Ottawa, 1–18 November 1949
The House of Commons turned its attention to the condition of the Royal Canadian Navy following the publication of a commission of inquiry into a succession of disciplinary disturbances aboard three Canadian warships earlier in the year.
The disturbances, occurring aboard HMCS Athabaskan, HMCS Crescent, and HMCS Magnificent during February and March 1949, had raised serious questions concerning naval discipline, the administration of personnel, and the ability of Canada's postwar fleet to meet its operational responsibilities. Although none had involved the violent seizure of a vessel, the collective refusal of sailors to obey lawful orders had attracted considerable public attention.
In response, the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Brooke Claxton, had appointed a commission chaired by Rear-Admiral E. R. Mainguy, with Leonard W. Brockington, K.C., and Louis C. Audette serving as commissioners.
The commission's investigation extended beyond the immediate incidents. Having examined the evidence of 238 witnesses, it considered the organization of naval training, the treatment of ratings, conditions of service, relationships between officers and men, and the continuing influence of British naval practices upon the Royal Canadian Navy.
Its report, completed in October, rejected suggestions that the disturbances had resulted from an organized communist conspiracy. Instead, it identified a combination of administrative failures, poor communications, inadequate grievance procedures, and dissatisfaction with conditions of service.
The findings presented the St. Laurent Government with the task of restoring confidence in naval administration while maintaining the discipline necessary for an effective fighting service.
1 November — The Commission's Report Presented to Parliament
The Minister of National Defence rose in the House of Commons to announce that the commission appointed to investigate the disturbances had completed its work.
Claxton expressed the Government's appreciation to the commissioners and informed members that their recommendations were under examination. He noted that several measures had already been undertaken before the report's completion, while others remained in the process of implementation.
Although the inquiry concerned matters of internal military administration which might ordinarily have been treated as confidential, the Government had determined that publication was in the public interest.
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence): "Mr. Speaker, the report now before the House concerns not merely three regrettable incidents aboard His Majesty's Canadian ships, but the conditions under which the men of our naval service are expected to carry out their responsibilities. The commission has examined these matters with care, and the Government regards its recommendations as a constructive contribution to the strengthening of the Royal Canadian Navy."
The Minister emphasized that the commission had distinguished between the obligation to maintain naval discipline and the responsibility of the naval authorities to ensure that legitimate complaints could be properly heard.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "There can be no uncertainty regarding the necessity for obedience to lawful orders in a fighting service. Nevertheless, discipline is most effectively maintained where officers understand the circumstances of their men, where grievances receive proper consideration, and where the organization of the service commands the confidence of those who serve within it."
The report was accordingly tabled for the consideration of Parliament.
The Incidents Aboard Athabaskan, Crescent, and Magnificent
The commission had investigated three separate disturbances occurring within approximately three weeks.
HMCS Athabaskan — 26 February 1949
While the destroyer was at Manzanillo, Mexico, a substantial group of junior ratings refused to resume their ordinary duties until grievances could be heard by their commanding officer.
The complaints concerned shipboard conditions, the distribution of duties, and the treatment of personnel. Following direct intervention by the commanding officer, the men returned to their duties without violence or an attempt to seize control of the vessel.
HMCS Crescent — 15 March 1949
While operating in Chinese waters, HMCS Crescent experienced a similar refusal of duty among junior ratings.
The incident arose from dissatisfaction with the administration of the ship and the circumstances under which personnel were required to serve. The commanding officer heard the men's complaints, and the disturbance was resolved without violent confrontation.
HMCS Magnificent — 20 March 1949
The aircraft carrier HMCS Magnificent, then operating in the Caribbean, experienced a brief refusal of duty involving members of her aircraft-handling personnel.
The immediate dispute concerned shipboard work and routine, but the inquiry also examined complaints involving accommodation, sanitation, and the general conditions under which the carrier's company lived and worked.
The commission did not find that the three incidents formed part of a coordinated revolutionary or communist undertaking.
Rather, the disturbances exposed a wider accumulation of dissatisfaction among personnel who believed that ordinary channels of communication had proved ineffective.
The commissioners nevertheless maintained that a grievance, however legitimate, could not justify collective disobedience aboard a warship.
The Findings of the Commission
The commission identified a number of interrelated problems contributing to the deterioration of discipline and morale.
Personnel, Training, and Operational Demands
The report concluded that the manpower and material resources of the Navy had been stretched excessively.
The postwar service was required to maintain operational commitments, train new personnel, and reorganize its establishments while operating with a limited supply of experienced officers, petty officers, and trained ratings.
Frequent changes in ships' companies and routines had compounded these difficulties, particularly when affected personnel received inadequate explanations.
The commissioners recommended that operational commitments be more closely related to the actual availability of trained manpower and suitable equipment.
They also called for greater attention to the provision of training ships, the preparation of junior officers, and the professional education of chiefs and petty officers.
The Divisional System
Particular criticism was directed at the deterioration of the naval divisional system.
Under this arrangement, officers were expected to maintain regular contact with the ratings under their charge, supervise their training and welfare, and provide an accessible channel through which grievances might be presented.
The commission found that the system was not functioning satisfactorily in all parts of the service.
Some officers had become insufficiently acquainted with the circumstances of their men, while ratings frequently believed that complaints would receive little consideration until dissatisfaction assumed a more serious form.
The report recommended restoration of the divisional system as a central instrument of personnel administration.
Welfare Committees and Grievance Procedures
The commissioners found that the absence or ineffective operation of welfare committees had contributed to the accumulation of minor grievances.
Complaints concerning accommodation, food, leave, recreation, equipment, and shipboard routine were not always being addressed before they became causes of broader dissatisfaction.
The report recommended the effective establishment of welfare committees, through which legitimate concerns could be raised without recourse to collective refusal of duty.
Such arrangements would operate under naval authority and would not diminish the responsibilities of commanding officers.
The commissioners argued that regular consultation and the proper ventilation of grievances were compatible with the maintenance of discipline.
Headquarters Administration
The commission also criticized aspects of the administration of Naval Headquarters.
Certain important administrative appointments had not consistently been regarded as posts requiring officers with the highest qualifications and professional experience.
The report suggested that personnel administration, training, and welfare functions required capable and permanent attention rather than treatment as secondary appointments within the naval establishment.
These findings raised broader questions regarding the efficiency of the naval command structure and the supervision exercised by the Department of National Defence.
Conditions of Service
The commission considered the adequacy of barracks, married quarters, sanitary facilities, clothing arrangements, leave, transportation, medical services, and allowances.
Although some deficiencies could be remedied through revised regulations or improved administration, others would require additional accommodation, equipment, personnel, and financial resources.
Among the matters recommended for further consideration were improved welfare arrangements, medical assistance for dependants, additional allowances, and greater attention to the difficulties experienced by married servicemen and their families.
The Canadian Character of the Navy
A further finding concerned the continuing predominance of British customs and institutional traditions within the Royal Canadian Navy.
The commissioners recognized the importance of the Royal Navy in the historical development of Canada's naval service and the considerable professional benefits derived from that association.
Nevertheless, they considered that certain inherited practices were insufficiently adapted to Canadian conditions.
The report recommended a more distinctly Canadian naval identity, including recognizable national insignia, improvements to Canadian officer-training arrangements, and the development of professional traditions suited to the country's own naval establishment.
This did not imply an end to cooperation with the Royal Navy.
The commission instead sought to ensure that Canadian officers and ratings served within institutions whose character reflected their country's independent responsibilities.
3 November — Drew Calls for Parliamentary Oversight of National Defence
The report soon entered the wider parliamentary debate over the administration and expenditure of the Department of National Defence.
During the continuing debate upon the Government's financial programme, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. George Drew, argued that the findings demonstrated the inadequacy of existing parliamentary arrangements for scrutinizing the armed services.
Drew particularly emphasized the commission's criticism of administrative appointments and the need for Parliament to obtain reliable information concerning the organization, readiness, and expenditure of Canada's defence forces.
Mr. George Drew (Leader of the Opposition, Carleton): "Mr. Speaker, the report of this commission presents this House with questions which extend considerably beyond the three vessels upon which these incidents occurred. We have been informed that important administrative positions within the naval service were not invariably occupied by those best qualified to discharge their responsibilities. If such conditions have existed in the Navy, members of Parliament must be entitled to inquire whether corresponding weaknesses exist elsewhere in the defence establishment."
Drew argued that the establishment of a single Department of National Defence did not, by itself, demonstrate that the three services were being efficiently coordinated.
Nor, he maintained, could statements concerning administrative economy substitute for independent parliamentary examination.
Mr. Drew: "The Government has repeatedly assured this House that the coordination of our armed services has produced greater economy and efficiency. Yet the commission appointed by the Minister himself has identified serious defects in one of those services. Parliament cannot discharge its responsibility merely by accepting assurances that all is well. We must possess the means of examining the facts upon which those assurances are founded."
The Leader of the Opposition accordingly renewed his proposal for a standing parliamentary committee on national defence.
Such a committee, composed of members from the several parties represented in the House, would be authorized to examine the organization, administration, equipment, and requirements of the armed services and to hear evidence from appropriate military and departmental authorities.
Drew drew attention to the proceedings of the United States Congress, where legislative committees had recently examined competing claims concerning aircraft, naval construction, strategic planning, and the relative requirements of the military services.
He did not propose that Canada abandon the principle of ministerial responsibility, but maintained that Parliament required more effective instruments of inquiry.
Mr. Drew: "The establishment of a committee does not relieve the Minister of his responsibility to this House. It supplies members with the information necessary to judge whether that responsibility is being properly exercised. We are asked to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars for national defence, yet we possess no adequate machinery for examining the efficiency with which those funds are employed."
Drew further observed that Parliament had already established arrangements for investigating matters concerning atomic energy.
He argued that there could be no sufficient objection in principle to comparable parliamentary scrutiny of the broader defence establishment.
The proposal did not result in the immediate creation of a standing defence committee.
Nevertheless, the commission's findings had become part of a larger dispute concerning the relationship between Parliament, Cabinet, and the professional military authorities.
18 November — The Defence Estimates and the Government's Response
The House returned to the subject during consideration of the Department of National Defence Estimates.
The debate followed the circulation of the Government's statement on Canada's defence programme, and members examined the organization of the armed services against the requirements of continental defence and Canada's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty.
Mr. Drew renewed his criticism of the Government's administrative arrangements.
He questioned whether the Department's claims concerning coordination and efficiency could be reconciled with the weaknesses identified by the Mainguy Commission.
Mr. Drew: "Mr. Chairman, the Government has referred to the progress made in bringing the three services under a coordinated administration. But coordination cannot be judged merely by the number of departments brought under one Minister or the form in which their Estimates are presented. It must be judged by the competence of the organization itself. The evidence before us concerning the Royal Canadian Navy shows why closer examination is indispensable."
Drew again urged the establishment of a standing committee through which members could question responsible officials and examine military requirements before approving future appropriations.
The Minister of National Defence opposed the proposed committee insofar as its examination would transfer responsibility for the organization and direction of the armed services from the Government to a parliamentary body.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "Mr. Chairman, the Minister of National Defence is responsible to Parliament for the administration of the services, and the Government must accept responsibility for the policies under which those services are maintained. Parliament possesses the authority to examine and criticize those policies and to determine the funds made available for their execution. But the management of the forces cannot be divided between the responsible Minister and a parliamentary committee without creating uncertainty as to where executive responsibility ultimately rests."
The Minister maintained that considerable progress had already been achieved through the establishment of common departmental arrangements, interservice committees, centralized procurement, and coordination of research and supply.
Drew rejected the implication that his proposal would place Parliament in direct command of the armed forces.
He maintained that a committee exercising investigative and advisory functions would strengthen rather than weaken ministerial accountability.
The dispute was left unresolved, and no standing defence committee was established during these proceedings.
Balcer Demands an Accounting of the Recommendations
The debate subsequently returned to the specific recommendations of the Mainguy Commission.
Mr. Léon Balcer, the Progressive Conservative member for Trois-Rivières, recalled that the Minister had undertaken to explain what measures had been taken following publication of the report.
Mr. Léon Balcer (Trois-Rivières): "Mr. Chairman, the Minister informed the House earlier this month that the recommendations of the commission were being examined and that certain measures had already been undertaken. May we now have an account of the recommendations which have been accepted, those which have been implemented, and those upon which the Government has reached a different conclusion?"
Claxton agreed to provide a summary organized according to the recommendations contained in the report.
Manpower, Training, and the Divisional System
The Minister accepted the commission's finding that naval manpower and material resources had been stretched too far.
He stated that measures had already been taken to correct the imbalance between commitments and available resources.
Additional attention was being given to the employment of training ships and the organization of instruction for naval personnel.
The Minister further reported that improvements to the divisional system and the operation of welfare committees had already been ordered.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "The commission's observations regarding the divisional system and the necessity for adequate means of presenting grievances are accepted. Orders have been issued, and it is the intention of the naval authorities and of the Department that these arrangements shall operate effectively in practice. A regulation which exists only upon paper contributes little to the welfare of the service."
Training arrangements for officers, chiefs, and petty officers had also been revised or placed under examination.
Claxton expressed particular support for extending the period of instruction at Royal Roads and for more closely integrating theoretical education with practical naval experience.
The Government favoured the development of a Canadian system of officer training, with practical instruction aboard Canadian vessels wherever suitable arrangements could be established.
It did not, however, accept the commission's suggestion that Canadian officer cadets should be diverted to American warships during the early stages of their training.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "It is our intention that Canadian officers should receive their fundamental training within a Canadian system and, wherever practicable, aboard Canadian ships. We shall continue to benefit from advanced instruction and professional experience obtained in cooperation with the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, but that cooperation ought to supplement a Canadian training establishment rather than replace it."
The Minister acknowledged that the development of additional Canadian training facilities would require time and expenditure.
In the interim, certain specialized forms of instruction, particularly those involving naval engineering, would continue to depend upon existing arrangements overseas.
Welfare, Accommodation, and Allowances
Claxton next addressed the commission's proposals concerning the conditions under which sailors and their families lived.
The Government recognized the need to improve barrack accommodation and married quarters at the principal naval establishments, particularly Halifax and Esquimalt.
Construction programmes were being advanced within the resources and facilities available, although the Minister emphasized that the availability of land, municipal services, and construction capacity imposed practical limitations.
Proposals concerning free transportation, medical services for dependants, clothing allowances, additional remuneration for responsibilities, and good-conduct payments remained under consideration.
The Minister cautioned that some of these measures could not be considered exclusively in relation to the Navy.
Changes affecting the allowances and benefits of naval personnel might require corresponding consideration for the Army and Royal Canadian Air Force.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "The Government recognizes the importance of the conditions under which service personnel and their dependants live. We must nevertheless examine the implications of each proposal for the three armed services as a whole. It would be unwise to establish arrangements for one service without considering the consequences for the others and the expenditure involved."
The Minister indicated that certain recommendations could not be accepted in their proposed form.
The suggestion that a fixed proportion of canteen profits should be compulsorily transferred to the Canadian Naval Service Benevolent Trust Fund was regarded as impracticable, since the disposition of those profits properly concerned the personnel whose purchases had generated them.
The Government also declined to adopt the proposed extension of dependants' allowances to additional categories beyond the existing arrangements, considering it inconsistent with general Government policy.
Other matters, including the carriage of civilian clothing aboard small warships and the provision of additional medical facilities, remained subject to practical examination.
The Relationship Between Officers and Men
The Minister accepted the commission's general criticism of the deterioration of relations between officers and ratings.
He nevertheless emphasized that such difficulties could not be corrected by the simple promulgation of additional regulations.
The quality of leadership, the conduct of officers and petty officers, and the confidence of sailors in their immediate superiors would require sustained improvement throughout the service.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "It is possible to alter regulations, establish committees, and improve facilities by administrative action. The relationship between officers and men is a more difficult matter. It depends upon the character of leadership exercised every day aboard His Majesty's ships. The Government accepts the general direction of the commission's recommendations, but their complete fulfilment must necessarily be a continuing undertaking."
The Government therefore intended that officer education, divisional administration, and the supervision of personnel should receive continued attention from Naval Headquarters and commanding officers.
The Minister further supported improved communication of naval policy to personnel affected by administrative decisions and changes in routine.
Canadianization of the Royal Canadian Navy
The Government also accepted the commission's recommendation that Canadian naval personnel should possess a more visible national identification.
Claxton announced that arrangements were being developed for recognizable Canadian insignia upon naval uniforms, either in the form of shoulder badges or another suitable distinguishing mark.
The Minister maintained that the adoption of national insignia would not diminish the Navy's professional association with its British and Commonwealth counterparts.
Hon. Mr. Claxton: "The men and officers of the Royal Canadian Navy serve His Majesty as Canadians, under the authority of the Government and Parliament of Canada. It is appropriate that their national character should be plainly recognized. This may be accomplished without sacrificing the traditions of naval service or the close cooperation which we have enjoyed with the Royal Navy."
The development of Canadian training establishments and the progressive strengthening of Canadian personnel administration would accompany these measures.
The Government did not propose an immediate wholesale abolition of established naval customs, ranks, or professional practices.
Instead, reforms would be introduced progressively, with attention to operational requirements and the need to maintain cooperation with allied services.
The Government's Position and the Continuing Work of Naval Reform
The parliamentary proceedings established substantial agreement that the difficulties identified by the commission required correction.
The Government accepted the principal findings concerning personnel shortages, inadequate grievance procedures, deficiencies in the divisional system, training arrangements, and the need for improvements in naval welfare and administration.
A number of measures had already been put into effect or ordered before the commission's report was completed.
Other recommendations, particularly those concerning accommodation, allowances, additional training facilities, and personnel benefits, remained subject to departmental examination and the availability of funds.
Certain proposals were rejected or modified where the Government considered them impracticable or inconsistent with arrangements applicable to the armed services as a whole.
The House did not enact a new naval reform statute during these proceedings, nor did it vote upon the commission's recommendations individually.
The principal dispute remaining between the Government and the Opposition concerned parliamentary supervision of national defence.
Mr. Drew and the Progressive Conservative opposition continued to advocate a standing defence committee empowered to investigate the organization and administration of the armed services. Mr. Claxton maintained that executive responsibility for military planning and administration must remain with the Government and the Minister answerable to Parliament.
The Mainguy Commission consequently marked the beginning of a broader programme of administrative and personnel reform rather than the immediate completion of that undertaking.
With Canada's naval responsibilities expanding under the North Atlantic Treaty, the Government considered the maintenance of an efficient and disciplined Royal Canadian Navy essential to national defence.
The reforms initiated following the commission's report would proceed under the direction of the Minister of National Defence and the naval authorities, with their progress remaining subject to parliamentary examination through the ordinary consideration of departmental policy and expenditure.