I do not suggest that for a moment, but I say there are powers, and I presume the desire of the minister is to retain those powers, whatever they may be, but I think the motion would have to be amended to accomplish the object.
How would you propose to amend it? The object is to give all the authority necessary to the minister and deputy minister of the Department of National Defence for the management of the Air Service. As I understand it, there being no deputy minister, no act and no minister really referring to the Air Service, it was not necessary. The Air Service, as the hon. member from South Wellington *'Mr. Guthrie) stated was attached to the Militia Department. The minister acted as chairman of the board. As I intimated his duties were most perfunctory. If the lawyers agree that an amendment is necessary, I am willing that it should be inserted. To my mind, it is not necessary, but legally it may be desirable.
I do not profess any special knowledge on the subject at all, but I understand the entire work of the Air Board is carried on under this act, and it is the intention, to some degree at all events, to continue that work under the Minister of National Defence, and where is he going to get power to do it, unless the power under this act is taken by him. as power is taken by other branches of the service.
I asked what was going to be done with regard to the fisheries protection service, and I have received no answer. I think we should make some provision for that service. We are going to create a department of National Defence,
fMr. Boys.] *
and I suppose that means the appointment of a large number of officials wearing gold braid. But we are leaving the Fishery Department, which is second only to Agriculture, altogether unprotected. I should like some answer as to what is proposed under this bill with reference to the fisheries protection service, which is administered by the Naval Department.
Will the hon. gentleman allow me to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Martell) ? Under the act as it now stands, the fisheries protection service can be transferred from the Naval Department to the Marine Department by Order in Council. This scheme we now have in hand is not workable. I may point out, however, that the British navy undertakes largely, if not altogether, to operate the fishery protection service.
I know that in days gone by, when the fisheries were placed under the Naval Service Department, it was necessary, on all occasions, for the fisheries branch to apply to the naval service to protect the fishery routes. There was so much red tape and the departments were so jealous of each other, that often the reason for the fishery protection had disappeared before the department authorized the fishery boat to go to the place in question. *
I think there is much in favour of this argument, and some of the officers of the Naval Department say that the protection of fisheries should be under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It is a matter which may be adjusted between myself and my hon. friend later on.
Although a new member of the House, and inexperienced in speaking before the committee, I consider that I would not be doing my duty if I did not place myself on record in connection with the resolution now under consideration. I have heard some very extreme views expressed this afternoon, and I feel that some of these views have been expressed by men possibly who have not had the actual experience in the matters on which they have so freely addressed the com-
mittee. I have been privileged to belong to the defence forces of Canada for some twenty years, and during that time it has been my great misfortune to have been called out in civil aid forces. It rather astonished me to hear the great applause which greeted the suggestion that the generals who had won their promotions in the face of the enemy, should now be decapitated, or as one hon. gentleman put it " let them return to the plough." All those of us who had the honour of serving our country, and the distinction, though I cannot say the honour, of fighting for those who so readily applause these extreme measures, will be astonished at the applause which greets the suggestion of doing away with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the dismissal of officers referred to and proposals which are detrimental to the efficiency of our defence forces.
The hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked if it was the desire of the late Minister of Militia that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be called out in cases of industrial dispute. I do not know whether that is the leader of the Government's view of what the Mounted Police force exists for or not. That is not my view of the purpose for which they exist, but I shall refer to that later. The view has been expressed that the Mounted Police should become part of the National Defence Force of Canada. My opinion is that it is a dangerous thing to make the Mounted Police part and parcel of the defence force of Canada. The two are entirely distinct. One is for the purpose of defending the country in case of invasion; the other is, in my opinion, for the purpose of assisting in the maintenance of law and order in the country.
I have seen the Mounted Police used on numerous occasions, and I should like to give one instance of how I saw them used. Only two mounted policemen were used in this case, which occurred about a year ago in the town of Merritt, B.C., where a mine foreman had been foully murdered. The whole town was in a state of nervousness; the police of the town had no conception of how to tackle the problem; appeals were made by practically the whole town to bring in the Mounted Police, and a small detachment of two policemen was sent there. The moral effect which the presence of those policemen had in that town justifies the maintenance of such a force for the purpose of its moral effect, if for no other purpose. That, of course,
would not justify the maintenance of a very large force, but the maintenance of a force is justified by the moral effect it has upon a community. I have seen the same thing demonstrated in many other towns, and I have given that one community as an illustration. There is a feeling of security in a community where the Mounted Police is established.
There comes, however, in our civil life a more serious phase which has had to be dealt with on many occasions in the history of Canada, and which may have to be dealt with in the future. That is not exactly what the Prime Minister has referred to, but it is something which has arisen out of industrial disputes and other conditions. I think the term " industrial disputes " is too narrow, and I personally would regret having the Mounted Police called into any town or city for the purpose of settling industrial disputes, because that, in my opinion, is not what they are for at all. But when, arising out of industrial disputes or any other conditions, we have anarchy or the danger of anarchy, then there is, in this or any other country, no force more fitted than the Mounted Police to deal with that condition. As one who has served in a civil aid force and one who has been unfortunate enough to be called out in the militia for that purpose, I want to place myself on record. to the effect that no greater error can be made than to call the militia out in aid of the civil power. The last hon. member (Mr. Vien) who spoke on this subject, recommended that. If you want to destroy the efficiency of your defence force, that, in my opinion, is the best way to do it, because if we are going to have an effective defence force in this country, it must not be confined to any one particular class in a community. It must be open to all classes. We must encourage men of all classes, labouring men and others alike, to join the force, in order to make it efficient and give it scope to do the work that such a force should do, because, if that force is given the scope that it should be given, it will do more for the patriotism of this country than any other factor we have in Canada.
I am in entire sympathy with the general principle of the resolution. There are, no doubt, some features of it which can be criticized, and I think those points have been fully covered. But my object in speaking this afternoon is to attempt to bring home to the committee and to place before the Minister of Militia
and Defence (Mr. Graham) the great danger of ever placing the military forces of Canada in a position where it will be necessary to call them out in aid of the civil power, execept in the most dangerous and extreme cases. To place the Mounted Police in a position where they are part of the defence force of Canada, and may be called out for the purpose of the defence of this country, will have the same effect on the Mounted Police as the calling out of the militia has on the efficiency of that force.
I have listened very attentively to this debate, and the committee will pardon me if I say that I think they have rather ignored the real issue that is raised in this resolution. The real question to be considered in this bill is whether there is to be an instrument of some kind for the federal enforcement of federal law, as is the case in the United States. The President, the Attorney General and all the deputy attorneys general under him, throughout the United States, are to-day so organized as to be able to cope with any emergency that might arise. In the early history of the United States the principle was observed that the local community should be responsible for law and order in its own territory. But after 150 years of experience that principle has been gradually departed from and a great organization now exists on the other side, embracing an immense force, for federally enforcing federal law. They have erected federal courts throughout the United States, and we in Canada are moving in the same direction. We have a Supreme Court, a Court of Exchequer and other federal courts, and possibly later on we may find it advisable to follow in the footsteps of the United States and create a federal organization with comprehensive jurisdiction for the enforcement of federal law. Especially since the enactment of the federal prohibition law in the United States, the organization for enforcing federal law has been greatly increased there. They maintain courts, attorneys, officers of all kinds, a wide secret service, and, generally, thousands of agents. We cannot ignore
altogether what they have done, because the time may come when we shall find a similar organization absolutely necessary in Canada.
Some other time I may refer further to this matter, but in the meantime I agree with what was said by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). His suggestion was a wise one, that some kind of civil force ought to be at the disposal of the Government. In my opinion it should be in the special charge of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Justice. I also agree with what has been said by an hon. member, that in some way the protection of. the fisheries should be properly maintained; and this bill could be modified to that end. If we think that the federal authority will not be called on at times to maintain federal law by its own organization, and even go the length of creating federal courts and appointing attorneys to prosecute in those courts, then we are not reading the signs of the times. Some hon. gentlemen contend that the provinces should maintain law and order. The doctrine was preached in Ontario that the local authorities should maintain order in their own localities, but the province is now creating a provincial police force for the purpose of enforcing provincial law where hitherto the local authorities were held responsible.
force is being highly organized now, somewhat on the lines of the Mounted Police.
I am not advocating any particular action;
I am simply pointing out that in the United States the question of federal enforcement of federal law has become so alarming that they have voted immense sums of money to carry on the machinery I have mentioned. It is all very well for us to ignore what they have done in the United States; but peace and order in that country have been maintained in the last twenty-five years only by constitutional subter
fuge. They have created institutions for the enforcement of all kinds of law throughout the country by legislation of pretty much the same order as that which gave them control of transportation. There the condition of things is much like ours; there is a distribution of powers between the states and the central government. We may be compelled to maintain some kind of force for the enforcement of federal law in connection with the prohibition laws we have in this country. In view of the fact
that, as I have pointed out, the President of the United States, the Attorney General, and the vast organization which they have created are holding themselves in readiness to meet any emergencies that might arise, I think that we ought at least to be prepared to do something in the same direction. I do not contend that the federal power should be increased, but I do say that we may have to assume such responsibilities as the federal authorities on the other side have had to shoulder. I believe the leader of the Opposition gave a very fair statement of his case, and as near as I can judge he reflected the opinion of Sir John Macdonald on this very question. Sir John inclined to the view that the provincial authorities should as far as possible enforce the law within the provinces. But notwithstanding all that, our Customs and Inland Revenue organization at the start was largely undertaken by the federal authorities, and to-day we have a federal organization for the enforcement of our inland revenue law; so have the United States. In the same way we may have to adopt a similar procedure in the maintenance of peace and order. Ultimately we will pass through the same experiences as the United1 States, and while I should like to see our local authorities in all cases able to maintain peace and order, they may fall down in that work, and I think we ought to have some little skeleton organization, a's the leader of the Opposition termed it, around which could be maintained a force for the maintenance of peace and order. I should like to see such an organization put under the charge of the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice. In that way we might avoid mistakes that otherwise will certainly be made if we take the position that the federal authority has no responsibility for the maintenance of peace and order.
Resolution as amended reported and concurred in.
Mr. GRAHAM thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27 respecting the Department of National Defence.
Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, there is a personal explanation I desire to make. I notice in the press an item referring to yesterday's proceedings which would convey the impression to those who were not present that our good friend the Assistant Clerk of this House had been rather lacking in courtesy to myself. I desire to say that there is no foundation for it whatever. What happened was exactly in accordance with the understanding, and the Assistant Clerk simply did his duty. Then, as in every other case, he has always been courteous, as he should be, to all the members of the House. For his sake, I regret the comment in the press, because it was entirely unwarranted.
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the Chair.