110
ƌŽŬĞŶ WƌŽŵŝƐĞƐ
of its supporters, the bill passed the House of Commons. The Oppo-
sition criticisms might have had an impact, however,
for
although the
permanent force establishment was fixed at 10,000, the government
forbade the enlistment of more than 5,000 men. And because proper
accommodations were never provided, the force was kept below even
that number.
16
Many of the same participants were involved in another debate
some nine months later. The subject was a motion by Parkdale’s Mowat
calling for universal military training for men between the ages of 18
and 25. Mowat raised many of the arguments he had used in 1918.
The most contentious new part of his long speech was perhaps his
disquisition on the militia. “We all know that the militia until now has
been looked upon by large portions of the community as a class or
caste,” he claimed with some truth, “and the militia themselves get to
feel that they are such. ... If we could have a force which would get the
rich man’s son and the poor man’s son living together for some weeks,
we would produce a good feeling between the classes....” To finance
his scheme, which would see a man do four weeks’ training each
summer for seven years, would be simple, Mowat maintained.The
per- manent force of 3,700 was maintained for $1,300 each a year.
“For that amount we could train thirteen citizen soldiers; for I think
$100 a year would cover the cost of maintaining a man in camp or
barracks for one month each year.” Who would train the conscripts
was never mentioned, for Mowat did not seem to realize that regulars
would have to be maintained on strength, and certainly in larger
numbers than 3,700, to train the men.
17
None of Mowat’s critics real-
ized the flaw in the argument, although many spoke with eloquence
and passion. J.A. Maharg, an Independent from Saskatchewan, said
that Canadians “have had sufficient fighting and military display, at
least for a time. We are a war-weary people; we are heartily sick and
tired of strife; and almost on the heels of peace ... we are now talking of
taking up the mat- ter of compulsory training.”
18
Dr. Henri Beland, the
Liberal M.P. who had been a prisoner of war, was equally critical,
tearing apart Mowat’s fiscal arguments and noting that “throughout
the length and breadth of Canada the rural constituents are to a man
opposed to this proposal of universal military training.”
19
The debate
was adjourned without a vote, and the subject was not raised again.
Defence matters came before the House one more time in 1920
when the Militia Department estimates were discussed in Parliament.
Mackenzie King, the Liberal leader, took after the new minister, Hugh
Guthrie, with a will and in a fashion that was uncommonly direct for
that cautious gentleman:
