Mr. DOUGLAS:

In comparison with the previous year I was wondering whether the number of men is smaller and if that accounts for the decrease.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

I am informed that there is a reduction of between 1,900 and 2,000.

Mr. BENNETT:

How many days' training in camps is provided for?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

It depends upon the arm of the service. Artillery total twelve; engineers, twelve; machine gun battalions, twelve; cavalry and infantry, ten; army service corps and army medical corps, ten, and so on. These totals include part time in camp and part time training at local headquarters. There is a certain discretion left to the district officers commanding.

Mr. MacNEIL:

I have in mind the frequent admonitions by the Minister of Finance that parliament must exercise the strictest economy; yet on the main estimates the total to foe appropriated for the Department of National Defence, including the cost of buildings provided for under other headings, is something like $19,000,000. That does not include the items in the supplementary estimates. This is probably the third highest sum in the departmental expenditures. There is an increase in this year's expenditure in the main estimates of something like $1,779,000-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

It is

Mr. MacNEIL:

I accept the correction gladly. I think it is high time we did some plain speaking about the manner in which public money is expended by the Department of National Defence, having in mind particularly the purpose of this expenditure as outlined by the minister. It is not many years ago since certain high officers attached to the British war office recommended drastic reorganization of the Canadian Department of National Defence. As far as I have been able to discover no steps have been taken to undertake such reorganization.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

My hon. friend is scarcely correct in that. It is in process of being effected at the present time.

Mr. MacNEIL:

Under whose recommendation is the reorganization being undertaken?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The reorganization of the militia has been under consideration for a number of years. The request for the reorganization became definite in 1932; it was submitted to a subcommittee

Supply-National Defence

of the former government in 1933, because Canada at that time was making certain representations to the disarmament conference in Europe, and the suggestion was made that the strength of our militia forces should be reduced from the post-war figure of eleven infantry and four cavalry divisions to a composite strength of six infantry divisions and one cavalry. That recommendation has been endorsed by all the militia organizations, the defence association, the Canadian infantry association, the artillery association and, I think, every arm of the service, all these voluntary officers, men who have been giving such wonderful service to the militia of Canada. So far the full strength of what is known as the peace establishment has been reduced from a personnel of 135,000 to about 90,000. The actual strength of the nonpermanent active militia is 48,761 as already stated. So far not very much has actually been accomplished along this line, but certain small units have been joined together and reorganization effected. The general policy will be to proceed with reorganization as soon as practicable.

Mr. MacNEIL:

Nevertheless in these times of stress we are asked to vote this enormous sum, without any definite assurance that the purpose for which the expenditure is being made will be fully carried out. We have a headquarters staff here, some seventeen staff officers receiving salaries in excess of $96,000 in the aggregate. We have a number of military districts, each taking large sums of money for their upkeep. We have across Canada something like forty-four units of the non-permanent militia, some 5,643 officers for 36,368 men. According to the last report of the late Sir Arthur Currie with regard to the war establishments, in 1918 there was one officer for every twenty-four men. In the present Canadian establishment we have one officer for every seven men, and for the period of training in camp one officer for every five men. That, I think, has created the general impression in this country that much of this expenditure is devoted merely to the upkeep of a small military aristocracy, and it is difficult to discover what useful purposes they serve, either in providing defence measures for Canada or in making proper preparation for the future. I suggest that the time has come for drastic reorganization of this branch, and that we are not justified at this time in voting the expenditure suggested.

For that reason I move an amendment, seconded by Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo) as follows:

That vote No. 69 for the non-permanent active militia be reduced by the sum of $1,000,000.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

I have only one word to say. Probably my hon. friend was not aware that this vote was reduced from last year. I informed him of the reduction effected. I think the committee should not accept his statement that these militia officers constitute a military aristocracy. I know no finer body of men in Canada than these who throughout the year give up four or five nights a week of their leisure and personal pleasure to training the youth of the dominion. There is no suggestion of a military aristocracy about these men. My hon. friend may be confusing the men who have made this their life work with those who are making this permanent contribution to the training of Canadian youth. Some of our unemployed in Winnipeg and Vancouver are among the finest boys we have in the militia. The boys in relief camps joined the militia, took drill and did wonderful service, and I say that is not constituting a military aristocracy or autocracy. They were Canadians binding themselves together in a proper way. There is another thing I want to tell the hon. member, and it is that year after year these militia officers have made contributions to help the men in training camps, because the allowance in the vote by parliament is entirely inadequate for effective training of a militia force for Canada.

Mr. CHURCH:

I want to say a word or

two about No. 2 military district. I am surprised at the mover of the resolution, because he has been a distinguished soldier. May I say that the officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the units in Toronto are having the utmost difficulty to get men into their ranks. In view of the cuts made on military expenditures they find it difficult to pay the necessary costs. This vote is only about half what it used to be. Last Sunday the Toronto units held a parade in which some 6,060 men and officers took part. Frequently they have put their hands into their pockets, as have the friends of the units, to provide the necessary maintenance charges. Non-commissioned officers do the same thing for the men. If they receive a few dollars pay, on many occasions they put it into a common fund to maintain the unit. If we are to have such a limited amount, possibly it would be more in order to wipe out the militia altogether. Let us depend upon pacifism, purely and simply, if we are to reduce the vote, because we cannot have proper equipment under the present one. We have only about fifty per cent of the proper equipment in the non-permanent militia today, and the non-permanent militia are the back-bone of the permanent forces. While

Supply-National Defence

everyone appreciates what the permanent force is doing, we know the non-permanent militia consists of young men in business and they are sick and tired of such small support from parliament. The government spends more money in support of that which our friends to the left depend upon, namely the League of Nations, and we get no results. This is an item from which we get practical results. I am surprised to see that the vote is so small, because I know it is becoming difficult to raise money to carry on the work.

Mr. MacNElL: I do not wish to be misunderstood by the minister and hon. members. I am not criticizing the conscientious, hardworking militia officers in the district, but I am suggesting that the organization is top-heavy. When I spoke of high salaries I was speaking of seventeen officers at headquarters receiving-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

That is

in the permanent force vote.

Mr. MacNElL: And similar sums, proportionately, for the military districts. I say this, too, that the expenditure is being used for the maintenance of an elaborate military establishment which is not getting practical results, and I am viewing the matter in a practical light. I am not criticizing the conscientious militia officer, and I wish to say, too, that much of the training of which staff officers at headquarters speak in glowing terms is nothing more or less than a joke, and many of us know it because of our contact with militia units. It is not being carried out properly, or as it should be carried out in a militia camp.

Further, we are reverting to that from which we suffered in 1914, at the outbreak of the war, when we were ordered to go into active service with obsolete training methods. It was often admitted by eminent military authorities that the headquarters staff at that time were not fully abreast of modern warfare. I think that is true of the training which is going on in the non-permanent militia units at this time. It is pathetic to watch the parade of some of our non-permanent militia units, and note the physical development of the young men in them, realizing at the same time the expenditures being made on the gewgaws of military training and on obsolete methods of training, when it is apparent that these same young men could be assisted in other and more practical ways. It is because I feel that this money is not being expended in a way

which secures practical value that I ask for a reduction by 11,000,000.

Mr. BENNETT:

I feel it incumbent upon me to make some observations in view of the fact that my friend and colleague was in the Department of National Defence only a short time before the last election. The whole expenditure for national defence purposes was closely examined, on more than one occasion, by a committee of the cabinet, and it was the considered opinion of those who had the matter in hand that we could not adequately discharge our duty if we spent less than $10,000,000 a year. That opinion is not mine, nor yet that of any one man. It is the view arrived at after the closest analysis and scrutiny of every item. The real issue is: Shall we have any defence force in the country? Either we must not play with our defence force, to the extent of wasting money, or we must utilize it so that it will accomplish some purpose.

I would be the last man in the world to place my opinion against that of the hon. member for Vancouver North. He. knows whereof he speaks; he risked his life for his country on the field of battle. But I do say to him that the reports which we received are at variance with the views he has expressed. First, the military units are not at strength; that is obvious. I believe, however, that the numbers trained in those units have reached a high state of efficiency, according to modern standards of training. I do not believe it is fair to say that obsolete methods have been used. On the contrary it is my belief that the methods of training adopted in Canada are the modern which have developed in the light of the last conflict, and the knowledge gained therefrom.

For instance, mechanized artillery and mechanized branches of the service are known to everyone. Our medical service is as fine as can be found anywhere in the world. Our signalling corps has as fine a reputation and has received as ample training in electrical and other fields of knowledge allied to signalling as is found in any country, having in view the small number engaged in the work. When it comes down to a question of training of engineers, machine gun units or infantry units, I believe the standards which have been adopted are those used by the best instructors in the world. In addition to that there is annual inspection, and while for monetary reasons the camps cannot be maintained for long periods of time, they are maintained for periods of ten days or two

Supply-National Defence

weeks, and sometimes a little longer than that. The result has been that, according to my observation, the men have given an excellent account of themselves.

My friend from Vancouver North says that there are in this country various military divisions with district officers commanding. Can you have a district without a commandant? Can you get along without having someone in charge, and if you have a commandant, a D.O.C., you have every branch of the service represented, someone representing the engineers, someone representing the artillery, someone representing the medical services, the signalling corps, and so on. The engineering corps, for example, is a highly efficient corps. If you have any doubt about that, see what they did, for instance, at Calgary. There they undertook the work of constructing the barracks, laying it out and doing all that sort of work, doing it in a manner that has won the approval of the highest authorities; I do not know myself, of course. If we are going to have a service at all-and for my part I think we must, or say once and for all that we cease to be a community-if we are going to have it, as the minister has said, not for aggression, but purely as the nucleus of any defence it may be necessary for this country to resort to- and we all hope and pray to God that that may never be, but the facts stare us in the face-we must make these reasonable preparations for the defence of our country. I think the department does wonders in utilizing its money to the extent it does, in applying present day scientific methods to our military problems. I mention that because this is nothing new to me. I had the opinion which the hon. member for Vancouver North has expressed, and when we came into office I thought it would be possible to cut this item down substantially. I have no doubt that the minister has been through the very same experience. But what happens is that a committee of the cabinet closely investigates every item, and despite the attacks which may be made against those who are staff officers, they have a wide fund of knowledge and have given the benefit of it to successive governments, have recommended an improvement here and an improvement there, and the curtailment of expenditures when the minister has said that it was necessary to cut to the bone. We have done that, and I am told, not by these brass-hats to which reference is sometimes made, but by competent efficient men who have investigated these matters, that if we are going to maintain even a skeleton organization we cannot do it with

less money than this $10,000,000. That is the considered judgment of those who have had to deal with this pioblem. I say that because, as I have indicated, it has been experience which has taught me. I know, and every man who lives in a community knows exactly what the militia does. I have been privileged to be associated with some of these organizations as honorary colonel, and the honorary colonel-ship has been offered for an obvious reason, a very obvious one.

Mr. SPENCE:

If you didn't have the money, you wouldn't be an honorary colonel.

Mr. BENNETT:

When I think of what

I have seen with my own eyes, the amount of real sacrifice that has been made by men for no purpose in the world except their love of the work, not for swank, as someone has suggested, but because they are high-minded, public-spirited citizens who desire to do something for the welfare of their community, and have spent hours and days and weeks trying to train young men in the rudiments of self-control, self-reliance and self-respect, as Tennyson said, I am amazed at what has been done. Those three things, self-reliance, self-respect and self-control, constitute the basis of all the efforts we make in that regard, and after all that is a discipline very much to be desired. I have seen young men loose in their habits emerge, as a result of joining a militia unit and training for days and weeks and months, with those three qualities at least, selfrespect, self-reliance, self-control, very apparent. That is what I have seen, and I am sure that I but voice the sentiments of many people when I say that there are families who look back with satisfaction upon what has been done for some wayward sons by the operation of these militia units. The officers have been-and I was glad to hear the hon. member for Vancouver North admit it to be so-self-sacrificing, thinking only of the welfare of the community in which their services have been given. The real truth is that we have not nearly enough money in this country to give the service that we should give. It is pared down now to the very ibone, and I do not think it is possible, in the light of my own experience and observation to make the expenditure less and render service at all. When I compare our expenditure with that of other countries with our population in other parts of the world, I am amazed that we have accomplished as much as we have with the limited sums of money at our disposal. I think the committee would be well advised to

Supply-National Defence

negative this amendment, because it is one that, if carried, would destroy the active militia of this dominion at one fell swoop, and that would be the end of. it.

I have only one word more, and I apologize ter taking up time in connection with an item of this kind. The report to which the minister has alluded is one which was made after the most careful investigation of every phase of the matter, and it must be remembered that in practice our units are not full, and the number of men that are affected is much smaller than the number that there might be under a reorganized force at strength The same considerations which influenced the organization of the territorials under Lord Haldane have been the governing factors in determining the strength of our active militia, and notwithstanding anything which may be said to the contrary the truth is that but for the active militia in this country in 1914 Canada could not have done what she did. That, I think, is admitted by every man who knows the story of our effort in that great conflict.

Amendment negatived: yeas, 10; nays, 62.

Item stands.

Progress reported.