[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacNeil:
That the agreement between the government and the John Inglis Company, of Toronto, for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, the report of the royal commission dealing with said agreement, and all related documents, evidence, vouchers and exhibits, he referred to the standing committee on public accounts; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens.
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this matter I am going to try to represent the opinions of my own section of the country and at the same time be true to the oath of office which I took before occupying my seat in this house.
There is no doubt that when the article in question appeared in Maclean's magazine last September, the article with which the whole country is now familiar, the minds of the Canadian people were troubled. A good many of them did not see that article when it was first published, but I believe later on the publishers of Maclean's magazine found it possible to spread the article into every section of the country. To anyone who took the trouble to read it, however, it was plain that it contained no concise accusations but only insinuations against people in the public life of this country, more particularly in regard to the
'Mr. Mackenzie King.]
Department of National Defence. Something had to be done; the newspapers were asking for action on the part of the government. Then, a very few days following the publication of the article, the newspapers of Canada were unanimous in praising the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for appointing a royal commission. That step was taken at once, and by that action the Prime Minister and the government showed themselves ready and willing to get to the bottom of all these insinuations or so-called accusations.
On Friday of last week the Prime Minister again showed his honesty and sincerity of purpose in connection with all matters having to do with the administration of this country and the government departments when he stated in the house that he did not wish in any way to curtail discussion on any important problem. He also made it clear, however, that the best body to deal impartially with a question such as this was a committee appointed by the House of Commons, which naturally would be the public accounts committee. No one could take objection to or umbrage at such a statement or the taking of such action. Public opinion as expressed by the press of the country was unanimous in commending the action of the Prime Minister on this occasion.
But it is easy to build up partisan capital. The Prime Minister last fall in appointing a royal commissioner was careful to select a man who-not mentioning his political affiliations-was highly respected in his own profession and had made a name for himself as a lawyer in Canada. However, I was dumbfounded when from every section of the opposition I heard the action of the Prime Minister challenged, and heard the references that were made to his statement not that the commissioner was the supporter of any particular party but simply that he had been appointed by the late administration. I could easily visualize what bitter criticism there would have been had a man been selected who before his appointment had had Liberal inclinations. I repeat that the people have been absolutely satisfied, in their own minds, that the Prime Minister of Canada and the government as a whole wanted to have justice meted out, and to go thoroughly into the accusations that were made.
Frankly in a discussion of this kind I do not like the atmosphere of the House of Commons. Allegations of scandal have been made in a good many instances. I do not believe the country wants to hear discussions of that nature carried on by the opposition for days and weeks.

Bren Gun-Mr. Bradette
Before I proceed farther I want to ask a question of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Last week it was published in every section of the press of Canada that he had been threatened by a prominent man of the Liberal party. I would like the hon. member to give us the name of that prominent man.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: A prominent official of the house.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Well, I guess you have the right party, anyway.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I did not ask a question of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce;
I asked it of the hon. member for Vancouver North. It was said that he had been threatened. This is absolutely unfair-unfair to his reputation, unfair to the government, and unfair to parliament as a whole. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) smiles. Yesterday the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) gave us some of the philosophy of life of the hon. leader of the opposition, so far as the conduct, behaviour and policy of an opposition are concerned. I believe it will be good reading for the young members of his own party, to show the attitude he takes, but they cannot agree to such a philosophy.
I was five years in opposition, Mr. Speaker, and I believe I could say that-


Mr. LENNARD:: You may be there again.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want the hon. member to speak louder.


Frank Exton Lennard: You will be there again.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Well, I do not think the hon. member is a very good prophet. I never opposed a government of the day just for the sake of opposing it.


Mr. SPENCE:: The hon. member is a perfect saint.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want the hon. member to get up and repeat what he said just now, so that he may show his face to the house. We can easily see their line of conduct. Last week there was a Conservative caucus, and I believe hon. members opposite, in their action in opposition, are following the principle of their leader. This is the press report which was published in the newspaper Le Droit of February 2, 1939. The heading is as follows:-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. PELLETIER:: One of the members
of this group tried last night to read a quotation from a newspaper, but he was not permitted to do so. The same ruling should apply to all hon. members.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am satisfied to state simply the contents of the article. It says that the Conservative party is very happy about the present depression in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There it is in black and white. And so the party follows implicitly the policy of its leader.


Mr. MANION:: Did they have a representative at our caucus, do you suppose?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Apparently it was given to the press by one of their own members, by the sanction of the caucus.


An hon. MEMBER:: Promises put you in power.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: We can easily see right through all the policies of the Conservative party for the last ten years. We all remember the famous campaign they tried to run on the customs scandal. We remember in the following year the Margaret and the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), again a question of scandal. We remember what one of the members of the Conservative party said in North Bay, when he accused the whole of the public servants of this country.
An hon MEMBER: Beauhamois.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You remember the
Beauharnois scandal-I am speaking about that now and how they throttled that. What they did made it a good deal worse than what it was previously. Everyone knows that. And during the last two years in the House of Commons we had the spectacle of the then leader of the Conservative party and his supporters-trying to bring about a solution of the problems of this country?-no, no; trying to bring about scandals and to cast slurs upon the parliamentary system of Canada.
Again we had the sorry spectacle, in five successive weeks, of the then leader of the opposition, in the kindness of his heart, and in the light of the great friendship he professed for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), trying to place that public servant in the infamy of scandal. He tried for four or five weeks, talking about a yard of gravel, penny ante stuff, bitter, unfounded denunciation, while all the time we were trying to solve the problems of this country.


Robert James Manion: I would like the hon.
member to make it clear that he is not referring to me.
Bren Gun-Mr. Bradefte


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do so. I am not referring to the present leader of the opposition, but I will refer to him now. Ever since he was made leader of his party we have heard of scandals. They have been capitalizing on the depression, the same as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has been doing, for the last ten years. I repeat that-capitalizing on the misery of the Canadian people, on every occasion and under every circumstance that they could. At least one thing is in the favour of the group in the corner; certainly they never have had the responsibility of government. That would have sobered them up. But members of the Conservative party did have the responsibility of government, and when they had that responsibility they asked for cooperation from us, and they got it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They laugh; but he
laughs best who laughs last. Their hon. leader is laughing now. I well remember the spring of 1935 when their then leader brought forth the new magna charta of his own party. He came to the house with a program of a new social order, one which was absolutely in sympathy with our own policies. The government of that day-even the present leader of the opposition, then sitting on this side of the house as minister of railways and canals- accused us of not opposing enough the government of the day. Was that not cooperation with a vengeance?


Robert James Manion: It is imagination with a
vengeance. .


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No. I was there, and
I am not imagining things, I can assure you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Was the hon. member-


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I would ask the Social
Credit party to mind their own little boat. The late lamented Sir George Perley, who was taking the place of the prime minister, who had taken ill about Easter time, accused us bitterly of not opposing the government enough. If that was not the best kind of cooperation a government could expect, then I do not know what they expected; and they received the same treatment during the five years that they were in power.
The leader of the opposition gave us his opinion as to the best speech delivered in the present session on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. To some extent I have no quarrel with him. He said that in his opinion the best speech had been delivered by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I cannot agree with him on that score. In my opinion the best speech

from the opposition side was that delivered by the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black). She did not attempt to raise the dust of scandal; she did not try to embarrass the government in its efforts to solve the problems that are facing the country at the present time, although she criticized some of the government's actions. She spoke as a true representative in this parliament of her constituents and the people of Canada. She told the house that some responsibility rested upon the government. That is quite true, but it rests also on all individual members. She also told us she felt that in some instances it was our responsibility that young people of Canada should be told that they had a duty toward themselves as well as toward our institutions as we know them.
The leader of the opposition gave us a sort of lecture which was made up of nothing but insinuations. He made no direct accusation. He made it plain that he was absolutely certain that there was no corruption as far as the Bren gun contract was concerned. I ask and the people, of northern Ontario ask why the time of the house is taken up in this way when we should be trying to solve the problem of unemployment, the problem of agriculture, and the other problems that face this dominion. This action is being taken simply as political strategy on the part of the opposition. I make this declaration and accusation deliberately. The leader of the opposition spoke his mind very openly. He said, speaking of the commissioner, that Davis "did it in a sort of subtle manner." That is a fine phrase to come from the mouth of the leader of the opposition in connection with a matter of this kind. That is a fine thing to say about a man who is recognized as having given his best for successive weeks, and as being absolutely fair to everyone concerned. The present leader of the Conservative party, a party which once was great, has this to say about Mr. Justice Davis. Later on he called this a game. Certainly, it is a game which he has been playing since last Monday. It is a game of political strategy. He said he wanted to go ahead with his story. It was a biased story he told, but not a wonderful story for the people of Canada to read and agree with. If it were possible for all the citizens of Canada to be here during this debate, I am sure they would realize that we are not fulfilling our duties as we should, and that this discussion is absolutely futile.


Robert James Manion: Just now particularly. Why does the hon. member not deal with the charge?

Bren Gun-Mr. Bradette


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: There is no charge.


Robert James Manion: The charge of blundering and bungling.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who brought up this discussion before the House of Commons?


An hon. MEMBER:: The government.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who is responsible for the debate of the last three days?


Robert James Manion: We are.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am glad to hear that. I know I am expressing the sentiments of ninety per cent of the Canadian people who deplore such foolish actions on the part of the opposition.


Mr. BARBER:: Why does the hon. member not answer the argument?


Ernest Lapointe: There is no argument.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There has never been one. We have heard many speeches from the opposition since the beginning of this debate, but the only one which was at all practical was that delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), who scrutinized certain factors in the contract. We find a very strange situation in this debate. The Conservative party, which is in favour of national defence, finds it necessary as a matter of political expediency to work hand in glove with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the Social Credit party. I saw hon. members opposite going into a huddle yesterday, but I have not found out what it is all about. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation apparently is playing into the hands of the opposition. This may be political expediency because we must admit that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is one of the most militant parties in the House of Commons at the present time. But they are against national defence, although at the time of the Ethiopian war they were willing to impose sanctions against Italy. That would have amounted to a declaration of war against Italy. This is the same party which during the crisis last year over the Japanese situation sent a telegram to Mr. Attlee, leader of the Labour party in the House of Commons of Great Britain. This telegram read:
Large numbers of Canadians deeply shocked by recent developments in Britain government's foreign policy which entirely disregard interest of dominions and betray democracy. We look confidently to labour party to champion genuine collective security and constructive peace policy.
This great pacifist party were willing to impose sanctions against Japan; they were 71482-48
willing to prevent the exportation of war materials. They knew that this would have simply meant a declaration of war on Japan.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Nonsense.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who said "nonsense?"


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then the hon. member is not responsible for what he says. The hon. member should know that. These hon. members who do not want this country to have any national defence are willing to work with the opposition during this debate. But they are ready to vote against their own resolution which shows their sincerity.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not true.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is absolutely true. You cannot explain that away no matter how hard you try.


Mr. MacNEIL:: On a point of order; the
hon. gentleman's statement is inaccurate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement. We voted in connection with a ruling of the chair.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I have nothing to withdraw. I have been in this house long enough to know something of the rules. I know that when hon. members vote for an amendment to a resolution they have moved, they are voting against their own motion.


Mr. MacINNIS:: We did not vote for the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Why did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) go out?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Apparently the Conservative party expects to win the next election because of a scandal. I am no prophet, but I am sure they will be out of luck, because the Canadian people want more than the talk of scandal. We have heard the statement made time and time again by the opposition that there was no corruption or anything with which to reproach anyone in connection with this matter. I believe the Canadian people are fully seized of the situation and satisfied on that score. Let me say that if I thought for one moment-I am accepting full responsibility for my words in this instance- that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) or the deputy minister of that important department had been guilty of any breach of faith, I would be the first one in this house to ask for the resignation of the minister. I am sure that many ot^er hon.

Bren Gun-Mr. Bradette

members on this side would be of the same mind. I remember the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who said that the party might go down to defeat, but we could never allow high ideals and principles to be cast away. That is also the stand of the Liberal party in this connection.
I have great respect for the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Stirling). I have always listened to his remarks with attention and, I believe, with some benefit to myself. But when he spoke the other night he had this to say:
That is the gist of the report of the commissioner. And the Prime Minister's wish is that this matter should be referred to the public accounts committee. Rarely if ever in my fourteen years in this house has the public accounts committee met-
It certainly has met on several occasions. The hon. member continues:
-but from a reading of Canadian political history in years before that I find that the public accounts committee has been the ground for the fiercest sort of political battle. The government of the day would have the majority representation on that committee-


Mr. STEWART:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I hear the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) say " hear, hear."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have been there.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: So have I. I must have been fooled because for five years when my Conservative friends were in power I sat on some committees. I was interested in the work of those committees and I never thought for one moment that those committees were being used for political purposes purely and simply.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Who said they were?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I was a member last year of several committees. For instance, there was the superannuation committee which sat for weeks on end. On that committee there were Conservative members and members of other parties in this house, but I do not think there is a single member who will say that we played politics on that committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Who is the hon. member who says "sure"? I want him to rise in his place and show himself. But he will not do it. There were no politics played on that committee, and if we can have no faith in the committees of this House of Commons we might just as well abandon the Canadian parliamentary system.
fMr. Bradette.]
Again, how logical are the Conservative members with themselves? They do not want this question to go to the public accounts committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They want it discussed on the floor of this house, where it is absolutely impossible for us to get all the data and information we should like to have. They know that perfectly well. Suppose a vote is taken in the house; we know the wonderful work that has been done by the Minister of National Defence and by his deputy, the great work that the minister Has accomplished in the last three years since he took over the Department of National Defence in the moribund, sadly neglected state in which it was left by the former Conservative government after they had been five years in office, although what they did may have been right from the point of view of economy; after all that the minister has done for the department, with its numerous ramifications in every section of this great country, surely he is entitled to a word of praise, and would hon. gentlemen opposite expect us to vote against the minister and against the government? I say most emphatically no.
I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that if they will only be fair to themselves and with the institution of parliament, not one of them would have the audacity to say that a committee of this house is purely and simply a political battleground. If it is, Mr. Speaker, then so far as I am concerned I want my name to be erased from any committee of this house of which I am a member.
I was astounded at the hon. member for Yale, who did show some statesmanship as a minister of the government, making a charge of that kind, which was simply saying to the people of Canada that our parliamentary system is not worthy of being continued in existence any longer. I have sat with Conservative members on different committees, and they were fair and unbiased in their consideration of matters coming before such committees. I have also sat with members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the committees of this house, and they too were fair and unbiased. The same will hold true again when this matter is referred to the public accounts committee. But you can never please hon. gentlemen opposite primarily for the very good reason that they want to make political capital out of the situation. The government appointed as a commissioner to inquire into this matter one of the best qualified judicial minds in the country, and still

Bren Gun-Mr. Bradette
hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with the report that he has made and submitted to parliament for discussion in the house.
I want now to deal briefly with some of the facts that were brought out in the report.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: My friend of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party says "hear, hear." Only a short time ago one of their members criticized the house because we enjoyed a smile, but let me tell the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and his party that it would be better for them if they too would smile sometimes instead of trying to capitalize on misery. It would be better if they had red blood running through their veins insead of "blue ruin" at all times. They have tried to make political capital out of the Bren gun contract.
I ask the hon. leader of the opposition now, if the Bren gun contract were cancelled, can he tell us where he would get the Bren gun made more cheaply?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Then go ahead and
tell us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the cost at the present time?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is stated in the contract.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, it is; and that just shows how unfair hon. gentlemen are in their criticisms. They criticize the price when they do not even know it. They criticize the contract when they have not even seen it. The contract states that for the first 1,000 guns the price is to be $487; for the next 3.000. $314; for the next 6,000, $294; for the next 2,000, $294.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: They
never heard of that before.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, they never heard of that before.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is that all they cost?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Walter Edward Foster: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was given his permission. Mr. Speaker, and I ask him now, will he give the total cost?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am sorry I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked, what is the total cost?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I would remind the hon. member that the house is not in committee, and he cannot ask questions without permission.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: In this discussion-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Comedy 1


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want the hon. member to retract that statement. His party is wholly responsible for that debate. I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, that the great Conservative party, which has been so loyal at all times so far as British and Canadian interests are concerned, is slipping very badly at the present time. The problem of the Bren gur is not like any other question arising ir connection with some other department.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Someone says "hear, hear," and I assume he is absolutely in agreement with me because in this discussion parliament should be fully seized of the seriousness of the international situation. Let us never forget in our discussion of this matter that in the British war office and in the Department of National Defence in Canada there are records which must of necessity remain secret and departmental. This is so true that we find in countries like Germany and France their own citizens have been gaoled and executed for giving away to other countries secrets relating to armaments. I see the leader of the opposition laughing. Is he laughing at that statement?


Robert James Manion: No, I am laughing at the hon. member.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I can tell the hon. gentleman that he looks very, very undignified before the Canadian public at the present time, when he makes such personal reflections. Would he say that there is no secret in the whole Department of National Defence that should not be kept secret from the public?


Robert James Manion: I will answer the hon. gentleman's question. When I was overseas defending the secrets of this country, my hon. friend was flitting around Canada doing nothing.
74S
Bren Gun-Mr. Bradette


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am going to answer my hon. friend. I was in uniform. I went to enlist voluntarily. If I did not do any active service it was on account of defective eyesight. I want the leader of the opposition to retract his statement. Parading their loyalty like peacocks! The people are sick of that kind of stuff; the real returned man will never make a statement like that made by the leader of the opposition. Let him withdraw it. I tell him again that there are some secrets which the British war office does not disclose, and the Department of National Defence has matters which remain departmental secrets.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Except for Major Hahn.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Just imagine the hon. member making such a statement at the present time. It needs a great deal of patience sometimes not to say what we have in our minds on certain matters; capitalizing on these little things and not giving to hon. members the right to state their honest opinions. The hon. member for Vancouver North knows well that France, Great Britain and Australia have some secrets that they will never allow to be made public. They will allow them to be disclosed to a parliamentary committee sitting in camera, but never to the wide world. Hon. members know that perfectly well, but never mentioned it during the present debate. On a good many occasions during the hearings of the commission the deputy minister was shaking his head from the sidelines because of infringement on some of the departmental secrets. Surely the leader of the opposition will not try to bring up against General LaFleche what he tried to throw at me a moment ago.


Robert James Manion: I did not reflect on General LaFleche at all in any shape or form.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: These are matters that we must not forget. My hon. friends have made great capital out of Major Hahn. As far as I am concerned I have no brief for him; I never met him. But what has he done to be pilloried and crucified for, as he has been during the past three days? Has he not a good war record also? ' Is it not true that he is a good citizen and even a good industrialist and manufacturer?


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not know.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: My hon. friends do not want to know; that is why. There is none so blind as those who will not see. Then in Lieutenant Colonel Drew's article insinuations and reflections are made against the reputation of a whole family. After knowing what has been brought out, having read the
[Mr. Manion.l
report of the commissioner, I must say to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) that if I had been in his position I would have done exactly what he did. No hon. member, no party, not even Colonel Drew has the right to make insinuations against a whole family. What crime has the hon. member for Trinity committed? Only the crime of trying to work for his constituency, to bring an industry to the city of Toronto. I did not think they were so well off there as far as employment is concerned that he did wrong in that. Is there anything wrong? The leader of the opposition said there has been no corruption. It is true some details of the contract have been criticized; there are varying opinions pro and con, but have my hon. friends ever been in a law court and listened to the pleadings on one side and the other where a contract is involved? In this instance the opposition have never been fair; they are simply trying to pollute the mind of the Canadian people, and falsify the import of the report. They have not listened to the debate in this house for the last three days with an open mind, because if they had they would not be able to make political capital out of the situation as Colonel Drew has done.
Coming again to Major Hahn, after reading his testimony before the royal commission I am convinced that he is a capable man qualified to have and complete properly this contract. He was able to convince the British war office of his competency and to get also a contract from Great Britain which provides employment for our Canadian people, and, what is more, opens the way for further similar and other contracts.
Let me say a word about the conscription of industry. It is interesting to see the most reactionary party hand in hand with the radical party in this house urging the nationalization of industry. I am quite open-minded on the question of nationalization of war industries. But in Canada we are in the happy position that as far as socialism, communism, fascism and nazism are concerned, we can let other countries experiment with them. As regards munition manufacture we have the experience of France, that great ally of Great Britain. They have their popular front, a radical and labour government; they nationalized their aviation industry, and I refer to a report that was given dealing briefly with that matter.
One of the legacies of the popular front, state manufacture of armaments, has been held responsible for France's weakness in aircraft. This in turn was a compelling factor in the acceptance of the Munich agreement.

Bren Gun- Mr. Marsh
This should show my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that public ownership in certain industries is not desirable. On this matter even the interdepartmental committee were not in agreement. My hon. friends who are in favour of the nationalization of the munitions industry have been against all the votes for national defence; yet they would have this country enter upon an expenditure, for equipment alone, of at least $100,000,000. It is well to look before we leap on that important question, and I am speaking in all seriousness.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A fine laugh I get from the other side. I am speaking as a democrat, a Liberal and a progressive in making that statement. Governments have the human failings that others have. No one can make me believe that if in the present instance the government had started to build the Bren gun, the guns could have been produced in any shorter time or at a cheaper price. We all saw something of the orgies of profiteering during the great war. In northern Ontario the provincial government experimented in mining under so-called public ownership on a small scale in the silver mining industry in the district of Cobalt, where it was a complete failure. When an opportunity arises, I hope to be able to enlarge on that question of public manufacturing of war material.


Mr. J. A. MARSH (Hamilton West):: The observations I have to make will be very brief. On several occasions I believe I have violated in some measure the tradition of this seat I now hold. I believe my predecessor was once heard to say from this desk that if he ever spoke more than fifteen minutes he hoped some one would ring the bell on him. And it may be within the memory of the house that it did happen on one occasion that someone with a sense of humour rang a bell in the lobby.
This matter that we are debating [DOT]calls for some heart-searching. It behooves every hon. member, whether in the government or the opposition, to do that heart-searching. I will speak on the principle of this question rather than the details and the evidence; the latter has been amply covered by hon. members.
I am mindful of the fact that some twenty years ago almost half a million young men, the flower of Canada's manhood, left these shores to fight for Canada and the empire. They wore army boots on which exorbitant profits had been made, and they ate bully

beef, some of which was not fit to eat, but on the profits of which men at home had waxed sleek and fat. I believe it is the mind and will of every hon. member of this house and every man in a position of leadership in this country and every last man, woman and child in Canada that this shall not be repeated in the year of our Lord 1939. I am equally sure that the brave soldier sitting on the government benches as Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) will do everything humanly possible to see that it does not happen again; for I believe he has qualities of mind and heart that will enable him to do a good job.


An hon. MEMBER:: That could not have happened with a Liberal government.


John Allmond Marsh: It has happened here and now; make no mistake about that. For the last two days we have been engaged in debate on this report and I defy anyone who has read it from cover to cover not to condemn the way in which this contract was handled.


Mr. HOWARD:: That is your opinion.


John Allmond Marsh: The evidence has been gone into very fully by various members. The member for High Park (Mr. Anderson), the member for London, our leader (Mr. Manion), the member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), the member for Kootenay East' (Mr. Stevens), our orator friend the member for South Waterloo (Mr. Homuth), have all gone into the evidence, and, I believe, have dealt with the matter strictly on the evidence. They did not attempt to lay any smoke screen across the issue as some hon. gentlemen have done. Usually I am a great admirer of the legal mind, but I must confess that when the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), who I am sorry is not in his place, said to the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) that he had made a masterly presentation of a bad case, I could not help thinking that the member for Parry Sound himself had made a marvellous effort on no case at all. He was simply laying a smoke screen. Then there was the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I am quite an admirer of his, but I submit that yesterday when he spoke we were treated to a pantomime, because the merits of the case were not discussed. And now we have listened to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). The legal mind was in operation, going through marvellous mental gymnastics, but not dealing with the evidence. The member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was right yesterday when he remarked that it was a good thing
Bren Gun- Mr. Marsh

that we have had a laugh, because, goodness knows, there have been some serious faces and some very much embarrassed people in this house in the last few days, and they have not been on our side.


Mr. GARDINER:: You should sit over
here and see what we see on your front bench.


John Allmond Marsh: We soon will.


Mr. EULER:: You don't see them.


John Allmond Marsh: Now here is a contract
awarded to a boiler factory, a broken-down boiler factory at that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no.


John Allmond Marsh: Well, there is nothing in
the evidence, and no arguments have been advanced, to the contrary.


James Garfield Gardiner: They made munitions
all through the last war.


John Allmond Marsh: Yes. That was twenty-five years ago but there has been a great change in the manufacture of instruments of war.


James Garfield Gardiner: And no one has made any since.


John Allmond Marsh: I repeat, here is a brokendown boiler factory receiving a contract for the manufacture, mark you, of a deadly, delicate precision instrument, where tolerances of a thousandth of an inch are a common practice. I say that this is a form of departmental stupidity which I am utterly at a loss to understand. At the same time there are throughout Canada many firms in our cities, in Toronto, Hamilton, London, Welland, St. Catharines, capable of making precision ordnance and making it well.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where?


John Allmond Marsh: I have already told you. If the hon. gentleman would like me to enumerate some of the plants I should be glad to do so. This business was handed for negotiation to a man who had had no experience in the making of munitions of war. It was given to a company which was not equipped to turn out a product of this sort, a firm of very doubtful financial responsibility. I suggest that this is not a very auspicious start in the spending of $63,000,000.
I said that I would not go into the evidence, but inasmuch as some exception has been taken to what I have said I think I ought to refer to one part of Mr. Justice Davis's findings:
Notwithstanding that the contract involves the expenditure of several millions of dollars by the Canadian government, no industrial producer (other than Major Hahn) was confMr. Marsh.]
suited by the Department of National Defence as to the proposed manufacture of Bren guns for the Canadian government or invited to give competitive bids for terms of manufacture. Nor did anyone, so far as the evidence shows, ever visit any industrial plant (except Inglis) to consider the possibility of production of Bren guns in Canada. Mr. Hellmuth put certain questions to the minister in this connection to which, with the answers, I now refer: -
Q. You did not give anybody else a chance?
A. Nobody asked for it.
I will not give what follows; it is simply an elaboration of what I have read. Sir, I would not buy a pair of boots in that way with my own money; how much less should the department use the taxpayers' money to buy instruments of war? I submit that the stewardship of money is not a virtue in the department. If it is they have not shown it in this contract. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) wrote to the Prime Minister a letter a part of which I will read:
A group of friends of mine in Toronto are equipped fully to manufacture munitions. Their plant is located in my constituency. They have asked me to ascertain whether or not the government's policy permits of the obtaining of orders from the British government. I shall appreciate greatly receiving your advice in this regard.
That is the evidence of the hon. member for Trinity: "We have a plant, we are equipped." Well, now, the resident inspector in Ottawa, appointed as inspector for the department of ordnance, made an honest report with reference to this same plant. Here is the report:
This plant is primarily equipped for the manufacture of boilers, turbines and the working of heavy plate generally. All equipment is in reasonably good condition, considering the length of time it has been in use.
The machinery at present in this factory with few exceptions is unsuited for the manufacture of aircraft, but it might be used for the' manufacture of tanks or shells. . . .
I interject: how much less capable of being used for precision machinery like the Bren gun.
This factory is at present inoperative and has not been in operation since April, 1936. There is no design staff at present employed and the total number of workmen now employed consists of three men as factory maintenance staff.
And yet this is the plant which is equipped to manufacture the Bren machine gun. A question has been asked: What firms in Canada could make this gun? It is brought out in the report of the commission that a number of firms which are set out, such as the Dominion Bridge Company, Bertram Company, The Steel Company of Canada, Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, the National Steel Company, and

Bren Gun- Mr. Marsh
others, are skilled in the manufacture of precision articles of steel of one kind or another, and that with very little additional tooling equipment could be harnessed to fulfil the contract.
It has been stated in the press that the Prime Minister and the cabinet were prepared to whitewash the department and had done so. I did not believe that when it came out in the press; I wanted to be fair and to see how the matter would be treated in this house. But since hearing the arguments yesterday and the day before, and again to-day, I am convinced that undoubtedly there has been an effort to whitewash the department. If that is so I would suggest that they bring in a brand-new barrel of whitewash if they have any hopes of restoring that pristine purity and whiteness from the present shade of tattle-tale gray. If this government has whitewashed the department and the minister, why has a purchasing board been advocated? Why another commission to be added to the multitudinous number of other commissions that have brought forth so much criticism from the taxpayers on former occasions?
I am not opposed to the appointment of a purchasing board, although I would much rather see a munitions board entirely devoid of political patronage. But in the establishment of a purchasing board or of a munitions board the government has found it necessary to take away from the department the power to purchase, which is a long piece removed from whitewashing. The point is that someone in the Department of National Defence, I know not who, authoritative enough, powerful enough to negotiate a contract, has made a sorry mess of things in this Bren gun contract. It is bad enough for the taxpayers of Canada to be dipping into their pockets and pulling out a million dollars a week for a publicly owned railroad; but it is doubly bad for money to be improvidently spent in a contract such as this, and I will tell you why. Underneath, overhead and all around every dollar spent in national defence may be the blood of Canadian young manhood. Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise in my place and condemn this contract. I believe throughout Canada to-day we must do everything possible to build up the faith of our people in such a department as the Department of National Defence. Had there been a time of crisis I should not have spoken, but perhaps it is best that this thing has come to light, so that other similar contracts may not be let. There are plenty of departments I would rather have attacked than the Department of National
Defence, for the reason that the people of Canada must be taught to have confidence in men in public places, and especially in this minister and this department.
While I am on my feet-and this does not particularly relate to the amendment-may I suggest that the government cannot economically and intelligently compete with private industry in the making of munitions. Our factories have lathes, milling machines, drills, shapers, punch presses, and so on. They have the necessary foundation work for precision machinery, and they have the necessary automatic machinery. So, with the possible exception of small arms, I think the government should not go into the munitions business. But may we make sure of this, that such business be let by contract, after tenders have been called, so that private industry may be allowed to compete. That is the only way we can buy munitions intelligently; and, contracts having been let, may every last piece, every last shell, every last machine and every last gun come up to specifications. This government and the Department of National Defence can see to it that there is no profiteering in connection with war materials.


Mr. MARTIN:: If the hon. member will permit a question, what is the practice in Great Britain and the United States?


John Allmond Marsh: The practice in Great Britain is very different from the practice that was followed in the letting of this contract. I should like to point out to the hon. member that before a firm is selected to make any kind of war machinery or shells for the British war office, that firm is thoroughly investigated.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member would permit one more question, is it not a fact that this contract was given by Great Britain?


John Allmond Marsh: This contract was given by Great Britain after the government of this country, backed by the Minister of National Defence, the cabinet and the Prime Minister, had suggested it to the British government. That is the answer, on the evidence that was brought out in this inquiry.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend say that I suggested a contract to the British government? If he does I wish he would show me where that appears in the evidence.


John Allmond Marsh: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not suggest that. I did suggest that Major Hahn went over, according to this evidence, with the complete benediction of the Prime Minister.
Bren Gun- Mr. Marsh


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is absolutely incorrect as well; but what my hon. friend has just said is entirely different from what he said a few moments ago.


Robert James Manion: Hahn was made the representative of the Canadian government by the Prime Minister himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member spoke about a contract. There was no contract in existence, or drafted, or even thought of at the time; absolutely nothing.


John Allmond Marsh: At least he went over as Canadian representative, to negotiate a contract.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not go over as Canadian representative.


Robert James Manion: He was made the Canadian representative right afterwards.


John Allmond Marsh: Then I am correct in saying that he was made Canadian representative right after he got there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is evident that my hon. friend does not know the facts or he would not have to ask such questions.


John Allmond Marsh: After the discussion we have had here during the last two days, based on this blue book, during which the members on this side of the house have dealt essentially with the facts, while the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) dealt with a smoke screen and the hon, member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) entertained us in pantomime fashion, I suggest that there has been nothing wrong with the arguments presented from this side. If I understand the English language at all, as I read this report it is a condemnation of the government from cover to cover.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is the common thought of all that there should be no profiteering in Canada in connection with war supplies. What man can be called a Canadian who will make or take blood money? But here is a million dollars of profit on a stock transaction pertaining to a $5,000,000 contract. Is that economy? Is that a proper stewardship of money? Is that Canadian? I suggest that it is not, and I urge that this thing that has happened must not happen again.


Mr. A. G. McAVITY (St.- John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, with no previous knowledge of shell manufacture, using the broken down boiler factory that has been mentioned so often, using a cement factory and under similar conditions, Canadian manufacturers during

the last war produced munitions to the value of over a billion dollars. I joined the imperial munitions board shortly after the war started. I was superintendent of production; I think I know whereof I speak, and I may say that I have heard a good deal from the other side which to me is utter nonsense. Shell shipments from Canada increased from $5,377,000 in 1915 to $19,942,000 in 1916 and $23,782,000 in 1917. In 1917 we received orders to slow down in Canada, because we were shipping more munitions than they required. It was easier for me to speed up production than to slow it down, with my temperament, so I put in my resignation to the chairman, who paid me a tribute on the back of a cigarette case which I still carry occasionally, and which is inscribed with these words:
In grateful memory of unfailing support in a difficult task.
I left the munitions board, Mr. Speaker, thinking that the United States would want our production; and certainly our people who had been set going wanted to keep going. This was arranged. The Canadian government sent a trade board to Washington; I worked on my own, and I received the first order from the United States ordnance department for munitions to be made in Canada. The total of United States munitions contracts with Canada amounted to $232,168,000. Many of those contracts were cancelled because of the armistice, but shipments, to the United States, which commenced early in 1918, reached a total of seven million shells, in addition to two million shell forgings and other material. The total orders shipped from Canada by the imperial munitions board amounted to $1,200,672,412.78. In 1916 the total exports to the United Kingdom were $451,852,399.


James Houston Spence: Get up to date.


Allan Getchell McAvity: The. imperial munitions
board shipments were $296,505,257:	Is that
not a large percentage of the business of that time? I shall come up to date in a minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not know that.


Allan Getchell McAvity: Much has been said about the suitability of the John Inglis plant for the manufacture of Bren machine guns. I knew William Inglis in 1905, and for many years I did business with him. He was one of the first manufacturers to take an order from Sir Alexander Bertram to manufacture shells. What did he have then? He had the same boiler factory we have been talking about. I will pay this tribute to him, that he was a first class manufacturer, and did splendid work. When Mr. Inglis and other

Bren Gun-Mr. McAvity
gentlemen who undertook to manufacture shells, but who had never seen a shell before in their lives, took their first order, what did they do? They were practical men. They wanted to see a shell to see what it looked like. They wanted to visit factories to find out how shells were made. There was no difficulty about that, because it was very easy for Sir Sam Hughes and Sir Alexander Bertram to arrange for these gentlemen to go to the Quebec arsenal, where Colonel Lafferty showed them how shells were being made. They were shown only a few shells.
What happened in this case? Major Hahn wanted to manufacture Bren guns. What was the natural thing for him to ask? He wanted to see the gun made. First of all, he wanted to take it apart. He did that. He examined it, and then he went to England to see it made. I am asking if that is not what a practical man would have done. Is that not what a man who wishes to make an article he does not know much about would have done? Before he had gone very far he said, "I want to see the gun made." He went to England but could not gain admittance to the arsenal. Hon. members know what arsenals in the old country are like; it is difficult to get in. Nothing daunted, however, he went to the high commissioner's office and asked for a pass to gain admittance to the arsenal. That is all this amounts to, if one takes the trouble to read it through. The high commissioner cabled back, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) very properly replied. Surely no person can take exception to the cable, if he reads it in that light. It was a pass to the works at Enfield. That is the way I read it, and I believe that is exactly what was meant.
This whole matter has become befogged with a great mass of detail which confuses the ordinary man. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that was a perfectly reasonable and practical procedure, and the man did the right thing when he went to see the gun made. The manufacturer now in question is the type of man I would have selected to make shells in 1914, because it was just that type of man who produced results.
Frank P. Jones, president of the Canada Cement Company, operating a cement factory in Montreal, asked to be allowed to make shells. We gave him an order, and he was one of the best manufacturers we had. He did not have a factory at all; but he produced one, and in that factory he manufactured shells. He made special machinery, and was the first man to use female labour in
operating shell lathes on the heavy calibre 9-2 shells. I could mention a number of others who did the same thing, manufacturers who had had no experience but who, with no difficulty, became excellent production men.
To-day there is no factory in Canada equipped to manufacture the Bren gun. All the equipment must be created. So far as I have described the proceedings, surely this man has gone about the matter in the right way. Apparently Major Hahn went to England with a tentative order to make shells for the Canadian government. Although the order had not been signed at that time, at least he was expecting to get it. When he saw the gun being manufactured in the Enfield plant he was quite convinced he could make it and, what is more, convinced the British authorities as to his ability to do so. He developed a tentative order from them to make an additional 5,000 guns. In doing that be pointed out that by making 12.000 guns the price could be reduced to both Canadian and British governments. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.
Then Major Hahn returned to Canada- and what was he faced with? He was faced with an interdepartmental committee asking that tenders be called. At that stage of the game, I ask the house, how could tenders be called? It was an impossible proposition.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Why, not?


Allan Getchell McAvity: I will show why not: This man had won the confidence of the British war office, and had a tentative order from them for the manufacture of 5,000 guns. He also had a tentative order from the Canadian government for the manufacture of 7,000 guns. How could you put any other manufacturer in the same position, in the event of inviting competitive tenders?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Nonsense.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why, then, did the government appoint the interdepartmental committee?


Allan Getchell McAvity: I wish to return to the argument about the plant. There has been a great deal of talk about a broken down boiler factory. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that it was not from the lists of old-time manufacturers, who had been in business for a hundred years or more, that the best manufacturers of shells were obtained. Those manufacturers were too conservative in their methods. I remember distinctly two firms in Brantford, namely, Gould, Shapely and Muir, and the Waterous engine works.
Bren Gun-Mr. McAvity

both with high standing, each of which received a comparatively large order from General Bertram for 50,000 of the 4-5 shells. In the same city of Brantford was the small firm of Kerr and Godwin, a firm which was almost unknown and one with less than a dozen employees on its payroll. Subsequently they secured an order from the shell committee for the manufacture of 10,000 shells. My memory as to the figures may not be exactly right, but I believe I am not far out. Kerr and Godwin had the right driving force. They got mechanics and machinery, and before the two well known firms had shipped 100,000 shells Kerr and Godwin had shipped 150,000. That is the type of firm we need to produce shells.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What has that to do with this contract?


James Garfield Gardiner: You would not know,
anyway.


Allan Getchell McAvity: I did not hear the hon. member. The suggestion has been made that we should have a government arsenal. I believe the chief of staff suggested that an expenditure of between $30,000,000 and $35,000,000 should be made. Might I point out that an arsenal capable of producing a billion dollars worth of shells would cost a great deal more than $35,000,000. I would think it would cost something nearer $350,000,000-and wp certainly do not want to create any more white elephants of that kind to feed. It would be a white elephant in peace times.
I say we do not need an arsenal, and I believe that in continuing the practice we have followed we are following the practice of the rest of the world. Germany is mobilizing industry; France is mobilizing industry; the United States is mobilizing industry, and Canada must do the same.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Just one.


Allan Getchell McAvity: May I pay tribute to the Department of National Defence for the work they have done. They have prepared a careful survey of all the manufacturing plants available in Canada. If a condition of war should arise again they will not be in such a muddle as that in which our Tory friends found themselves in 1915, when they were faced with the shell inquiry, the discarding of Oliver equipment, and other troubles. The Department of National Defence will have an organized plan through which it will be able to make use of industry, right from the start, and without any of the difficulties 
formerly experienced. In that connection I quote the words of Mr. David Lloyd George. He said:
Our eyes were at first shut to the vital importance of war material and the difficulty of improvising its production. The realization of what the enemy had done in this direction during years of stealthy preparation for the "day" came as a shock perhaps even greater than that caused by the discovery of his numerical strength, and was followed by the painful awakening as to what we had to undertake in order to catch up.
Certainly we are in a much better position 'to-day than we were in the fall of 1915 when our Tory friends were completely bewildered and confused by that rugged individualist Sir Sam Hughes who then had charge of affairs.
Much has been said of the cablegram which was sent, but as I have already said, it was nothing more or less than an application for a pass to permit Major Hahn to visit the Enfield works to inspect the manufacture of the gun. That is the way I read it. If my hon. friends opposite want an explanation of what happened in the last war, I would point out to them that the imperial munitions board was a branch of the imperial government headed by the Right Hon. David Lloyd George. Let me say to them that the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert L. Borden, came to our office to see our chairman with contractors and urging shell contracts for them. I think the same applied to every member of his government and almost every member of the house at that time. They were trying to get contracts from the imperial government. There is a precedent for you.
I have seen the contract which has been criticized by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). I had a hand in making a thousand of contracts for munitions. I sat in and helped to make contracts with the imperial munitions board and the United States department of ordnance, and I never saw any contract which so rigidly ties down the manufacturer as does this Bren gun contract. Mr. Justice Davis rightly says:
No substantial objection can be taken in my view to the provisions of the Canadian contract.
I assume that no exception was taken to the provisions of the British contract. The commissioner says further:
There are adequate powers of inspection, supervision and control vested in the department.
In my opinion if the contract is rigidly enforced there will be little, if any, profit for Major Hahn and his associates. In connection with profits, and following my argument as to how a manufacturer with plenty

Bren Gun-Mr. McAvity
of force and vim who controls a large organization can carry out this work, let me refer to the late Sir Frank Baillie. What did he know about manufacturing munitions? What did he know about manufacturing anything before he was given an order for cartridge cases for the imperial munitions board? Yet he was one of the most successful and. most conscientious contractors that we had. When Lord Rhondda came to this country Sir Frank Baillie said to him that they were paying too much for these cartridge cases. He told him that if he was given an order for a million cases at the set price, he would turn back whatever profit he made after keeping accurate costs. These cases were costing $1.75 each; the order totalled $1,750,000, and he handed back $758,000.
A suggestion was made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) that the railway shops should be turned into arsenals. I would point out to him that the railway shops were not used during the last war to any great extent for the simple reason that they were required in order to keep the locomotives and cars in running order. Transport is just as important as anything else.


Mr. LAWSON:: There is no war on just now.


Allan Getchell McAvity: But you do not want to have them manufacturing war materials and not be available if we do have a war. Since hon. gentlemen opposite have not made any constructive suggestions I should like to put on record one or two things which I believe could be profitably taken from our last experience in mobilizing industry.
I would urge upon the government the importance of not letting mechanics leave the country in the event of a crisis. We need all our mechanics for our mobilization scheme. Anyone can run a motor car, but how many can repair one? Similarly, anyone can run a shell machine, but how many can set one up? The hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) knows all about that, because he was in the shell manufacturing business. If you have mechanics to set up these machines, if you have them tooled properly, a woman or a one-armed or one-legged man can run them. Then you would not need to hold back any volunteers or conscripts. But you must have mechanics and you must have foremen, because, like the sergeant in the army, the foreman is the backbone of any mobilization scheme.
Some valuable suggestions were made by the Hon. R. H. Brand, a member of the imperial munitions board. He resided in
England and maintained contact with the minister of munitions. In his report made after the war he had this to say:
In the first year or so of the war the possibilities of munitions making in Canada were not by any means fully recognized in England, and very large orders were placed in the United States which it would have been to everyone's interest to place in Canada. When once a huge program had been started in the United States it was a matter of some difficulty and many months to get it transferred to Canada. Other British departments similarly ignored the great assistance that Canada could be to them. For a good many months I urged unsuccessfully on the board of trade that Canada could build ships to assist in meeting the submarine crisis, and on the war office and the admiralty that Canada could provide not only aeroplanes but an air force. Even in December 1916 the board of trade informed me that they did not require any ships, and it was only after the ministry of shipping was formed that the board was authorized to begin a building program in Canada. Similarly it was only when the air board, the forerunner of the air ministry, was formed that serious attention was given to the possibilities of Canada in this direction. I was so convinced of the importance of this matter that I appeared before the air board to urge it at its first meeting. Shortly afterwards a program was agreed upon and the board was instructed to begin building aerodromes and aeroplanes.
If relations in future are to be close between the different governments of the empire-
That is why I am reading this because that is what we are interested in.
-and between different departments of those different governments, an effective liaison service will be absolutely necessary. The imagination and foresight of human beings are limited, and of civil servants as much as other classes of the community. If the imperial munitions board had had no representative of its own responsible to it, and there for the one purpose of interpreting its wishes and wants and difficulties to the ministry of munitions, friction would have been constant and inevitable. The officers of the ministry were overwhelmed with their own duties; they did not know Canada; they did not understand their problem, or their way of looking at matters; they did not realize that cable correspondence between men 3,000 miles apart is the most fruitful mother of misunderstanding. This is not said in any way to magnify the importance of my office. It is a fact. The trouble can easily be overcome by each department of each government having its own representative in close touch with it, and responsible to it to interpret its wishes in the other country.
I sincerely hope that the government will try to keep the authorities in England fully informed, either through the high commissioner's office or by some other means, as to our ability to produce shells. I hope that by some means or other this discussion on the Bren gun can be kept from their notice, because it certainly will not do us any good. We should point out to the British authorities that we are better prepared to-day
Bren Gun-Mr. McAvity

than ever before because we have made a complete survey of our industrial organization. We have more metals available to-day than ever before. The comparative figures in connection with zinc, nickel, lead and copper are quite surprising. I should like to give the figures for 1914, 1918 and 1937. I am giving the figures for 1918 to show that even under the pressure of war the supplies were comparatively low. The figures are:
1914	1918	1937Pounds	Pounds	PoundsZinc	7.246,053
Nickel.. .. 45.517.937
Lead	 36,337,765
Copper. .. 75,735,960
35,083,175 370,418,073 92,507,293 224,790,974 51,398,002 411,221,232 118,769,434 531,041,878
I would just say in connection with this table that we have by long odds the largest nickel production in the w'orld. Lead, of course, is an important factor in the making of shrapnel, but most important of all the metals is copper, which is used for cartridge cases and fuses. In copper we were able to get up production only to 118,769,434 pounds in 1918, but the figure stands to-day at 531,041,878. So I say that we are in a much better position to-day than before, in that we have our own metals and our own mechanics, and our men will give a good account of ourselves.
There is one other item that I want to mention in connection with the whole problem of national defence, and it is a matter which I do not think has been seriously considered to date, I refer to the equipping of our more important ports so that in time of emergency certain specified terminals or areas can be completed on short notice for the use of the army, the navy and the air force without in any way disturbing the commercial activities of the port.
For many years the important United Kingdom and continental ports have always taken this problem into consideration in port development. In the United States, for the last thirty years or more, the United States army corps of engineers have had control of this problem. The policy developed by the United States government was to build army and navy base terminals at the more important ports. These terminals were leased to commercial enterprises during peace times, but could be taken over by the military authorities at once in the case of any crisis.
At practically all the terminals at the more important Canadian ports nothing has been done, and if it is found necessary to commandeer existing facilities for war purposes it will undoubtedly seriously disturb their commercial activities. Also these terminals
[Mr. McAvity. 1
are not equipped for operations under wartime conditions. The handling of high explosive munitions and supplies of one kind or another is a highly technical matter, and, particularly with respect to munitions, a dangerous operation. We certainly should not risk a repetition of the Halifax explosion.
It seems to me very important that in the scheme of national defence the situation with regard to port and terminal facilities at our national ports should be reviewed, and operating orders should be in the hands of a responsible person so that the various harbours involved would be able to change over from ordinary commercial harbours to a war-time basis without the inconvenience that was experienced during the last war.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to approach this delicate subject in as dispassionate a tone and tenor as possible. Like the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) it is not my intention to be personal, and I hope that no one in the house, neither the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) nor any other member, will construe the remarks I may have to make as in any way reflecting on their personal character or characteristics. I have a public duty to perform, and I shall endeavour to perform it to the best of my ability. If I err in my judgment I know that my constituency will hold me responsible. Human flesh is subject to the frailties of conditions and times, and in a moment of weakness we are all likely to make errors which later we attempt to retract.
I was hoping that as this debate progressed we might observe some symptoms from the government benches of light beginning to dawn, some indications that they realized that a serious mistake had been made and were prepared to remedy a condition that was not conducive to the good of Canada. It was my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to be in attendance for several sessions at the Bren gun inquiry, and I had the opportunity of observing the various witnesses and noting the remarks made by counsel and from the bench. In speaking on this subject I am therefore not totally unaware of the subject matter of the report; for I have had the privilege of reading it, and noting very carefully some particulars of it, and I also had the privilege of listening to the testimony that was given before the commissioner from time to time.
This is serious matter that we are discussing. I do not think anyone in the house will gainsay that statement. A condition has grown up which, unfortunately, must be rectified.

Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh
The Bren gun was first discussed. I understand, back in 1936. The defence department became interested in it, and later, in 1938, after a lapse of almost two years, a contract was entered into with a firm known as John Inglis Company Limited to manufacture Bren guns for the government of Canada and for the British war office. I should like for a moment or two to strip this whole undertaking of its frills, verbal and otherwise, and examine the bald facts in connection with the Bren gun transaction.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will have to answer all the speeches made on the other side, then.


William Allen Walsh: I am fortunate. Mr. Speaker, in that I have little to answer from the other side of the house. They have put up very little argument as yet, although most of the speakers on the other side, I notice, have been very astute lawyers, able to defend a type of case where the going is rather difficult. I commend the government for their ability to raise speakers of that type and press them into service. But what we should like to hear from the other side is a definite argument to offset those which have been advanced from this side. The facts and figures in connection with this contract have been very impressively placed on record, but they have not been dealt with by speakers on the other side of the house. Anyone who has been reading Hansard for the past two or three days, with any degree of non-bias, will readily agree that the speeches of hon. gentlemen on the other side have been made, not in defence of the contract entered into, not to combat the statements made from this side of the house, but merely to gloss over the conditions as they really exist. They have made a vain attempt to apply a coat of veneer to a rough and unfinished surface, and that coat is not sticking, as they will realize when they confront their public.
Let us now examine this Bren gun contract. The government decided that they would manufacture and use this Bren gun. A person was selected, Major Hahn. As any business corporation or organization would do in a delicate proposition of this kind, one involving the spending of millions of money, one would think the government would be very careful to select a person or organization equipped in every way to handle the contract they were seeking to place. But, instead of that careful investigation, instead of selecting an established firm or an individual who was qualified technically and otherwise to handle a matter of this kind, they selected Major Hahn.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was qualified.


William Allen Walsh: Major Hahn was not qualified; he did not pretend to be qualified; he never said he was. Major Hahn had no experience in machine shop work or in the manufacture of munitions or implements of war.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Did the hon. member not hear the last speaker?


William Allen Walsh: I heard the last speaker;
I paid little attention to his argument because it was not founded on facts. His premises were wrong to start with; therefore the rest of his argument was completely unsound.


Mr. DUNNING:: He had the misfortune of understanding this industry.


William Allen Walsh: He understands certain
features of the industry, but he does not understand the Bren gun or the Bren gun contract. That is what we are discussing. And we are discussing this contract in the light of to-day, not in the light of experience of twenty or twenty-five years ago. Major Hahn had a splendid war record; he had one experience in business, namely the manufacture of radios; that was his qualification to apply for the contract for the manufacture of Bren guns. He did not even have a plant; he had no equipment; he had nothing whatsoever to commend him to the Department of National Defence except a recommendation from the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton). With that recommendation he obtained the ear of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), of the deputy minister of national defence, and he obtained the entree into channels on the other side that finally led to his getting the contract.
Mention has been made in this debate of the attitude of the British war office. I leave it to hon. members on both sides of the house; here was a man who went to England with official introductions and who received through the high commissioner's office other letters of introduction. He was accompanied by a Liberal member of the Canadian parliament, accompanied also by the brother of that member, a lawyer. He was also blessed, as few other people are blessed, with official recognition by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), a recognition which very few people in this country could obtain. I wish to read again this cablegram from the Department of External Affairs, over which the Prime Minister presides, which gave Major Hahn his official introduction. Hon .members must bear in mind that Major Hahn was in London; the war office in London refused to interview him except in the presence of an official of this dominion, and in order to consolidate his position over there, in order

Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh
to facilitate his entree, this cablegram was dispatched. It may be found at page 24 of the royal commissioner's report:
Secret. Your cablegram 9th November 396. Have discussed matter with Minister of National Defence. You might request war office to give Major Hahn, as representing Canadian government-
Mark that.
-as representing Canadian government in this particular, any information which they consider desirable and necessary to enable National Defence to reach conclusion on possibility produce Bren gun in Canada. It is not desired to request furnishing of information on any article other than this gun.
There he was, officially recognized, a potential contractor, a man who was seeking to obtain a contract from our government. This cablegram was dispatched from the Department of External Affairs, no doubt at the instigation of the Prime Minister. Major Hahn was there under those circumstances. Can one imagine a business firm conducting an important piece of business in that way, to a potential contractor, one seeking favours, an official introduction and hence an entree into the very heart of the empire and to establish his standing? My hon. friends on the other side say, we could not do very much; he was the man selected by the British war office. The British war office would never have selected Major Hahn but for the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister of Canada. Major Hahn would never have obtained entree to the war office in Great Britain if he had not had this recommendation and had not been officially endorsed as a representative of this country by the Prime Minister, who did it after consulting with the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Allen Walsh: Surely.


Malcolm McLean: Would anyone else from Canada have got that entree to the war office without some introduction from some authority in this country?


William Allen Walsh: That is the point I am trying to make, that neither Major Hahn nor anyone else would get the entree to the war office unless he was armed with an official message of that kind from the Prime Minister of this country. So there he was, a potential contractor, looking for a contract from the government. He was there armed with an official message from the Prime Minister giving him this entree, when other people

who would have desired such an entree could not possibly obtain such credentials, nor would they request them.


Malcolm McLean: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit one more question. Is he opposed to anyone from Canada getting any entree to the war office in order to learn-


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: He did not say that.


Malcolm McLean: My hon. friend said that no one from Canada could get that entree without an introduction. I am asking whether he would approve anyone from Canada being able to get that information from the war office.


William Allen Walsh: I always take this stand, that whatever is granted to one individual should be open to every Canadian citizen of the same standing.


Mr. DUPUIS:: The war office did not want it.


William Allen Walsh: No, and they did not want this, but it was given to them. Major Hahn was thrown at the war office; they received him because he was the accredited representative of the Canadian government in London at that time. That is why he was received, and that is why they placed in Major Hahn that trust which they otherwise would not have placed.
Let me now read a brief statement from the report, found at page 43. The Minister of National Defence is speaking:
I may say, so far as I am concerned, I have the utmost trust and faith that this is a good contract for the people of Canada, because I am sure that the war office people and the British people, with their wonderful experience, knowledge and training would not enter into a contract which was not for the public good. I rely very much upon their judgment, as well as upon the integrity of my own officers, and the supervision and jurisdiction of the interdepartmental committee.
There are several inexactitudes in that statement. In the first place he is relying on the opinion of the war office, and the war office had this Major Hahn thrust upon them by officials of the dominion. In the second place he also relies upon the supervision and jurisdiction of the interdepartmental committee, and he never received a written report from that committee in connection with the Bren gun. He received merely a verbal report from the chairman of the committee. If hon. members will look at the minutes of that committee they will see that there was a marked conflict of opinion as between the chairman and the other members of the committee.

Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh
I wish to refer very briefly to certain statements that were made in this house last evening. I believe it was the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) who referred to Colonel Drew as a "young gentleman," and he suggested that he would not discuss that gentleman "in language I must refrain from using." I have more faith in the hon. member for Parry Sound than to suppose he would ever use language anywhere that he would not use in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: He might.


William Allen Walsh: I do not think so. I do
not believe that any member of the house would use unparliamentary language anywhere at any time.


Malcolm McLean: That is great
faith.


William Allen Walsh: I have more faith in the
hon. member for Parry Sound than he has in himself. He goes on to refer to Colonel Drew in most undesirable terms and endeavours to make the people believe that Colonel Drew had used the Bren gun for the purpose of raising himself to the leadership of the provincial Conservative party in Ontario.


Mr. HOWE:: And so he did, absolutely.


William Allen Walsh: The statement which the
hon. member for Parry Sound last evening attributed to Colonel Drew was made at a banquet which followed the convention at which he was elected leader.


Malcolm McLean: Still more reprehensible.


William Allen Walsh: He prophesied that this
contract would be withdrawn by the present government; but apparently he was speaking with an air of optimism, having more confidence in the courage of the present government than the people have at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the hon. gentleman pardon an interruption? Just as I came into the chamber he said that no report was made.


William Allen Walsh: No written report.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There
were two different reports submitted to the government before the contract was' signed.


William Allen Walsh: I am only reading from
certain statements which were made-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall
be glad to give the hon. member copies of both reports.


William Allen Walsh: -to the effect that no written report bearing on the contract was placed in the hands of the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. They were asked for by the minister, delivered to the minister, and submitted by the minister to his colleagues in the cabinet before the contract was signed.


William Allen Walsh: As I always do, I accept
the word of the minister unreservedly. I do not desire to put on the record anything that cannot be regarded as a truthful statement.
I was very much surprised, and, indeed, hurt, when the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) dragged into the debate the suggestion that it was being carried on with a view to casting a reflection on a French-Canadian. Surely the hon. gentleman did not intend to convey such an impression. I have known the hon. member for Laurier as crown prosecutor in Montreal for many years, and he has lived as a neighbour of mine for a considerable time. I am absolutely certain that he had no intention of deliberately raising the race cry in a matter of this kind. I hope he will take advantage of the first opportunity to retract a suggestion that can only lead to disunity in Canada. We all know that we need more unity and harmony than we have at the present time. I say,
I was dismayed when I saw a suggestion of this kind dragged into the debate. It made me feel that the arguments which were being put forward by the other side were deplorably weak. When I was at college we were told that when we had a very poor case, a hopeless case, we should use the argumentum ad hominem. The sort of argument to which I have referred above is lower still, and I hope that the hon. member on another occasion will see fit to explain exactly what he meant in the reference he made last evening to French-Canadians.
There is one other matter to which I must refer, and I regard it as one of the most serious sides of the contract. It has been stated in this house by more than one speaker that it is a good contract. It has been said that when the contract is completed the company will make a profit of 7-76 per cent. That is a reasonable profit.
It is a small profit considering the work which they intend to do. But speakers on the other side fail to take cognizance of the . real situation, and I want to state clearly that situation this afternoon. Something should be done not only to stop stock manipulations of this sort in company development, but the practice should be stopped forever in Canada, for all company promotions.
7 GO
Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh

Stock manipulations of this kind should not be tolerated in a young and growing country like Canada; we cannot afford it; and this is one of the worst examples we have ever had. The only thing I regret, so far as Colonel Drew's article is concerned, is that he did not postpone the publication of it for another two months. Had he done so he would have seen where the greater part of this money that was going to be absorbed by the promoters was going. The article was sprung two months too soon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why?


William Allen Walsh: If he had postponed it he would have seen exactly where the money went.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why did he publish it?


William Allen Walsh: Lack of fore-knowledge most likely. The hon. member for Parry Sound refers slightingly to the fee which Colonel Drew received for this article; but it is nothing in comparison to the fee which the hon. member from Parry Sound receives from time to time for defending certain types of mining manipulators in this country, and yet he casts a reflection on Colonel Drew for a small fee he received for writing this article.


Mr. PLAXTON:: The hon. member charges that the hon. member for Parry Sound has acted for manipulators of stock markets in connection with mining. I would ask him to name one.


William Allen Walsh: I had in mind Solloway, Mills. I should like to receive just one-tenth of the money he has received for fees from that one liquidation-I would be set for life. I find that the shares issued were 191,662 shares of vendor's stock for this company. This vendor's stock was issued to the promoters without any money being advanced. I should like hon. members to bear that in mind: 191,662 shares of this stock, with a par value of S6 per share, were given to these four or five promoters without a cent of money being turned over by them. That represents about seventy per cent of the interest in the John Inglis concern. If you would convert that into figures you would see that this stock at $6 per share would have a par value of $1,149,972, and it should be remembered that just previous to the stock being withdrawn from the market it had sold for as much as $7.50 per share, while the rumour on the street was that it was going to $20. Can you figure the profit that these promoters were going to make? Last evening the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) referred to the miserable 7-76 per cent-


Malcolm McLean: Would my hon. friend give us the page of the report to which he is referring?


William Allen Walsh: I am discussing something
which is not in the report.


Malcolm McLean: I should like to know on what page of the report he finds those figures, because I should like to study them.


William Allen Walsh: My hon. friend will find the figures in the evidence given before the commissioner by the accountant who was engaged by the commission to check these figures. They are all there, and I guarantee that I have given them exactly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does
my hon. friend mean that there was something in the evidence in regard to $20 a share ?


William Allen Walsh: Oh, no, I was merely drawing an inference; I mentioned that it was street gossip.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, street gossip.


William Allen Walsh: Let me repeat what I have said, because some of my hon. friends on the other side do not seem to desire to get this into their heads. There were 191,662 shares of this company, representing seventy per cent of the stock, issued to these four or five promoters without a cent of cash being paid, and those shares had a par value of $6. I stated that they had sold for as much as $7.50 a share, and that rumours on the street were that they were going to boost those shares to $20. That is the statement I wish to place on Hansard, and it can be verified by almost any stockbroker in the city of Toronto and by many in the city of Montreal.


Malcolm McLean: There is nothing in the report about it.


William Allen Walsh: It is all there, if my hon. friend will take time to read the evidence. The remainder of the shares, treasury shares, totalled some 58,000, and these were to be paid for by these gentlemen; that is, they were to put cash into the treasury for 58,000 shares. That does not mean that they themselves were going to put in the cash. They intended to sell those 58.000 treasury shares and put that cash into the company. Then, by selling those shares, they would gradually create a market for their 191,000 shares, and that would be their profit. I want to make this statement, and I make it knowing that I am doing so on the floor of this house-

Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh


Charles Avery Dunning: What did the judge say about that?


William Allen Walsh: The judge did not comment on much of the evidence that was given; he left it to parliament and this government to draw their own conclusions. This debate is going on to-day, as it has gone on all week, because this government did not have enough courage to sift and analyse the report and place the blame where the blame really belonged, or to revamp the Department of National Defence into an effective, efficient department which would carry on the work it is intended to carry on to the best possible advantage both of this country and of the empire at large.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why not make a charge against some member?


William Allen Walsh: I think I have issued enough charges already, and I am not charging anything for them; I am not a lawyer. This company was merely a promotion scheme. These men were creating an industry that did not exist. They were a group of promoters. If a group of us here wanted to manufacture Bren guns I would put up whatever money I could raise; four or five of us would put in our money and go into business, if we could get a contract. Is that not sensible? That is the way business should be conducted; that is the way ordinary business is conducted. What did this company do? They turned around and issued treasury shares; they issued shares to the promoters and then, in order to hide it all away-and perhaps the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) can laugh this off-they created another company, Investment Reserves Limited, in which the 191,662 shares were placed to the credit of these men, as follows: J. E. Hahn, 107.964 shares; Cameron & Company, 39,256 shares; Herbert Plaxton, 19-628 shares, and Gordon Piaxton, 9,814 shares, a total of 176,662 shares credited to these individuals in Investment Reserves Limited.


Malcolm McLean: What did the
judge say about that? He was charged with investigating the issuing of shares.


William Allen Walsh: I would ask the hon. member for Melfort to go down and read the evidence. It is all downstairs. This report contains only the briefest reference to the evidence, which fills thirty or forty volumes.


Malcolm McLean: On a point of order, the hon. member who is addressing the house referred to me-


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman is raising a point of order.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. gentleman has referred to me and has asked what I have to say about that statement. My thought is that I would like to know what was said by the commissioner who was charged with the investigation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I have referred the hon.
gentleman to the evidence, and this is all in the evidence.


Malcolm McLean: My point of
order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Malcolm McLean: I find that the commissioner was charged to inquire fully


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would ask the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) to state his point of order briefly.


Malcolm McLean: Yes, sir. The
commissioner was authorized "to inquire fully into the preliminary discussions and negotiations leading up to and the completion of the said contract"-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. In my opinion that is not a point of order.


Malcolm McLean: I will demonstrate the point of order to the house if you will permit me to quote ten more words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I have accounted for over
176,000	of the 191,000 shares, leaving 15.000 to be accounted for. They are being held in reserve by Investment Reserves Limited for the people whom I have named and will be distributed, according to the provisions of the contract, as soon as the 58.333 shares have been paid for.
That is what I want to impress upon this government. It is not the 7-76 per cent they are going to make on operation; it is the scheme of these promoters to extract from the public of Canada a sum of well over a million dollars, which they propose to divide among themselves. There is no gainsaying that; there can be no contradiction on that point. I defy any member on the government side to point to anything wrong in that statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr..
Speaker, I say it is absolutely impossible.
Bren Gun-Mr. Walsh


William Allen Walsh: The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is convicted by the evidence that was given before the commission by an accountant appointed by the commission itself. The evidence is clear; we do not need anything more than we have there. If this had been a straightforward transaction there would have been one incorporation, that of John Inglis Company Limited, capitalized at $250,000, and the money would have been subscribed by the promoters or others interested in investing their money. That would have been the end of it. But instead of that they proceeded to manipulate the stock of this company, issuing a large block of shares to themselves- watered stock, bear in mind-which they were going to distribute when the market became available for such distribution, as it would after the sale of the treasury stock. That is the point I was trying to make, and the one which I hope I have made abundantly clear to every hon. member.


Charles Avery Dunning: Where did the judge say that? At what page is it to be found?


William Allen Walsh: It is in the evidence downstairs.


Robert James Manion: There are four thousand pages of evidence; the commissioner could not put it all in the report.


William Allen Walsh: There is another point I should like to impress upon the government. Referring to page 51 of the report I find this:
What is plain to me at the end of this long inquiry is this: That if the policy of private manufacture of war munitions and armaments is to be continued in this country (a question of administrative policy for the government and parliament to determine) -
Apparently the commissioner was thoroughly persuaded that as yet no policy has been determined by the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Where does he say that?


William Allen Walsh: The conclusion is here. He says, "A question of administrative policy for the government and parliament to determine."


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


William Allen Walsh: Apparently nothing has been shown to satisfy him that it has been determined.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Allen Walsh: I should like to hear a
statement from hon. members opposite as to whether the government intends to pursue a policy of private manufacture of armaments, or one of public manufacture, or a policy which embraces both. I should like to hear
it, and so would the electors of Canada. I think we have a right to a clear statement on a matter of that kind.


William Earl Rowe: (Dufferin-Simcoe):	Silence
again.


William Allen Walsh: The government say there
is no want of confidence in the report of the commissioner. Surely if anyone reads the report intelligently he will see on almost every page an expression of want of confidence. I read again from page 51:
. . . the negotiations leading up to and the making of contracts between the government and private manufacturers either for the purchase or production of such munitions or armaments should be put into the hands of an expert advisory group of competent business men. . . .
What more do you want than that in the way of condemnation of a government? Does the commissioner recommend that the Department of National Defence should continue as they have been in the past? Did he find this Bren gun contract so satisfactory that he raised his hand and pronounced a blessing upon the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and the government, to which he belongs? He did nothing of the kind. He was not called upon to do that; neither wa>
he called upon to condemn. But in thesw words he draws attention to the inefficiency and incompetency of the Department of National Defence and suggests that a new system should be followed.
It will be noted that the new board the appointment of which he suggests is to report not to the Minister of National Defence but to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Could there be any more thorough condemnation of the actions of the Minister of National Defence and his associates than is to be found in that paragraph? And I could read other paragraphs from the report which speak in the same way.
In closing may I emphasize this point:	I
have pointed out that this was a promotion scheme. I have set out the weaknesses of the arguments-in fact, the lack of arguments- of hon. members opposite. I have pointed out that indirectly the commissioner condemns what has been done by the Department of National Defence, and I feel that if my conscience is to dictate my action I must ask the Prime Minister to remove from office, as he would have been removed if he had held office in England, the Minister of National Defence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?
[Mr. I. Mackenzie. 1

Bren Gun-Mr. Mulock


William Allen Walsh: On account of inefficiency
and incompetency in the administration of his department. I say that with the utmost consciousness of my position.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I have every confidence
that the Minister of National Defence-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The
hon. member has exhausted his time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let him go ahead.


Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I have been keenly interested in the debate on the Bren machine gun in which hon. members from both sides of the house have taken part. May I in the first place congratulate the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. McAvity) upon the very excellent, clear and lucid statement of facts which set at naught in a businesslike way many of the attacks made by hon. members opposite. As he has dealt with arguments of hon. members opposite in a definite manner I shall deal with an aspect of the contract which so far as I know has not been mentioned in the house.
As yet no credit has been given to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) for using his judgment in picking the Bren machine gun. I find considerable criticism of the contract by hon. members opposite, and may I say in passing that I believe they would have been fairer if they had mentioned that the minister had picked probably the finest machine gun in the world, and one which has been adopted by the British army. We find this at page 4 of the report:
What is known as the Bren gun is a light machine gun, a weapon invented and patented in Czecho-SIovakia. The information given the commission was that the weapon which eventually became the Bren gun was demonstrated to the British government in 1930. It was then known as ZB 26. It was introduced by the Czecho-Slovakian firm and was brought to the attention of the British and was tried out in England. There were several details in the
fun which had to be modified to conform to tritish conditions. Between 1930 and 1935 the gun was modified and changed and eventually became the Bren gun in its present form, and during that period it was subjected to very severe tests in England the result of which was that it was considered satisfactory and suitable for the purposes of light automatics better than anything else available.
The suitability of the said machine gun and the urgency of its purchase or production for the use of the defence forces of Canada was common ground with all parties represented before the commission.
In view of that statement in the report it is hard to understand how hon. members
opposite could endorse the suggestion that the Inglis plant should be closed down for months, when they are engaged in the manufacture of machine guns for the British and Canadian governments.
After the contract was signed attacks were made through Maclean's magazine, and by Colonel George Drew, speaking throughout the country. As a result of those attacks a royal commission was finally asked for. The request for the commission was promptly acceded to by the Prime Minister-probably a lot more quickly than some of the critics had hoped. What do we find? The powers given to the commissioner were wide; there was no attempt by the Prime Minister or the government to restrict the course of the inquiry. On the contrary they welcomed a full investigation. One of the terms of reference stated the commissioner was to report as speedily as possible to the governor in council the result of his investigation, together with the evidence taken before him, and any opinion he might see fit to express thereon. I believe hon. members of the opposition must agree that the Prime Minister and the government took the right attitude in granting a commission, and gave ample powers to the commissioner appointed.
Was the commissioner satisfactory? One of our most respected judges, the Hon. Henry Hague Davis of the Supreme Court of Canada, was named commissioner. I do not believe hon. members opposite can find any fault with his appointment. He was called to the bench by a former administration, and I do not think hon. members can claim that during the hearing of the evidence there was any tendency towards protecting the Minister of National Defence. All members must be satisfied in that respect.
Let me say this to hon. members. When they criticize the Minister of National Defence they should take into account the conditions existing in the world at this time and the condition in which the minister found the department when this government assumed office in 1935. So that hon. members of this house and the people of this country may know of some of the troubles with which the minister had to contend in his efforts to protect this country from attack, I think there should be put on record the condition of the Department of National Defence when the previous government left office. The minister is in his seat and I ask him to correct me if I am inaccurate in any statement I make in regard to the efficiency or lack of efficiency of the defence services of this country.
I shall deal first with the naval service. Barracks, dock yards and shore equipment
Bren Gun-Mr. Mulock

were antiquated and inadequate. The naval magazine at Esquimalt had been condemned as far back as 1905.
In the militia service there was not a single anti-aircraft gun, although four had been ordered the year before by the previous government. In field gun ammunition the stock was less than ninety minutes' firing for guns inherited from 1918, less than half the "equipment ammunition" supposed to travel with the guns. There were no reserves. The field artillery was unsuited for mechanical traction and was outranged by from 3,000 to 6.000 yards. The coast defence armaments were obsolescent and defective. Firing practices had been curtailed, these instructions having been given in order to save the guns. The gunners were not receiving proper training. In the mechanical transport there were only a few tractors for permanent force batteries. There were no tanks or armoured cars, and no tractors for heavy guns or non-permanent field batteries. In connection with anti-gas defence there were not sufficient gas masks for the permanent force, and there were none for mobilization. No steps had been taken to provide other forms of anti-gas defence. There were no manufacturing facilities in Canada for the production of rifles, machine guns or artillery. The dominion arsenal was equipped only to manufacture rifle ammunition and a limited amount of field ammunition.
The reorganization of the militia had been recommended in 1932 and approved by the government, but no steps had been taken in the matter. Militia training had been so much restricted that many officers had had no experience in commanding troops on manoeuvres, nor had they had the opportunity to acquire the power of leadership by actual practice. The training of officers and non-commissioned officers in administrative duties had been neglected, and the majority of men in the ranks had had little or no experience in handling rifles. The training efficiency was approximately 17 per cent.
We come now to the air service. There were only twenty-three aircraft of service type, all obsolescent. None are suitable for active service to-day and are useful only for training. There were no air bombs available in Canada for immediate use. There were no aero engines, and the development of an industry would take two years. No steps had been taken in connection with industrial mobilization to survey the country's industrial resources for national defence.
During the Brandon by-election the government was charged with being a " do-nothing government." Now certain hon. members

are criticizing this government and the Minister of National Defence for doing something. May I point out that in 1930-31 the combined votes for the three defence services of this country amounted to $22,163,500, and in 1933-34 they had been reduced to $13,002,484. The vote for air services was reduced from $7,475,700 to $1,697,000 in the same period. These are some of the things with which the Minister of National Defence had to deal. I think everyone will agree that he had a lot of trouble on his hands when he took over the department, which to say the least was not in the best of condition.
In making this contract he had the advice of loyal and experienced men. I assume they were loyal and experienced as many of them had been appointed under former administrations. I think he had a right to rely on the advice of the interdepartmental committee. If you condemn the Minister of National Defence, at the same time you must condemn the interdepartmental committee.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Oh, no; he did not take their advice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member is entirely incorrect. That statement is absolutely untruthful.


William Pate Mulock: Since this debate started there has been an attempt, not only in this house but outside, to create a more or less political villain. Unfortunately the person through whom the government was to be attacked is the Minister of National Defence. In times like these I think criticism might well be tempered with a realization of the conditions prevailing throughout the world and the fact that all democracies are now threatened with demands by totalitarian states. It seems to me to be a sad reflection on our democratic system to see dictatorships going ahead with their arming while we in this House of Commons are arguing over where we are going to get some guns. Surely there can be no doubt in the minds of the people of the danger that threatens this country, the British empire, and all the democracies. We all hope and pray that we shall never see again the condition that existed during the last war. We all hope and pray that this country will never be plunged into another war, but at the same time I do not think that the democratic peoples of the world are prepared to bow the knee to the dictatorships, whether they be nazi or communist.
We are hearing every day of the great preparations being made by the war machines of the world. May I say to hon. members that Germany can lose a war and recover, but

Bren Gun-Mr. Young
the British empire can lose only one war. Then the empire would be split up. I think we would be much better occupied in this House of Commons in trying to expedite the preparations to defend ourselves from attack than in stirring up these bickerings over what form of contract there should be for the supplying of machine guns.


Mr. JAQUES:: Where is the money to come from?
Mr. MUT.OCK: It will come from the wealth of this country, not from paper money backed up with I.O.U's.
May I say in conclusion that in view of the attacks made and the innunendoes cast, this matter should be referred to the public accounts committee with the idea of making clear to the people of this country that this contract is in the interests of the Canadian people and of national defence. I sympathize with the hon. minister that in these trying times, when Canada and the empire have been faced with war-and it has been nearer than many have realized-he should have been faced with an investigation and have had all these attacks made upon him. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to suport the resolution to refer this matter to the public accounts committee.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time that I have spoken in the house this year I should like to congratulate my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon being elected the leader of his party. He and I are of the same profession. I have known him for a considerable length of time, and have always found him most genial. I trust that in his present position he will retain his usual genial nature which he has preserved for so long a time and that, indeed, he may retain the seat and the office he now holds for an equal length of time.
I have been very much interested, as have all hon. members, in the discussion which has been taking place in the house during the last week. I was interested in the article appearing in Maclean's magazine, written by Colonel George Drew. An advance copy of the article had been sent to me, I assume because it was thought I did not read the magazine at all, and the first impression I gained was that apparently the magazine itself was anxious to have some such propaganda to increase its circulation. The second thing which struck me was that there must have been some necessity compelling Colonel Drew to write the article, and later on it developed that there was. There was an
island over there upon which stood the Conservative citadel. He wanted to get into that citadel, and his article was the approach, what might be called the Drew bridge, over which he hoped to reach the citadel. Later on he was elected leader of the Conservative patry in Ontario, and so far as I am concerned it will always be my belief that this article was written in order that he might get the publicity he required to place him in that position.
When I first read the article I was inclined to approach it, as I do a great many other matters, in a critical attitude. I never believe in accepting anything from any source without first investigating for myself whether or not the contract is a good one.
Perhaps I might explain to the house why I was more critical in this matter than usual. I remembered that we had a war before. I remember the contracts that were given in that last war. I remember the horse contracts; I remember the boot contracts; I remember the shovel contracts; I remember the bacon contracts; I remember the potato contracts; I remember the munitions contracts; I remember that all these contracts were given to people in Canada without any proper supervision, and that enormous profits were made out of these contracts, and I declared then, and I have declared ever since, that it should be absolutely understood in connection with any more war or munitions contracts to be placed by this country every possible safeguard against undue profits must be taken.
What happened later, after those contracts had been given?-and I would like to remind my hon. friends opposite of this. After all those vultures had gathered together their profits from those contracts the government of that day, not content with that, and when everybody else in the dominion was getting poorer and poorer every day, gave to these people wrho had made such tremendous profits out of munitions contracts of one kind or another, the opportunity to buy tax-free bonds, so that the country was not able to get back any of the money which these people had taken. It is little wonder therefore, Mr. Speaker, after the experience we have already had with war contracts, that we should be critical of any contract for munitions or war supplies given by any government at this particular time.
There has been some criticism made of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his appointment of the judge as commissioner, and who that judge was. Let me say this, that the Prime Minister was not fearful of
Bren Gun-Mr. Young

appointing a judge whom he himself and his government had previously appointed. Not that at all, but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to every hon. member, that had a judge who had been appointed by the Prime Minister been chosen to head the commission investigating the Bren gun contract, the very first thing we should have heard from this country would have been that a commissioner had been appointed who had previously been appointed by the Prime Minister himself. Is there any hon. member who doubts that?
Let me give the house my experience before even the judge was flamed. I heard in the constituency in which I live, and I heard of it in other constituencies, that in all probability a judge of that kind would be appointed who would do the bidding of the Prime Minister and of the government. Let me go further and say that after the present judge was appointed the commissioner-and he is a judge with as fine a record and character as can be found in this country-before they knew his political persuasion, some people were saying: Well, this man having been appointed by the present Prime Minister you can be prepared for a report of the kind that the present government would like. When I pointed out to them that the circumstances did not happen to be as they thought, that the commissioner had not been appointed a judge by the present government, they were confounded. But if someone else had been appointed you would" have heard the same kind of talk from coast to coast, just as surely as we are sitting here debating this matter to-day.
To touch on one or two points that have come up in this debate, criticism has been made of the reply that was given by the minister to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The question asked at that time was answered correctly. It was answered, as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) said, "poisonously accurately." I wonder what kind of answer hon. members expect. Do they expect correct answers to questions asked? I would say this to any hon. member who criticizes that answer, that perhaps they are suggesting that the government should anticipate that hon. gentlemen do not ask the questions which they really desire to ask and that they should be given answers sought in spite of their own stupidity; in other words, that they were not sufficiently capable of putting the questions which they wished to ask. Surely no hon. member would criticize the minister or anyone else for giving a correct answer to the question which was asked.

There has also been criticism of the letter which the minister gave' to Major Hahn, and which is referred to on page 17 of the commissioner's report. It is dated October 19, 1936, and reads:
Dear Mr. Massey:
The bearer of this letter, Major J. E. Hahn, D.S.O., M.C., is in England to investigate the manufacture of all classes of munitions and armaments.
Again I ask, is there any hon. member in this chamber; is there any person in this country who would take even the slightest exception to a letter of that kind? I am informed that many others have had similar letters on many occasions. If any hon. member takes exception to that, let him now rise in his place or for ever after hold his peace. Yet the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is criticized for giving that letter. Mr. Speaker, there is no answer.


William Allen Walsh: Why does the hon. member not present some arguments in connection with the contract?


Mr. YOUNG:: I listened very carefully this afternoon when the hon. member spoke, trying to find whether he had any arguments, and I found he had none.


William Allen Walsh: I should not expect certain hon. members on the other side to find anything.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: All we have heard during this debate from the other side has been just what Colonel Drew offered: accusations and insinuations. They have never yet taken that contract, analysed it and said, this is wrong, or that is wrong, or some one has got some graft here or there. My hon. friend who just interrupted me pointed out where he thought there was some stock manipulation.


William Allen Walsh: The hon. member knows
about it too.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I know nothing whatever
about it.


William Allen Walsh: Well, the hon. member should look into it and then deal with that subject.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I leave it to my hon. friend to say whether or not he has. I know nothing about stock manipulation; but I say that even if the situation were as he tried to make it appear this afternoon, not a solitary dollar more would be charged against the government. It could not be. I am not concerned whether that plant cost $1,000, or $100,000, or $1,000,000.


William Allen Walsh: The hon. member should be.

Bren Gun-Mr. Young


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That remark shows me that the hon. member does not understand the contract, knows nothing about it. Whether the plant cost 81,000,000 or 8100,000,000 cannot add one cent to the cost of the guns, because there is a stated specific cost per foot for the factory space used in the production of the Bren machine gun, and that amount of space occupied will be under the control of the Department of National Defence. It cannot possibly add one dollar to the cost, no matter what suggestions my hon. friends may try to put forth lor the people of this country. If there was any stock manipulation

of which I know nothing-that is not going to cost the people of this country anything.


William Allen Walsh: Read the evidence.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend unfortunately has not read the evidence-


William Allen Walsh: Yes, I have.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: -and if he had he would not be able to interpret it properly. I have been in this house for some time, but during this debate I have seen the most astounding exhibition that I have ever seen since I have been a member of this house.


William Allen Walsh: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I wish to have certain words spoken by the hon. member deleted from the record.


Malcolm McLean: Keep on wishing.


William Allen Walsh: The hon. member stated that I would be incapable of understanding what I read.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is a well known fact; it does not require any proof.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let the hon. member state his experience in stock transactions.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the point raised by the hon. member is a point of order.


William Allen Walsh: Well, I do, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry if there are so many hon. gentlemen who do not seem to understand anything.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I have seen in this house in the last few days a most astounding spectacle. I have been here for a number of years, and there are certain principles and practices and rules of procedure that are observed. Whenever anything comes up that hon. members want fully investigated and all facts brought out, what do we do? We appoint a committee and refer the matter to it in order that all the facts and relevant information may be disclosed. My hon. friends
try to suggest tha/t the evidence is in the report of the commission. Certainly there is some evidence there, but there are so many things not before the commission, as exemplified in this debate, that the only way to get them is to send this report to the committee. But what have my hon. friends done? They have done everything they possibly can, within and without the rules, to prevent this from going to the committee. Why? Because they know that at this time the Bren gim is being made, in spite of what they are saying, and the last thing in the world hon. members want to know is the whole of the facts in regard to this contract. Why? The other day the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) made a motion, which the government accepted, and what was the result? Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends voted against your ruling that their amendment was out of order. If the challenge to your ruling had been successful, what would have happened? The logical conclusion is that if the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) had carried they would have destroyed the very motion that they themselves wanted passed. [DOT]
Let us be honest; let us be sincere; let us face facts as we should face them. If hon. members really believe that this is a bad contract, let it go to the committee where all the facts can be brought out and later brought before the house and before all the people of this country, and let the contract be judged on its merits. But apparently that is not what hon. members opposite want. They want to make it appear that this commission arrived at no full and final conclusion with regard to the contract. Did the commissioner say that there was anything wrong with the contract? Nothing wrong whatever. Have any hon. members opposite who have spoken found anything wrong with the contract? Nothing whatever. Did the commissioner find any evidence of graft or corruption anywhere?


William Allen Walsh: There was no charge of graft or corruption.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That is the trouble, there is no charge about anything, nothing but accusations and insinuations. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) said that we had to whitewash the government. What did he mean? Did he mean that there has been so much mud-slinging in the last few days that a little whitewash was needed? There has been nothing but accusations and insinuations; no evidence of any kind at any time that hon. members were trying to analyze the contract and find out whether it
70S
Bren Gun-Mr. Young

is bad or good, or whether any hon. member in connection with the contract had not done his full duty. The people of this country will judge what the intent of the opposition really is. If the intent were to find out whether or not this was a good contract, what was the obvious thing to do? Every hon. member would be voting to send it to the committee in order that all the facts could be brought out and everyone would know them. But of course they do not want that. One or two hon. members went back to Toronto and then came here and said that others would have taken this contract. I think that is true. But how was the contract given to Major Hahn? As the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) said last night, Major Hahn has a fine war record, a fine character, is an able executive. He went to the Department of National Defence and saw a gun standing there, mounted. He said, what is this? He looked at it and right there his genius was displayed, because he believed he could make that gun. So he asked the department to have it sent to Toronto where he might investigate it further.
Then he went to the old country; he wanted to have access there to see how the gun was made, and after having seen the gun made he concluded that he could make it in Canada. Then what did he do? He impressed the British government with his ability, a government that has been entering into contracts of this type for years and years, hundreds of years; he "sold himself" to the British government, and succeeded in getting a contract for 5,000 guns from them. Then what? Supposing there were some bad faith about it, would he then have asked for the loan of a man who had been doing this work in a British factory for the last thirty-eight years to take charge of a plant here and have first-hand supervision of the whole operation? That is not the action of a man who was trying to do a wrong thing by this country. There is every evidence that he went about the matter in the most businesslike way in order that he might do, not only for this dominion, but for the British government, the finest piece of work a man could perform.
One serious thing about this discussion is this. In Canada, where there is a great deal of unemployment, we have under this contract the first opportunity of making some munitions for the British government, and the discussion that has taken place in this house will tend to discourage more of the same thing. This discussion will have a greater influence in that direction than anything

else, and the Conservative party will be responsible. They have taken upon their own shoulders a load of responsibility which they will not be able to shake off.
I believe that we have here in Canada tne brains, ability, material and machinery, to do a great deal of this manufacturing, and if the once great Conservative party, the present party being a mere remnant of its former self, had been assisting in the good work rather than trying to hinder it they would have shown themselves much better citizens than they have been demonstrated to be.
This is a serious time. A few years ago I would not have been found declaring in this house that we ought to be making munitions, because I thought then that the possiblity of war was entirely removed from the nations of the earth. But with thousands of others who think as I do I say that it is incumbent upon us to build up our national defences. Therefore, it is a sorry sight to see the great National Conservative party spoiling every chance we have in this country of improving our own condition. While I hope that there will never be any use for these implements of war, at the same time I sincerely hope that if war comes we shall not be found wanting as we were many years ago.
I should very much like to feel that in a matter of great importance to the country, such as this, we could have had. the Liberal government could have had, the full cooperation of all hon. members. It is most unfortunate, however, that we find hon. members opposite doing everything they can to frustrate any effort that is made. When this question went before the royal commission an exhaustive investigation was held. The commission sat for many weeks, and what was the verdict? It can be summed up in the last sentence or two of the report in which the commissioner says:
I think it right to say that there is no evidence (nor is there in the evidence any ground for suspicion) that the minister or the deputy minister or any officer or official of the Department of National Defence was guilty of any act of corruption or anything in the nature of corruption.
In other words, the commissioner said, "I find no fault with this man," echoing the greatest words ever pronounced in the most solemn tribunal that ever sat in this world. And what do we find immediately afterwards? We find that the Tory rabble from coast to coast cries, "Crucify this man!" The leader of the opposition introduces a motion asking that we crucify the contract, and the second stage would be to "crucify the minister," notwithstanding that the commissioner has de-

Broadcasting Privilege
dared that he finds no fault with him. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) would have the minister crucified right now. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are fortunate in having as Minister of National Defence the type of man who is at present the head of that department. I am in a position to say that last September, after getting out of a sick bed, I journeyed to Ottawa and called on my good friend the minister in his room at the hotel. My wife was with me. In the report the commissioner recommends a board, and hon. gentlemen opposite have tried to suggest that this reference is unfortunate so far as the Minister of National Defence is concerned. What did the Minister of National Defence say to me in his room in September? He said, "Doctor Young, if there is one thing I would detest more than anything else it is that in any contract with which I have anything to do there should be any undue profit from any source, and I think it would be a fine thing to have some board established to which all these contracts could be sent instead of having them dealt with by the minister." That was his suggestion last September, and there is nothing in the report that was not already suggested to me by the minister himself. Does that suggest that he himself wishes to control any part of munitions contracts in order that he might do something which might not be recognized as proper? I submit the evidence is that he absolutely desired the very thing which the commissioner reported and the government accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a fair question? Will he give any reason why the minister did not make that suggestion to the commissioner?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I can tell my hon. friend the reason. My colleagues will bear me out that I placed the suggestion before them at the time, and discussed with the Prime Minister the possibility of making the suggestion to the commissioner, but I thought as a responsible minister of the crown it was not my place to make such a recommendation to a responsible commissioner.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend opposite is paying me a compliment when he suggests that I could read what was in the minister's mind.


Robert James Manion: You read ours. I do not know why you could not read the minister's.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: If there was any time in the history of our country when we should not 71492-49
have such a frivolous discussion as this, that time is now; and if hon. gentlemen are sincere in saying that they wish to know all about this contract, the proper thing for them to have done was to support the motion to have the matter go to the committee so that we would have known exactly what the situation was.
It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 9, 1939