Brooke CLAXTON

CLAXTON, The Hon. Brooke, P.C., Q.C., B.C.L., LL.D., D.C.M.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
St. Lawrence--St. George (Quebec)
Birth Date
August 23, 1898
Deceased Date
June 13, 1960
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Claxton
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=647c88fa-1673-4147-88b3-b42105bc54e3&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer, professor (associate) - commercial law

Parliamentary Career

March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
LIB
  St. Lawrence--St. George (Quebec)
  • Parliamentary Assistant to the President of the Privy Council (May 6, 1943 - October 12, 1944)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (October 18, 1944 - December 11, 1946)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
LIB
  St. Lawrence--St. George (Quebec)
  • Minister of National Health and Welfare (October 18, 1944 - December 11, 1946)
  • Minister of National Defence (December 12, 1946 - November 14, 1948)
  • Minister of National Defence (November 15, 1948 - June 30, 1954)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
LIB
  St. Lawrence--St. George (Quebec)
  • Minister of National Defence (November 15, 1948 - June 30, 1954)
August 10, 1953 - April 12, 1957
LIB
  St. Lawrence--St. George (Quebec)
  • Minister of National Defence (November 15, 1948 - June 30, 1954)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 1052)


July 10, 1956

Mr. Claxton:

That is a good place for it too.

Our own Prime Minister, speaking here on June 22, was asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert whether he would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. This is the Prime Minister's answer, as recorded at page 5284 of Hansard:

That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.

The Prime Minister obviously is not very much interested in the preferences, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is even less interested than the Prime Minister. Canada should be buying more in the commonwealth and less in the United States, but there is very little indication of a policy of that kind being adopted.

Finally, the amendment proposes that wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of Canadian resources should be fostered. Even the members of the government admit that this situation should be remedied, but what do they propose to do about it? So far, we have heard no proposal which would meet that situation. Tax exemptions? No, not a word about that. Tax reductions? Oh, no, they are holding off the reduction in taxation in order to help them win an election next year, although there are surpluses now in the moneys coming into the treasury.

Perhaps this is the most important point of all, because here is a case where a vision could be held out before the Canadian people, a vision of Canada for Canadians. The president of the University of British Columbia summed up the picture very neatly when he spoke in Rochester, New York, about a month ago. President Norman A. M. MacKenzie is not a politician, is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is one of the outstanding Canadians today. Here is what he told an audience at the University of Rochester:

He said Canada is delighted to have United States capital in the country.

But "some of us like being Canadians and want to remain Canadians, and we are not unaware of the influences and pressures infiltration and intervention of this kind bring with them and imply".

Topic:   TABLE II
Full View Permalink

July 10, 1956

Mr. Claxton:

That is a good place for it too.

Our own Prime Minister, speaking here on June 22, was asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert whether he would be opposed to any extension of the British preference. This is the Prime Minister's answer, as recorded at page 5284 of Hansard:

That is not correct as a general statement. The matter will have to be considered in all its aspects and of course in the light of its possible repercussions upon the general tariff and trade arrangements which are still in force and which have proved to be of quite substantial benefit to Canadian trade.

The Prime Minister obviously is not very much interested in the preferences, and I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce is even less interested than the Prime Minister. Canada should be buying more in the commonwealth and less in the United States, but there is very little indication of a policy of that kind being adopted.

Finally, the amendment proposes that wider financial participation by Canadians in the development of Canadian resources should be fostered. Even the members of the government admit that this situation should be remedied, but what do they propose to do about it? So far, we have heard no proposal which would meet that situation. Tax exemptions? No, not a word about that. Tax reductions? Oh, no, they are holding off the reduction in taxation in order to help them win an election next year, although there are surpluses now in the moneys coming into the treasury.

Perhaps this is the most important point of all, because here is a case where a vision could be held out before the Canadian people, a vision of Canada for Canadians. The president of the University of British Columbia summed up the picture very neatly when he spoke in Rochester, New York, about a month ago. President Norman A. M. MacKenzie is not a politician, is not a partisan in any sense of the word. He is one of the outstanding Canadians today. Here is what he told an audience at the University of Rochester:

He said Canada is delighted to have United States capital in the country.

But "some of us like being Canadians and want to remain Canadians, and we are not unaware of the influences and pressures infiltration and intervention of this kind bring with them and imply".

Topic:   TABLE I
Subtopic:   SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES ON RESEARCH BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Full View Permalink

June 23, 1954

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):

When I noticed this report, Mr. Speaker, I naturally caused inquiries to be made, and I received from General Simonds a telegram explaining the circumstances of his statement and also stating more fully and perhaps more accurately what he said. He was at a meeting of officers of the Canadian Army in Saint John, New Brunswick, and after a talk he gave them he was asked a question which is quite frequently put on similar occasions. I myself have been asked it a great number of times. He was asked what his views were on the subject of national service. He made a reply which I think you could expect almost any officer to make, namely that he would be glad to see every youth in the country receive two years' military training. Then he went on to say:

I believe the vast majority of experienced soldiers would agree with me. But such training was impossible unless it received the wholehearted support of the people of this country and that was a matter for judgment and decision by political leaders, not soldiers. In any event experience tended to show that a period of universal military service of less than two years increased rather than diminished the problem of meeting commitment overseas. Further a system of universal military 83276-412J

Supply-Privy Council service was not a substitution for voluntary service, it could only supplement and never replace the voluntary system.

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

June 21, 1954

Mr. Claxfon:

I think I should answer the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. He says he did not get any information. A release was issued in my name announcing this decision. I should say it would be in October, 1953. The regiment came into existence. They started work. Then the hon. member asked a question which was answered on March 10, 1954 giving him the information. But then all this kind of thing that he has just said was raised by another hon. member on May 21, 1954, as reported at page 4974 of Hansard. It is all there. Why he should be so greatly concerned about the matter, I do not know.

I can tell him that the regiment of guards is going great guns. It is derived from some famous units of the Canadian army. The first regiment of the guards is derived from

the third battalion of the R.C.R.'s. The second regiment is derived from the third battalion of the P.P.C.L.I. The third regiment is derived from the first infantry battalion which is in turn derived from five famous units of the reserve forces. The fourth guards battalion is derived from the second Canadian infantry battalion and is now on service in Korea.

As far as I know the question has been raised-and I think I am right-only by the hon. member for Peel, I think it was, and this hon. member who has raised the question tonight. I have not had a single word of complaint from either the old battalions or the new. They are getting along well. They are working well. They are doing their job. They are good Canadians. They are going to be good soldiers. They have a fine background of tradition through their origin. By what other name you could call them to suit the Canadian scene at that particular moment, I do not know.

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink

June 21, 1954

Mr. Claxton:

I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.

[Mr. Claxton.l

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Full View Permalink