May 2, 1922

HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

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

I desire to lay on the Table a return to an Order of the House dated 3rd April, 1922, for a copy of all correspondence passed during the year 1921 between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Prime Minister of Ontario relating to the activities of Hon. Manning Doherty in England on the subject of the cattle embargo. My right hon. friend yesterday made special mention of this report. I think it is perhaps due to him that I should give the explanation as to .why the return was not brought down immediately. I will therefore read a memorandum which has been handed to me by the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs:

I send herewith the return ordered by the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. White for correspondence relating to the activities of the Hon. Manning Doherty in England. There is no correspondence on this subject in this

department other than that contained in certain papers which the private secretary of the late Prime Minister left here about the time of the change of Government. I was not sure whether these papers were sent here for safekeeping, or to be accounted official and placed on the files of the department. I wrote two letters to the late Prime Minister's secretary asking this question, to neither of which I hav6 received any answer beyond a verbal message, whereas I asked for a written reply. Inasmuch, however, as Mr. Meighen is now pressing for these papers I assume there is no objection, in so far as he is concerned, to bringing them down. The papers have been ready since the 13 th April.

Topic:   HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

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

l presume that by "secretary" he means the former secretary who is not now under my charge.

Topic:   HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I would point out to my right hon. friend that he left all these papers in charge of this secretary. They were not left in charge of the department.

Topic:   HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

They were, as far as I was concerned.

Topic:   HON. MANNING DOHERTY CATTLE EMBARGO
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS

FIRST READINGS


Bill No. 63 (from the Senate) for the relief of Ethel Turner.-Mr. Duff. Bill No. 64 (from the Senate) for the relief of Walter Michie Anderson.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 65 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Fredenburg.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 66 (from the Senate) for the relief of Sheriff Elwin Robinson.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 67 (from the Senate) for the relief of Rhoda Renfrew McFarlane Brown. -Mr. Macdonald (Pictou). Bill No. 68, to Incorporate the Frontier University.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).


EXEMPTION FROM PILOTAGE DUES


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to amend Section 477 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, by adding the provisions that ships of war and hospital ships belonging to such foreign nation or nations as may be specified by the Governor in Council; and ships registered in Canada engaged exclusively in fishing; shall be exempt from the payment of pilotage dues. Defence Forces He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of this resolution and has given his assent to it. Motion agreed to.


HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

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

Resolved, that the organization of the staff of the House of Commons adopted on the second day of June, 1920, be amended by striking out the words "Assistant Curator of Reading Room" in paragraph (e) under the heading "Miscellaneous Branch," and substituting therefor the words "Two Assistant Curators of Reading Room"; and that the organization of the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms, adopted on the same day, be amended by striking out the figure and words "7 Parliamentary Messengers" and substituting therefor the figure and words "6 Parliamentary Messengers."

Topic:   HOUSE OF COMMONS STAFF
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved that the House do tomorrow go into Committee of the Whole to consider a proposed resolution to provide for certain advances to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of this resolution and has given his assent to it. Motion agreed to. SUPPLY-DEFENCE FORCES * On the motion of Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister) for Committee of Supply: _


CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard) :

Before

the House goes into Supply, I would like to address a few remarks on the work of the Militia of Canada, and of preparedness on the part of this country. Many arguments have been advanced in this House as to shew why this country should dispense with defence forces, and it is my intention to deal with a few of these arguments, and to attempt to give this House some information which I have been privileged to gain by having seen certain things, so that we may be in a better position to deal with questions relating to the military forces of Canada when they come before us. The main arguments advanced against this country maintaining defence forces are: First, that there is no one proposing to attack us; second, that we have plenty of men trained now; third, that the people are sick of war; and, fourth, that disputes in

the future will be settled by conference rather than by arms.

With regard to the first question viz.: who is about to attack us, I would remind hon. members of the pre-war assurances which were given by the Prime Minister of England to the House of Commons of England and to the people of the British Empire, that war with Germany was not only not impending, but was out of the question. I would also remind hon. members of the futility of making prophecies about war, and would recall the examples we have before us of the past hundred years- the example of war with United States in 1812; our own civil wars, the American civil war; and the fact that we are to-day faced with greater armies than the world has ever before been faced with-armies which are to-day mobilized by Russia, France and many other countries.

As to the second argument which has been advanced-that we have plenty of trained men now: The only inference, Mr. Speaker, that one can gather from that argument is that those advancing it propose that those men who took part in the late war should be called upon again to defend the country should there be a war. I was particularly struck by a question which the hon. member from East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn) put to the hon. gentleman for North Ontario (Mr. Halbert), the other evening when he asked whether it was the intention of that member that these men should again be called upon. The reply was "I had as many friends in kahki as the hon. gentleman who asked the question had I do not think that many hon. members wish to take credit to themselves for what their friends did in the late war, but there has been altogether too much talk about the number of trained men that we have to-day. We have many trained men, it is true; but they will be useful in this country only in teaching the coming generation the lessons gathered during the late war. I do not expect that *here will be war in our time, or war, at any rate, that these men will be called upon to take part in; but they should be f ailed upon now to complete the duty that they attempted to perform overseas, by passing on the lessons which they learned.

Then, there is the third argument-that the people are sick of war. The people who are really sick of war to-day are the people who served, the people who gave their sons, who gave their all during the war; but the people who talk most to-day

Defence Forces

about being sick of war are those Who are sick of their shame at not having done their duty in the past. Let me read the remarks of General William T. Sherman in this connection:

I confess without shame that I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. Even success, the most brilliant, is over dead and mangled bodies, the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for missing sons, husbands and fathers. It is only those who have not heard a shot, nor the shrieks and groans of the wounded, friend or foe, who cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.

It is safe to say that those sentiments are the sentiments of every soldier; but despite those sentiments, I feel convinced that the great body of returned soldiers are still prepared to sacrifice themselves, should the honour of this country require them to do so in the future.

Then, we hear this .argument advanced: We look forward to the day when disputes will be settled by conference and not by arms. I agree, and I think all hon. members will agree, that we look forward to that day; but statesmen of all ages have recognized that the way to prevent war is to be reasonably prepared for war. What, for instance, would be the position of Mr. Lloyd George in the conferences which are taking place in Europe to-day if he were not backed by the force which is represented by the .British army and navy? Would any one suggest that he would be listened to if he had demobilized the British army and navy? Had he done so, no respect whatever would be paid to the remarks or arguments which might be advanced by him in those conferences. We have Sir Henry Wilson's classification, based upon that principle recognized by statesmen, of armies into three classes: First, those armies which are strong enough to prevent war; second, those armies which are too weak to prevent war, but which are strong enough to win war; and third, those armies which can only lose a war. Into which class does Canada fall? Canada has no army; Canada does not fall into any of these categories. But hon. members will say: What about Canada's part in the late war? True, Canada did magnificently in the late war; but it was fully three years after the war had commenced that Canada was prepared for war; that she was prepared to strike as an independent country should be if it is going to be able to stand as an independent nation, and apparently hon. members desire that Canada should stand as an independent nation.

I should like to bring to the attention of the House a comparison between the achievements of the forces of Canada and the forces of that great republic to the south of us during the last hundred days of the war, for the purpose, not of reflecting upon that great republic, but of showing what can be accomplished by a country with a trained army and what is accomplished by a country which is not fully prepared. The United States, unfortunately for them, were three years behind Canada in entering the war, and the result was that they were not able to make the showing per capita that the Canadians were able to make. I should like to give a few figures of the numbers engaged, the casualties, and the success achieved during that period. For instance, during that time the Americans bad 650,000 troops engaged; the Canadians, 105,000. The Americans were engaged during 47 days of operations; the Canadians, 100 days. The battle casualties of the Americans were 100,000; of the Canadians, 45,830. The prisoners taken by the Americans were 16,000; by the Canadians, 31,537. Guns captured by the Americans numbered 468; by the Canadians, 623. Machine guns captured by the Americans numbered 2,864; by the Canadians, 2,842. Trench mortars captured by the Americans numbered 177; by the Canadians, 336. Territory freed by the Americans covered 610 square miles; by the Canadians, 336 square miles. Villages freed by the Americans numbered 150; by the Canadians, 228. German divisions met and defeated by the Americans numbered 46; by the Canadians, 47. Casualties per German division /defeated by the Americans numbered 2,170; by the Canadians, 975. The maximum advance by the Americans was 34 miles; by the Canadians, 86 miles. These favourable results were made possible only by the fact that the Canadians had benefited by the experience of training and hard fighting during the previous years. My point is this: Is there any one here who will take the responsibility of denying the youth of our country an opportunity of learning the lessons learned by the men who took part in that war? Is there any one who would take the responsibility of unnecessarily exposing the youth of succeeding generations to useless slaughter when by taking full advantage of the lessons learned we could prepare them to take their part in any operations which may become necessary in the future?

Defence Forces

We hear much talk about Canada being an independent nation. The Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) the other evening asked whether we were going to go back one hundred and fifty years and become Crown colonists to be looked after by Great Britain and not by ourselves. We hear a great deal of talk about Canada's responsibility as a nation. We hear it vehemently stated that we are an independent nation, independent of Great Britain and of all other countries. I suggest that we should not deceive ourselves. We have no army in this country; we have no forces which can be counted upon even to defend ourselves. We are sponging to-day, as we have in the past, upon the Mother Country, both for defence and for possible offence. We are absolutely dependent upon Great Britain for our protection both on land and sea.

We in this country are not preparing for war. The proposal has never been made by the Minister of Militia or by any member of this House that we should prepare for war. If we were to prepare for war it would require for a period of years a vote of at least fifteen times the amount which it is proposed to make for annual training. We could not actively prepare for war on a vote of less than $150,000,000 per annum over a period of years. That was conclusively proven during the late war by the operations in which the Canadians took part. The ex-service men in this country resent the suggestion that by training and passing on these lessons we are preparing for war. They resent still further making a political football of the issue of national defence in Canada. We have had in cnis House the sorry spectacle of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) opposing in the past estimates for the purposes of the militia, and this year bringing down similar estimates as a part of Government policy. We have heard him protesting against Canada having a reserve of ammunition for her guns, Attempts have been made during the past six months to make political capital out of the bringing into this country of a few shells which already belonged to Canada, and which would have been wasted if we had not taken them. Those shells, Mr. Speaker, which we have wasted so much time in talking about, could be fired in one hour by the artillery of Canada to-day. Yet the Prime Minister has spent twenty or thirty hours in talking about those shells. With regard to their cost, even if we had been called on to pay for them, the

amount required would not exceed the amount which was required to supply our guns for one day during the last hundred days of the war. I venture to say that the forces which are lining themselves up today to oppose training consist of those who are uninformed, and in that class I have no hesitation in placing the Prime Minister himself. Secondly, I would include those who would profit by disruption in this country and by the disintegration of constitutional government in Canada.

It has been suggested that a break in the training of our militia for a period of one year or more would do no harm.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member is not in order in discussing on a motion to go into Committee of Supply the question of annual training, which has already been referred to a Committee of the Whole House.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

I do not propose to discuss the question of annual training. I think the hon. member is mistaken. Possibly I did refer to annual training, but I intended to refer to it only in its broad aspect and in connection with the militia as a whole.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I think every one is

familiar with the old rule of the House of Commons, that a motion to go into Supply is the occasion for any hon. member to present his grievances. "No Supply without redress of grievances," is the old standing rule of British parliamentary government, and when a motion is made: That the Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Supply,-any member can rise and discuss any grievances which he may have. I will read to the House the comments made on this point by Bouri-not, based, I may say, on May, the highest authority on parliamentary procedure:

The order of the day for the House to go into committee of supply having been read, the Speaker will put the question "That I do now leave the chair."

That is the question now before the House. He goes on:

The same question is always put whenever the house is to go into committee of supply, in order to afford an opportunity to members to propose amendments. On this point it is observed by an eminent authority that the ancient constitutional doctrine that the redress of grievances is to be considered before the granting of supplies, is now represented by the practice of permitting every description of amendment to be moved on the question for the Speaker leaving the chair, before going into committee of supply or ways and means.

Defence Forces

Further on he says:

The ordinary rules of dehate are applicable on this occasion; for instance, a matter already decided by the House, or of which notice has been given, or which stands upon the orders of the day, cannot be discussed; nor can any subject or matter of detail which should be discussed in committee, be debated on these occasions ; nor can debate or amendment be permitted relating to grants already agreed to, or to resolutions which will be proposed in the committee, or in the committee of ways and means, or to items in the estimates.

In the present instance I do not find the point of order is well taken, because the hon. member is speaking on the necessity of maintaining our militia on its present footing, and his remarks are of a general character. If he were speaking of the estimates of the Militia Department which were under discussion last week, he would be clearly out of order; but so far I think he is in order, and such is my ruling.

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

John Arthur Clark

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CLARK:

I was dealing with the assertion that a break in the training will do no harm. I have no hesitation whatever in saying that such a break, even of one year, will do an irreparable injury to the militia. We have to-day a large class of returned officers and non-commissioned officers who, under great pressure, have been persuaded to stay with the militia, to teach our youth the lessons learned and so pass on to them their own first-hand knowledge acquired at the front. Many of these officers and non-commissioned officers have already quit the militia in utter disgust because they are not receiving that encouragement which they might reasonably expect to receive; and although others are remaining, they are becoming discouraged by the apathy with which they are faced. Those men feel that while they performed a certain duty in fighting for their country, there is still the all-important duty for them to perform of passing on the knowledge gained at the front. That is why they are prepared to remain with the militia at their own expense and at great personal sacrifice.

There is also this danger, that should a man drop out of active training for even a short time, he rapidly loses touch and would soon be classed among those soldiers who in the late war were known as "dug-outs". I do not use that term disparagingly, because it applied to a very large class of retired ex-officers who promptly came forward at the outbreak of war and gave their services to their country. But if our men do not continue their training they soon get out of touch with the latest

fMr. Speaker.]

methods of offence and defence and their usefulness is to that extent impaired.

I need not enlarge upon the patriotic effect that a little training will have upon our youth, or upon the improvement in their physical well-being. I think we can compare the individual with the nation, because after all our nation is only a combination of individuals. We may very well take the example of the boy at school. How much prouder we are of a boy who is brought up to defend himself and to be proud of his physical well-being-of the boy who is not "too proud to fight," to use an expression we have heard a good deal in the last few years.

The proposals which had been before this House in the past are merely to enable us to maintain and train a nucleus of instructors so that if we are called upon to take our part in any future war we will have the few men necessary to instruct the large body of recruits that will constitute our army. The fact that this country is spending less per capita on its military training than any other country in the world, including all the British Dominions, is surely proof that we are not preparing for war. Certainly there is no class in this country less imbued with the idea that we should prepare for war than that class which at present compose our militia and ex-service men generally throughout the country.

How are our militia units maintained? It is generally supposed, I imagine, that our officers, non-commissioned officers and men are being paid by the country for their militia services. In the past they have received, it is true, a small grant for their training, but the money which has been granted has been returned to the units so that they may efficiently "carry on" with their training. The farmers of this country have benefited by that grant, because from it are purchased the supplies used in the military camps.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before I close these remarks-*

Topic:   MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION
Permalink

May 2, 1922