. Training, not active service. That is all it means, nothing more. Now as to the last fear expressed by the hon. member, I am convinced that he cannot help thinking that conscription could be imposed in time of peace. I respectfully submit that if he would read this bill, together with the king's regulations and orders in so far as they apply to the Canadian army, he will see that in order to join the Canadian army, one must enlist voluntarily. Thus, if my friend still has any doubts in this respect, I see no objection why these words would not appear in section 9 of the bill, amending section 22 of the act. I can see no objection to adding here the words "and men voluntarily enrolled," in the English version, and the words "du nombre d'ofiiciers et d'hommes enroles volontairement", in the French text. In my opinion, that would dispel any misgivings or doubts which my hon. friend may have and which,-happily for him, -are mere fancy.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
(Text):
On section 6-Period of service.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would the minister tell us why it was found necessary to reserve the period of service in the army to be determined by the governor in council, instead of carrying on the practice, which apparently has existed ever since the Militia Act came into existence, of having it fixed in the act?


Brooke Claxton: It is fixed in the act by section 15 in the following words:
The period of service in time of peace shall be,
(a)	for the active militia, three years;
(b)	for the reserve militia, such period as is prescribed.
It will be noticedi that power is given the governor in council to fix the period of service for the reserve militia, and the only period specifically fixed in section 15 is the three-year period for the active militia. Consideration is being given to the desirability of taking on a certain proportion of the active force for a longer period than three years. It is well known that most members of the permanent force actually serve for more than three years; and if they are willing voluntarily to offer themselves for a period longer than three years it would seem to be in their interest as well as in the interests of the country that they should be enlisted for a longer period and given the security which comes from having a longer period of enlistment, while from the point of view of the service there would be greater certainty of continuity. For that reason this change, which applies only to the active force, all of which must be enlisted voluntarily, is suggested as being useful.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: What period has the minister in mind?


Brooke Claxton: Five years is the period being considered.


Alan Cockeram: May I suggest that he put that five-year period in, and stop this kidding of the people about length of service. Can he tell us whether or not it is his intention to put the five years in?


Brooke Claxton: This is a voluntary act by the man himself. If he is prepared to sign for five years, and he signs for that length of time, why should he not be permitted to do so, if it is the view of the army authorities that that is a good period to choose? The next year it might be considered that six years was a good time, or possibly four years. I can see no objection to that.


Alan Cockeram: I can see a definite objection. I know this has happened in the past; and some time when the estimates for the Department of National Defence are being considered, I propose to ask the minister how many men have been taken into the interim force in the last eighteen months, and have been let out for various reasons. I suggest to the minister that there should be a definite time limit. Is a man to be enlisted in the services today, and be able to get out in six months; or can he get out in a year or two years? Is -it his will that governs, once he gets in? What kind of army will you have if you have not set down, 100 per cent, a definite term of service?
Money is to be spent on it, and I say, if you are to have a five-year term of service, then let us know it is to be five years. If it is to be
Militia Act

a two-year term of service, let us know it is to be two years, and let us insert in the act what the term of service will be for a man serving in the forces.


Brooke Claxton: As the hon. member surely ought to know, this has nothing whatever to do with the interim force.


Alan Cockeram: Why has it not?


Brooke Claxton: Why should it have? Here wre are dealing with the active and the reserve armies, not with the interim force.


Alan Cockeram: You are dealing with
the active army?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Alan Cockeram: I suggest that the minister is trying to have regulations dealing with the active army, and that there is to be no definite term of service. Therefore there is insecurity for the man, insecurity for the service and insecurity for the public who are paying the money. Consequently I say that in this act there should be a definite term of service.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has brought up something about the interim force. The arrangement with regard to the interim force was that it wouild terminate on September 30, 1947, and that arrangement is being carried out. But this provision, as the hon member must know, on reading it, has nothing whatever to do with the interim force.


Alan Cockeram: Mr. Chairman, the minister is putting words into my mouth. The point is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, Oh.


Alan Cockeram: Oh, all right; you fellows don't like it, so you can make all the noise you like. I don't need to take a lesson from you fellows over there about this, anyway.
We are setting up a force; and because I used the expression "interim force" the minister has turned my words around. He knows I am talking about the men who are to be permanently stationed in the army, men who will make the army their livelihood. I want to know what term of service will be set up for those men-not today or tomorrow.


Brooke Claxton: At the present time the term of service for which men have voluntarily signed on in the active army is three years.


Alan Cockeram: Then why not insert
it in the act?


Brooke Claxton: Because it is proposed to enlist some men for five years. That gives them more security.


Alan Cockeram: Then I suggest that
if it is proposed to take some men for five years there should be a proviso in the act stating that certain men will be in for five years.


Brooke Claxton: And how many of them? How will that be provided in an act of parliament?


Alan Cockeram: That is your business- to find out how to do it. It is not mine.


Brooke Claxton: We like this way of doing it.


Mr. HARKNESS:: I understood the minister to say that this section applies only to members of the permanent force.


Brooke Claxton: No, I did not say that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am sorry; I understood that.


Brooke Claxton: No.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that is not so, or if it applies to both the reserve and the permanent forces, may I ask the term of service so far as the reserve army is concerned, if one has been set.


Brooke Claxton: Three years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In other words, the
three years which prevailed before will continue?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: In that event I suggest that should be put into the act, and made definite, so that civilians, who are in a rather different position from permanent soldiers, may know definitely, when they sign their attestation papers, they have signed on for the normal period of three years, unless under a later provision they may get out on six months' notice.


Brooke Claxton: It is in the attestation
papers that they sign. As I said before, this proposed change does not make any change with regard to the reserve army, because the period of service in the reserve army previously was fixed by the governor in council. That is left just as it is.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It was fixed at three
years.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. IRVINE:: I should like to ask a
question in respect of those who may sign up for three or five years, as the case may be. Let us suppose that a young man who seeks to make the army his life's work signs up for one of those periods. Has he any assurance

Militia Act
that at the end of that time he will be permitted to sign up again, provided that he is healthy and fit?


Brooke Claxton: There is no assurance;
provided that a man is physically fit and is willing to continue his service, the ordinary rule is that he is carried on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Do I understand from the minister, then, that we shall have men in the army who have two different terms of service, some for three years and some for five years?


Brooke Claxton: Yes; that is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is that contemplated?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will that not make for confusion?


Brooke Claxton: Not at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the man who wishes to join the army, but who wants to know whether he is joining for three years or five years?


Brooke Claxton: He will know when he signs up.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What about the civilian who is contemplating joining the army, and wants to know whether he will fall into the five-year or the three-year category? It seems to us that it is a dangerous precedent to permit the governor in council to have the power in time of peace to change the period of service in the armed forces. It also seems to us that they should be able to make up their minds in advance as to the best length of time for a man to serve, so that all people who are considering this type of career will know exactly where they stand.
What are the reasons which are influencing the minister or his advisers in coming to the decision that a five-year term is desirable, and why have they not yet been able to make up their minds, so that it might be written into the act?


Brooke Claxton: As I said before, the reason is that it is considered desirable that we should be in a position to offer to a man the term of service that seems appropriate, in the interests of the service, at the time when the offer is made. At the present time it is three years because that is the limit fixed in the act for both active army and reserve army. It is being considered that five years would be a more desirable term but that has not been definitely decided.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it thought by the army authorities that they will find it easier to enlist men if there is this flexibility as to the term of service?


Brooke Claxton: I think the primary consideration is the interest of the service, although there is undoubtedly combined with it the interest of the man. He will have a greater feeling of security and more confidence in its being a career. In that way undoubtedly it would assist in recruiting.


Howard Charles Green: There is a principle at stake here, the control of parliament over the active forces. As I understand the law, at the present time enlistment in what is known as the active militia must be for three years. That means that parliament has direct control over the period of service in the active militia. If the difficulty is that the department is not quite sure whether it will want this type of soldier for five years and that type for only three, why not put in a provision that the term of service shall be for a maximum of five years? That would retain the control of parliament over the maximum period of service and it would give the department some scope. It is a serious thing to take away that control from parliament and it has been changes of this kind that have caused most of the trouble in getting this bill through the house. I see no reason why parliament should be deprived of this particular control.


Brooke Claxton: In what way would it be desirable that the period be fixed as a maximum? I do not see the advantage of that.


Howard Charles Green: The way the new bill is worded you would be able to enlist a man for seven years, for ten years or for fifteen years. That may or may not be desirable. I do not think this change should be made without the approval of parliament. If you had a maximum of five years you would not be taking the control away from parliament.


Brooke Claxton: I cannot see what the advantage would be.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister allow the section to stand and give this matter further consideration?


Brooke Claxton: I must say that I do not see any advantage in the suggestion, and I must say equally that I do not see any objection, except that it might give the impression to the men that they could not be reengaged for more than five years.


Howard Charles Green: That would not be so because, as the act now reads, there is a three-year limitation and the man knows he can reenlist. The difficulty here is that you are taking the
Militia Act

control away from parliament. We are in peace time and parliament should control these matters wherever possible. I realize that in some cases there must be some control by the department or preferably by the governor in council, but here you are taking away from parliament control which you do not have to take away. I suggest that the minister allow this particular section to stand and give it further consideration.


Brooke Claxton: I do not see how the control of parliament would affect this situation, either for or against. It seems to me that this is not a question of great principle or moment. It is not as though we were imposing restrictions on the term of service in the army as was done with the German army after world war I when it was limited to a long-term army. There is no such question involved here and it seems to me that the service requirements are the ones which should prevail. I do mot see any real purpose to be gained by imposing a limitation. If the hon. member really presses it I shall certainly give the matter consideration and discuss it with the officers.


Howard Charles Green: There is another factor to be considered. Under the amendment the governor in council could authorize enlistment for only one or two years. In that case the country would be losing because we have an investment in these men. They are trained and they are more valuable soldiers at the end of three or four years than at the end of one year.
Too wide powers are being given to the governor in council in this case. I suggest that, in so far as the men on full-time duty in the active force are concerned, parliament should set the time. It could be either three years or five years; there could be two alternate periods, but it is not right just to say that the governor in council may decide that a man can enlist for six months or six years or ten years. It is going too far. I ask the minister in all earnestness to give further consideration to this particular question.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to.


John Oliver Probe: At the time of enlistment in the Canadian army I take it that a man signs some form of contract with the government of Canada or the Department ol National Defence, wherein he and the government know there is a term of service of three or five years, as the case may be. Both parties to the contract are fully aware of that condition at the time of signature. Am I to understand from section 17 that the man would be

permitted to break that contract, except in the case of an emergency such as a war, by giving six months' notice to his commanding officer?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


John Oliver Probe: Let us look at the matter from the other angle. Under what conditions may the government dispense with the services of that man before the three or five-year period is up? Is there a tacit obligation on the government to continue to retain that man in the service if he wishes to remain until the end of his first period of engagement or until a time when his services in a military way no longer would be required? May we have a brief statement on that phase of that question?


Brooke Claxton: A man may withdraw from any unit of the Canadian army on giving notice in accordance with both the old and the proposed section 17. However, in. accordance with the king's regulations and orders for the Canadian army he must, in addition, pay a sum of money related to the months of service which he has still to serve on his period of enlistment as set out in his attestation.


John Oliver Probe: That is a condition of his attestation?


Mr. MacNICOL:: He has to buy himself out.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Then, as regards the separation of a man from the army at the request of the crown, that, can be done at any time. A man can be discharged.


John Oliver Probe: Is the general principle this, that if there is an adverse report on the soldier his commanding officer may recommend his dismissal? What about completing his term of service?


Brooke Claxton: There is a regulation providing for discharge for various reasons.


George Randolph Pearkes: A pertinent point has been raised by the hon. member for Regina City. It has worked a great hardship on many oi the men who had enlisted in the now active force or in the permanent forces of the crown, and it is being applied in a particularly vicious manner at the present time when there is a large number of permanent force noncommissioned officers and men who have served for a long number of years in the old permanent force, men who served with distinction during this war, some of them receiving promotion to the rank of commissioned officers, and they are now being told that their services are no longer required. They are being let out when they are within sight

of the goal for which they have been striving namely, to get a pension as a result of twenty years of service. There are men today who have given fifteen, sixteen, eighteen and nineteen years of service in the permanent force and who are now being compulsorily discharged and are not being allowed to complete only six months more of service in some cases in order to entitle them to a permanent force pension, which they have served all these years in the hope of obtaining. They are not being discharged because they are inefficient, for they have the highest recommendations from the officers under whom they have-served. They are being discharged solely for the reason that His Majesty has no further use for their services. These are not satisfactory conditions. When a man who joins the permanent force is asked to sign a contract-t-hat he will serve for three years and has to pay a certain sum of money if he breaks that contract, I think a similar obligation rests on the government if the government breaks its contract with that man.


Mr. MITCHELL:: May I ask my hon. friend this question? He knows about buying out of the service.


George Randolph Pearkes: I bought out of the government service myself. I know all about it.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend knows about it perhaps better than I do. He knows that the principle of buying out of the service exists in Great Britain to this day. My hon. friend must know that in the last war the policy which has been set in motion by this government was set in motion by the British government.


Denton Massey: That does not make it right.


Alan Cockeram: That is not the point.


Humphrey Mitchell: I was in the British navy myself and I know something about buying out. I think I know something about pensions too, and something about the industrial life of this country, and when an industry contracts-


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; are we not discussing a particular bill?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am quite familiar with the circumstances of buying out of the government service because, when I volunteered to go over in world war I, it was necessary for me to purchase my discharge from another government service. Therefore I am familiar with the conditions. All I am saying is that if the government imposes those conditions on a man, a similar obligation rests upon the government.
Militia Act


René Hamel: I want to direct a few questions to the minister. What is the meaning of "Canadian army" as referred to in section 15? How is the army to be recruited? Is it to be on a voluntary basis only or not? If this bill is enacted, will the governor in council-I ask for a yes or no answer-have power to call for service for a certain period the male citizens of Canada from eighteen to sixty years of age, or any of them?


Brooke Claxton: The Canadian army is defined by paragraph (b) of section 2 as it will be amended if this bill passes. "Canadian army" means:
. . . all the military forces of Canada other than the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force and the reserves thereof.
It means in fact the active army and the reserve army. The active army consists of those full-time soldiers who have voluntarily enlisted for the period of their service, and the reserve army means those part-time soldiers who voluntarily enlisted for the period of their service. Both are voluntary enlistments and either may withdraw at the end of six months in peace time.
In reply to my hon. friend's final question, there is no change made in the existing position by this bill.


René Hamel: That is not the answer I expected. My question was this. If this bill is enacted, will the governor in council have power-yes or no; only a very short answer is required-to call for service for a certain period the male citizens of Canada from eighteen to sixty years of age, or any of them? The only answer can be yes or no.


Brooke Claxton: If there is a levee en masse as provided for in section 8 of the act, which has been in effect since 1868, and has never been used, that may be done.


René Hamel: The answer is yes.


William Irvine: I have not yet heard the minister's answer to the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I do not think there is much use in our suggesting improvements in the section if no attention is paid to suggestions that are made. If there is this grievance on the part of the men 'as pointed out by the hon. member for Nanaimo, and if it can be removed, let us remove it.


Brooke Claxton: I thought the hon. member for Nanaimo was making a speech and not asking a question, but if it was a question and if an answer is required I would say that I am informed that the only reasons for which men have been released from the active army-are age, medical unfitness or inefficiency. If
>44
Militia Act

there are any who have been released for any other reasons that are not covered by the regulations, then I would be very glad to have the hon. member or anyone else call these cases to my attention, because I am assured that there are not any. There is a considerable number of men in the active army who continued their service throughout the war and who now wish to be retired, or who have reached the age or the condition of medical fitness when they need to be retired. If there are any who have been improperly retired, then I should be glad to look into the cases and see that any necessary action is taken.
I should add that persons who have over ten years permanent service are now pensionable under part V of the Militia Pension Act as it was changed last year.


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be pleased to supply the minister with at least one name of a warrant officer in the old permanent force who is being discharged not because he is inefficient, not because he is medically unfit and not because he has reached the age of retirement.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to hear of that single case and will look into it.


Alan Cockeram: There is a section under which we operated during the war-and I might say that the government took great advantage of it-under which, if an officer or a man had no job, he was put out, and the minister is well aware of that. Are there not many officers and men being put out of the army today under that section?


Brooke Claxton: None.


Alan Cockeram: I refer to the phrase "no suitable employment"; I think I am right. I wish the minister would answer my question.


Brooke Claxton: I said "none", I should think sufficiently audibly for the hon. member to hear if he was listening.


Denton Massey: Will the minister say that the army is different in that respect from the air force or the navy? Is the army unique in this extraordinary position? Some of us know perfectly well that there were men in the R.C.A.F. whose services were no longer required'-period. That had nothing to do with the physical fitness, nothing to do with inefficiency, nothing to do with age; their services were no longer required.


Brooke Claxton: Of course that happened in the air force in which, as everyone knows, there was a great surplus of flying personnel at

one stage of the war. The provisions with regard to discharge in the navy, army and air force are quite different.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, if I am still in order and I trust I am, in regard to the R.C.A.E., at the conclusion of hostilities and shortly subsequent to V-J day, in the complete absence of any policy in regard to the force that was to be formed as a permanent force there were hundreds of worth-while and worthy young men whose great ambition it was to make the R.C.A.F. their career, who, as a result of the absence of policy as laid down by this government, went out on civvy street and are still there. There was no force at that time other than the war force, whether the same thing has happened in the army or not. Good men have been lost to the army as a result of that. I should like the minister to comment in that regard.


Colin William George Gibson: I wish to take an objection to the remarks of the hon. member that there was no policy in the air force. The policy was announced immediately after the war. The permanent force was set up on a definite basis, and the men who were kept in the permanent force were kept on the basis of the establishment which had been set up.


Denton Massey: I do not wish to get into a debate with the former minister of national defence for air; nor do I wish to use information which I have as a result of active service. I simply should like to say to him that, as a result of being a commanding officer of a release centre in those days, I cannot subscribe to his statement.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Howard Charles Green: The minister undertook to allow this section to stand.


Brooke Claxton: I ask that the amendment to paragraph 15 be allowed to stand.


René Hamel: I wish to ask a question on paragraph 18. It refers to two kinds of soldiers, first, those' who have voluntarily enlisted and, second, those who have been called upon to serve in the Canadian army. First, what is meant by those who have been called upon to serve?


Brooke Claxton: Those are the same people who have never been called under section 8.


William Ross Macdonald: Does section 6 with the exception of paragraph 15 carry?
Section agreed to with the exception of paragraph 15.

Militia Act
On section 7-Commands.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Carried.


Arthur Leroy Smith: This is not going to carry quite so quickly as the minister seems to think. Last evening I asked the Minister of National Defence a question. I wish to know under what authority military district 13 has been abolished. He was very kind to me. He read this section of the bill as printed, and I am going to read it back to him because he may be one of those people who learn better by hearing than by looking. I want his opinion after I have finished. The section reads:
19. The governor in council may,
(a)	direct that any portion of Canada shall
be a military district for the purposes of this act, and may alter the limits of any such district;	_
(b)	cause two or more districts to be grouped together for the purposes of command and administration; and
(c)	divide any military districts into subdistricts, brigade, regimental and company divisions, as appears expedient.
Then, in the explanatory note underneath, we find the following;
It is proposed to abolish the present division of Canada into military districts and to organize the country into military commands which may be divided into areas. The proposed amendment reflects this change.
I point out, sir, that the bill which we have before us states that the government proposes to do something which has already been done and completely done. Having read the act, I ask the minister under what authority military district No. 13 was abolished, and under what authority the present commands have been set up. Before he answers, may I repeat the gratuitous advice I gave him last night, that there is no authority for the changes which have already been made. We can now disagree again but I want to affirm the opinion I expressed at that time.


Brooke Claxton: The authority is in the section of the Militia Act just read by the hon. member, which is section 19. I will read it again:
The governor in council may,
(a)	direct that any portion of Canada shall be a military district for the purposes of this Act, and may alter the limits of any such district;
(b)	cause two or more districts to be grouped together for the purposes of command and administration; and
(c)	divide any military districts into subdistricts, brigade, regimental and company divisions, as appears expedient.
On January 11, 1946, the governor in council approved an order setting up the reallocation of military districts, grouping them together for the purposes of command and administration under five commands. One of them included the western command, British Columbia, Alberta, northwest territories, the Yhikon -military districts Nos. 11 and 13 and northwest territories and Yukon. That was pursuant to the statute. It gave effect to it, and it was in accordance with the authority conferred by the statute.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How then do you explain this? Here we are speaking in 1947, on St. Valentine's day, I believe it is. In any event, it is February 14, and you say this: "It is proposed to abolish the present division, of Canada into military districts." Am I right that you had already done that on January 11?


Brooke Claxton: No. We had grouped them together preparatory to making them into commands.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. You did away completely with the district organization. In other words, your commanding officer in district No. 13 is now administrative officer in command and military district No. 13 is as dead as last year's snow, is it not?


Brooke Claxton: No. There is still a district officer commanding each district.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Brooke Claxton: Y'es.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think the minister had better get some better advice than that. Think that over again. Who is he in military district No. 13, for example? Colonel Snow was there. I will help out the minister. Prior to Colonel Snow there was Harvey.


Brooke Claxton: It is Major-General
Worthington.


George Randolph Pearkes: Oh, no.


Arthur Leroy Smith: He is in charge of the command. Military district No. 13 is dead. I think the officials in front of the minister will tell you that.


Brooke Claxton: He is also general officer commanding military district No. 13.


Arthur Leroy Smith: All right. Then I am asking the minister to produce the documents by which these things have been done. They were not done by word of mouth. I am not much of a gambler, but I will bet a little money that the minister cannot produce them, because I do not think they existed.
Militia Act


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member can keep on saying, after I have referred to the order in council, that I cannot produce it and that he does not think it existed.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I did not mean to be offensive. May I assure the hon. gentleman that I speak to him with the greatest of respect and deference, and I did not intend anything else. I merely thought he was taking in a little too much territory when he told me what was in this order in council. That is a fair statement and not very severe criticism, and the production of the document itself will prove either that he is wholly right or that my vile suspicions perhaps were entirely unfounded. I want to ask if the military headquarters in Calgary has been sold?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The minister has written letters to the Calgary board of trade and the hon. member for Calgary East stating that this move was made for economic and strategic reasons. I fully realize that I am not in a position to discuss strategic reasons. They may be first place secret documents, or something of that kind, or the ideas even may be secret. But will the minister explain to us what the gains were on the economic side of the picture in moving the command headquarters from Calgary to Edmonton? While we are waiting, might I ' have the order in council?


Brooke Claxton: I will give the hon. gentleman the order in council. Perhaps I had better put it on Hansard since he has an interest in it.


John Thomas Hackett: What is the date of it?


Brooke Claxton: January 11, 1946. This is the order in council:
Notwithstanding anything contained in king's regulations and orders for the Canadian militia the governor general in council pursuant to the powers vested in him by the Militia Act hereby authorizes the appointment of five general officers or brigadiers each of whom will assume such duties and responsibilities not inconsistent with the Militia Act as may from time to time be defined and ordered by the Minister of National Defence and which shall include the command for operational and training purposes of all personnel, units and establishments which may from time to time be in any one of the areas defined in volumes 2 and 3 of the schedule hereto. Such areas to be known for the purposes of this order by the designation set out in column of the said schedule.
2. Appointments to be made from time to time in pursuance of this order shall be made by the governors general in council.

Then the schedule follows:
1.	Designation.
2.	General description of command.
3.	Definition-area of operational command by military districts.
Then follows a list of the five commands, a general description of the command and a definition of the areas. They are: The western command, British Columbia, Alberta, and nortlrwest territories and the Yukon-military districts Nos. 11, 13 and northwest territories and Yukon. Then follow the other of the five commands: The prairie command, central command, Quebec command and the eastern command. Attached to this is a map setting out the geographical areas of the commands.
Among the supporting documents were a number of memoranda, one of which sets forth some of the reasons for this being done. That is dated December 16, 1946. It was after the plan was decided upon and it was put before the minister in order that action might be taken:
(a)	Army headquarters will continue to deal with only five static commanders in Canada during peace and in war.
(b)	a shrinkage of the total number of subordinate headquarters required for the command and administration of the army in Canada from sixteen to eleven.
(c)	simplification of channels of communication.
(d)	by the provision of a senior officer in charge of administration within each command, the commander will be freed from administrative detail and consequently able to concentrate upon training the field forces and upon operational matters.
(e)	commanders will not continue to be required to assume administrative responsibility without adequate administrative staffs as is now the case.
. (f) an augmented administrative staff is provided for command headquarters with a decrease in overall man porver.
(g)	there will be economies through reduction in the number of brigadiers and AA and Q.M.G's. Further economies may be achieved through amalgamation of command and district headquarters, that is, in transport.
(h)	concentration of administrative authority under five^ senior commanders each with a senior officer in charge of administration to facilitate further decentralization of administrative authority from army headquarters and general officers commanding.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It seems to me that the minister has been needlessly and uselessly evasive in connection with this matter. We understand and have understood quite well, ever since the order in council which he has read, which came out in January of last year, that there were to be set up and were actually set up in Canada, five commands. But that is an entirely different matter from the abolition of military district No. 13 and its headquarters, which took place only on

Militia Act
December 30 or 31, 1946, or, in other words, about a year after the order in council which he is quoting. That order in council, as I understand it, did not give authority for the abolition of these headquarters. It gave authority for the setting up of five commands, and at the time these commands were set up we were assured that the various military headquarters would continue to function. The abolition of headquarters which has taken place is, I contend, as the hon. member for Calgary West contends, contrary to section 19 of the Militia Act. There was no authority for the abolition of the headquarters, which abolition actually took place at the end of last 3'ear, without the authority of this parliament; and the department and the government are very much out of order in having put through that abolition.
It is of no use for the minister to try to evade the matter by saying that General Worthington is the D.O.C. of military district No. 13 headquarters. That may be a nice fiction to put before us here, who presumably know nothing about it. As a matter of actual fact, however, orders were issued that M.D. No. 13 headquarters would come to an end at the end of December, and henceforth the headquarters at Calgary and the former D.O.C. would be known as the rear headquarters of command, the northwest command. That went into effect, and as far as the reserve units were concerned it was forbidden to address letters to M.D. No. 13 headquarters. It had been washed out; it was finished, and everybody was told so. It is of no use for the minister at the present time to try to maintain an absolutely senseless position and say that the thing still exists. It does not exist; it has been wiped out, and that without authority.
Furthermore, I should like to ask the minister two or three questions on the matter. First, was any investigation made of the costs of placing command headquarters at Edmonton as compared with Calgary before the move was mentioned? If such an investigation of costs were made, what were the findings? As a matter of fact, my information is that no such investigation ever took place but that an investigation was ordered after the move had been announced and after there had been a great deal of complaint. My second question is, what were the findings of the investigation ordered after the move had been made, and what is to be the relative cost to the people of Canada of keeping the entire command headquarters at Calgary as compared with moving it to Edmonton? As I said during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, my own
investigation and the information I have secured lead me to believe it will impose a heavy additional expense on the department and on Canadian taxpayers, an expense which, in my opinion, is entirely unwarranted unless the minister can produce good reasons to indicate that moving the headquarters is absolutely necessary on strategic or other grounds of that kind, and that thereby much additional expense is warranted, which I do not think he can do.


Brooke Claxton: The primary reason for
making the change was strategic, as I said yesterday. Anyone examining a map of Canada and considering the developments that have occurred in the west and northwest since the war would realize that those making such a decision on strategic grounds were acting with common sense. I am personally in no position to judge the matter from a purely military point of view, but the slightest examination of a map would indicate that the decision was sensible.
With regard to the economic factors, it is quite obvious that the combining of two military districts located as close together as these were must result in a considerable saving of man-power and other expenses. The other night one hon. member from Calgary said that Edmonton was only three or four hours away if he travelled fast enough, and on that ground it would seem reasonable, if it is strategically desirable, to combine the two and save something in man-power and other costs.


Douglas Scott Harkness: At this point may I ask whether an investigation of costs was made before the move was ordered?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas Scott Harkness: What was the result? What did the investigation disclose?


Brooke Claxton: I will come to the investigation. From the point of view of accommodation there is nothing much to be preferred in the way of expense or any other consideration. Heat, light and other maintenance costs are somewhat less with the combining of the headquarters at Edmonton, owing to the centralization. The moving costs of course are considerable, but it is estimated that they would be more than offset by the savings in personnel and other expenses in a very few years. From the operational aspect the factors which have influenced the decision involve a good many important considerations. They include the extent and nature of the area over which the command is to be exercised; the physical geography; the natural approaches which give access to the area, and the com-
Militia Act

munication axes within the area. Geographically it gives a very much better position from which to exercise command.


Arthur Leroy Smith: What do you mean by that?


Brooke Claxton: I am giving the hon. member the opinions and1 advice of the advisers of the department who looked into this matter.


Alan Cockeram: May I ask when the report was made?


Brooke Claxton: This was made at my request, since my appointment.


Alan Cockeram: Since this matter came up in the house, I presume?


Brooke Claxton: No; before that.


Alan Cockeram: After the move had
been completed?


Brooke Claxton: Naturally I asked for a report on this after the question had been raised with me, and I think the hon. gentleman would have been the first to say I was remiss if I had not done so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am very happy about it so far.


Brooke Claxton: From the point of view of man-power-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Which two headquarters is the minister referring to, the military district headquarters and command or command and air force headquarters?


Brooke Claxton: The two army headquarters.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just M.D. No. 13 and
command?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The saving in personnel would be one major, a captain, a lieutenant-colonel and seven other ranks; in all, a personnel of about twelve. The saving in approximate salaries is 827,000 a year. There is a saving in heat, light and maintenance. I have referred to the moving expenses, and there would be some saving in travelling expenses.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has given us just the same as we have received in the past, except that this time we have been given a considerable number of general statements, but no definite or solid reasons. He has said that there would be a saving of $27,000 a year on manpower, and that there would be a certain saving in connection with light and heat. One can well imagine the saving in light and heat when he is told that much the same area will be required. That saving would be 
negligible. I can assure the minister that heating is certainly no cheaper in Edmonton than it is in Calgary. We will say that the saving in light and heat amounts to $5,000 a year-which I doubt very much. That makes a total of $32,000. Immediately one must consider the cost of moving the people concerned, which is a minimum of $140,000. I was told that, before it was over it would probably amount to $200,000.
There is the further cost of over $5,000 a month which will have to be paid in respect of separated family allowances to the families of the men now living in Calgary, who must continue to live there because they cannot possibly get houses in Edmonton. That $5,000 a month will go on for a very considerable length of time. There is the further fact that nearly all the permanent force units are in Calgary and are to remain there. Two-thirds of the reserve force units are in the southern part of the province and a considerable number of staff officers will have to spend the major part of their time in Calgary, away from headquarters. Each one of them will draw $7 a day command pay during the time he is in Calgary, and the transportation expenses of each have to be paid.
I contend that the extra amount of money which will be required for these staff officers alone, travelling to Calgary, over and above the amount of travelling they would have to do if this move were not made will amount in a year to at least two or three times the possible savings the minister has yet been able to mention.
The minister mentions a few figures like that, of savings that are to take place, and expects to convince us that it is an economic matter. As (a matter of fact, on the ground of economy his argument is absolutely ridiculous. If he could put up a good argument on strategic grounds, then I might be prepared to be convinced. But certainly, so far as the matter of economy is concerned, it is nothing short of laughable to hear the minister putting out figures of that kind.


William Ross Macdonald: Shall the section carry?


Arthur Leroy Smith: No. I realize that you are long-suffering, Mr. Chairman, but this section is not carried yet. Has the minister read to the committee, or referred us to all the documents in connection wdth this move? Are there any more orders in council? For instance, the minister read nothing about the location of headquarters, and he read nothing to me which had anything to do with anyone put in command of military district No. 13, not a word. Those are two of the

Militia Act
things he told me would be in the orders in council. They are not there. Has he read it accurately to me? Are there any other documents we might have a look at?


Brooke Claxton: As I indicated before, the appointment of the district officer commanding was made by order in council. I will make that available, if it is desired.


Arthur Leroy Smith: How can you appoint a man to a district that is abolished? That is something I cannot understand.


Brooke Claxton: Nothing is legally abolished yet. It will be abolished, if this bill passes. In fact, as everyone should know, the location of the headquarters has been moved. There is nothing in this law which says that the headquarters of each military district shall be at such-and-such a place.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I agree with you there-but that is the first time I have been able to.


Brooke Claxton: There has been no suggestion to the contrary before.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If military district No. 13 has not been abolished, will the minister kindly explain to me why I, as commander of a reserve force unit in Calgary, received a letter stating that it was abolished; that I should not-and I repeat "not"-send any communications to headquarters of military district No. 13; and that in future I should send them either to command headquarters, if they were G matters, or to rear command headquarters if they were A matters. Then they made some more remarks along the lines of what fine piece of work had been done by military district No. 13 while it lasted, but that now it was over. I got that letter, and every other reserve force unit got it.


Brooke Claxton: I explained that both yesterday and today.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The minister has not yet explained it.


Brooke Claxton: Section 19 says that the governor in council is given power to cause two or more districts to be grouped together for the purposes of command and administration. That is the point; and headquarters has been moved to Edmonton. The hon. member knows that, Just as well as I do.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That was not my question, and it was not the tenor of the letter sent out. The letter sent out stated definitely -and, as I say, everybody in the area knew it-that the headquarters or the military 83166-29
district had been abolished; it was ended. My contention is still that there was no authority for doing this. The government and the department were premature. They needed the authority which they are now getting. The minister is trying to evade the issue by stating that General Worthington was appointed as general officer commanding.


Brooke Claxton: I must not allow the hon. member to say that I am trying to evade anything.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do say it.


Brooke Claxton: Then I ask that it be withdrawn.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I not only say it, I repeat it. I say it is a direct attempt to try to evade the issue. I say that as commander of a unit in that military district I received a letter saying that it is ended. Then the minister tries to tell me that it is not ended. Goodness gracious, surely one or the other is right! The people out there are right, I am sure, because the thing is general knowledge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Calgary East has stated that the minister is endeavouring to evade giving a proper answer. On the other hand, the minister states he has not endeavoured to evade the question. He has gone farther, and has stated that he has given a full and complete answer; and the hon. member for Calgary East must accept his statement.


Arthur Leroy Smith: On the point of order; when did the word "evade" become unparliamentary? I should like someone who could give me an authority on that.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Surely we are not going to sit around here like that. Christmas was over on the twenty-fifth of December.


William Ross Macdonald: I have not ruled that the word "evade" is unparliamentary. I have ruled that the minister has stated that he has given a full and complete answer, and that the hon. member for Calgary East must accept that.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Must we on this side of the house accept every statement by any member of the government as being a completely satisfactory answer? If that were so, we would have no such thing as parliamentary government. We might as well not be here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Agreed.

Militia Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: The situation is ridiculous.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Calgary East should not make the statement that the situation is ridiculous, because I assume he is referring to the ruling the Chairman has made.


Douglas Scott Harkness: No; that is not what I was referring to.


William Ross Macdonald: My ruling is that the word "evade" is not unparliamentary. The minister has stated that he has given a full and complete answer. The hon. member for Calgary East must accept the statement of the minister. If the hon. member wishes to ask for some further information which he thinks he can obtain he can do so, but he must accept the statement of the minister.


Howard Charles Green: May I suggest to Your Honour that the hon. member does not have to accept a statement given by the minister as a full and complete statement. The question of whether or not that statement is full and complete is a matter for each one of us to decide in our own mind and neither the Chair nor anyone else on the government side can make us accept it as a full and complete statement. I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary East is perfectly within his rights in not accepting it as a full and complete statement.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Calgary East may not think he has received all the information he should, but he must accept the statement of the minister that he has given the hon. member all the information he has and that he is not evading the question. If the hon. member thinks there is some other information of which the minister has no knowledge, that is another matter; but the hon. member for Calgary East must accept the minister's statement when the minister says he has given him all the information he has.


Howard Charles Green: Under what authority can Your Honour rule that a member must accept a statement as a full and complete statement, and what happens to him if he does not accept it?


Brooke Claxton: May I say a word on the point of order? The objection I took was to hon. members saying that I was trying to evade.


Howard Charles Green: You have been ruled against by the Chair.


Brooke Claxton: Hon. members would not, I believe, wish to say that I am trying to

evade anything. I submit that with confidence to the judgment of hon. members, those opposite as well.


Alan Cockeram: Is there any question in the minister's own mind that he has been evading questions right through this debate?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me that we are making no progress very fast. The hon. member for Calgary East has put before the committee a statement received in a letter which he received as commander of the unit. I take it that nobody doubts that such a letter was written. Surely the minister ought to be in a better position than anyone else to try to reconcile those two statements which, on their face, seem to be absolutely contradictory. It seems to me that if we could do that we might make some progress in resolving this difficulty. I say that because, I submit, the department must assume some responsibility for an official letter written to and received by a commanding officer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If that is the best and most satisfactory answer the minister can make, there is no use in my asking any further questions on that particular matter. I can only say that I regret the minister cannot give a more full and satisfactory answer because, as far as I am concerned, it is neither full nor satisfactory. However, so much for that.
There is one other point I should like to mention. The minister has said that there were good and sufficient reasons from a strategic point of view for the move since he looked at a map. I am very much afraid that that is how the thing was decided. Two or three officers at national defence headquarters took out a map and said, "There is Edmonton, the centre of the province, the seat of the provincial government; it is a fine place for headquarters because the air force is there; we will move it there because it looks like it will be easy to get onto the Alaska highway."
The minister said that there was no political reason for the move, and I believe that probably that was the explanation of how it was brought about. It demonstrates the fallacies present in the administration of our military affairs. Instead of going out and) looking over the area and finding out what the situation is, particularly when we are trying to save money, two or three people took out a map and said, "Fine, there is the spot." Just look at a map; that is all you need to do. No doubt that is what the minister did and, as soon as he looked at the map, he was convinced there was nothing else to it.

Militia Act
I submit that, instead of looking at a map, they should have had somebody go there to look over the ground and into the cost of making this move. This brings me to a question which I asked some time ago about the report which was ordered to be made after this move had gone into effect and which gave the relative cost of the two headquarters. I hope the minister will not say that a report was not ordered to be prepared because I know it was. It was being worked on shortly before I left Calgary to come here and there was a considerable amount of perturbation over it. I should like to know what that report says as to the relative costs and the relative strategic advantages.


Brooke Claxton: As to the relative costs, I stated that there was a direct saving of over $27,000 in salaries, and there are other additional savings. The moving cost, including the payment of separation and family allowances, the movement of household effects and so on, is less than half the total mentioned by my hon. friend.


Douglas Scott Harkness: How much is it?


Brooke Claxton: The estimate is $96,000, and that will be saved in about four years.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When did the minister receive that information?


Brooke Claxton: I got it when I asked for it.


Douglas Scott Harkness: When?


Brooke Claxton: Within the last month; since this question was brought to my attention. What do you think? I did not get it before I was Minister of National Defence. The hon. member has said that this question should have been looked into by people on the spot. It was looked into most thoroughly by people who were familiar with that and other parts of Canada. All the general officers commanding were called into Ottawa to discuss this whole question of command organization and it was gone into most thoroughly by them. With regard to the operational and strategic figures, as I said, I am not in a position to judge them except from the point of view of common sense, but from that point of view it does seem a good and sensible arrangement.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should! like to know why they ever' had a military headquarters at Calgary and who appointed the commander of the reserve unit?


Douglas Scott Harkness: In view of the difficulty the minister has had in answering our questions, I know it will be quite impossible for him to answer the hon. member for Fraser 83166-29J
Valley. Would the minister be willing to lay before parliament the correspondence which has gone on in connection with this move, and any reports, particularly the last report to which I referred? I know that report was in course of preparation some months ago. I should like to have the minister table any other reports that may exist as to the relative costs, relative strategic advantages and so on. The great difficulty is that the majority of the people in Calgary are annoyed about this move because no good reason has been presented' for it. If a good reason were presented I am sure they would accept it, but until they have that they will continue to be discontented.


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to make available to the hon. member all information that is not confidential and can be revealed. I shall be glad to get in touch with him.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It is just as important for the people of Calgary to get that information as it is for me personally, although I shall be happy to get it personally. But it would give greater satisfaction in that part of the country if the minister would make the whole thing public so far as it is possible to do so.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I wish to ask a question about that $27,000 that we are to pay to these officers. Am I not correct in saying that that is merely a saving because the district has been abolished and a command established, and that it would be true, irrespective of where the headquarters were. That is correct, is it not? A saving by command organization would be true in Quebec or any other place.


Brooke Claxton: No. I am informed that, if the two districts were amalgamated and the headquarters was located at Calgary, the strategic importance of Edmonton would require a considerable establishment to be maintained there.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Did I get you correctly1-the strategic importance of Edmonton?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Perhaps I understand that. We shall just let it rest there.


Douglas King Hazen: The hon. members for Calgary East and Calgary West have spent considerable time asking the minister, and without receiving a great deal1 of information, for the reasons why the headquarters of that district or command was changed from Calgary to Edmonton.
Militia Act

I should like to call the minister's attention to the eastern part of Canada and ask him why the headquarters of the military district or * command in New Brunswick was changed from Saint John to Fredericton, and I hope that in asking that question I shall obtain more light and more information than did the hon. members for Calgary.
The city of Saint John has been the headquarters of the military district for that part of Canada for a great many years. It was the headquarters of the military district in that part of Canada, in the first great war and for many years prior to that time. It was the headquarters of the military district in that part of Canada during the world war that ended in 1945, and I believe it was a very satisfactory headquarters. It has good office accommodation for a headquarters. It has a large armoury; it has a large ordnance depot and there are several coastal defences in the vicinity. In addition, the Department of National Defence owns considerable 'land centrally located' in the city of Saint John, and that land has been used for military purposes for many years, even prior to confederation.
I might point out to the minister that the distance from the city of Saint John to the city of Fredericton is only about sixty miles, and in these days of rapid transportation it takes no time to cover that distance; it is a mere step.
The people of Calgary were informed, we are told, when they asked why the headquarters for that district was transferred to Edmonton, which was about two hundred miles away, that it was done for three reasons. It was done for strategic reasons, for economy, and for practical reasons. If there were any economy in moving the headquarters from the city of Saint John to the city of Fredericton I should like to know what that economy was, and I think the minister should tell us tonight. If there were any practical reasons I would ask the minister to tell us what they were, and if there were strategic reasons I would ask him to tell us what they were. I would ask him the same questions that he has been asked this evening about the move that was made from Calgary to Edmonton. Was an investigation made of the costs prior to the move? What was the finding of that investigation? What strategic advantage was there in making the move? Was there a saving in personnel and, if so, to what extent? Was there a saving in money and, if so, to what extent?
I think I am entitled to an answer to these questions, because the people of Saint John resent, perhaps unjustly, this move. They resent the change that is being made. They

are not unreasonable, and if the minister can give us good reasons for the change I feel that the people of Saint John would be prepared to accept them. But, as the matter stands now, they do not know why the change was made and they do not believe that there were good reasons for making it.


Brooke Claxton: As I explained before, the organization of the commands was authorized on January 11,	1946. That organization
required the establishment of command headquarters in each one of these commands. For example, in the central command, the command headquarters were established at Oakville, where there had never been a command headquarters before.


Alan Cockeram: A pretty expensive one at that.


Brooke Claxton: I have never heard any complaint about the situation with regard to the other places across Canada, including Saint John and Fredericton. The change was made before I was appointed.


Douglas King Hazen: That is the reason, I think.


Brooke Claxton: I have never seen any file or correspondence on the matter. I am informed that the main reason for making that change was, as the hon. member knows, that the accommodation which had existed in Saint John during the wsk for a headquarters was no longer available. The armoury where the headquarters had been was no longer available because it had to be returned to the unit. For these reasons principally, the change was made to Fredericton, where there was accommodation available.


Douglas King Hazen: I am not at all clear about this. The minister says that the change was made because there was no accommodation available in Saint John. Will he explain that a little? I am amazed to hear that. As I understand it, there has been as much accommodation there since the war as there was before. Before the war, there was a great deal of accommodation. I do not know what accommodation there was at Fredericton. I should like to be enlightened on that. Of course it was temporary accommodation built during the war.


Brooke Claxton: That is correct in a hospital.


Douglas King Hazen: Most of that accommodation was occupied by the college students who flocked in there since the war to take their courses. It was only temporary accommodation, but at Saint John there were permanent buildings. I may be wrong.

Militia Act


Brooke Claxton: I am informed that there were no permanent buildings at Saint John, but that there was accommodation in a service hospital which was taken over in Fredericton, which was adequate.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask the minister a question not as to why headquarters were moved but why the headquarters at Ottawa have not been moved to Chilliwack.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: There is no minister there.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have a second question I should like to ask. Where are the orass hats to go now with the headquarters at Edmonton? They used to go to Banff when they were at Calgary.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: We are gradually approaching the east. I am not a military man, but I should like information as to whether there has been any change in military district- No. 6 at Halifax? If so, why has there been such a change? It is not necessary for me to point out that Halifax is one of the greatest historically military places in North America. It has been called the warden of the north. It contains fortifications which, under the old style of warfare, could defy the world. I assume that the military establishment which has been there for many years will still remain.


Brooke Claxton: It is still there.


Percy Chapman Black: It will still remain at Halifax. Has there been any change?


Brooke Claxton: None at all, except it has been made into command headquarters.


Percy Chapman Black: Headquarters
for what area?


Brooke Claxton: For eastern command.


Percy Chapman Black: The eastern command covers what territory, the eastern provinces?


Brooke Claxton: The three maritime provinces.


Denton Massey: May I ask the minister a question with regard to section 7, and that portion of it which is to become 19 (2) of the Militia Act? .The notes on the righthand side of the bill state that "the governor in council may", and then follow (a), (b) and (c). It says nothing whatever about the appointment of officers to command an area; whereas the new 19 (2) section reads:
The minister may establish areas within any command and appoint officers to command such areas.
Who appointed these officers heretofore? What procedure was followed?


Brooke Claxton: Under section 31 of the Militia Act they were appointed by the minister before.


Denton Massey: There is no change, then?


Brooke Claxton: There is a change owing to the fact that we are now to have, if this passes, commands and areas. Previously we just had districts, -and previously the district officers commanding were appointed by the governor in council. Now the governor in council will appoint general officers commanding commands who will ordinarily be of the rank of major-general or brigadier. Under this provision, if it passes, the minister will appoint the area commanders who will be of the rank of brigadier or colonel.


Denton Massey: For the purpose of flexibility?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. I should like to
give the hon. member for Calgary West further information with reference to the appointment of Major-General Worthington. I am reading from issue No. 4 of appointments, promotions and retirements:
Western command. Major General F. F. Worthington, C.B.. M.C., M.M., G.O.C. western command, is appointed D.O.C. military districts 11 and 13, January 1, 1947.


Arthur Leroy Smith: That was
on January 1, 1947.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: After it had been abolished for at least a year before that.


Brooke Claxton: The district is still in
existence, but its headquarters have been moved to Edmonton.


Mr. MANROSS:: Since London, Ontario,
is the headquarters of military district No. 1 and also the headquarters of the Liberal association, if the government is to move one of these will they please consider moving the latter?


Alan Cockeram: With regard to subsection 2, I should like to suggest to the minister that the phrase: "The minister may establish" should be changed to: "The governor in council may establish", because after the discussion we have heard for the last three-quarters of an hour, we realize that perhaps there is a little politics in the moving of the headquarters. It was definitely suggested in the committee last night that that was so, so far as M.D. 13 was concerned. It will be noticed that these headquarters have been moved away from ridings where there are
Militia Act

Conservative members today and put into ridings where there are Liberal cabinet ministers. I believe that that danger will always be inherent so long as the minister of the day has the power to change the headquarters.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to
make a suggestion to the minister, namely, to move the Conservative association from London.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Can the minister tell
us what has been the total saving in manpower and money through the amalgamation of all the military districts in Canada in the absorption of the five commands?


Brooke Claxton: I shall be glad to get
that information and give it when we are on the estimates.


Alan Cockeram: Is it necessary to have brigadiers as administrative officers in these commands? I understand that a great many appointments of administrative officers which, prior to the war, would have been of a fairly junior rank are now being given to men of high rank.


Mr. GARDINER:: They are a terrible
nuisance in the House of Commons.


Brooke Claxton: I think the hon. member would know that officers commanding some of the districts have been grouped together, and it would not be advisable to demote them to put them in their present appointments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8

Number of personnel of Canadian army.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I think this is one section that is affected by the constitutional point raised yesterday. I presume the minister has an amendment to subsection 1 of section 20.


Brooke Claxton: Section 9 is the one the
hon. member has in mind.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I submit that both
sections are affected. This section permits the maximum number of personnel of the Canadian army to be authorized by the governor in council. I suggest to the minister that he accept an amendment, that, "subject to section 22, the number of personnel." . . .


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then we can discuss the other matter on section 22.


Brooke Claxton: I should be glad to accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
René Hamel: In connection with section 8, I should like to ask what the meaning of the word "enrolled" is?


Brooke Claxton: That is in section 9.


René Hamel: I am sorry. I have one question on this section. Can the minister give the committee the assurance that, whatever may be the number of personnel of the Canadian army authorized by the governor in council, conscription, especially in peace time, will not be applied in this country?


Brooke Claxton: It cannot be applied by virtue of this provision.


René Hamel: Will the minister give the committee the assurance that conscription will not be imposed in this country?


Brooke Claxton: The question has nothing whatever to do with this section.
(Translation):


René Hamel: I think it has. Absolutely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We are dealing with section 8.
(Text):


Edmund Davie Fulton: On reading this section 8, one notices a substantial departure from the wording of the section in the old act, in that the power not only to name and organize but also to disband units is now taken away from the governor in council and given to the minister, so that he may name, organize and disband without reference to the rest of the cabinet. This point was raised earlier by the hon. member for Greenwood, at which time he said we were admittedly considering, perhaps an extreme case; but the principle is possibly best illustrated by consideration of an extreme case. That extreme case is that the minister could, at his own instance, without reference to his colleagues in the cabinet, disband all the units in both the reserve army and the active force. That, again is too much power to give to a minister.
On the point of view of flexibility, it is stated in the explanatory notes that the proposed amendment permits greater flexibility but it does not say how it achieves that. One fails to see how, if the minister is on good terms with the rest of the cabinet, it should be any more difficult to get an order in council than to make a ministerial regulation. Therefore, from the point of view of time, I do not see that there is any saving to be made. There may be a saving to be made from the point of view of publicity, but I do not think

Militia Act
that is sufficient reason for giving this great power. Would the minister say, first, whether he is prepared to put back in there the words "governor in council" instead of "minister"? If he is prepared to accept that, I shall ask him to move it.


Mr. ABBOTT:: It is an excellent idea, but we had a number of objections to orders in council that are passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is as much objection to ministerial regulation as to orders in council.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may, I should like to interject a word here. This seems to me a matter which is perhaps quite properly one for ministerial discretion. The minister is the head of the department. I had something to do with that department and discussed this question when the revision of the act was being considered. It did seem to me that was a matter which the minister might well decide on the advice of his staff. There is no objection to having council pass on the matter, but there have been a great many criticisms from hon. gentlemen opposite to the effect that we do too much by order in council. It seems to me that this is a matter which might well be settled by the responsible minister of the department. However, I do not know how my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, feels about it. If the house feels that this should be made a matter of formal submission to council, there would be no objection in the world, of course. It is simply for efficiency of administration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I so move.


Brooke Claxton: There is a real advantage in some of the powers here being exercised by the minister, I am told. I have never exercised them. However, I am told that there are great numbers of changes of a minor character in establishments, which run to hundreds.


Howard Charles Green: Why not restrict the ministerial powers to establishments?


Brooke Claxton: I wonder if it would not meet the point made by the hon. member who spoke earlier in the day and of the hon. member for Kamloops if (b) were amended by taking out the words "disband or"? I must say that I cannot see myself exercising that power in peace time. In war time I understand it was necessary for reasons of speed and security to change the formations overseas quickly. But in peace time I cannot see the necessity of its being exercised by the minister without going to council, and I
should be glad indeed to have the clause amended by striking out the words "disband or".


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is perfectly satisfactory, and I should like to thank the minister for that.


Alan Cockeram: I do not know whether it is satisfactory.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is satisfactory to me. I do not know whether it is satisfactory to my colleagues.
Mr. COCKERAMI agree that those words should be taken out. Even then there is too much power given to the minister under this act. I was going to rise and speak on this before the hon. member for Kamloops did. There has been quite an altercation tonight in this house between a commanding officer of a reserve unit and the present Minister of National Defence. Under this section of the act he could have disbanded that officer's regiment just like that, and that is too much power to leave in anybody's hands. We have noticed that it has been done in the past. I would not give the minister any of this power. I think it should all be put back in the hands of the governor in council.


Brooke Claxton: I am willing to drop the power to disband which, as I say, I have never exercised.


Denton Massey: Since I was the one who spoke previously today with some earnestness in regard to the power that is vested in the minister relative to the disbanding of units and that sort of thing, I think I may be permitted a further word tonight inasmuch as we have reached this section. I fully realize that the basic purpose of this measure, as explained by the minister, is to promote flexibility and, therefore, efficiency. If the minister were stating his own case clearly, he would say we ware taking a leaf from the wartime book and putting it in the peacetime boowk. The fact remains that in this section there are strange powers given to the minister, if they were used strangely.
I should like to ask a question of the present Minister of Finance, who was former Minister of National Defence and was probably the Minister of National Defence at the time this bill was drafted, with regard to section 8 which refers to the new section 20 of the Militia Act, with particular reference to subsections 2, (a) and (b). Did he make this change or recommend this change consequent upon the recommendations made to him by general staff, or is this his idea that we can carry into peace time what was virtually done, I presume, in war time?
Militia Act

If I may continue, after asking that question, it gives the minister power to disband, to eliminate, to wash out altogether, not to modify or to restrict. A moment ago the present Minister of National Defence said that he was prepared to disregard this question of disbandment, but I should like to hear the reaction of the former minister to this section, and the basis upon which this section was put into the act, from his experience, with all deference to the present minister.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As I remember it, when this matter was under discussion one suggestion was that in the case of redesignation, rearrangement and even disbandment, it was not a matter which should ever be referred to the minister. I took the view, as I recall it, that questions of the redesignation of units, the rearrangement or disbandment of them, were matters on which the minister, as the responsible political head of the department, should be consulted and which he should approve. I must confess that personally I felt that was a matter for which the minister as a member of the government could properly take responsibility. As in a good many other things, if he felt it was a question which involved broad considerations he would refer it to his cabinet colleagues for their views, though it might not require a formal order in council to carry the thing through; and that is still my feeling. I still believe that with the thousands of units in the Canadian army it should not be necessary to make a formal submission to council in order to redesignate a unit or even disband one, but that is not something on which I feel strongly at all. It is a question upon which I certainly would place myself, as I am sure the present minister would, completely in the hands of the house. There has been a good deal of talk in this house that we should not have these thousands of orders in council. We are met constantly with the reproach that the government is passing thousands upon thousands of orders in council, and they are held out in the newspapers as an example of dictatorial powers and so on.
It seems to me that this is a matter on which the head of the department could properly decide, as minister, without the formality of an order in council, but that is only my personal opinion. That was the view I held when I was head of the department, but it is not one, I must say, that I hold with any tremendous degree of firmness. If it is felt that this is a matter which should be decided by the cabinet as a whole I cannot see any objection to that. My feeling was that it was a matter which the minister, as head of the department and the man responsible to

parliament, should approve, that it was not a matter which should be decided by the staff or by the officers of the department. I must say I did feel it was a matter which the minister should be able to decide.


Denton Massey: I think the minister will agree 'with me that disbandment in war time or disbandment in a reduction subsequently to wartime is one thing, whereas disbandment in peace time presupposes a policy. The disbandment of a unit in peace time is occasioned by a desire either to reduce the total strength or to discontinue a certain phase of activity, as the case may be. Therefore the disbandment of a unit presupposes a policy. That is the only reason I question the advisability of leaving the matter of disbandment in the hands of one man.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might give an example. I remember very well one case in which I approved the disbandment of a unit. I need not mention the name of the unit, but it was a militia unit. This particular unit had been inactive for years. In that particular district it had been found almost impossible to arouse sufficient interest to recruit an adequate number of officers and men to make it an effective militia unit. So we decided to disband that unit and combine it with a unit in some other section. That is what happens in the case of disbandment.


Alan Cockeram: May I ask the minister how that was accomplished?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was accomplished simply by deciding that the unit would no longer be continued in that particular place.


Alan Cockeram: That was done by the minister, not by the governor in council?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I made that decision.


Denton Massey: The minister sees my point about the difference between peacetime disbandment and wartime disbandment?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Denton Massey: In other words, if there are 200 regiments in Canada, just using that number as an illustration, each with a strength of 500, and it is decided that the total strength of the army in future will be half what it is, that virtually means the disbandment of 100 units, does it not, because, after all, you cannot reduce regiments to a strength of fifty people, or something like that. In other words, to repeat what I said a few moments ago, it presupposes a policy. I mean that this matter of disbanding in peace time, not in the ordinary run of mine thing, is to be exercised in the

Militia Act
practice of a policy, and therefore it places in the hands of one man the setting up of a policy. Does the minister follow me?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes; I can see that it might work out in that way. But take the proposed establishment for the reserve army as it is contemplated post-war, with something in the order of five or six divisions, with all the ancillary units that go with a modern army, such as R.E.M.E. corps, armoured corps, armoured regiment and all the rest. It may well be found in practice that for a time at any rate it is not possible to get the necessary number of officers or men, or even the accommodation for them. Perhaps it is a matter which council should determine, but it does not necessarily mean there is a radical change in policy. A disbandment may simply mean that in a particular geographical locality it has not been found possible to get the necessary officers and men to maintain an efficient unit, and in that case you may well decide to disband the unit and establish an equivalent unit in some other part of the country where interest in the militia is greater. That is all that means, and it did seem to me that was a matter which the responsible minister might well decide, on the advice of his staff and his advisers.


Denton Massey: I quite agree.


Brooke Claxton: In view of what has been said about disbandment and my lack of desire to exercise that power, I pointed out that I was quite prepared to see paragraph (b) amended by striking out the words "disband or" in the first line.


Colin William George Gibson: I move accordingly.


Alan Cockeram: Before that amendment is carried, what about the word "revoke" in this section? That is practically the same thing; to revoke an establishment is the same as disbanding. What are you going to do about- that word? If wTe are going to amend the section, let us do it completely.


Brooke Claxton: Disbanding refers to a unit, putting it out of existence.


Alan Cockeram: So does revoking.


Brooke Claxton: Revoking an establishment is to change the establishment of the unit. It does not abolish the unit.


Alan Cockeram: If you revoke the establishment of a complete unit that unit is washed up, is it not?


Brooke Claxton: No.


Denton Massey: I understand the minister means that if an establishment is revoked there is another establishment to take its place; in other words, it presupposes an amendment?


Brooke Claxton: Quite right. That has been done in connection with the post-war reserve army in reference to a number of the converted units. I believe that some eight infantry units have been converted to artillery. In each of those cases the establishment suitable for the infantry unit is revoked and replaced by the establishment suitable for the artillery.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Douglas King Hazen: Who disbands the unit, now that we have deleted those words?


Brooke Claxton: The governor in council would have power to do that, I am sure.


Douglas King Hazen: Is that in the act?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Douglas King Hazen: What section?


Brooke Claxton: He could certainly do it under section 139, the omnibus section at the end.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 9-Constitution of Canadian army.


Brooke Claxton: When this was discussed yesterday, members of the opposition raised the question about there not being a limitation on the size of the full-time army. At that time I pointed out that the reason a limitation had not been left in was the difficulty of fixing on a number.
The number that had been in the act before was 10,000. That was the ceiling on the size of the permanent force. That ceiling was never exceeded before the wyar; I do not think the permanent force ever amounted to more than about half that figure. When this amendment was under consideration, serious attention was paid to the points raised by hon. members yesterday, and it was felt it would be difficult to fix a figure which would not be too big or too small, or misleading. Therefore the matter wa$ left within the control of parliament, by means of the appropriations. However, when objection was made yesterday, we at once met it by agreeing to make an amendment. The figure we suggest now to the committee as the ceiling is that of 30,000. That is for the active force army alone. That figure is considerably in excess of the ceilings fixed for planning last year, namely 25,000, and that certainly will more than see us through to the

Militia Act

next session of parliament. In the hope that that will prove generally acceptable, I would ask my colleague to move this amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move:
That section 9 of the bill be amended by replacing subsection (1) of section 2:2 by the following:
"There shall continue to be a portion of the Canadian army on continuous full-time military service which shall be called the active force, and which shall consist of such officers and men voluntarily enrolled for continuous full-time service, not exceeding 30,000, as are from time to time authorized by the governor general in council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-Repeal.
Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I have something to say on this section. I want to refer to the proper division between political responsibility and military responsibility in such matters, for instance, as the Calgary incident, the disbanding of units and the difficulty the minister would have in bringing his military duties as commander and his political duties as a member of the government in harmony with each other.
It seems to me that on these points the repeal of section 27 is important. The section to be repealed gives power to the governor in council to appoint a general officer commanding the Canadian militia. It is proposed to take away that power. The command of the military forces in Canada would then be left, as I understand it, to some extent in the hands of the governor general in council- I have in mind matters such as the designation, formation and general organization of the army, and the fixation of command areas-and for the rest in the hands of the minister.
I would point out to the committee that there is no military commander of the Canadian armed forces. There is in the procedure for command a defence council set up by order in council under the Department of National Defence Act. That defence council consists of the deputy ministers of the three service departments, and the chiefs of staff of those three services, with the minister, of course, as chairman. But that defence council, which appears to be copied to some extent from the set-up of the army council in Great Britain, is different from the army council, in that it has no power in itself, but has only power to advise the minister.
I have here the king's regulations of Great Britain, 1940 edition, and I find that section 6 on page 2 says this:

The government of the army is vested in the crown. The command of the army is placed in the hands of the army council, who are also responsible for the administration of the regular forces.
I think in those words there is laid down clearly the proper distinction between the political control and military control of our armed forces. The government of the army is in the crown or, in other words, in the governor general in council; and the command of the army is in the hands of the army council.
The set-up of the army council in Great Britain is similar to that of our defence council. It consists of the Secretary of State for War, who corresponds, of course, to the minister; the parliamentary under-secretary of state; three military members: the chief of general staff, the adjutant general and the quartermaster general; a financial member of the army council, who is financial secretary at the war office, and the permanent undersecretary of state for war.
The duties of all those members are laid down in the orders in council. The important feature, from the point of view of this discussion, is that the army council commands the army, and the Secretary of State for War delegates to the army council such parts of his whole authority to govern the army as he thinks are properly only military matters, and are not matters in which the political head of the army should intervene.
It seems to me that many of the difficulties we have had in considering these sections, and many of the doubts we have had, such as the one as to whether the decision not to recruit up to 100 per cent was dictated by political or military considerations, would be resolved if there were that line of demarcation, which apparently they have in Great Britain, where the political head does not lose any control of the army because the government of the army remains in the crown, but the purely military side of command is delegated to the army council and is exercised by them. Orders go out in the name of the army council, rather than in the name of the various branches.
I am not bringing this up now to suggest a present amendment, but in view of the fact that the minister is going to bring in a new army act I commend to his serious consideration the question of whether purely military matters should not be placed in the hands of a military commander or an army council, the minister retaining all control he feels he needs over the whole set-up of the army. I hope that will be taken into consideration, and I wonder if this section which gives the

Militia Act
power to appoint a general officer commanding, if necessary, should not come out until a decision of that kind is made.
Now for the first time we are to have more than a permanent force, which existed to provide schools and garrisons for fortifications. We are to have the beginning of a field force which, as the country grows bigger and stronger, will become an army of considerable size, a fit army for a country which is beginning to play a greater and greater part in the councils of the world. Therefore I think, when we start out on this period of certain growth, we should have a procedure for the command of the army which is the best we can devise. I ask the minister to take this into consideration during the next year and before the new army act is brought in.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I spoke at some length last night on this matter of command in the army and I do not intend to repeat what I said at that time. I wish to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, particularly in this regard. I hope, when the government brings in the new army act, it will make a real effort to put an end to the ambiguous situation which has existed in this country in the past whereby no one is known to be in command of the army. In many respects the minister appears to be in actual command of the army; at least a large number of the functions which he is given the power to exercise are actually military functions and in some cases ministers have exercised those functions really as commanders without having the military responsibility which should follow.
That situation has undermined confidence in our command. Of course this has been coupled with what might be called the divisions of interest under the minister owing to the fact that no one is actually in command and there have been consequent confusions and difficulties of all kinds. When the new army act is being considered I think this condition should be ended and we should know definitely who commands the army. My view is that it should not be political, that the minister should not command the army, but if it is desired to have it in that way it should be plainly stated so that we would know. In view of that fact, I should much prefer to have the present section 27 left in the act rather than being repealed, as is provided for by' section 10 of the bill.


Brooke Claxton: It is suggested that this section should be abolished because we have not had a general officer commanding in Canada for a great many years. They have not had one in England for a great many 83166-30j
years nor have they had one in the United States. It is no longer the practice in peace time to have a general officer commanding and consequently we do not believe that this section is necessary. But if it were ever desired to have a general officer commanding he could be appointed under section 139 which gives the governor in council the power to do things that are necessary for the good government and so on of the army. We have that power anyway and to leave it in the form in which it was in the existing section 27 was believed to be misleading and unnecessary.
Just a final word about this question of military command and responsibility. I do not admit for a second that there has been any chaotic condition. Perhaps it is inevitable that the complications of the relationships between the political administration and the military command should give rise to some difficulty on the part of some people. As I understand it, the chain of command is a separate thing from responsibility. The chain of command is derived from the king through the king's commission. That gives authority to give a legal order. The minister does not give legal orders. The minister does not exercise military authority. However, he is responsible by statute and under our constitution. He is responsible under everything that everyone would wish to see in our constitutional practice to parliament and to the people for the administration of the department.
To sum it up briefly; the chain of command comes from the king in the right of Canada through the king's commission and that enables an officer to give a legal command. The minister does not give a command, but he is responsible and his approval is required in a number of cases. I have stated it as briefly as I could. If it is possible to state this in clear terms when we come to revise the act, we will certainly do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 11 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Annual drill.
René Hamel: Section 16 of the bill refers to the Canadian army, and section 2, paragraph (b) defines "Canadian army" to mean all the military forces of Canada other than the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force and the reserves thereof. "All the military forces" would include, first, those who are in active service and, second, those who are not in active service but who can be called upon for military service. That would mean every male citizen from the ages
Militia Act

of eighteen to sixty years. My understanding of this section-if I am not correct in my understanding I should like the minister to correct me-is that the governor in council may order not only the active army tout all men from the ages of eighteen to sixty years to take military training each year for such period of time as may be prescribed. In order to have this matter absolutely clear in my mind, I would be grateful if the minister would state whether or not this section gives power to the governor in council to establish obligatory' military training in peace time.


Brooke Claxton: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Pay of active force.
Mr. ROBINSON (Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, this clause reads:
Officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the active force shall be entitled to daily pay and allowances at rates to be prescribed by the governor in council.
It was said by a famous United States general that war is hell, and since he made that statement the tempo of war has changed considerably. War, in fact, has become industrialized; it is big business. Wars are fought a lot lifferently today from the time of Wellington ind Napoleon. At that time there was some romance in war, but there is none left in it today'. War today is big business. As we look over the balance sheets of companies during the last five years we realize that war is big business. Is it not time that we put the soldier's pay on a business basis also? We cannot say that his pay is on a business basis today. The rate of pay he gets is very small, and if he comes out of the war wounded, we know there is a lot of bickering in the veterans" affairs committee as to whether he shall be allowed to earn a little money in addition to his pension.
Again, speaking of big business, we know that insurance companies are good business people. I have nothing against insurance companies. Indeed I happen to be an agent for an insurance company. But when a soldier enlisted to go overseas, in order to keep his insurance policy in force he was compelled to pay a premium ten times higher than the amount previously paid. What did that mean? It meant that the soldier was taking ten times more risk in war than he was taking in his previous occupation. But he was not paid for the risk he was taking. I say in all seriousness that if we put the soldier's pay on a business basis and paid him ten times as much as a soldier as he earned as a civilian, he would be able to save a little
[Mr. Hamel.)
money and be independent after the war was over. That would work as a peace measure, for civilians have to pay for the war and if all countries adopted this policy people would think twice before declaring war upon another country. In- that way it would help the cause of peace. I should like to add that when I get to be Prime Minister I shall arrange to have all my ministers' assistants ventriloquists.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would ask the minister when the military forces of the regular army handed over the fortresses of Esquimalt and Halifax to the Canadian army?


Howard Charles Green: A long time ago.


Brooke Claxton: Did the hon. member
ask when?


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes. I am dealing with
subsection 3 of this section. I asked the date.


Brooke Claxton: It -was some time before the first great war.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is there any likelihood
of any of those ex-regular soldiers of the British regular army' being enlisted now into the active force?


Brooke Claxton: It is certain none of
them will be enlisted but there may be still one in the force, although I doubt it.


George Randolph Pearkes: If I remember my history correctly, I think it was in 1906. I am not certain but, if it was 1906, I can hardly imagine that the streamlined active force of today would enlist a man of at least fifty-eight y'ears of age into the force. I suggest that this paragraph is quite unnecessary.


Brooke Claxton: There are a lot of subsections in the act which are unnecessary and will be taken out when we make a full revision of the act, but I would submit that it is possible that this provision may have a bearing on a pension that might be payable to such a man who is a pensioner. That is at least possible.


George Randolph Pearkes: Would he not have been enlisted in the permanent force? I do not think you have any ex-regulars in the active force.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Have the army authorities yet arrived at a firm policy with regard to efficiency pay? Is it contemplated that any such pay w'ill be included in the Canadian army pay regulations?


Brooke Claxton: There is a provision for
trades pay, for privates training, privates first-class, 'and so forth, already in the pay and allowance regulations brought into effect in 1946.

Wheat


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was a great deal
of controversy as to whether a soldier after the expiry of a certain length of time should not be granted efficiency pay. I am not clear whether that is dealt with in the regulations to which the minister referred.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister the
figures to show how many years and how the pay goes up?


Brooke Claxton: It depends on the rank.
If he is a private he gets an extra three dollars a month after three years, three dollars more after another three years, and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Canadian army land not required may be disposed of.
Denton Massey: Under subsection 1 of section 56 will not the minister be running foul of War Assets Corporation in disposing of this land?


Brooke Claxton: Even if we have power
to dispose of land under this subsection, we would do it through War Assets Corporation. The only change made here is the provision by which a lease may be made by the minister for a period not exceeding one year. That has reference to summer properties in the neighbourhood of Royal Military College at Kingston and also at Camp Borden and Valcartier, where people lease property from the crown land, which the crown is unwilling to sell as it may need it in the future.


Denton Massey: The restriction of one year places a handicap on the minister because somebody might want to lease the land for three years. In that case would he have to declare it surplus?


Brooke Claxton: We would then have to have an order in council.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Cadet corps command.
Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I feel that this is one of the most important clauses of the bill, for in dealing with the cadet corps we are dealing with the very foundation of the army as we hope to have it. I know that some other hon. members wish to speak on this section and I have a few remarks to make on it myself, so that perhaps you might call it eleven o'clock.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie the house adjourned at 10,55 p.m.
Monday, February 17, 1947