March 31, 1920

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.

L LIB

Alexander William Chisholm

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CHISHOLM:

For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in any way referring to a proposed change in the site of Beatonville Post Office, Inverness County, N.S.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS.
Permalink

THEFT OF $50,000 FROM EDMONTON POST OFFICE.


'Mr. H. A. MACKIE, (Edmonton East) moved : For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports by detectives and others, and other documents relating to the theft of fifty thousand dollars from the post office in the city of Edmonton, and to George Armstrong, postmaster of the said post office, as well as to all employees in the said post office so far as all these may relate to the said theft of fifty thousand dollars.


UNION

Newton Wesley Rowell (Minister presiding over the Department of Health; President of the Privy Council)

Unionist

Hon. Mr. ROWELL:

Before the motion is adopted I have one observation to make. If any of the correspondence referred to is such that its being made public might lead to a disclosure of the plans of the police in connection with the apprehension of the criminals, it should not be brought down, but generally, I think, the correspondence might be brought down.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   THEFT OF $50,000 FROM EDMONTON POST OFFICE.
Permalink

UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.

UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that the men of Canada between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, other than those who are crippled and infirm, should receive physical training, to increase their ability in civil and industrial life, and to fit them to defend their country against invasion or aggression, and that for this purpose the Department of Militia and Defence should organize training schools and camps so that all such men should have an opportunity of putting in four weeks' time annually for training for seven years, with the option of increasing the yearly period of training in any year so long as the training does not exceed twenty-eight weeks of a man's life.

And that in the opinion of this House national service should be universal in a democracy and not left to whim or preference and that a volunteer system tends to produce class feeling and is unfair.

And that it is expedient to curtail the customary expenditure for military purposes and that the Government of Canada should, as

regular service, and that we can not be defended but by making every citizen a soldier, as the Greeks and Romans who had no standing armies; and that in doing' this all must be marshalled, classed by their ages, and every service ascribed to its competent class.

In his "Fifth Annual Message" -to Congress, in 1805, he wrote:

You will consider whether it would not be expedient, for a state of peace as well as of war, so to organize or class the militia, as would enable us, on any sudden emergency, to call for the services of the younger portions, unencumbered With the old and those having families.

It is contemplated by this motion that only young men of from eighteen to twenty-five years of age-and I think they should be single men-should shoulder the burden of defence now that we have given over 500,000 men to the war. Some say: What is the use of defence now? We have all these young men who were at the war. But that suggestion is grossly unfair; these men have done their hit, and it is now only proper that the younger men coming on should assume the responsibility.

Going back further, we have the statement by no less a statesman than Demosthenes, in 380, B.C., who, because the Athenians had failed in their wars by reason of depending on mercenaries, addressed them thus:

Yet, O, Athenians, yet there is time! And there is one manner in which you can recover your greatness or dying, fall worthy of your past, and the manner of it is this: Cease to hire your armies. Go yourselves, every man of you, and stand in the ranks; and either a victory beyond all victories awaits you, or falling, you shall fall nobly, and worthy of your past.

Coming to later times, I might quote what Theodore Roosevelt, who I suppose was regarded as the greatest citizen of our neighbouring country to the South, said to his son, Col. Roosevelt, who mentions it in his book just published. "Ted," said Theodore Roosevelt, "every man should defend his country. It should not be a matter of choice; it should be a matter of law. Taxes are levied by law. They are not optional. It is noit permitted for a man to say that it is against his religious beliefs to pay his taxes."

Canada's military force since 1855 and up to 1917 was entirely a voluntary one. The active militia was said to consist of 46,500 men. These figures are obtained from, the report of General Sir Ian Hamilton, who had access to all the records of the Department of Militia and Defence in making his report. Of these 46,500, I would say

that no more than 6,000 could be considered as even fairly well trained for a campaign of modern warfare. About 15,000, or one-third of, the whole, who attended training camps and parades were more or less ardent military men. The rest were attracted by the pay and the opportunity for obtaining an enjoyable twelve days' holiday with their fellows. In other words, Canada did not take its defence seriously, and there was little of the. spirit that makes for a respected force. Outsiders looked on joining the Militia as a sort of game. Men who made a hobby of golf, football, lacrosse or hockey did not realize that training was a national duty as well as an individual pleasure. We might very well consider whether it might not be better to go back and adopt the example of Nova Scotia, which up to Confederation had a universal training law, as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) well remembers. In 1865 Nova Scotia with its small population trained 58,760 men. Perhaps all these men were not fully trained, but at all events they had to answer to their names on muster. It is a great question whether we should ever have done away with the old system, when every man in the country was a soldier. That was given up, weakly, most people think, in 1855 and until the necessities of the war demanded a change.

The proposal in this resolution is first of all that men between the ages of 18 and 25 should submit to an obligatory annual training, thereby getting rid of the optional element which is the basis of our present system. The resolution asks that a universal training law should be passed as soon as possible. It may be said that this is not an opportune time to bring this matter forward, that we have just gone through a great war and are war-weary, that the clash has been so great that we shall never have war again. That, however, is a question, and it is also a question whether it is not at the time of the greatest weariness that we should look to the future. The man who has undergone the greatest fatigue from frost, for instance, wishes to lie down in drowsiness. That is the dangerous time, and his companions on the march or in the Arctic regions have to rouse him and keep him going or else he will perish. I am not going to give my opinion as to whether this great war, because it happens to be called great, is the last war. Others, however, do not think it will be. Marshal

Foch, whose sagacity is incomparable, said in January last:

Who can say that Germany, whose ideas ol democracy are recent and perhaps quite superficial, will nor rise rapidly from her defeat and In a very few years will not try a second time to destroy us.

Mr. J. M. Keynes, who was a delegate to the Peace Conference which our ministers attended, and who is one of the principal financial men of Great Britain, in his book, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," which is of a most interesting character, and which is now being read so widely, in the United States at all events, where they are making the Treaty a political football, says that the Treaty itself is more fruitful of the possibilities of future wars than if it had not been drawn. I do not dare to give my opinion as contrary to the two authorities I have cited.

As to the statement that the introduction of such a measure would mean militarism or produce the habit of mind of militarists, I do not agree with that. It seems to me there is nothing beyond that mere statement by those who think it would have that effect. Those who have studied the question do not agree that it would have the effect feared. I urge that educationalists in Canada are in favour of such a measure. They have studied the aspirations and needs of youth, and that alone is a good reason for introducing such a measure into Parliament at the present time. A commission of prominent educationalists from the provinces of Canada met not long ago and studied the question thoroughly, and we cannot afford to ignore the conclusion which they came to. This commission was composed of Dr. Burwash of Victoria College, Dr. Gordon of Queen's University, Dr. McKay, Superintendent of Education of Nova Scotia, Dr. Cody of Toronto, Dr. MacMillan of Halifax, Colonel Dauth of Laval, Rabbi Jacobs of Toronto, Principal Hutton, and others. Referring to the training of coming citizens, they made this statement:

Genuine patriotism is developed by it. Not in an arrogant or offensive consciousness ot national importance, but of faith in himself and his country that is one of the basic elements of a strong and balanced Hnoral character. Drill defines in a boy's mind the need of active co-operation with his fellows and gives h'm a greater consciousness of his own individuality.

The next point which I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the necessity, which I quite admit, of having organized labour behind this measure. Unless they approve of it, it would not likely be enacted and could not be effectively enforced. I am convinced that when organized labour studies the measure in the light whichJhas been thrown upon it by their leaders for many years in all countries, they will not oppose such a measure, although I know it is the popular impression that they would. Labour has made many mistakes, as they will be the first to admit, in the last thirty or forty years. They have discarded some tenets which they formerly held most devoutly, and I am inclined to think that if there are in the ranks of labour those who are opposed to such a measure, they must in time see that it is for their own protection. The unthinking man, if I may put it in that way, in the ranks of labour who has not thought or read' much, looks upon an armed force as something which would impede his effort to get his rights by strikes. But that is due to the fact, in Canada at any rate, that there has been a caste or class, the militia, which has been called out to interfere with the actions of the men when on strike. That is the very thing I wish to avoid in asking that this measure be enacted, because, if the proposal were adopted, the very ranks of the militia of Canada, which I have hope will be the only military force, would be filled with organized labour itself. The trouble with labour, since we have had organized labour, has always been the failure of strikes, except in rare instances, because they have not had the discipline necessary to carry them on, nor have they had the willingness to obey the leaders. The consequence has been that, without proper discipline and training, any organized strike has soon become a mob, and has been unable to effect by force what it has desired. Let me say that the leaders of labour are in favour of this measure. One ol their principal representatives is J. Ramsay MacDonald, at present not a member of the House of Commons in England, but soon to become so, I should imagine. After reading the French author, Jaures, he was opposed to this principle, having a lurking idea that he might interfere with the right of labour to strike. I think he reveals not only his own mind, but probably the opinion of the vast majority of British organized labour, when, speaking of the late war, he makes use of the following language in a book which he has written on the subject:

The country has been grievously misled by a kind of pious pacifism which lulled it into a false sense of security, which refused to face the truth, which allowed it to drift into war while it was preaching peace, and which, when war broke out chirped about this being the last of the wars, and linked its aims in

those of war as the saviour of society and the herald of peace. The character of our present alliance is lucky for us, but it would be indeed a foolish nation that would trust everything to chance because it was once favoured by good fortune.

Ramsay MacDonald recognizes the risk run in being unprepared to combat such a scientific enemy as our late foe, and we members of this House of Commons heard Mr. Samuel Gompers after a session of the House last year, when that gentleman himself stated that at one time he was a pacifist but that, in view of the danger to organized labour that lurked in the national passion and prejudice of an enemy, he had been converted into what he described as a first-class fighting man. Some one has said that labour has no country. This cannot be asserted in view of the efforts and accomplishments of labour in the last war. There is implanted in the minds and hearts of men of moderate means and income, an attachment to race and country which does not exist among capitalistic or aristocratic classes, for the reason that the workingman depends upon the security of his home to a far greater degree than do the affluent and leisure classes. The workingman cannot travel or set up establishments in other countries than his own, us the wealthy can do; as a result, of his nomadic life the wealthy man is apt to become denationalized. We all know such people, and we know what nuisances they become. The man who travels incessantly, staying in his own country only part of his time becomes a cosmopolite on whom you cannot rely. But it is only because such a man has ample opportunity to travel that he loses the deep interest in his own country which every citizen should cherish. Jean Jaures is indisputably a leader in the ranks of labour, and in his book "Armee Nouvelle " which, translated into English is " Democracy and Military Service," says at page 77:

Leaving this formidable monopoly-

Meaning a standing army.

-to paid troops is repudiated The

whole instinct, ' the whole thought of the *working classes in every country goes in the contrary direction. It is the workmen and socialists who demand military service for all. The people's one chance of avoiding the oppression of the army is to make that army thei'r own. If democracy will only come to grips with militarism she will prove the stronger power.

At page 78 he says:

If a nation is found bent on following a policy of peace and justice, why should it hesitate to call on every man for the common good.

fMr. Mowat 1

It may be said by the unthinking in the ranks of organized labour that it is a capitalistic idea to have a large force. But I would ask, if labour in Canada were represented in the army, how could it be possible to call out that army to suppress labour troubles?

Australia has passed an-Act such as I am now advocating and pleading for, and it was passed at the instance of labour. Oh, it will be said, that is because they wished to keep out the Asiatics, who they fear will bring down the price of labour. That may be so; but suppose that is the reason for their passing the law, are we exempt from the same menace in Canada? We know what a strong feeling exists in the minds of Canadians in the western coast province that they must keep their province intact in the matter of labour. Such a nation ,as Japan, powerful and wealthy, or China, may insist that it shall not be treated in the way in which if has heretofore been treated. I am not of course stating this as a matter of probability, but let us suppose, rightly or wrongly, that either of these nations should insist upon different treatment from that which has been accorded it in the past. Where, 1 ask, is the force among the labouring people of British Columbia to insist on their rights? They would be helpless. They might argue and resolute, but they, would have no force worth speaking of to maintain the rights which they now claim. It therefore behooves labour, for whom I am now speaking, to see to it that the strength of the force of Canada shall not be altogether composed of the class that may be opposed to their interests, but that they shall enter that force themselves.

Then, in regard to the historical interest of the subject, I appeal to my hon. friends here, who come from the province of Quebec, to give the matter their favourable consideration. The province of Quebec gave us our present defence system. The militia originated in French Canada, and as a fact of historic interest, I may be allowed to say that it dates back to 1649, and was intended at first to be a protection against the warlike Iroquois. It was reorganized in 1676 by Frontenac, and remained up to 1760 under the form given to it by that pro-consul. The British authorities adopted the plan of the French and maintained it for,nearly a hundred years; it was a universal service allowing, in its letter, no favouritism or individual preference. It received no pay or equipment, each man furnishing his own piece. The parishes were responsible for units of varying size. The captain of mili-

tia -was a man of influence and ability. He co-operated with his seigneur and the cure and he had a special banc d'honneur in the church. Training in camp and organization, transportation, etc., were unnecessary as they were in the blood, and the habitants training was confined to practice at the target.

I am relying for these facts upon the papers and books of that capable writer, Mr. Benjamin Suite, who is now enjoying an honoured old age in this city and whose capacity to deal with historical matters of that sort will not be disputed. The old militia was governed by ordinance up to 1777 and in 1808 an Act 48 George III was passed in Lower Canada known as the Militia Act, the preamble of which is as follows:

Whereas a well regulated militia is of the utmost importance to the defence of this province ; and

Whereas the laws now in force for the training thereof are in some respects defective.

It enacts:

3. That every male inhabitant, from sixteen to sixty years of age. shall be deemed capable of bearing arms and shall enroll his name as a militiaman on the first training day x x x be under a penalty for neglect of a fine of ten shillings.

This was the Militia Act for Quebec and that with the Act of Tipper Canada which followed gave us the militia which we had for so many years. It was an obligatory militia. Nobody complained of it and if those 'who were parliamentarians in 1855, when that system was changed, so that training became optional, had been far-sighted enough the obligatory system would have been maintained to the present day. Any way the fact that the militia was constituted as it was and that it practised rifle shooting with assiduity shows

3 p.m. that when it was called upon to defend the Caiiadas from the invader it was there and the record of the stubborn resistance and heroism of the trained men of the citizen army displayed at Chateauguay, Queenston Heights, and Lundy's Lane, will forever rerhain. But for the militia, assisted, it is true, by the loyal Indians, Canada undoubtedly would have been lost.

The Act of 1855 was continued until the Union of the different provinces in Confederation. The Act of 1868 remained until 1904 when a revision of the statutes was made by 4 Edward VII chapter 25. Then the salutary and comprehensive provision that all men of fighting age should compose the militia was cut down and was made to read that they should be liable to serve in 59

the militia. Instead of the authorities being able to reach out for the men needed there would have to be some legislative Act carried and perhaps only after a long and protracted debate could the men be procured. If the militia law that had existed for 200 years was a good thing for Canada my plea is that this provision should now be restored.

We have, in addition to the eminent educationalist of Laval University that I have referred to, an opinion expressed less than a year ago in this House by the hon. member for Gaspe and for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). He says this:

I said a moment ago that I am not a militarist, but I believe, especially after the magnificent part Canada played in this war. that we should be proud of our militia and that we should maintain, within proper limits, a militia organization on a sound footing. In order to perpetuate that organization I think we should begin at the beginning. After all it is a manly sport. Reviewing my college experienced, I have observed that the students who turned out best were those who had joined the cadets and had done their part as good boys in the cadet corps. Just to give an example, I was reading some statistics on Sunday in a Montreal daily. The minister knows that possibly the best cadet corps in Montreal is that of the Mont St. Louis College. Because of the organization which has been maintained for years and years, and which has been a source of pride to the citizens of Montreal, during the war, from that institution alone, 325 boys joined the colours. I attribute that to the fact that they were trained as cadets in that institution. As much as possible in our colleges, academies and high schools all over the country, without spreading any militaristic spirit we should have cadet organizations in which the boys would take pride and which would give them an opportunity of taking part in a manly sport.

I find much to commend in the Swiss system. In Switzerland every man knows how to handle a gun, and we had evidence of that during the war. Although Switzerland was not engaged in the war, from the end of July, 1914, tlie whole Swiss army, which means practically the male population of age, was under arms in order to guard the boundary [DOT]of Switzerland;. -In Switzerland, from the earliest moment of a man's life, he is called upon to practise all the military exercises. Yet it is a democratic country, probably the most democratic in Europe, and the entire organization is carried out with little expenditure. I am not for a carnival of expenditure in what I am propounding this evening; I think with a minimum expenditure you can have our young men fairly well instructed in their country's defence. I think the militia organization should be maintained on a proper basis, because it is a school which will bring the best results to our young men.

I also find in a newspaper published in the sister province, L'Evenemept, the following:

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
L LIB

Henri Sévérin Béland

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BELAND:

Does my hon. friend believe that the Swiss army was more formidable than the Belgian army, which did not save Belgium from invasion?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. MOWAT:

Yes, undoubtedly, if my opinion is worth anything, and recognized authorities say so too, for the reason that every Swiss knew something about soldiering, whereas only a certain portion of the Belgians were trained as regular soldiers, and they were recruited from men engaged in industrial life. What did Switzerland do two days after the outbreak of war? In that short time the republic mobilized

526,000 men fully armed and equipped. Just think of the difference between Switzerland and this country in that respect, and of the painful efforts we made, extending over years, to raise a force which was not equal to the Swiss. The Swiss mobilization took place quietly and efficiently and without panic, for their system does not take their men away from industrial pursuits but simply makes them better citizens, and although they have no regular troops, they were in two days able to put themselves in a formidable state of defence.

59J

The permanent force of Switzerland is but a mere corps of instructors numbering 276. The Swiss does not want liberal pay for his militia service, he takes pleasure out of the early training. He gets nothing more than some comforts, tobacco, cigarettes, and so. on, and sixteen cents a day, out of which is kept back two cents for a company fund, to which the Government contributes five cents. If we can obtain this boon it is to-be hoped that similar principles will prevail here.

I look upon the pay system of the Canadian militia as a great evil; it holds up to a man the hope of getting some money [DOT]out of the country, and that idea may be more emphasized (than the idea of service. I sincerely hope that our men will not insist upon (being paid for their services-and I am sure they will not, when the matter is properly put before them-during the few weeks that they spend under training each year for their country's good.

The question arises, does this universal military service in Switzerland interfere with the standing of Switzerland as an industrial nation? Does it take away from its ability to produce and be prosperous? Mr. Cbulton, an Englishman, has written a very fine book entitled "The Case for Universal Service. " Mr. Coulfton addressed a questionnaire ,to one hundred business firm's in Lausanne, taken at random from the directory of the city. Forty-six firms replied-a pretty good average, because it was no business of theirs, of course, to rejfly to this stranger's inquiries. These fonty-six firms employed 9,263 persons. To the question, " Do you judge compulsory military service to be disadvantageous to Swiss trade and commerce?" forty-five answered "No;" many gave an enumeration of causes which more than counterbalanced the small loss of time involved; one returned a doubtful answer, but did not say " Yes." The concensus of replies wias that the training engenders habits of discipline, cleanliness and efficiency which could not be (brought about in any other way; and that is a cheap price to pay for training which makes a man a more efficient worker and a more useful citizen for twenty years thereafter.

I have some notes here with regard to the results of an inspection of the Swiss system by prominent labour men in the Old Country. Mr. John Ward, Labour member in the Imperial Parliament, who. had made a visit to Switzerland, said in-the House on one occasion:

I can give the House an illustration of what conscription means in one little State. Re-

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
UNION

Henry Arthur Mackie

Unionist

Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East):

In the resolution the hon. member has moved, he speaks of training for four weeks a year for seven years. Has the hon. member any figures as to the number of men who would be in training during the seven years? The resolution calls for a reserve for defence purposes. What would be the number in reserve; how many reserves are there to be, and what would be the cost?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
UNION

Herbert Macdonald Mowat

Unionist

Mr. MOWAT:

I should be very willing

and glad to answer the question, and I think I could, but my answer would not be authoritative. After we have adopted the principle, then it could be worked out by those who understand such matters, but I understand that the number of men of this class, who were found by the registration of. two years ago to exist in Canada, was 336,000. A large number of these may be excused, and while I do not know how that would work out, I should be inclined to think that you would find 200,000 young men, practically boys, for the force. If you palled out 100,000 the first year so as not to make the thing too expensive at one time and took out 25,000 of these each time at different periods of the year, you would have a sufficient force to make a test whether Ahis scheme was going to be a success or not. As regards the reserve, after the young man has completed his training and become a fairly efficient soldier, then he is put into the reserve and will not be called on again. I make the option, which I think is a wise one, that if,a young man wants to do all his training at one time and get rid of it in order to go into business, or whatever his motive for doing so, may be, he can do so. But I am inclined to think that many, if not most young men will desire to have the annual training because it will give them freedom and a holiday which they will all enjoy. If the instructional staff which we shall have in

Canada under such a scheme as this will! be anything like the instructors in artillery, engineering, rifle shooting and infantry training which they have in Switzerland, we shall not be at all ashamed of the force that we shall have in Canada. The figures are startling, showing that we are wasting- that is not to strong a word to use-money upon the force as we have it at present, and if Switzerland can raise 500,000 men in two-days at a less sum than that at which we-can raise 46,000 men, and then have a great deal of doubt as to their efficiency, it is time for the Parliament of Canada to come-to some conclusion about the matter.

BRIGADIER-GENERAL W. A. GR1ES-BACH (Edmonton West.): Mr. Speaker, I do not entirely approve of the terms of the-resolution which' has been moved by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), and which I am seconding, but the main principle of universal service is to be found . therein, and for the purpose of - bringing that before the House, I have very much pleasure in seconding the motion. In the discussion of this very important question, there are, it seems to me, two .aspects of the case for discussion: First, the system -which we have and have had and the system which we propose or which we might have. It is an important question, worthy of the consideration of this House, for we have just come to the end of a great episode in the history of this countryj'- which has cost us 60,000 liyes and an expenditure of $1,500,000,000. Nothing in the history of this country so stupendous and so far-reaching has ever happened before, and for that reason alone a discussion of our methods. in the past and our proposals for the future is a matter which, in my humble opinion, exceeds in importance almost any other subject that we can discuss.

As my hon. friend has pointed out, we have had and probably will have in this country a system of defence which, in previous years, has cost us about $10,000,000 a year. Our paper strength was about

66,000 men and we were usually some 18 or 20 thousand men short; the officers were unqualified; the men had poor, and, in some cases, scarcely any equipment. We were emphatically not fit to take the field, and when war broke out it was six months after the declaration of war before we were able to put a division, 19,000 men, in the field. In other words, we required six months' training, and we asked of our Allies, and particularly of the British army that we should have six months in which

to train before we got into the field at all. Two years passed before we were able to develop our maximum strength. We went into this war under this haphazard system, or scarcely any system at all, and we may attribute to our system and to our unreadiness a very large proportion of our expenditure in money and not a little of our expenditure in human life. For one thing, we put into the front line trenches in this war, from the very outset to the last day, all the married men that we could' get hold of. We began immediately to pay their wives and children separation allowances, and the Patriotic Fund made tremendous payments. And to-day we are confronted with a tremendous pension bill, a very substantial portion of which may be attributed to the fact that we had no system or method of selection whereby the young active and aggressive men did the front line work and the older married men were put elsewhere or were not called until very much later when they were required. Under the system that prevails and has prevailed, only men with leisure and money can afford to be officers. You will read in the newspapers now, if you are interested, a discussion which is going on about filling positions for commanding officers for units in Canada, and you will be surprised to hear that men who distinguished themselves as leaders of battalions and companies and units generally in France, find themselves unable to accept command in time of peace. Men who served with great distinction are now obliged to refuse for the reason that under the system that has prevailed a commanding officer must spend a great deal of his own money in providing amusement and entertainment in order to make The service attractive. He has to coax men to the defence of their country.

Then there is

I have named, and the proportion is not so high as some think, will be over age. We shall not have this reserve, and without the adoption of a policy now we will be worse off then than we are at present. A military policy is like the construction of a building. It must be based on a broad foundation and must grow as the nation grows. You cannot improvise without heavy loss. You cannot improvise officers or material, and if you undertake to improvise an army you must do it at tremendous cost. I sometimes think I should like to see an inquiry set on foot in this country to ascertain precisely what this war has cost us.

In order that people who are interested in this matter may have something to visualize as a system of defence, I may say that last year I brought out and circulated through the press a scheme for the defence of Canada, based upon universal military service. I found in discussing this matter that almost every man who had served overseas, almost every officer who had anything to do with the militia of Canada, and almost every man who had given the -matter any consideration whatever, agreed that the old system was a failure, that it was expensive, and absolutely a broken reed to depend on in time of trouble. If the old militia system had any merit or virtue at all, it was that it kept alive in this country the military spirit, upon which we were able to build up an army. It did little beyond that, and when one considers the amount of money that has been spent upon it, one wonders that some better system has not been devised. In answer to that question, in consultation with other people who are interested, I prepared a scheme for the defence of this country which I circulated from one end of Canada to the other, and concerning which I have received a number of very satisfactory replies. Some criticized, some offered suggestions, but there was general agreement more or less.

Let me explain the system. We had in all the provinces', and particularly in the province of Quebec, a cadet system. In some provinces the system is good, and in others it is poor, but we have a system of cadet training from one end of Canada to the other. I proposed that at the age of 12, which is the cadet age, the training should be standardized throughout the whole country, and that the boy of that age should receive medical, dental and oculistic examination, with free medical, dental and oculistic treatment, to be supplied by the State. I proposed that they should receive

this medical inspection and treatment throughout the term of their military service.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
L LIB

Henri Sévérin Béland

Laurier Liberal

Mr. BELAND:

From the age of 12 tc

25?

BRIGADIER-GRNERAL GRIESBACH: I

will come to that in a moment. My system provided for junior cadets from 12 to 15 years ' of - age, and senior cadets from 16 to 18. In that respect it conforms to the New Zealand and Australian systems. Let me not be misunderstood. I say that the training should be universal and compulsory. The boy will receive his training and his medical treatment by the State. No person shall escape. My proposal was that at the age of 19 the young man should go into a depot and receive three months' training in any one of the four ouarters of the year which suited him best. Thereafter he would be drafted to a unit of the Canadian militia, and would be required to do one month's field training with the unit of the service which he selects. That continues to the age of 22. When he reaches the age of 23 he passes to the reserve, and is called up once a year, until he is 30, for medical examination and to fire a course in musketry. In other words, apart [DOT] from the cadet training I would have every young man in Canada who is medically fit and who is not excused because of certain exceptions which would have to be provided- ministers of religion, judges, and so on- come up for training, and under this system every such young man would give six month's and seven day's military service to the country; three month's at the age of 19, one month at the age of 20, 21 and 22, and thereafter seven day's service in the reserve.

As to the training of officers, when a man had gained the rank of corporal in any formation he would be eligible to take the entrance examination for the officers' class; then after passing take three months' training and a graduation examination. Then

for every subsequent step up in rank he would have to take the necessary examination. That would put the rank of officer and promotion within the reach of every man in Canada, with the result that in a future war twenty or twenty-five years hence, every man in Canada, whether he sat in this House or directed some of our great national enterprises, would be a reasonably well-trained soldier, and would be able to give his country a form and quality of service such as was not given to it by the various enthusiastic people who endeavoured to run this war for us in the last five years. I have some figures as to cost which I believe will prove interesting. I am sure that hon. members from Nova Scotia will be interested to know that in the yea>- 1366 there was in that province a militia which might well serve as a model. With a population of 337,600, they had a military expenditure of $114,460. They had a military strength of 58,000, and trained 45,767, and their expenditure per head of population was thirty-two cents. The individual soldier cost them $2.50, and 16.22 per cent of the population were trained soldiers. In 1912 Canada with a population of 7,206,643, had a military expenditure of $9,352,570, as against Switzerland with a population of 3,758,300 with a military expenditure of $8,430,000. In Canada that year, with the expenditure I have just mentioned, we trained 48,000 men, and in Switzerland in the same year there were trained 331,610 men. The expenditure per head of population in Canada was $1.30, and in Switzerland $2.24. The individual soldier cost Canada $193.96, and under universal training the individual soldier cost Switzerland $25.42. New Zealand has the system -which I recommend, and the individual soldier cost them in 1912 $94.03 as compared with our $193.96.

I quote from "Canada and National Service" by Colonel William Hamilton Merritt, page 214, a comparison of costs and results in Nova Scotia, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand, from the years stated: -

Population

Military expenditure

War strength of militia

Trained militia available

Militia expenditure per capita of population. Militia expenditure per capita of militi:

strength

Militia expenditure per capita of trainee

militia strength

Results.

Nova Scotia Canada Switzer- land New Zealand1866. 1912. 1912. 1912.. 337,600 . $114,460 . 58,000 . 45,767 . $0.32 7,206,643 $9,352,570 66,014 48,213 $1.30 3,758,300 $8,430,000 538.610 331.610 $2.24 1,100,000 $2,560,200 52,079 27,225 $2.32. $1.97 $141.67 $15.65 $49.16. $2.50 $193.96 $26.42 $94.03

Costs and Results-Concluded.

Cost of Headquarter and District Staff .. .. Cost of Permanent Corps (without barracks,

maintenance, etc.).. .. '

Permanent officers and men, No

Percentage of militia war strength to

population

Percentage of trained militiamen available, to population

There can be no question as to the value of the service; the efficiency of military service based upon universal training admits of no dispute. But an argument is frequently advanced that in such training there is an inherent danger of militarism. Now, "militarism" is a vague word which is veriously defined by those who make use of it. Its definition is very comprehensive, running all the way from the description as a militarist of the man who is a soldier of any sort, to the application of the word to the military despots of Europe. It has been laid down by the most eminent thinkers that in a democracy one of the principal obligations of the citizen is his duty to defend the state. From that duty there can be no escape, and John Stuart Mill says that universal training is the incident of citizenship in a democracy. The Swiss Republic, probably the most democratic country on earth, has for years trained every man to be a soldier, and it is an historic fact that wherever there has existed a small professional army under the control of an autocrat, the people not being trained to arms, therein have flourished rampant autocracy and absolutism, together with an absence of civil and religious liberty. On the contrary, in any country where the people were trained to arms, taking the national defence into their own hands, the freedom of conscience and political and religious liberties progressed. No nation in history has lost its liberties under a system by which the citizens were trained to arms. On the other hand, the nations which have lost their freedom and their rights are those who entrusted their defence either to aliens or to small professional paid armies. It is argued that a system of universal training would be subversive to our institutions and contrary to our principles. Well, at the moment compulsion exists under the common law; it exists under the Militia Act. Compulsion has existed in England since the days of the Edwards, and we resorted to it in the late war. Should we have another war we wnuld resort to compulsion immediately, and we would do so because it is the only efficient

Nova Scotia Canada Switzer- land New Zealand1866. 1912. 1912. 1912.$194,460 $317,177 $82,760$2,199,907 2,280 $359,763 233 $568,620 53016.22 0.91 14.33 4.7312.80 0.64 8.85 2.47method, the only method wherby power is given to the country and certainty imparted

to plans of defence. It is the method which best lends itself to the proper disposal of the man-power of the country.

Some figures have' been given by the hon. member who preceded me as to the value to the state of medical, dental and oculistic treatment and physical training. Our figure? in this respect, in connection with our enlistments in Canada, are poor, but in the United States, of thirteen million conscripts examined for the army, three million of these young men were found to be medically unfit to defend their country. The medical officers who had charge of that branch of the service have expressed the opinion, which is borne out by almost all medical men in [DOT]Canada, that of these" three million men of military age who were found medically unfit, a very large proportion-more than half of them-suffered from complaints which could have been cured by timely treatment -complaints which the men need never have had had they been treated in the earlier stage; in other words, had preventive measures been taken. I venture to say-and in this I am supported by the best medical opinion-that if we had some system of training involving annual medical examination, with appropriate treatment, we could practically abolish venereal diseases in Canada. We could perhaps deal to a large extent -with the drug habit which is growing upon our people, and we could deal a heavy blow at tuberculosis. In other words, with such a system of medical, oculist and dental examination, and with physical training we could build up a nation physically superior to almost anything that has gone before.

There is a third aspect of this training to which I should like to call attention. The other day the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele) introduced a resolution which attracted a good deal of attention in this House on the question of Canadianizing the alien. Some gentlemen who spoke upon that question commented upon the fact) that, whereas many had spoken as to the propriety of doing something to Canadian-

ize the alien, nobody had brought forward a concrete proposal as to what ought to be done. Here is a concrete proposal. Let us examine the figures that bear upon the question for a moment to ascertain how important it is. The census of 1901 divided up the population of Canada as follows:

1901 1911

Per cent Per cent

British descent .. 57.03 54.08French descent .. 30.71 28.51Foreign descent 17.40British and foreign immigration during the years from 1909 to 1918 was as follows:British Foreign.1909 52,901 94,0071910 59,790 149,0041911 123,013 188,0711912 138,121 216,1161913 150,542 151,8901914 142,612 242,2561915 43,276 101,5131916 8,664 39,8731917 8,282 67,0921918 3,178 75,896730,379 1,325,718

The census for the coming year will disclose precisely how our standing now is but without doubt the percentage of British-born people and of- French-born people is sinking slowly but surely and the percentage of foreign-born is increasing equally slowly but just as surely. I know of no other or better system whereby we can reach the alien and foreigner on so broad and comprehensive a plan as by the means of universal military service. I know of no better or other method of mixing the young alien with the native-born, teaching him our language, our laws and our social customs and giving him a conception of the ideal of sound democracy. I say that I know of no other or better system and indeed no other or better system has been suggested. For those reasons, on medical grounds, and having regard for what we can do for the foreigner, I commend this system to the careful consideration of the members of this House.

There is the argument sometimes advanced against universal military service that it may have a very serious effect upon immigration, that people would not like to come to a country where such a system prevails. I find that it does not affect immigration to New Zealand, Australia or South Africa. It does not seem to 4 p.m. affect the emigration* to the Argentine Republic, a country with less population than we have, a less area than we have and less inducements to people to come. Yet, between the

years 1910 and 1913 a comparison of the figures shows that the Argentine Republic is about 26,000 people behind us in total immigration. We received 1,176,547 in the years from 1910 to 1913 while the Argentine Republic received 1,140,862 immigrants.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
PRO

Michael Clark

Progressive

Mr. M. CLARK:

They have a very low tariff in the Argentine.

BRIGADIER-GENERAL GRIESBACH: I am not so sure of that.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
PRO

Michael Clark

Progressive

Mr. M. CLARK:

But I know.

GENERAL GRIESBACH: What they have had is a very severe, very strict and lengthy form of universal military training. The hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) may prove his point while I prove mine.

I should like to discuss for a few moments the phenomenon of war. Ever since I can remember a man who in Canada suggested, or advocated the desirability of being prepared for that which he believed to be certain to come, was considered to be an amiable donkey who must be tolerated1 and listened to because one had to listen to him but one in whom no particular stock was to be taken. Within my own lifetime we have had three wars in Canada which taxed our resources and caused us heavy loss in life and money. I have come to the conclusion that even although it may not be popular, even although it may apparently waste the time of some people, it is the duty of those who 'feel they know something of this subject to at least keep it under the consideration of any one they can reach, because, as I said a moment ago, the last war cost us 60,000 lives and a billion and a half dollars.

The ability of a country to defend itself and take appropriate action in great international difficulties is of paramount importance. Some people are disposed to take the view that war will be abolished as we become more enlightened, more educated, and more civilized. Well, those who study war do not come to any such conclusion. It is true that in the past there were wars based on dyhastic causes, or they were the result of irresponsible rulers quarrelling with each other. These causes are now perhaps laid on one side; but the great and underlying causes of war that students recognize have not disappeared by reason of any improvement in education or in general knowledge. On the contrary, these causes still remain, they have become more certain, they operate with greater swiftness and with greater certainty.

If a number of families are crowded into restricted quarters, where sanitary regula-

tions are ignored and disease follows, the unfortunate people are brought before a magistrate and punished for their failure to observe those regulations; but it will be agreed that it was wholly wrong to blame those people, that the cause of that condition goes very much deeper and is to be found in the social and economic causes which contribute to such an unsanitary state of living.

And' so it is with war. It is believed by certain people that because an Austrian prince was assassinated in a small town near Serbia armies were mobilized, swords drawn, and the great war started. No one really believes that such a catastrophe as overwhelmed this world could be attributed to any such cause. Other observers go deeper and believe that the war was due to the education and propaganda which had been current in Germany for the last thirty years, and which produced a great army and the war spirit. Well, that is quite wrong; the cause lies deeper still. It was due to Germany's over-population, over-production, and exhaustion of natural resources. All these causes working on one another led to the education, to the propaganda, to the spirit, to the army, and finally to the war.

Now, we have won the war, as we think, but we have not removed the cause. We have not taken any steps to reduce Germany's population and production, nor have we taken any steps to supply her with natural resources. So that the cause of the disaster still remains. We may have arrested for a time the breaking out of these people, but logically, we can do only one of two things to cure them: Give them the natural resources and the room for expansion which they demand; or exterminate them. We have not seen fit. to do either. Probably Germany will seek expansion in Russia. If so, it will be at the expense of the Russians; and if not, we may expect trouble again. It will have been noticed that the newspapers of yesterday and the day before continued to chronicle the fact that with all the disturbances in Germany the authorities there had managed to conceal 12,000 field guns which were supposed to have been handed over to the Allies. The Treaty oi Peace which we have made with them, Tunning over a period of thirty-five years, will be so fruitful of all sorts of difficulties, that as the Allies cohesion weakens by reason of the diversity of their interests so we shall have Germany reasserting herself.

It is no use to talk about a defence system unless the possibility of war be admitted. Therefore, I want to lay down certain propositions which, in my judgment,

govern and lie at the bottom of the wars which have been and of the wars which will be. My first proposition is this: When a nation militarily weak, small in population, occupying a large territory with natural resources greater than its needs, comes in contact with a nation militarily strong, with a large population that has exhausted, or is about to exhaust, its natural resources, war will in course of time ensue. .

Secondly: When a nation militarily weak, having vast natural resources and unoccupied territory, denies commercial, industrial and social equality to a nation militarily strong, over-populated, with exhausted natural resources, and pre-eminent in social, commercial and industrial energy, war will ensue.

Thirdly: When a nation sparse in popular tion, great in natural resources, and militarily weak, occupies* such a geographical position that its neighbour, militarily strong, cannot expand except at the expense of the weak nation, war will ensue.

The trouble is that most men study history in periods of- ten years and do not look at it for any length of time longer than their own lives, forgetful of the fact that six thousand years are recorded in history, and what has happened before inevitably happens again

nothing which now happens has not happened before. It is towards the study of history that I desire to direct the attention of the House for the purpose of showing that the very conditions existing to-day have existed before, and that precisely the same results have come from those conditions. ...

Tt is urged as against the possibility of future wars that the League of Nations is an instrument upon which we should rely. Well, the League of Nations is, after all, only a pious hope. Last year when the matter was under discussion the point I raade-and T desire to make it again-was that our interest in the League of Nations goes no further than a pious hope that the nations which won the war will hang together long enough to secure as grea* a degree of compliance on the part of Germany with the Peace Treaty as it is possible to get. Beyond that it does not go; beyond that we should not rely upon it for a single moment.

To summarize, I have said that our present system is, having regard to results, expensive, and, as it is not efficient, it is wasteful. It is undemocratic, since it does not call for equal service and sacrifice on the part of all citizens, but rather lays the burden on such only as are willing to bear

Jit. It is inefficient; it does not give us a force that is fit for anything, either in training or in equipment. The war proved that; all our equipment was scrapped and six months' training was -necessary before wa could take the field. What right have we to ask or to expect that in the next war the sons of Britain shall make a rampart of their bodies behind which we may take six months to train ourselves? That is precisely what we asked them to do, and they did it.

I will be fair with the present system; it is better than no system at all. It kept alive in this country a military spirit upon which we were able to build up our army. It did give an opportunity in days gone by to men who were willing to give the time and the money to fit themselves as well as they could for the great responsibilities which they had to discharge when the war came-and that in the face of the parsimony of Parliament. When the Estimates' of the Minister of Militia come up 1 shall support them throughout. I should like to point out that the militia Estimates for this year are one-forty-third of the total expenditure, while in 1913 they were one-fourteenth of the total expenditure.

Now, what is it that we propose? We propose that the burden of defence shall be laid equally upon all citizens-equal service and equal sacrifice for all. Is there anything wrong with this principle? If there is, what is it? We propose for the defence of our country that the best brains of our country shall participate in the work. We propose that leadership and command in the defence of our country shall be within the reach of the humblest citizens who demonstrate their fitness therefor. We propose a great annual stocktaking of the physical condition and educational standard of the nation whereby we may almost banish disease and illiteracy. We propose a great, comprehensive and far-reaching system whereby the immigrant, the foreigner, at his most impressionable age shall take his place in the ranks of the citizen army and learn our language, our customs, our laws; where in company with the rich and the poor, capital and labour, urban and rural, he may get the spirit of a sound democracy of equal privilege, equal service, equal opportunity, liberty without license and respect for authority. In other words, we plan a one hundred per cent Canadian nation. It is said that we propose to interfere with the economic life of the nation. To that I

say, "No." Our proposal is to add one hundred per cent to the health of the nation; one hundred per cent to the Cana-dianism of the nation; one hundred per cent to the efficiency of the nation. Should our proposal cost five times our present military expenditure, it would be worth it.

Lastly, our proposal would give us an army-not a paper army, not a camouflage army, but a real army for the defence of our country; and the nations of the world would not pity us for our feebleness, but would respect us for our strength.

I have touched upon the phenomena of war. It is hateful, destructive, and so far as our limited understanding goes, senseless. But war has been, and -frar will be. Half the world is at war at the moment. We shall -have wars. In all history no nation has grown great, no nations have survived, without war. Preparedness does not .make war. If it did, nations not prepared would escape war, but they do not.

In that connection I should like to read from a book entitled "Our Military History, Its Facts and Fallacies," by General Leonard Wood, probably the next president of the United States:

Every dictate of common sense, the teaching of history and the lesson of the moment, suggest strongly and 'unmistakably the urgent necessity of the organization of the might of the nation, in order that we may be ready to meet force with force, if other means fail. Reliance on peace treaties is not a safe policy. Experience shows they often mean little in the face of a great crisis threatening the life and interests of a nation.

Preparedness does not mean militarism or an aggressive military spirit; it means simply the application 'to the military questions of the day of something of the experience and lessons of the past as well as those of the present. A man armed against thieves is not prone to become a thief unless he is one at heart. A nation can be strong without being immoral or a bully.

I do not hope that anything we say here to-day will bear immediate fruit. That would be too much to ask. We should not be true to out national mentality if we did not worship our false god3 to the end. But I do ask that you will take this great question into your consideration. I ask that when next you send your sons and brothers to war, you give them a chance for their lives-that you send them with proper equipment, with reasonable training, and under skilled officers. If you do that, you will do a great service for Canada. And if you fail, you may live to see our national life go out in overwhelming disaster and bitter humiliation.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
UNION

Matthew Robert Blake

Unionist

Mr. M. E. BLAKE:

(Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, in supporting this resolution' m favour of universal military service, I desire to deal with that aspect of the .question which relates to the health of the nation as it would be improved by the training and by the inspections that would take place during that training.

Our present system of looking after our men who are at war is well organized; our Army Medical Corps have done their share towards winning the war by keeping up the efficiency of the men. Napoleon could have won out if he had had a well organized Medical Corps to look after his army, but he had not, and we know what the result was. In South Africa a great many more men died as a result of tyhpoid than were killed by Boer bullets. The first really well established medical service in war was that of Japan; the results of the services rendered by her medical officers very greatly reduced the losses and thereby increased the army's efficiency

It is even more necessary to look after our manhood in time of peace so far as health is concerned, because efficiency depends upon the health of the nation. Our developing manhood has not in the past received as much attention from a national standpoint as it should have received. The best stockman, any man who takes an interest in stock, will look after the development of his young cattle, horses, sheep or whatever it may he, and aid them and in every way bring them along to perfect full-grown animals. The health of the young manhood of our nation can be much improved by training and a better and nobler manhood thus produced. If the stockman finds it necessary to look after the development of his stock, it should be the nation's bounden duty to look after the development of its manhood. One of the benefits of training may be shown in the fact that, while the military regulations required men to have a chest measurement of 34 inches, after the war had continued for a year or two, it was found that the Chest expansion under military training and proper exercise developed, so that in the later years of the war, men were taken in with deficient chest measurement, the medical officers knowing that they would develop and come up to the requirements through training. One officer told me that it was a. recognized thing that the tunics all became too small after three months' training, so as to necessitate a supply of new tunics. That was not due to the surplus food with which they were being served in the canteen, be-

cause I think the people of no nation in the. world ordinarily enjoys better food than do Canadians. It might be said of those who come from the slum districts of London that the improvement was due to proper food, and exercise in 'the fresh air, but that would not apply to Canadians who ordinarily get the best of food and are accustomed to outdoor life. This marked development in the chest and lungs of men on military service proves .the benefit resulting from military training. We would not have had so many shell-shock cases or psycho-genetic afflictions if we had had the men trained before the war. Their psychology would have been trained; they would have been used to manoeuvres; they would have been accustomed to cannonading; they would have the military spirit; and' with the changed psychology there would have .been a great deal fewer of the shelhshoek cases, or the psycho-genetic cases that have resulted from the war. I feel that a young man's education is not completed until he has had a good training in discipline. Sir Willian Whyte, who was Vice-President of the Canadian Pacific", attributes a great deal of, his success in life to the training he had received in the volunteers of Ontario in his early days. Shakespeare has made some reference to the fact that a man's training is not complete until he has learned to dance, and he goes on to say how much better a man is in hearing and deportment after he has learned to dance^all of which may. be true. Men who have been trained in discipline are more prone to make a success in the commercial world, than those who have not. Many of the homes in our cities are not overburthened with discipline; the children do very much as ' they like from their ealiest years, and it is lamentable to see in too many of the homes such a lack in this respect. This lack would be supplied by military training, and not only would the health be improved, but the psychology and viewpoint would be changed. Our youth would regard life more seriously, and, when they got a job, they would not be waiting around :for five o'clock and payday, but 'they would on the contrary get down to business and produce an honest day's work. Such would he the effect of discipline, and the result would be of incalculable benefit to the nation. The good book says: "He that ruleth himself is mightier than he that taketh a city. Self control, which is brought about only by discipline, not necessarily stern, hut firm and kind, is something that will help

a man to rule himself in his after years and make him more efficient.

Millions of dollars of this country's money' were spent in training men for a While to fit them for overseas service, and then many of them failed either in this country or after they got to England, because they could not stand the strain. .When you consider that it cost about $2,000 to send such a man to England, you will realize how much better it would have been had the physical defects been discovered 'before the man left Canada, and how still better it would have been had disciplinary training revealed the defects at an early stage. It cost us $2,500 to put a man into France, so that you can see what a great sum of money might have .been saved to the nation by the proper training of our young men and by eliminating the weak ones.

In the United States, it was found that out of every thousand men examined in the whole of the American- army there were 557 defective. These figures are startling, and they -show that by preparedness -much could be done to offset this unfortunate condition. I am told that Kid McCoy, the.great prize fighter, appeared before the military medical tribunal and iwas -told that he was not fit for service. I believe flat-footedness was his trouble. He said: "But I am physically fit; I am very fit. Do you know who I am?" "I do no't care who you are," said the medical examiner, "You are not fit for training and I must reject you." He said>"I am Kid McCoy." The medical officer replied: "I do not care who you are; your feet are flat." This deformity does not come on suddenly; it is improved by calisthenic exercises, and most up-to-date orthopedic -surgeons agree in giving calisthenic exercises such as standing up on one's toes, to strengthen the muscles and preserve the contour of one's foot. If there had been proper inspection of the youth by medical men and these corrective exercises indulged in during their earlier years, Kid McCoy and thousands of others like him would not have flat feet. Rupture or hernia affected many of the men, and with proper inspection, these cases would have been probably all or nearly all operated on and -cured before they .were >called upon for active service. , In Manitoba tor-day 124 per cent of our deaths are due to tuberculosis. Most people probably do not take a full breath every day and never exercise their lungs sufficiently. The benefit that exercise has upon the lungs may be exemplified by the

case of the blacksmith who, with his right hand, is hammering with a heavy hammer and with his left, merely turning oyer the steel, and the result is that his right -biceps is from one and a half to two inches larger than his left. Exercise produces strength and an athlete does not prepare for a contest by lying in bed, but rather by going in for severe and hard training. The same thing applies to the lungs, and men who take physical exercise, who live in the open, who do laborious work, are free from tuberculosis. A friend of mine applied for admission to the flying co-rps. He was told: "We -cannot take you; your -chest measurement is deficient." He went home and worked at the dumb bells and practised deep breathing every night and inside of two months he passed a successful medical test for the flying corps. That -man's mind had not been directed into the proper channels before; but when he saw the deficiency and was told how to .remedy it, he learned a lesson and attained the object he desired.

Had this large percentage of 12J per cent of the population who die from tuberculosis in Manitoba been treated in early or middle life, andc been taught proper methods of living, proper -exercises of the lungs and the benefits of living in the open, the mortality would not be nearly so great. It is said by the best pathologists that 80 per cent of the population at large have had tuberculosis, have it now, or will have it before they die. When you walk down a crowded thoroughfare and realize that four out of every five people come in one of these three categories you can see what a dread disease is abroad in the land. Only ten per cent of -this 80 per cent, that is, eight out of a hundred, die of tuberculosis. If that other eight could be saved, or even half of them, by being taught how to look after themselves, it would be of great benefit to the nation. Many of our youths are never taught at home how to take care of themselves. One of the worst maladies that afflicted our troops was trench-mouth or what is known as pyorrhea, which caused great havoc in the army. Many men went overseas with it before the Dental Corps was thoroughly organized. Later on, they were taught to use the tooth brush, which many of them had never used before. If these men had been taught beforehand the proper protection of their teeth a great deal of the losses due to these causes would have been avoided. Neuritis, rheumatism, trench fever, and kidney trouble are all caused to a great extent, if not entirely, by pyorrhea.

Another thing that would be of great benefit to the nation as a whole would be the teaching of sex hygiene in the camps. This is a matter that -is being considered by educationalists all over the country. I have always felt that if we could get the proper teachers sex hygiene should be taught in the higher grades of the public schools. It is a very delicate subject, of course, and would require careful handling, 'but I think it is a step that should be taken in the matter of education. Young people know nothing of veneral diseases. None of them are warned against them, and I do not know of any better place where young men could be taught this subject than in . the military camps, just as our troops were instructed through lectures on other subjects. Then, when they had received this instruction in sex hygiene they would be more cautious when the calico looks like silk. There would be more restraint and less loss from venereal diseases. I have not the figures of the losses from venereal diseases, but one has only to enjoy a large practice in any city to see the ravages that are being made upon our young manhood and womanhood by these diseases. I am satisfied that the teaching of sex hygiene could be better done in the military camps than anywhere else, even in our public schools. An army to be efficient must be healthy and strong, and the same applies to a nation. By directing the people along the best lines to produce perfect health would, I think, result in a saving to the nation that would compensate for all the expenditures that have been suggested here to-day, and would develop a more moral and a more noble manhood.

Mr. J. E. 8. E,. D'Anjou (Rimouski) (translation): Mr. Speaker, I may say at the outset that I emphatically object to the resolution introduced by the bon member for Parkdale, (Mr. Mowat). As I understand it, if it were adopted by Parliament and if steps were taken to apply it, it would lead to compulsory military service. Then it is militarism which is to be foisted upon this country, that same militarism which for five years the Allies have fought against Germany to destroy-1 have always been and I am still an anti-militarist. I am not going to change my mind, and, as far as I am concerned, I think that such a resolution should not be voted by this House. It is high time we should cease talking of military organization. The hon. gentlemen who have in hand the destinies of this country say that Canada is now a nation,

that she is a member of the League of Nations and that from now on we shall have no more wars. Wjliy then should we establish training camps? Why compel our boys to do military service? It seems to me that it would be more useful for us to take an interest in peace work rather than pass such resolution. Even previous to the war Canada used to expend exorbitant amounts on military camps. Just now, as we are passing through a dreadful crisis, and this country is on the verge of bankruptcy, when there are dificits on all sides, when not later than yesterday the hon. Minister of Railways stated that the Government railways had a deficit of about $50,000,000 for the last year. I think it is more important to economize, to see to the development of our natural resources, to promote agriculture and anything that may ensure prosperity to this country, than to try and establish military organizations.

Il do not propose to detain the House much longer, I wish merely to personally protest from my seat against that resolution, because such are my opinions and, also, as representing a constituency which, like myself, is opposed to militarism. I shall have then done my duty toward my electors, myself and my country in stating that I most emphatically take exception to that resolution. Anticonscriptionist I was, anti-conscriptionist .1 am and anticonscriptionist I shall remain.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
PRO

John Archibald Maharg

Progressive

Mr. J. A. MAHARG (Maple Creek):

It seems to me (this is rather an inopportune time to start discussing the subject of compulsory military training. True, hon. gentlemen who have preceded me have assured us that this proposal does not contemplate war. That is all very well, and it may be their sincere conviction that military training does not engender a warlike spirit. But you cannot convince the people as a whole that when you undertake a system of universal training you have not in contemplation the possibility of war sooner or later. Whatever hon. gentlemen may think about the matter, the establishment of military training will work its fear on the minds of the people. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have had sufficient fighting and military display, at least for a time. We are a. war-weary people; we are heartily sick and tired of strife; and almost on the heels of peace-in fact, peace is not. yet declared so far as all the belligerent nations are concerned- we are now talking of taking up the matter of compulsory training. I think, to say

the very least, we should postpone this subject for a few years. Surely we do not expect to be plunged into the throes of a great .war in the immediate future. At least, let us hope not. But is it not .a remarkably significant fact that the most peaceful country in the world-at all events, the most peaceful nation that took any part in the great war-was the one that almost always formed the spearhead when any tremendous task confronted the allied armies. Our own country, Canada, was the most peaceful of any of the nations that fought in the war. Yet, on all occasions when there was any severe task to be performed, the little Canadian .army was invariably the one that proved the spearhead in the great undertaking. This surely must be an argument that compulsory military training is not indispensable to the creation of an efficient army. Compulsion is not the most efficient force in any work that calls for great and sustained effort. If you have to drive individuals into performing any task you will fail to achieve the best results. There are better means than compulsion, and we have them within our own borders. We are capable of building up the type of people who will make for the maximum pf efficiency in war if they should ever be called upon to take up arms. Why was it that our men fought so bravely and won such signal success in the late war? The prime reason, undoubtedly, was the fact that they were fighting in a just cause, and the battle is half won if you have a just cause. The next reason was the loyalty of our men. We have built up in this country, I think, a class of men Who have on every occasion proven that their loyalty is sound to the core. We have only to look back over the period of war to find conclusive evidence of this fact. But, apart from all this, I think there is another great reason for the success of our soldiers, and that is the fact that we are a nation of 'athletes. There is not a single season in the entire year-scarcely one week in the twelve months-when we are not engaged, from one end of Canada to the other, in some form of athletic sports; and it is the athlete that makes the outstanding citizen when it comes to stamina, resourcefulness and efficiency. If you can develop men by friendly rivalry and by the inculcation of a spirit of good fellowship and the ambition for worthy supremacy, you will build up a much more virile and successful people than any military training can produce.

I have much sympathy with some of the arguments advanced by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me as to the effects which military training will have upon the physical development of our men. Unfortunately, however, as it appears to me, at the age of eighteen or twenty is rather too late in the life of a man to undertake physical development. If this Government deemed it proper to spend money for the purpose of physically developing our young men -and, by the way, that is one of the strong arguments in favour of military training- it seems to me that we should also develop our women if we desire to build up a sturdy race of people. But you cannot develop virile men by starting to train them when they have reached the age of eighteen or twenty. I think that, a much better plan, if it could be devised, would be for this Government to give assistance to the provinces in such a way that they could begin the physical development of our youth in the primary schools, where, in my opinion, physical training should unquestionably commence. We could also undertake some of the other things suggested as being part of the programme of military training. In regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg, we could provide instruction for our young people in the schools in connection with the prevention of contagious diseases. [DOT] It is obviously too late in life, when a person has attained the age of eighteen or twenty years, to begin to think of instruction in this matter. In early life, before bur youth have become victims to preventable diseases, we should teach them the proper means of avoiding contagion, and it is but a fatal mistake to leave this responsibility until harm has resulted. Someone has said: Give me a group of out-door athletes, and I will pit them against any other class of men, no matter where they may come from; and this opinion I endorse. We have very largely developed into >a nation of athletes; we are fond of out-door sports. Why do thousands of people line up to obtain admission to a hockey game during zero weather? They will jostle ' good-naturedly with one another to secure tickets, and afterwards as good-naturedly shout themselves hoarse for one or other of the opposing teams. It is this love of wholesome sport that makes hot only for sturdy athletes but for strong and vigorous people generally, and more benefits than one accrue from the pursuit of healthful and hardy sport.

' Another point which I desire to emphasize is the fact that in this country-indeed, for that matter, in any country-we should always bear in mind, in the training of the young, the great spirit of mutual service and helpfulness. If you develop that spirit you need have no misgivings about the spirit which the people will show in the nation's hour of trial. If they have had instilled in their hearts the proper spirit of service, and if they cherish good will one to another, the same worthy spirit will be evident when their country's welfare is at stake. One of the hon. members who have spoken has drawn attention to several of the countries in which compulsory military training has been practised. The hon. gentleman laid particular emphasis on Switzerland, and attributed that country's success in keeping out of the war to the fact that she was fully armed. Now, it perhaps is not a pleasant thing to say, but I think there was a very different reason why Switzerland remained out of the war. I do not think that Germany had "very much of a desire to attack Switzerland, and it would have been out of the question for our allies to do so unless Switzerland had given some open and flagrant cause. The hon. gentleman also mentioned South Africa by way of illustration. I do not think any one for a moment will place us in the same category as South Africa. South Africa has different problems on its hands from those which we have here. The people there have to contend with the native element-we have nothing of that kind to contend with here. They have also other things to contend with as was shown in the recent election. Our position is entirely different from that of South Africa. Then the hon. gentleman cited Australia and New Zealand. Here again our position is different , from that which they occupy. They are situated out in the southern seas and are open to attack from any quarter whatever. We have lived for over a hundred years peaceably with our neighbours to the south of us. That is the only country which we could possibly develop a military force [DOT] to combat, and I think we might as well forget it altogether as to attempt to build up an infantry that will be able to compete with our neighbours to the south. In the first place, I do not think it ever will be necessary-we hope not-and even if it were it would not be very successful. The hon. gentleman said that our neighbours to the south were taking up this method of training. That may be but they have not adopted it yet.

We must not forget that we are in the aftermath of the war and that p'ossibly in a year or two, when matters have had time to simmer down, we may change our ideas entirely along some of these lines.

There is another reason that I would like to mention why it is not wise for us to take any action at this particular time. The financial condition of our country, as has been pointed out, is not of the best. Surely at this particular time we should forget, in so far as it is possible for us to forget, the necessity for any expenditure in connection with military matters. I believe we should try to avoid such expenditure for several years to come. I do not think there is very much

5 p.m. danger of our being involved in another war in the near future and I think we may possibly take the chance of conserving our finances as far as we can for some time. I was rather struck with the strangeness of the argument in favour of compulsion that was advanced by the hon. member for Parkdale1 (Mr. /Mowat). He instanced a lot of different methods of compulsion, but if I followed him correctly, in each case that he mentioned in which compulsion had been used it was for the protection and benefit of the people. He holds that up as a reason why we should use compulsion to train our people in order to produce the very opposite effect, lit seems a most remarkable and far-fetched argument that because we may have adopted compulsion which says which side of a street a man shall take in order to avoid accidents, or that a man must undergo certain treatment to prevent disease and such like, we should train our people by compulsion to produce the very opposite result-for the ultimate result of military training must be destruction of life and property; it cannot be otherwise. That argument, surely, is a very weak one.

In conclusion, I would suggest that military training of any kind whatever should be dispensed with just as far as we possibly can for at least a few years to come. We gave our assistance to the minister last year when he asked to be permitted to increase our permanent force but we were given to understand that it did not mean that the force was going to be increased. It was just making it possible in case a contingency should arise that made it necessary to increase the force to about double the number it had been previously. But, it has not been necessary to take that action so far., and things do not point to its

being necessary in the near future. My advice in the meantime would be to let the people quiet down. Let us try and get away from this thought of strife for a little while. If we do we will find that we will be able to employ better means. Let us give the League of Nations a little chance and not, while we are trying to form this League of Nations to prevent war, go on and make preparations for war. It has been said that if George Washington had not had the hatchet he never would have damaged the cherry tree. 1 think we might possibly take a little lesson from that and go along in our peaceful way at least for some little time to come.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
IND

George William Andrews

Independent

Mr. G. W. ANDREWS (Centre Winnipeg) :

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I desire to congratulate the hon. members for the way in which they have presented their case in favour of military compulsory service. It has been exceedingly well done, and if I thought we were going to have another war within the next ten years I could only, support it. But I do not think it is reasonable to expect another war in ten years. The money has been spent without which it is impossible to carry on a war. The youth of the belligerent nations has been largely spent without which it is impossible to carry on a war. Surely we have enough trained men in this country to last for all ordinary purposes for the next ten years. Finally, before preparations be made for the next war, it more befits Canada to do everything in its power for those who fought the last.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
L LIB

Henri Sévérin Béland

Laurier Liberal

Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. mover of the resolution (Mr. Mowat), the seconder (Mr. Griesbach) and also the speakers who have followed them. Although I feel inclined to agree with many of the suggestions that have been offered, especially by my hon. friend, the member for Winnipeg (Mr. Blake), I must say at the very outset that I cannot agree with the spirit or principle of the resolution. The contention has been made in the House to-day that military training for about 360,000 young men was necessary. It was necessary, first, as it was claimed, because we needed it. May I put the question to my hon. friend from Parkdale: How is it that we need in Canada a trained army of 360,000 men? Are we likely to be attacked by any power on land except the United States? The United States have refused, as I understand, to 60

adopt compulsory military training. I will go one step further. Even if the United States did adopt the policy of training their young men in their Own country, I would still be opposed to the training of young Canadians, because the north half of the American continent would be the hell which Central and Continental Europe was before the great war.

It has been hinted that we need military training to improve the physical condition of our young people. I am not opposed to physical culture, and, as a matter of fact, we to-day have physical culture in this country. But what is the difference between physical culture and military training? Physical culture is to develop the body, while military training is more than that, it is an attempt to create and develop the spirit of militarism.

I would dwell for one moment longer upon the remarks offered by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake), whose medical attainments I am the first to recognize. He submitted as a reason for supporting the resolution that military training might be effective in doing away with venereal. diseases. That is the very reverse, Mr. Speaker, of military conditions, if the experience of the last five years is worth anything.

But there are other grounds upon which to base strong opposition to this resolution. One is economic. My hon. friend from Park-dale will concede that the training of all young men in this country between the ages of 18 and 25 will mean that in the course of those Seven years 360,000 of our adolescents will be engaged in military training four weeks every year. That means twenty-eight days. If we take 360,000 men away from their economic activities, for each man we take away we deprive the country of at least $3 per day, because the work of a sturdy Canadian between the ages of 18 and 25, I think, fully represents that figure. Now, 360,000 men at $3 a day would mean in round numbers $1,000,000. And if we continue that for 28 days We have an economic loss of $28,000,000.

But that is only the loss we sustain if we deprive the country of the economic activities of these young men. It is pointed out in the resolution of my hon. friend that the country is not going to pay them any indemnity or remuneration. I will accept that statement as a basis of argument. But let us go one step further. Does any one imagine that after a few years we will have

360,000 men training for four weeks 'each year without our incurring a very large expenditure? Let us figure it out. To have

360.000 men training for 28 days would mean

10.380.000 days. Does my hon. friend think that the actual cost to the country will be less than $2 a day, without any indemnity or remuneration of any kind being allowed? Certainly not. Then if we take

10.380.000 at $2 a day that means in round numbers over $20,000,000. So that economically and financially speaking the cost to the country would be in round numbers $50,000,000 a year to carry out the plan suggested. Are we in a position to bear such an enormous expenditure? It is not for me to say, it is for the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). He was in his seat a minute ago. The right hon. acting leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) is in his seat. We have been waiting to know the stand taken by the Government on this important question, but not a word comes from them. Are the Government in favour of general compulsory military training, or are they opposed to it? That is what the country is interested in knowing.

There is another reason for opposing the resolution. We all know that the great war was fought to a successful conclusion by the Allied armies to, in plain words, crush militarism. Had we lost the war I might understand my hon. friend coming forward with his resolution. But we have won the war, and now that it is won what do we see? In England they are resuming their pre-war position militarily speaking. Not only that, but the news has been flashed over the world by Sir Auckland Geddes that they are going to almost cut their naval expenditure in two. Shall we give to the world the spectacle of a country that had no military training before the war, of a country that raised 600,000 young men who distinguished themselves on all the fields of Continental Europe and even in Siberia and Russia-shall we give to the world, I say, the spectacle of that country, after having won the war for the purpose of crushing militarism, being almost the only country trying to develop amongst its population this military spirit which has been the curse of humanity?

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing to this debate too much heat. I confess that I do not believe my hon. friend is serious in bringing forward his resolution. The sentiment of the-country is opposed to military training not only in the province from which I come-and I am not speaking as a member representing an electoral division of the province of Quebec, I am speaking as a Canadian-but in the whole Dominion it is strongly opposed to such a movement.

I was very pleased to hear the remarks that fell from the lips of my hon. friend for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Andrews). He is opposed to the resolution,-and he has been on the field of battle. Was there a more gallant soldier than my hon. friend? We are all proud of his achievements, and I congratulate him on his separating his lot, as it were, from that of my hon. friend for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach). The spirit of the country is against compulsory military training. And it must be so as a result of the war; otherwise this world would not be worth living in.

Mr. Speaker, these are the only remarks I intend to offer. I think that the Government should stem the attempts of its friends to create such a sentiment in the country. The Government have to face a financial situation which, in the words of the exMinister of Finance, "if not desperate, is most serious." We realize that we have to pay out every year $142,000,000 for the interest on our national debt, we know that we have to disburse $27,000,000 more for pensions, not to speak of further disbursements for soldiers civil re-establishment and land settlement, and not to speak of this monstrous figure of $47,000,000 of a deficit in the operation of our national railways which the Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) advised us of last night.

In the face of this financial situation are we going to suggest to all the sane people of the earth that Canada has really entered upon a mad race to bankruptcy? That would indeed be the case if we decided to spend $50,000,000 more for military training. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) smiles. I do not know what makes him smile. He is a rich man; perhaps he can afford to smile when we talk of spending hundreds of millions every year. But if he were Minister of Finance he would hold very tightly the strings of the national purse; I do not believe that he would decrease the tariff at all, but he would not *smile; my hon. friend the Minister of Finance does not smile.

'So, I say, let us be reasonable; let us stop this incipient movement towards military training. Let us confine our efforts to physical development through well recognized methods of physical culture. Let us *devote our efforts to the development of *our country economically and commercially, in all the activities of the human *body and human intellect. I hope that the *Government will say to the member for *Parkdale: " Sit down; go away back with

your military training." My hon. friend

94T

represents a division of the city of Toronto. *The member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach) represents a division of the city of Edmonton. And my hon. friend *(Mr. Blake) represents a division of the *city of Winnipeg. I am not perhaps, so conversant with the feeling of the people in the cities, but I can assure you that throughout the length and breadth of Canada the rural constituencies are to a man opposed to this proposal of universal military training.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
UF

Oliver Robert Gould

United Farmers

Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):

soldier who went out and defeated the hordes of Germany.

I would point out again that the next war, if such a war should come, is not going to be fought with men of the different nations facing each other and firing off guns. It is my honest belief that the fate of the next war will be decided by the scientists, by the most capable men in the offices of the scientists. It is terrible to conceive and believe that such could be, yet the human mind does and will wander in such channels, and I believe that science will and can devise ways and means whereby thousands and millions of acres of crops will be destroyed, and whereby people may be destroyed in the cities. It does not take any longer to kill a highly specialized soldier, a man who can point a rifle straight or throw a bomb, than any other man, and I believe it is all folly to spend time training men in the way it is proposed, when it is a fact that science will dictate the manner in which the next war, if there ever be such a war, will be waged.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink
PRO

Michael Clark

Progressive

Mr. M. CLARK:

It will be fought in the air.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND - SERVICE-MOTION BY MR. MOWAT.
Permalink

March 31, 1920