Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Secretary of State) moved:

Whereas the report of a special committee of the House of Commons on titles, honours and decorations was presented to the house on May 14, 1919, and carried, on division, on May 22, 1919; and

Whereas the opinion has been expressed that the application of the principles embodied m the report in the circumstances which have emerged during the present war had led to discrimination between the members of the Canadian armed forces, and others of his majesty's armed forces, between different ranks in the Canadian armed forces; and between Canadians actively participating in the present war, and others of his majesty's subjects; and

Whereas the further opinion has been expressed that it is impracticable to make provision for recognition of conduct and action involving gallantry, courage, meritorious service and devotion to duty without contravening the principles embodied in the report;

Therefore be it resolved:

That a select committee of the house be appointed to inquire into and to report upon the expediency:

(a) of maintaining the principles that form the basis of the recommendations contained in the said report and continuing in effect the said recommendations, or

(b) of cancelling, altering, modifying or adding to the said recommendations, in so far as they relate to honours and decorations which do not involve titles, and, if so, in what respect and to what extent.

That the committee shall consist of the following members: Messrs. Bertrand (Laurier-Montreal), Bruce, Fraser (Peterborough West), Gershaw, Graham, Hill, Kinley, Macmillan, Marshall. McCuaig, Stirling, Turgeon, Weir, Wood. Wright, and shall have power to send for persons and records, to examine witnesses under oath, and to report their opinions and observations from time to time to the house.

He said: In rising to move the resolution standing in my name I feel that it is rather

an anti-climax to the magnificent address we have heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Usley). We used to hear of the great addresses made by other ministers of finance such as Sir George Foster, Mr. Fielding and other capable ministers, and sometimes we have taken the position that things are not as they used to be, that we do not hear the magnificent eloquence which was heard in speeches made many years ago. That reminds me of an apropos remark which Punch made about the Times. When someone wrote and said that the Times was not as it used to be, Punch replied, "Yes, but it never was."

I think we have heard to-night as fine a budget address as this house has ever heard, and I am speaking not only of the present house but of the old house as well. Again I should like to congratulate my colleague upon a magnificent and splendid address. I should like also to congratulate Canada upon having a Minister of Finance who can prepare and deliver such a budget as we have heard to-night.

In moving the resolution standing in my name for the appointment of a select committee of this house to review the question of honours and decorations, it is not necessary at this stage to deal with it at any great length. It is, however, I believe desirable that I should deal briefly, in the first place, with the present situation and endeavour to point out to the house why it is desirable to have the proposed committee appointed.

As members of the house will see, no question of conferring titles is involved. The members of the house will recall that in the year 1919 a special committee considered the question of titles, honours and decorations and presented its report on May 14, 1919. This report was discussed by the house and was carried on division on May 22, 1919. It will not be necessary for me to read the full report, but I might give a summary of its contents.

The report provided for the submission of an address to His Majesty the King dealing with the exercise by the king of certain legal powers which formed a part of the royal prerogative. It involved an expression by the House of Commons of its views to the effect that:

(1) No titles of honour or titular distinctions should be conferred upon British subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada save such appellations as might be of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.

(2) Hereditary titles of honour or titular distinctions or dignitaries or titles as peers of the realm should, by legislation or otherwise, be extinguished upon the death of the holder if domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, and no further hereditary titles should be conferred upon Canadians.

Honours and Decorations

(3) The titles "right honourable" and "honourable" should be continued.

(4) The practice of awarding military and naval decorations such as the Victoria Cross, the Military Medal, the Military Cross, the Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty should be continued.

(5) No person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada should accept or use titles of honour or titular distinction conferred by foreign rulers or governors.

The policy recommended in the report has been followed by the governments which have been in power since 1919, with one exception. In 1934 and 1935 certain recommendations of Canadians for titles and honours were made and a number of titles and honours were granted.

It will be observed that in the proposed terms of reference in this motion, one of the suggestions is that the committee should consider cancelling, altering, modifying or adding to the recommendations in the report of the committee in 1919 in so far as they relate to honours and decorations which do not involve titles.

It will also be observed that in the report of the committee of 1919 the statement is made that the committee do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations to members of the military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty. At that time the Royal Canadian Air Force had not been established, and this accounts for the fact that no reference is made to members of the air force. Carrying out the policy approved by the house in adopting the report in 1919. the prohibition on the recommendation and acceptance by Canadians of titles of honour or titular distinctions has been interpreted to mean that Canadians may not receive any medal or award in an order of chivalry, on the ground that such an award, for example, as a companionship in the Order of the Bath or the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, or the Order of the British Empire, involves membership in an order of chivalry in which the highest grades involve knighthood.

The medals and decorations mentioned in the report of the committee of 1919-the Victoria Cross, the Military Medal, the Military Cross, and the like-are medals and decorations which are awarded, in the main, for conspicuous gallantry in action. While the Victoria Cross may be awarded to men of all ranks in the army, the navy and the air force, some of the others, such as the Military Cross and the Military Medal, are awarded only to officers or men below certain ranks. For

example, the Military Cross is restricted by royal warrant to officers below the rank of major and to warrant officers, classes 1 and 2. The Military Medal can be granted only for gallantry in action and can be awarded only to warrant officers, classes 1 and 2, non-commissioned officers and men.

An examination of the provisions of the report and of the debates in the House of Commons, indicates that there is some doubt as to whether the House of Commons, in 1919, intended to impose a ban upon military decorations other than those which involved titles or titular distinctions. In the text of the resolution, the prohibition is confined to "any title of honour or titular distinction"; while in the debates there was much confusion as to whether the prohibition was intended to extend to military decorations, such as the lower classes in the orders of chivalry, which do not involve either titles of honour or titular distinctions.

When the question of awards arose during the present war, the position taken was that ordinary medals and decorations might freely be awarded to members of the Canadian armed forces and to Canadians serving in others of his majesty's armed forces as members thereof or as attached personnel. The awards thus made available included the ordinary medals and decorations, such as the Distinguished Service Order, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and the Medal of the Order of the British Empire, as well as mentions in dispatches and commendations. All awards involving titles, and awards in the lower grades of those orders of chivalry which, in their higher grades, involved titles, were regarded as coming within the prohibition involved in the report. It was, therefore, open to Canadians to receive the Victoria Cross, the Distinguished Service Order, the Distinguished Flying Cross and similar decorations. On the other hand, such awards as Knight Commander of the Bath, Companion of the Bath (military), Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George and Companion of St. Michael and St. George, Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Officer of the Order of the British Empire, and Member of the Order of the British Empire (military) were not available to Canadians.

In the present war, civilan decorations have been instituted by His Majesty the King. The report does not preserve any rights in respect of civilian decorations. There was a good deal of doubt as to whether, upon the institution of the George Cross and the George Medal, it would be open to the Canadian

Honours and Decorations

government to provide for recommendations without contravening the provisions of the report. The position taken was that a ban upon the award of the George Cross or the George Medal would not be in accord with the general spirit underlying the report and, accordingly, steps were taken to make these civilian awards available for Canadians.

It is desirable that the position with regard to the classes of the orders of chivalry which do not involve titles should be clarified and that doubt should be removed with regard to the availability of the George Cross and the George Medal.

A further question has arisen by reason of the nature of the present war. In total war the dangers of the burdens fall heavily upon the civilians as well as upon the soldiers. There are Canadians serving in positions of great personal danger who are showing qualities of courage and devotion to duty that are clearly comparable with those which result in awards to the armed forces. Such civilians are all excluded from recognition except in cases which qualify for the George Cross and the George Medal. It is thought that the House of Commons would desire to review the whole question of recognition of civilian service in the light of the conditions which have arisen during the present war.

Another problem results from the nature of naval warfare. It has been increasingly evident that seamen of the merchant navy are showing qualities of courage and devotion to duty which require recognition. It is desirable, therefore, that the house should consider whether members of the merchant navy should not be placed in a position of equality with members of the armed forces. It will, of course, be understood that the British mercantile marine is given recognition in the matter of awards fairly comparable with that which is accorded to the Royal Navy and it is probable that members of the house would desire that Canadian seamen should receive similar treatment.

Under the present position, immediate awards take the form of medals and decorations and have been available to Canadians on the same basis as to members of the armed forces of other parts of the British commonwealth. Individual actions of gallantry in the' face of the enemy have led to awards to Canadians without discrimination. On the other hand, under the system which has been in force in the past and which is applied to the members of the armed forces of the British commonwealth with the exception of Canada, a substantial number of awards for courage and devotion to duty are made periodically, normally at the New Year and on the occasion

of the king's birthday. These lists include operational awards earned by continued courageous action and devotion to duty during operations, and also awards for exceptional devotion to duty in the course of services rendered outside active theatres of war. These periodic awards normally consist of the Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, Knight Commander of the Bath, Companion of the Bath. Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Officer of the Order of the British Empire, Member of the Order of the British Empire, and the British Empire Medal, all in the military divisions of the orders. Of these only one, namely, the British Empire Medal, has been regarded as being available to Canadians. The Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, Knight Commander of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire, and Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire are higher classes of orders of chivalry; the recipients of these awards have the right to the title "Sir" during their lives and their wives are entitled to be called "Lady". They are thus clearly within the wording "titles of honour or titular distinctions" as set forth in the report. The other awards, Companion of the Bath, Commander of the Order of the British Empire, Officer of the Order of the British Empire and Member of the Order of the British Empire, are lower classes of the same orders of chivalry which do not carry titles. The recipients of the awards are entitled to wear ribbons on their uniforms and formal insignia on ceremonial occasions. These awards are, however, regarded as being so associated with titles of honour or titular distinctions as to be excluded by the provisions of the report.

In the practical working out of the British system of recognition of courageous action and devotion to duty, the present position results in discrimination between Canadians and members of the armed forces of other parts of the British commonwealth; and also in discrimination between officers and warrant officer's, on the one hand, and non-commissioned officers and men on the other hand.

The best illustration of the first type of discrimination would be found in the case of commissioned officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and aircraftmen who are charged with the direction and maintenance, under conditions of grave danger and hardship, of aircraft engaged in operation. Their courage and devotion to duty lead to extended recognition in the awards to ground personnel of the Royal Air Force, and of

Honours and Decorations

other air forces operating with the Royal Air Force, including awards in the Order of the British Empire, and medals of that order. In the cases in which equivalent courage and devotion to duty is shown by commissioned officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and aircraftmen of the Royal Canadian Air Force, no awards involving membership in the Order of the British Empire can be made by reason of the principles set forth in the report. Other concrete illustrations might be taken from the experience of other branches of the Canadian armed forces.

The other element of discrimination is between members of the Canadian forces. Here, again, the best illustration would be found in the ground crews of a Royal Canadian Air Force squadron. Assuming that, through a difficult period, continued courage and devotion to duty had been shown by a pilot officer, a warrant officer, second class, and a leading aircraftman; under the present position, a British Empire Medal could be awarded to the leading aircraftman,, but the warrant officer, second class, and the pilot officer would have to forgo recognition.

It is thought that the House of Commons might want to examine these aspects of the question, with a view to devising some means whereby discrimination, if any exists, could be avoided. Within the terms of the reference to the committee, it would be possible to submit recommendations to the house which would lead to the removal of any element of discrimination from members of the Canadian armed forces, except in the case, of course, of officers holding the rank of Rear-Admiral, Major-General, Air Vice-Marshal, or higher ranks. Under the existing system of awards it is not possible to arrange for recognition of the services of these higher ranking officers without providing for the revival of titles in Canada-a course which I am sure this house will agree would be unlikely to commend itself under present conditions.

In the making of recommendations with regard to these matters it will of course be understood that, under our constitution, the crown is the fountain of honour, and that any recommendations which may be made should take the form of recommendations with a view to their submission, through the appropriate channels, to His Majesty the King, for approval.

We are all conscious of heroic deeds which are being performed and of distinguished services which are being given by self-sacrificing and patriotic Canadian men and women in the armed forces. I think it will also be agreed that Canadians who are serving in many parts of the world and on many battle

fronts beside their comrades from the United Kingdom, from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Indian empire should, subject to the limitations of the resolution, be eligible for official recognition which may be regarded as equivalent to that given their comrades.

This is one of the reasons why the government has reached the conclusion that the whole question at this time should be studied by a select committee of the house. I trust that after the committee has examined the question from all points of view, the report which it may submit will be such as to commend itself to the judgment of parliament.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):

I wish to join the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) in paying a tribute to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley). Sometimes I disagree with his policies, but I always admire his native eloquence.

Regarding this resolution, I remember that between 1930 and 1935 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) took a definite stand against the awarding of titles in this country, precisely at the time when Mr. Bennett decided to go back to the old tradition of bestowing titles on Canadian citizens. We are frequently told that we are at war and that we should not forget that we are at war; and I do not. In my humble view decorations should be given only to those who risk their lives for their fellow citizens, either in the army, or in research when they expose their own lives in scientific studies, or in civilian life to those who risk their lives to save those of others, such as the man who jumps into the water to rescue a child from drowning. These people are entitled to decorations. Their decorations have a real meaning; they signify that a man has accomplished a conspicuous action for mankind at the risk of his own life. I assume that up to this point everybody will agree.

Now, sir, what is nobility? Noblemen were first roturiers, and the difference between a noble lord and a roturier is the fact that the lord has been made such from a roturier, who may be described as a man of the mob. It is interesting to discover how it happens that a man who comes from the mob turns into a nobleman as by enchantment. It is much the same as if he were touched by Merlin's magic wand. It is really funny. Four years ago, after a visit to England, I took the trouble to examine the House of Lords "Who's Who", and I noticed that one-half of the noble lords had belonged to the nobility only since the beginning of the twentieth century; that is, at the end of the nineteenth century they were roturiers.

Honours and Decorations

Of course the highest degree of civilization is to enjoy the same kind of life as Horace did in Rome two thousand years ago, when, in the beautiful climate of Italy, garbed in a peplum, he could sit and philosophize while drinking Falernian wine. It was a great life. I know that the lives of most noblemen consist in enjoying the best that civilization can afford-in living in a castle, in hunting, in reading-because there are intellectual pleasures available to those whose livelihood is earned for them-in eating and drinking the best, in racing, fox-hunting and so on. This is very fine.

But the greatest nobility is the nobility of the heart, and that is why soldiers-and when I say soldiers I mean sailors and airmen as well-deserve a special recognition. Their hearts are so big that, though they may not always make the supreme sacrifice, they expose themselves to the risk of sacrifice in such a way that they are entitled to be distinguished in some manner, so that their fellow citizens, seeing them, will be in a position to observe, "That man is a hero; he must have accomplished conspicuous deeds that deserved particular recognition."

In the army there are three classes of men, and now I refer to the militia in particular. There are the privates; there are the noncommissioned officers, and there are the officers. Well, it takes a long time for a private to become a non-commissioned officer, and a much longer time for a non-commissioned officer to become an officer. For my part, the best reward that could be given, not as a matter of decoration-a medal with a ribbon-to any private, is to make him a noncommissioned officer, and the best reward for a non-commissioned officer is to make him an officer-and no officer is prouder than the man from the lower ranks who gets his promotion on the battlefield. Everyone will be in favour of this, but it takes a long time to get it. There is a reason for these promotions. It is that when a man is worth a promotion in the army he is in most instances qualified to have a larger number of men under his direction, and it would improve the army if we insisted upon the observance of the promotion system before going any further in connection with the distribution of titles.

I do not think more titles should be given; in fact, I think some titles should be dropped. For instance, take all those civilians who are now in uniform, especially in the Department of National Defence for Air. There are civilians who are in uniform now, doing civilian jobs, and who are entitled to allowances for their wives and so on. Do you not think,

Mr. Speaker, that they should return to civilian life so long as they are doing civilian work? It is not because they are working in a defence department that they should be allowed such a privilege as to wear a uniform when they are not military men. The government should discontinue buying uniforms and paying allowances for these men.

I believe, sir, that you were in the house when we received certain correspondence from Toronto from a gentleman who wrote regarding the restoration of titles. He must have been acting for-

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. The question of titles is not covered by the resolution. The resolution refers to honours and decorations which do not involve titles. Therefore I do not think the question of granting honours which do involve titles comes within the scope of the resolution.

Mr. POULIOT:

The first paragraph reads:

Whereas the opinion has been expressed that the application of the principles embodied in the report in the circumstances which have emerged during the present war had led to discrimination between the members of the Canadian armed forces, and others of His Majesty's armed forces, between different ranks in the Canadian armed forces; and between Canadians actively participating in the present war, and others of His Majesty's subjects. . . .

I will not insist upon the question of titles, but I wish to say a word about decorations, using the language of the motion, to those Canadians who are "others of His Majesty's subjects," These must be people who have had nothing to do with the war. I should have liked my good friend the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) to say something more by way of definition of "Canadians actively participating in the present war" and, in the second place, "others of His Majesty's subjects." In the first place, reference is made to the armed forces of the country, and then there are two other categories of people mentioned. Who are those Canadians actively participating in the present war? Are they the dollar-a-year men? I admit that some of them are good men, but I wonder if all of them should be awarded decorations or anything of that sort when most of them are paid high travelling expenses and living allowances. They are already receiving compensation. Then there are "others of His Majesty's subjects." Who are they? Of course, the committee would have ample opportunity to inquire into the matter, but I remind the government that we are the ones who have to vote upon the motion for the formation of the committee, and, therefore, if anybody is to get the information the first ones to have that privilege should be the

Honours and Decorations

members of the house who have the responsibility of passing a motion like this, which is not clear at all. It does not satisfy my mind, and I know the farmers in my county will laugh about it. Let me make myself clear in this regard. They will not laugh about anything that is done in order to recognize the exceptional merit of anyone in the armed forces, but they will laugh when they think of those fellows who look after their own business while "actively participating in the present war." It is a distinction between the army and those business men who are "actively participating in the present war." It is most impressive. Besides that, there are "others." Who are they? It smells bad.

Whereas the further opinion has been expressed that it is impracticable to make provision for recognition of conduct and action involving gallantry, courage, meritorious service and devotion to duty without contravening the principles embodied in the report. . . .

If it applied only to the army, I would agree. But if it applies in the first place to "Canadians actively participating in the present war" but not in the army, and in the second place to "others of His Majesty's subjects",

I do not agree with it. There is something more that strikes me. It is that reference to a report of a special committee of the house on titles, honours and decorations that was presented to the house on May 14, 1919, and carried, on division, on May 22, 1919. Nobody has read that report. It was passed when you, sir, were sitting in the house, but I never had that report. I do not know what it is. But I can tell you, sir, that that motion is superfluous, because when R. B. Bennett was Prime Minister he paid no attention to that report; he gave titles by the bushel and the shovelful. Therefore why refer to that report when it was ignored by R. B. Bennett? I find it childish, especially at this time when Russia, the United States and all other countries will pay no attention to those titles. Here we go back in the vaults of this chamber and find an old report of 1919 which has been ignored by R. B. Bennett when he created barons out of whisky makers and so on. It is childishness in war time-I can return the compliment to the government. I was once told by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that we should be serious. Is this a serious matter? It is toys to amuse the wealthy.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I do not think the hon. gentleman is in order. It is not in order under the rules of the house to style as childish a resolution presented by a minister of the crown-or by any other hon. member as far as that goes.

[Mr. Pouliot.l

Furthermore, I do not believe that the hon. gentleman is speaking to the very subject matter of the resolution, which is the expediency of referring to a committee of the house the question of studying some -method to give recognition of conduct and action involving gallantry, courage, meritorious service and devotion to duty. I would like the hon. gentleman to withdraw that expression.

Mr. POULIOT:

Then, sir, I will substitute the words "not serious".

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Even that is hardly in order.

Mr. POULIOT:

Then I will substitute for what I have said that I cannot understand it. I will tell your honour what I have in mind when I used the expression "childish". Your honour will remember that Napoleon said, "c'est avec des hochets que 1'on mene les hommes". "Hochets" means toys. That is why I thought of "childishness"; if you find it out of order, of course I desire to abide by your ruling, and I am not hard to please.

But, sir, the basis of that argument is a report, a report which I have never read, which I ignore except for the summary given in the resolution. The first paragraph of the motion summarizes the report that will be studied again by a committee which will include many distinguished members of this house, and especially my very dear friend and esteemed colleague the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macmillan). In the first paragraph there is mention of titles, honours and decorations. I hear one of the ministers say "no". Well, you may table the famous report. It is easy to have copies made by the king's printer. I am anxious to read the report, but I am too busy to make long searches. If it is given to me here, I will read it.

So we have the preamble, "whereas" and "whereas" and "whereas", and then:

Therefore be it resolved:

That a select committee of the house be appointed to inquire into and to report upon the expediency-

The expediency, observe.

- (a) of maintaining the principles that form the basis of the recommendations contained in the said report and continuing in effect the said recommendations, or-

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):

That throws it wide open.

Mr. POULIOT:

As it may be decided by the committee. But are we to entrust the committee with that job now? We are still in the dark, we do not know.

(b) of cancelling, altering, modifying or adding to the said recommendations, in so far as

Honours and Decorations

they relate to honours and decorations which do not involve titles, and, if so, in what respect and to what extent.

The whole thing will be studied from A to Z, I presume, and in my humble opinion that will be a waste of time. When I think of the intelligence of my colleagues, of their experience and their value as members of this house, to think that they will have to spend their time on this-and mark you, I do not say "waste", I say "spend" their time on this-when Tobruk has just fallen; when we heard solemn words of warning from the Minister of Finance just a moment ago, when everybody, if not fearful, is greatly concerned and worried about the future, I find that there is no time for this.

To summarize what I have to say it is this. In the first place there should be no snobbery in the army; there should be no caste in the army, no caste to keep privileges or promotions for themselves. The army should be made more accessible to the common man, and the common man should be given greater opportunity for promotion on the battlefield. The same thing applies to the sailor and the airman. If that is done, our men will be so satisfied with having at last what they were promised when they enlisted that they will not insist upon anything more than they are entitled to receive now in regard to decorations. Is there anything to prevent our men from receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Distinguished Flying Medal, the Distinguished Service Order, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, and so on? But there is one thing I regret, and I will tell you what it is. I regret very much what was done in the case of one man, who at the risk of his life took away a bomb that had fallen either very near or in St. Paul's cathedral in London. He did something which was deserving of the Victoria Cross, but instead of any such recognition he has been put in gaol for five years. First get that man out of gaol; then we might talk about decorations. That is my humble view about the matter.

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted just a word, I think my hon. friend is under a complete misapprehension with regard to this motion. I share his view as to the undesirability of bringing forward a matter of this kind at such a serious period in war, if it were at all possible to deal with it otherwise and see that justice might be done. But I want to say to you, sir, that a very great injustice is being done to the non-commissioned officers and men, and to the officers,

of the armed services on account of the resolution known as the Nickle resolution, which apparently has been regarded as more or less binding.

May I say to the hon. member who just sat down that the Distinguished Flying Cross is awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy, and the particular matter that is in mind as far as the armed services are concerned is awards for meritorious service not in the face of the enemy, service such as that to which he referred a few moments ago as being performed by a man who was a member of a bomb-removal squad. Those are matters which cannot be dealt with by way of recommendations at the present time, except in very limited fashion. The air force have an Air Force Cross which can be awarded for meritorious service not in the face of the enemy. The only thing the army has is what is known as the Meritorious Service Medal. That can be awarded for acts of bravery or endurance not in the face of the enemy, but it can be awarded only to other ranks, not to officers. The air force also has the Air Force Medal, which of course is not applicable to the army or the navy. If my hon. friend had noticed the birthday honours, he would have seen recognition accorded a large number of members of the British, Australian and other forces for meritorious services performed. These were not dollar-a-year men, to whom the hon. gentleman referred, but men who performed meritorious service, acts of endurance and devotion to duty, whose only reward can be some recognition of this kind by their country. The fact that this is a serious period in the history of the war constitutes, it seems to me, all the more reason why we should consider this question. It is all we can do for our boys, particularly those who, through no fault of their own, have not seen action as yet. I therefore submit to the house that this resolution should be passed and that the committee should be asked to examine into that situation.

My hon. friend has seen fit to indulge in some remarks with regard to promotions in the army. I want to say to him that promotions in the army are made from the ranks, except in some special technical services, and on merit. He speaks of young men being promoted on the field of battle. Every month young men are coming back from England to take officers' courses here, junior staff courses, for instance. They have been promoted in the field; they have shown their qualifications, and they have come back here to take these special courses. The same thing is being done with regard to the men in the ranks in this country. I think my hon. friend must know,

Honours and Decorations

or at least he should know, the rule that a man must serve for four months in the ranks before he may be promoted to become an officer. The hon. gentleman suggests that recognition should be given men by promoting them. There may be men who perform meritorious acts for whom no vacancy may exist as far as promotion is concerned. Would my hon. friend suggest that we should wait for a vacancy in the establishment and then solemnly make a man a corporal because he did something which should be entitled to recognition by way of a decoration? I say that is not the sort of recognition that is contemplated for acts of the sort I have mentioned. Men receive their promotions when they are entitled to them, having regard to their service and what they can do in the way of leadership and when there are vacancies. That has nothing whatever to do with these matters of exceptional gallantry or exceptional devotion to duty, for which it is hoped the decorations suggested here may be provided.

If I may presume to offer a suggestion, personally I have always felt that there was a good deal to be said for the establishment of a Canadian order, an order of our own. Here perhaps I may be stepping beyond the functions of a member of the house, particularly since the matter is to go to a committee, but it seems to me that this is a matter which might well be given consideration by that committee: a Canadian order of merit, for instance, or some other decoration, which might be awarded by Canada itself as a recognition of devotion to duty and meritorious service by its sons in the armed forces, or elsewhere for that matter.

Mr. CHURCH:

If I may ask the minister a question, would he quote from the text of the resolution of 1919 any principle which prohibits the decoration of soldiers in this way ' at the present time, as applied to this war?

I have the text of the resolution before me and I cannot find it. As a matter of fact, it is not there.

Mr. RALSTON:

I have not the text before me; but, if I remember correctly, orders of chivalry are mentioned, which would mean that membership in the Order of the British Empire could not be awarded even to those who might earn the right to such an award by reason of some act of meritorious service. That is one instance. I have not the resolution before me now; but I am advised by the legal officers of the department, and also, I think, by the legal officers of the Department of External Affairs, that the resolution does prevent the award of decorations of this kind for meritorious services which are not actually

acts of gallantry in the face of the enemy. I cannot give my hon. friend the text, since I have not the resolution before me. Needless to say, as far as I am concerned, this matter would not have been brought before this house if it were considered that it could have been dealt with otherwise, but I have felt that a grave injustice was being done to the men in the armed forces, and this seemed the only way in which it might be remedied.

Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):

That is an interpretation which makes it desirable that there should be a committee to examine the matter, and I want to commend the Secretary of State (Mr. McLarty) for having introduced this resolution. We shall certainly work with the committee and do our best to have these discriminations removed. The minister has referred to an interpretation at present used with which I certainly do not agree; this is an interpretation put by someone on the first part of the Nickle resolution. I raised this matter in March last year when I asked a statement of policy from the government as to the awarding of these decorations. Rather to my surprise that produced a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the government would still stand on the Nickle resolution of 1919 and the interpretation previously given to the first part.

Mr. CHURCH:

Is the hon. gentleman speaking for those on this side of the house or for himself?

Mr. COLD WELL:

Eleven o'clock.

Mr. McLARTY:

Does the hon. member wish to speak on this? Could we not get it through to-night? I do not think we should take up too much time with it.

On motion of Mr. Church the debate was adjourned.