Mr. CLAXTON:

Mr. Chairman, if this resolution is adopted by the house it would be the intention immediately to introduce a bill based upon it, containing only three sections. The first would provide for the appointment of a single deputy minister of defence and not more than three associate deputy ministers. That is designed to give further effect to the policy of the government to coordinate and consolidate the department and services. The second section would continue in peacetime the provisions we had during the war for the settlement of the service estates of service personnel who die in the service or while undergoing treatment under the Department of Veterans Affairs. It only refers to service estates; that is, the pay and allowances and similar sums that may be left to the credit of a service man when he dies. The third section provides for the creation of a defence research board charged with the direction and coordination of all research on defence matters.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West); The second section would 'be permissive only?

Mr. CLAXTON; It permits the adoption of regulations to deal with service estates. It is a device which was found very convenient during the war.

Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):

I realize that, but it is not compulsory; it is just permissive?

Mr. CLAXTON:

Yes.

Mr. BROOKS:

I do not think very much exception could be taken to the resolution, which is simply putting into statutory form what is already in effect by order in council, as I understand it.

Mr. CLAXTON:

With regard to service estates, the procedure would be continued permanently in peace time, whereas the order in council only related to the period of the war.

Mr. BROOKS:

I understand that. In reference to the appointment of one deputy minister and three associate deputies, I believe that meets with the general approval of all hon. members.

I should like to mention one matter, however, which arises under this resolution. On January 14 the Prime Minister announced that he had appointed five deputy ministers. On looking over the list we find that three of those deputy ministers were not veterans of either the first war or the last war. The point I wish to make is that in appointments of this bind, among the very highest we can make in this country, the veterans' preference should be taken into consideration, just as it should be considered in all other appointments. I have nothing to say against any of the gentlemen who have been appointed. They have given splendid service in a civilian way in this country, while the deputy minister of defence gave splendid service in a civilian capacity during the war. I do not suppose there are many people who could have given much better service. But when our government is urging civilian employers throughout this country to give preference to returned men; when it is urging employers under the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act to take back into their employ the men who served overseas, I think we can justly ask of this government that in making appointments, whether the highest or lowest in the civil service, this veterans' preference should be taken into consideration. I am surprised that this has not been so in respect of these appointments. I do not think it can be said that out of nearly a million men, the finest young men this country could produce, young men from every walk of life who served overseas, we could not have found one who could have

National Defence Act

done the work required. And not only did we have men from the last war, but we also had the men from the previous war whom we should consider, and from among whom we could choose.

Out of all these men, this great army from one end of Canada to the other, I say that the government should have set an example to civilian employees throughout the country and should have given something more than lip-service to veterans' preference, to show that its intentions were as it has expressed them, and should have appointed to these positions men who had oversease service.

I shall not make any further comment. This is a case which speaks for itself. I want it clearly understood that I have no personal grievance against any of those who have been appointed. I have read of their records in civilian life and, apart from the fact that they were not returned men, it would appear that they were well qualified for service of this kind. But I contend consideration should have been given to the appointment of returned men to these high positions.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. Chairman, in his concluding words my hon. friend said that consideration should have been given to returned veterans in respect of these appointments. He will probably recall that a considerable time elapsed before it was possible to appoint deputy ministers to the Departments of Fisheries and Mines and Resources. May I say that one of the reasons for the long delay was the search made to discover someone for each of these posts who was a veteran and who at the same time was fully qualified to fill these important posts.

Mr. BROOKS:

I know of one applicant

for the position of deputy minister of fisheries who, I should have thought, was well qualified. However, I do not hold myself out as a judge in that respect.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say

this, that the government certainly must consider qualifications. The mere fact that someone who applies is a veteran would not necessarily make him the person for whose appointment the government would wish to take the responsibility.

Mr. BROOKS:

I would not suggest that.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I hope the

committee will realize how increasingly difficult it is becoming to find men wholly qualified to fill these high positions, not merely from among veterans but from among others who are qualified to serve in such positions.

The matter of salaries has been mentioned at different times. Today, now that the war

is over, many private companies are beginning to offer very high salaries to men with executive capacity and ability. It is almost impossible for the government to hold many of its employees in executive posts, let alone to find men prepared to take such high executive posts at the salaries the government is paying.

I have a special responsibility in this regard, because the recommending of deputy ministers does fall upon me. I can say to the committee that great care was exercised in these appointments. It was the combination of qualifications required in a deputy minister-some technical, some connected with ability to fill an executive post, and considerations of experience and the like-which made the government feel that the appointments in those two instances were in the public interest the best that could be made.

With respect to the Department of National Defence, it is my understanding that two of the associate deputies are veterans. I believe the deputy minister was one who had volunteered for service but who, for reasons of health, had been prevented from serving in the armed forces. But he had given exceptional service and had had exceptional experience in the Department of National Defence. He has exceptional qualifications as an executive. As my colleague reminds me, he was one of the deputies in the Department of National Defence since 1941, throughout the greater part of the war.

Those are the considerations which have entered into these appointments. Viewed in that light, I think my hon. friend and others will see that the government was far from overlooking the desirability of having these positions filled by veterans, if that was at all possible.

Personally, I only wish we could find for these higher positions men who are fully qualified, whether from among the veterans or from those who during the war have given service in some other way-but preferably from the ranks of the veterans.

Mr. BROOKS:

I do not wish to enter into a controversy in connection with this matter. But it does seem to me that when we are faced with the necessity of choosing a deputy minister for the Department of National Defence, and having in mind the fact that so many capable men were serving on our military staffs overseas-and Canadian staffs were considered the finest of any army, or at least just as good-it is difficult to believe that there was not one man from among those many hundreds of men who could not have filled this position. To me, it does not make sense.

36S

National Defence Act

Mr. SKEY:

When this same matter came before the United States Congress there was considerable discussion respecting the rights of the chiefs of the various services, and whether these chiefs of staff would have the opportunity of appealing directly to the minister, rather than having to pass through deputies in each instance.

Will the minister tell the committee whether the chiefs of the services will be allowed to go directly to him with their problems? I am asking this because I feel it is important that they should be allowed direct representation to a member of the government. Some limited experience on my own part has lead me to believe that in many instances th attitude of the services is wrong in the matter of approaching the government. The services are inclined to ask themselves: what will the government permit us to do? Will the government approve this? What has been their approach, rather than one whereby they would put to the government a precise and exact appreciation of their combined defence roles in so far as their obligations to Canada and the united nations might be concerned. Some of the smaller branches of the services might have their points of view overlooked, unless they are given direct access to the ear of the minister.

Mr. CLANTON:

I am glad to give the hon. member the assurance he wishes to have. This bill does not deal with the positions of chiefs of staff; but of course they have direct access to the minister, and will continue to have it.

Mr. SKEY:

Is it the desire of the government to appoint an assistant deputy minister for each of the services?

Mr. CLAXTON:

Not at the present time.