June 24, 1925

PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

They are

certainly permissible from the hon. gentleman.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
UFA

Alfred Speakman

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPEAKMAN:

He is certainly here as a result of the system.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

That is my answer to the hon. member for Quebec South.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

In time of war there should be demanded conscription of not only wealth, but every industry needed by the nation in such a period, and no industry should be allowed to grab off the huge profits in the way they were permitted to grab them off during the last war. Further, if this country would be willing to do it, I would gladly see it enter into an agreement or understanding with other nations to prevent the manufacture of arms by private individuals and the export of arms without the knowledge of the state. To-day, as a result of conflict, we have 'the people, not only of this country, but of all other countries engaged in the war and of many which were not, placing upon the backs of children yet unborn a debt which it will take them their lives to pay. Not only are those who are sitting here guilty of our participation in the past war and guilty for the manner in which we participated in ft, but they are guilty of placing upon the backs of still-to-be born children a debt which we ourselves are unable to meet. I ask that that condition of affairs be not continued, and instead of increasing the estimate for defence, the minister might look to reason rather than to force for the solution of these difficulties and, at least, reduce these estimates to the point at which they stood in the year 1913.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

I want simply to make some general remarks, and they apply more particularly to the question of administration A number of questions have been placed upon the order paper with reference to a diminution of pay of members of the permanent force. I placed one on the order paper some time in April. I have not had an answer as yet; but I understand from outside sources that the pay and allowances of members of the perm-

Supply-Defence

anent force, with the exception always of members of the staff, have been reduced in the past year or two by twenty per cent. I wish to make my energetic protest against any discrimination in favour of the staff. If there is one portion of the militia estimates which should be diminished more than another, it is that which provides for payment of the staff and the fourteen, fifteen or sixteen generals whom we have in the Canadian army. If there is one portion of the militia estimates which should remain as it is, it is that which provides for payment of the underpaid noncommissioned officers, officers and junior officers of the permanent force. That the services of these men are useful to the country is being shown to-day when we have them down in the strike area. We must have some kind of a permanent force, and if we would have them, we must pay them some sort of salaries in order to get the best men to enter that force. At the present moment, our permanent force is top heavy. We are paying the higher officials far too much, and the junior officers, non-commissioned officers and men far too little. I am told that within the past two or three years there has been a substantial decrease in the salaries of those not on the staff and, in many cases, an increase in the salaries of those on the staff. For that reason I make my protest.

I have not in any way changed my views with reference to the annual training. Some years ago I stated in this House that the annual training, particularly of the country regiments, was expensive, useless and a burden on the country, and that it should be cut out altogether. With regard to expenses involved and undertaken by a certain number of militia officers for what some of my hon. friends have been pleased t'o call patriotic motives, may I say that while in a number of cases, perhaps, the motives of our colonels and honorary colonels are patriotic, in a large number of cases, in my humble judgment, the motives are derived purely from those of vanity and of wishing to place the title of colonel after their names and the red tab on their shoulders?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PRO

Edward Joseph Garland

Progressive

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Is the title " colonel " not placed before the name?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

It might be, but in all

probability other decorations will come after the name if they are colonels long enough.

I heard one hon. gentleman, I forget who he was, state in this House that in certain regiments they had had a deficit of $6,000 or 87,000. If a number of well-to-do people in this country wish to play at being soldiers,

wish in order to help recruiting to take their men on trips to United States points or different parts of this country, wish to clothe them in kilts when many of them never had the remotest right to being called Scotchmen, -if that right is anything to boast about,- wish to have them dressed in fine raiment and fancy feathers, let them pay for that. When an ordinary individual wishes to indulge in his favourite recreation, such as fishing or golf, he pays for it. Why should the militia colonels not pay for that in the same way?

With regard to some remarks made by the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr Woodsworth), I am usually in substantial agreement with him on questions relating to war and the horrors of war, and I do not yield to him in any respect in my detestation of everything that will go to encourage war or hate between nations. But when he reads long articles in which it is advocated that we publish the names of those of our soldiers who were shot during the war on account of military misdemeanours or crimes, I beg to differ with him. May I say first that this matter should never have been brought at this time to the attention of the public in any case, and though it may be distinctly contrary to order, I think it was none of the business of the British ministry to make public the information which they made public that twenty-five Canadian soldiers had been shot during the war and their invidious comparison when they stated that no Australian soldiers had been shot. As a matter of fact, no Australians were shot because the Australian government had expressly laid it down that none of their soldiers would be shot, no matter what crime they committed. Perhaps it would have been the duty of our government to make similar restrictions at that time; but the time is past and it is not for us now to decide on their conduct in that matter. But here were twenty-five men who left their wives and families or their relatives in this country. Are we at this stage, some ten years afterwards, to blazon in all the newspapers of Canada the crimes that they committed? Have not their families suffered enough without our now proceeding to bring tears to the eyes of these men's mothers, and disgrace upon their families, by putting it in the power of their neighbours to say that they were shot for cowardice? Much as I admire the stand taken by my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth),

I must say that what he is asking is simply that we bring a far greater calamity and far greater misery on the people of this country than they have already suffered.

Supply-Defence

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I never made any

request that the names be published.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Gavan Power

Liberal

Mr. POWER:

I have not read Hansard

since that time; in fact I never read Hansard. But I distinctly recollect that in the article read by my hon. friend, which he seemed to endorse very heartily, the suggestion was made that these names should be published throughout the country.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LAB
LIB
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The article I read

discussed the general question of the shooting of Canadian men but I do not recall that even the article itself requested that the names should be published. Certainly I made no such suggestion.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
IND
LIB

Edward Mortimer Macdonald (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

If the hon. member will let this item pass he can speak on the next item.

Item agreed to

Cadet services, $400,000.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PRO

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

I want to outline the

history of the cadet movement which was introduced in Canada by statute only as late as 1904. It was first thought of and talked of and formed by Sir Frederick Borden with the idea of building up a citizen soldiery. It authorizes the following things. First boys over twelve years of age who attend school may be formed into cadet corps; boys over fourteen and under eighteen may be formed into senior cadet corps; senior cadet corps or any portion thereof may be attached to any portion of the active militia for the purposes of drill and training. The principals of the schools may be instructors of cadets or the instructor may be any person having adequate qualifications. The qualifications of the instructor are gained free of charge, the expenses being paid by the state. The instructor in the school receives $2 per head for each cadet up to fifty and $1 per head for each cadet over that number.

I am opposed to cadet training in schools. I am opposed to it first because I believe that cadet training is not a good physical training. Experts in physical training bear me out in this, and I would quote briefly from Dudley A. Sargent of Harvard, physical instructor and medical doctor. He says:

Taking the most favourable view possible of military drill as a physical exercise, we are led to conclude that its strained positions and closely localised movements

309i

do not afford the essential requisites for developing the muscles and improving respiration and circulation, thereby improving the general health and condition of the system.

Let me now read from an extract taken from the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal.

This defect, we are pleased to state, is recognized by the great military nations of Europe, and measures are taken to give all the recruits from three to twelve months' gymnastic training to develop them as men, before they are expected to conform to the requiremenrs of the soldier.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
LIB

Eugène Fiset

Liberal

Sir EUGENE FISET:

Is not that exactly what is being done in our schools? All the training we give in the schools here is not confined to physical drill alone but it embraces as well gymnastic exercises.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PRO

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

I want to separate distinctly in the minds of the people physical exercise and military training. I believe in very much more physical education than we have to-day; it should be greatly increased. Indeed, the government would have to go a long way before they would hear me complain about the amount of money spent on physical education. I shall touch upon that point later. But military drill should not be confused in the public mind with physical training because the two are quite distinct things. Dr. Sargent goes on to say that if the people would account for the graceful poise of the cadets at West Point-he is referring to them particularly-they should visit that place in the summer and see the boys under the charge of a dancing master for one or two hours. There they have all forms of physical training and it is a splendid thing. It is not the military drill at all but the physical education which they get that is responsible for the erect carriage and the fine look of many of the cadets who spend four years in the military school. I quote once more from the director of physical training at the normal school at Pennsylvania:

That the military training as we know it now does not give the best physical training is evidenced by the fact that for years our military school at West Point and naval school at Annapolis have employed instructors of physical training to overcome the disastrous results of the one-sided practice of the manual of arms and other military drills.

Another reason against military training in schools is put so concisely by Dr. Sargent that I had better quote his words:

(5) Military drill in schools cannot teach boys the real art of war since they are too young to handle the rea. weapons and undergo the vigors of adequate instruction. Hence it is apt to foster a bombastic military spirit of tin-soldierism and a false sense of patriotism which does not appreciate the seriousness of war nor the glories of the struggles of peace.

Previous to the war a number of Toronto gentlemen, many of them reverend gentlemen,

Supply-Defence

as well as the inspector of schools there, prepared a pamphlet in favour of military training and it gives many reasons. It concludes with this strange reason:

That our system of government is democratic quadruples the force of arguments in favour of military dril. in schools; for the system tends to a disregard for authority, a due respect for which is restored by a reasonable system of universal military training.

That to me is an excellent reason why we should not have military training in schools. Are we afraid of democracy? One would think so when reading such reasons as this in support of military training in order to keep democracy in check. I want to quote again from a work on militarism written by an Englishman. This was at a time just following the war when there was a great wave of military enthusiasm, and when in England they tried to force compulsory military training at school, or cadet training. There was a great controversy on the subject, some taking one side and some the other.

Lord Methuen, writing to The Times advocating

compulsory military training, complacently remarked, "Wo worked on Lord Kitchener's admirable Australia scheme in forming the citizen army in South Africa. Little d'id we anticipate that within three years this force would have scotched a strike and quelled a rebellion.

Once more it would look to me as if cadet training is the real enemy of a democratic form of government. I challenge 'the right of the state to interfere in the education of the child. If we bring a child up to cherish a given ideal, and that ideal always remains the basis of its thought and action, and if by means of schools we repeat that process through all the people who form this or any other nation, we can quite plainly see that that ideal will determine the history of the nation for years. We might well ask ourselves in this young country: Is the child to be the central idea of education, or is the state? If education is for the benefit of the child, then we must think first of what is good for the child; if education is for the benefit of the state, then we must think of the state first, regardless of what it may do to the child. I want to quote Bernard Russell on this point. He too challenges the right of the state to influence or affect education. He says:

Education is a political weapon and could not exist if we respected the rights of children. If we respected the rights of children, we should educate them so as to give them the knowledge and the mental habits required for forming independent opinions; but education as a political institution endeavours to form habits and to circumscribe knowledge in such a way as to make one set of opinions inevitable.

That is what military training in schools does, and I want to point out to hon. mem-

bers that while we are not supposed to have compulsory military training in our secondary schools, that in reality and practice is what we have, and so the child's ideals and habits of thought along very many lines are circumscribed and are not what they might have been if the child were left to grow up unhampered by state interference.

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink
PRO

Milton Neil Campbell

Progressive

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Will my hon. friend explain what she means by saying that we have compulsory military training in the practical working out of our school system?

Topic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Permalink

June 24, 1925