1939-02-06

PRIVILEGE-MR. LACROIX

Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In connection with a petition which I presented to the House of Commons, protesting against immigration, the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 1, 1939, in an article headed " Muddying Welcome on Canada's Mat," used the following expressions with regard to my race and myself:
The experience of the Canadian Indians has been exceptional. Mr. Wilfrid Lacroix of Quebec-Montmorency should try to remember that fact, suppress his ancestral consciousness of guilt and approach the problems of to-day and Canada's part in their solution, not as a robber bent on holding his spoils from other robbers, but as a civilized man charged with a civilized man's duty to civilization. . . .
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to remind the publisher of the Globe and Mail that he is totally ignorant of Canada's history, for, had he opened its finest pages, he would have noted the obscure heroism of our early evangelists and missionaries, such as the Reverend Jesuit Fathers and others who, by dint of persuasion and unparalleled personal sacrifices and aided by brave colonists whom I am proud to own as my ancestors opened this vast continent to Christianity and civilization.
Long before the ancestors of the publisher of the Globe and Mail landed in this country, my forefathers had by their gigantic labours already made it a nation. And if he will accompany me to the old cemeteries of Quebec province he will find inscribed there names of which Canadian history is proud.
The publisher of the Globe and Mail having dared to compare the members of my race to robbers, I am compelled to remind him that those who made the most brilliant contribution to our confederation, which permits us to sit here to-day, are Canadians of French origin.

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
May I also remind the publisher of the Globe and Mail that those who defended with the greatest tenacity against the Americans at the battle of Quebec, the last parcel of British territory left on this north American continent, were French Canadians, many of his ancestors having fled the city.
Allow me to tell him also that by writing such nonsense the Globe and Mail is not working for unity in this country and that if his paper has any honour it will retract its words.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Lacroix (Quebec-Montmorency) be substituted for that of Mr. Girouard on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mac-Neil:
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, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: On Friday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke on this question at some length. He discussed the report in a general way and I intend to do likewise.
With one of his remarks, to the effect that in appointing Mr. Justice Davis he was sure he had selected as commissioner one who would be satisfactory to the country, I am in complete accord. Mr. Justice Davis without doubt was satisfactory to all. His reputation is of the highest, I entirely agree with the Prime Minister that he could not have chosen anyone more satisfactory unless it were the chief justice himself; and indeed I think that Mr. Justice Davis was just as satisfactory as the chief justice himself would have been in that case.
The Prime Minister mentioned the fact that Mr. Justice Davis had been appointed to the bench by our party. That I think was hardly necessary, because I believe that gener-71492-II
ally speaking, the judges of the higher courts of Canada whichever side appoints them, are honourable and entirely beyond partisanship after their appointment to the bench.
The Prime Minister's speech seems to me to show the need of discussion of this question here in the House of Commons, not by a committee such as the standing committee on public accounts. The Prime Minister referred to an expression I used some days ago somewhat hurriedly, the term "packed committee." As I said at the time, I used the expression in no offensive sense. What I meant was that that committee, composed as it is under the rules of the house of fifty members, would consist of eight members of our party, three of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and three of the Social Credit party-that is, fourteen representing all the different opposition parties to thirty-six on the government side. A committee made up in these proportions, as it would be under the rules, is likely to be a little more partisan than is the House of Commons itself, because in committees party feeling runs strongly; it always has. At the moment I do not recall any public accounts committee, set up in the manner in which this has been set up, bringing in any report against the government of the day. What I really mean is that the committee would be so overwhelmingly of one party that there would not be the same freedom of discussion as there is in this house.
One thing in the Prime Minister's speech to which I think I should take exception was the reference to a rule affecting any special committee that might be set up. He pointed out that if it were a special committee instead of a standing committee, there is a rule which provides that if hon. members commit themselves strongly on one side they should not be appointed as members of the committee. That is correct in reference to a special committee, but, as pointed out by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), it does not refer to a standing committee. Although I did not think of the same word as that used by my hon. friend, "intimidation," the thought ran through my mind that the reference made by the Prime Minister in that regard might rather tend to frighten all of us, and particularly those in the opposition sections, from free participation in the discussions. I thought it a little unfortunate that the Prime Minister should have made that reference, because the rule does not refer to a standing committee. It is true that any special committee might later

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

be turned into a standing committee, but as the committee stands at present the rule does not apply to it.
The anxiety of the Prime Minister and the government as a whole-although they made no fight for it-to have this question passed to the standing committee at once, without discussion, struck me as more or less indicative of a desire to bury the whole report. After all, this question has been investigated by a commissioner, who, we all agree, is an outstanding man. There were counsel for the various parties; the government had three counsel, there was counsel for the Inglis company, including Mr. Hahn; counsel for Cameron, Pointon & Merritt, and Mr. Plaxton, counsel for the Maclean Publishing Company and Colonel Drew. So there were plenty of counsel. The commission sat for over two months and the cost was over ? 15.000. There is every reason for believing that the matter was so thoroughly investigated that it would not appear to be necessary for a committee of the house again to go over the whole matter.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
figure of S15.000 was the cost up to the date of the asking of the question. There may be more. We have not the final figures.


Robert James Manion: That was up to the first of February; so it was a fairly expensive investigation, although the Prime Minister tells us neither Mr. Justice Davis nor Colonel Ralston took anything for themselves. We have before us the report, made after very full investigation; therefore I ask why the report should be submitted to a committee, whatever committee	it may	be,	with theheavy expense involved for the calling of witnesses again and going over the same ground, a rehashing of the same matters in dispute. It seems to me that parliament is the forum	to deal	with it.	The	report isnow submitted to the jury of this parliament, and	through	this parliament to the
people of Canada whom we represent.
I repeat	that in	view of	all	the facts
this is the place to discuss the whole question. Therefore I am opposed in a general way, I regret to say, to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil). His speech in the debate on the address, in which he reviewed the whole Bren gun question, was a splendid effort, to my mind one of the best and most effective speeches I have heard in this house. But his motion does not strike me as the preferable way of dealing with the matter at this time.

Now to deal with the report itself. When it first came out, indeed before it was made public, information was given through the press, I do not know by whom, that the report was a complete exoneration of the government in so far as the Bren gun contract was concerned. To my mind that was merely propaganda. Far from this report being a complete exoneration of the government and those associated with the giving of this contract, it seems to me it is a complete condemnation of the government, as I shall prove before I finish. It is true that there was no evidence of corruption, but no one had charged corruption. I do not charge anything in the way of corruption now. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) quoted from page 51 of the report, where Mr. Justice Davis eliminated anything in the way of any suspicion of corruption. I accept that; far be it from me to suggest anything to the contrary. But, sir, there are fifty-two pages in this report, and I venture to say that on at least forty of them there is an absolute condemnation of the minister and, through him, of the government for having made this contract at all.
I say that Mr. Justice Davis, for reasons with which I shall deal briefly, felt that he could not come out and say distinctly that he condemned the minister or the government; he did exonerate them, of course, from anything in the nature of corruption. But in dealing with the methods by which the contract was put into effect he could not come out frankly and say what he thought, because of the arguments placed before him by various counsel, including government counsel, so he did it in a sort of subtle manner, by painting vignettes which he hung on the wall for each of us to see and come to his own conclusion.
After reading this blue book I should say that Mr. Justice Davis is an author of distinction. In many ways it is a little classic, a most fascinating, interesting and well-done booklet. But it has just a touch of subtlety so that one has to study it a bit to see exactly what Mr. Justice Davis means. Once one has read it, however, as I intend to read a few selections from it to-day, I think what Mr. Justice Davis had in the back of his mind but does not express in the booklet is so clear that one needs very little imagination to understand at what he is pointing. Indeed, sir, I think you could open this book almost at random and find that it condemns-by inference-the method by which this contract was negotiated. But I ask this: if he did not mean to condemn the methods followed in negotiating this contract, what was his purpose in giving what I have called these vignettes? What was his purpose in putting those in the book? If it was not done in order that we

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
might draw an inference, then the only conclusion I could arrive at would be that it was a lot of padding. I know Mr. Justice Davis slightly, more by reputation than personally, and I know that he would not put mere padding in this blue book. It is a complete condemnation of the department, even at page 51, the same page from which the Prime Minister quoted as to the exoneration so far as anything in the way of corruption was concerned. That is where Mr. Justice Davis recommends a defence purchasing board. I should like to read a few sentences, to give the gist of what he recommends at page 51:
_ 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-
Then I jump a few lines.
-the purchase or production of such munitions or armaments should be put into the hands of an expert advisory group of competent business men-a capable and experienced manufacturer, a commercial lawyer who has had a wide practice in dealing with large commercial contracts, a representative of labour and say a chartered accountant who has had experience in the examination of substantial business transactions.
Then he adds:
These persons should constitute a board (which might be known as the "defence purchasing board") and be made directly accountable to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not a condemnation; it is a recommendation.


Robert James Manion: Yes, it is a recommendation as to the appointment of a board, but it is a condemnation of the defence department. That is my conclusion. If it is not a condemnation of the defence department, why does the report specifically state that this defence purchasing board should not be left in the hands of the Department of National Defence, which is the department dealing with such matters as munitions and armaments? Why does he say it must be put under the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read on.


Robert James Manion: I do not want to read it all. Anyone can read it.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to read too much, but I will read the next sentence:
It is no reflection upon the technical skill and knowledge of the military officers and officials of the Department of National Defence to say this-
He exonerates them as far as technical skill and knowledge go, but just the same he says
71492-41J
this defence purchasing board should be put under the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, and not under the Minister of National Defence. We will draw our own conclusions, as my hon. friends have a perfect right to draw theirs. I have drawn mine, and it is very clear to me what that means. To me it is a complete condemnation of the Bren gun contract and the methods by which it was negotiated. And I say, sir, that the whole report, with which I shall deal briefly, is a devastating condemnation of the department and of the government of which it forms a part.
Perhaps first I should give a few dates with which we will be dealing as we go along. The contract was made on March 31, 1938. It was announced in the press on May 5, a little more than a month later, and was tabled in parliament on June 29, nearly two months later. Though parliament was sitting all that time, it was not tabled until two days before parliament prorogued. I do not know whether any explanation has been made as to why it was not tabled long before the end of June. I ask myself-and I am not doing this in order to be unfair-whether it was because it was not considered desirable to table the contract until just before the house prorogued. That is a question one naturally asks; the minister will be able to answer it. I do not know the reason; I am asking the question. The article in Maclean's magazine, by Colonel George A. Drew, was published on September 1, 1938. These are four dates that it is well to keep in mind. It is now five months since the article was published, but until the Prime Minister spoke the other day he had made no pronouncement in regard to this matter. It is true that he appointed this royal commission, but what I find a little queer about the royal commission-or perhaps the word "queer" is not right; what I find a little strange about the royal commission is that although the commissioner was instructed to give his opinions, he was urged by all counsel, including government counsel, that he must not do so, that the only thing he should do was to set forth the facts. I should like to read what I think the Prime Minister read the other day, from page 4 of the report, where Mr. Justice Davis said:
The said commission required and directed your commissioner-
Then I assume this is a quotation:
-to report as speedily as possible to our governor in council the result of his investigation together with the evidence taken before him and any opinion he may see fit to express thereon.
That is wide open; I agree that nothing could be more open. But, sir, if you turn to
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May 1
interrupt the hon. gentleman? The reason was that there were no charges made; and that is Drew's fault, and nobody else's.


Robert James Manion: I am not charging corruption, neither is George Drew doing so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The law is the law; we cannot get away from it.


Robert James Manion: We will deal with the facts as we go on. There are no charges of corruption. I am not making any; but we shall have plenty of charges, before we get through, in regard to the conduct of the department in giving this contract.
While the Prime Minister was speaking he read a letter-a very fair letter-which he wrote to Mr. Justice Davis, and the press release he gave out. He told Mr. Justice Davis that he was enclosing the press release.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the order in council.


Robert James Manion: Yes, of course; the order in council was enclosed too. Then I asked him if he had sent a copy of the same letter and the same release to Mr. Ralston, and he said, no, no special copy was sent. Then he added:
Mr. Ralston would, I presume, have seen the statement in the press.
I could not help thinking then, and I repeat it now, that that is a most extraordinary way of giving instructions to counsel. Why a press release rather than a direct letter? And certainly since he was sending this press release to the commissioner himself, and since counsel was being appointed, why did he not send the same thing to counsel and let him understand the matter thoroughly, rather than depend upon counsel's reading the press report? He might easily overlook at a time like that a newspaper statement. Mr. Ralston is a busy man. At all events it was without effect
on Mr. Ralston, who made his attitude so clear and expressed it so strongly that Mr. Justice Davis accepted it and gave no opinion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just wondering whether my hon. friend thought it was part of my duty to instruct counsel. I should not think so.


Robert James Manion: It was the duty of somebody to instruct counsel, if not of the Prime Minister, then of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for the Department of Justice, or of somebody else. Anyhow we have no information to the effect that Mr. Ralston was instructed. Even if he were instructed respecting freedom of opinion which Mr. Justice Davis was given, he paid no attention to it, and like the other counsel, did all he could- and I am making no reflection upon them-to stop Mr. Justice Davis from giving the opinions which the judge obviously wished to give. So that Mr. Justice Davis had to give them by inference, by little pictures and extracts from the evidence from which we could draw our own conclusions. In other words, what I find myself asking is this: Was Mr. Justice Davis instructed by letter to do one thing, and then was the whole investigation so hedged around by legal difficulties that Mr. Justice Davis could not make a proper investigation and a proper report?


Mr. CLEAVER:: I do not like to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but will he permit a question?


Robert James Manion: This is a serious discussion, and I do not want to be interrupted very much. I will let the hon. member ask his question, but I do not intend to be diverted to all kinds of other issues.


Hughes Cleaver: Just so that we shall not misunderstand the attitude of the hon. gentleman, I should like to ask him whether he quarrels with the rule of law laid down by section 13 which he is discussing, namely-


Robert James Manion: I am not discussing the section. Let the hon. gentleman take his seat. If he wants to make a speech on the rules of law he can go ahead later and make it.


Hughes Cleaver: I understood the hon. gentleman was going to permit a question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The leader of the opposition has the floor.


Robert James Manion: In other words I find myself asking, was the whole investigation turned into a farce, in this way: that Mr. Justice Davis apparently desired to give opinions but was influenced so strongly by the views I have quoted, including the views of
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

government counsel, that he did not, presumably, dare to do so? What was the attitude of the Department of Justice in the conflict between the argument of counsel and the order in council? The Prime Minister knows far better than I do that an order in council authorizing a legal investigation by a royal commissioner selected from the bench would probably be drawn up by the Department of Justice. I find myself wondering whether the Department of Justice made it clear to the government that, despite the letter of the Prime Minister to Mr. Justice Davis, this investigation would be hedged around by legal technicalities to such an extent that Mr. Justice Davis could not give what he thought was a just opinion. However, I am going to proceed with the case.
Here is what we find in the report. First, there was no competition. The matter was limited entirely to one man, Major Hahn, D.S.O., M.C. Without doubt this man had a splendid war record and there is nothing against him personally so far as I know. But the fact that a man has a splendid war record does not necessarily mean that he is capable of manufacturing Bren guns. I suppose there are at least thirty or thirty-five members in this house who are returned men, many of them with records just as good as Major Halm, but I should not like to ask them to manufacture Bren guns. There was no competition of any kind. That is one of the strange things about this whole matter.
The only business experience that Major Hahn had, so far as the record shows, was in connection with one venture-and may I say that I did not attempt to plough through four or five thousand pages of evidence, therefore I am confining myself to what Mr. Justice Davis says in his report. Major Hahn went into radio manufacturing. It is claimed that it was radio assembling, but it does not matter; he was selling radios as a manufacturer, if you will. Later on he went into the business of manufacturing other electrical appliances, such as washing machines. He continued in this business for about ten years. When the crash came in 1929 and 1930 the company began to get into financial difficulties, and it was finally necessary to sell out to the Rogers Majestic Company. The sale was handled in such a way in 1934 that the creditors of the company received only twenty cents on the dollar. This was the company of which Major Hahn was the head. Perhaps there is no disgrace in that; people in many walks of life have had to do the same thing, but neither is it a recommendation sufficient to make Major Hahn the only business man in this country who should be chosen to

manufacture Bren guns. On page 8 of the report it is stated distinctly that he was the only man who was given an opportunity I quote from the top of page 8:
Notwithstanding that the contract involves the expenditure of several millions of dollars by the Canadian government, no industrial producer (other than Major Hahn) was consulted by the Department of National Defence as to the proposed manufacture of Bren guns for the Canadian government or invited to give competitive bids or 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 iD this connection to which, with the answers, I now refer:-
Q. You did not give anybody else a chance?
A. Nobody asked for it.
Q. Mr. Minister, w'hat I want to get you to answer is this: You never did attempt in any method or any way to see what any one of these dozen or more well known companies, with skilled labour, skilled mechanics, who had been w-orking in precision steel-well, let us take the automobile industry which makes the very closest parts and closest tolerances-no effort %vas made of any kind to see what they could do?
A. The answer is "no." I do not think it was practicable.
That evidence proves that only one was given this opportunity. There was nobody else in competition with him.
Finally an order for 7,000 Bren guns was given on a cost plus basis. Major Hahn had a plant, the old Inglis boiler plant, which was reported as being capable of making boilers and certain other types of heavy machinery such as turbines. Certainly the plant at that time was not capable of manufacturing munitions, shells, Bren guns or anything else of the kind. It had been closed for two or three years. Many other plants in Canada were operating on precision steel, as they term it-automobile plants for instance. Mention was made of the Steel Company of Canada, the Dominion Bridge Company, and a number of others, any one of which would have been better able than the plant which Major Hahn had, to do such fine work as the making of machine guns.
On top of that evidence there is the strange circumstance that the minister himself in giving evidence-and I believe the Prime Minister said the same in the House of Commons last year-took the attitude that the manufacture of munitions of this kind should be done under government ownership. I shall quote from pages 10 and 11 of the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has suggested that I made a particular statement during last session. I do not recall at the moment having made that statement, and unless my hon. friend is sure of it-

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: I shall try to find it. If
the Prime Minister says he did not say it,
I am not going to question his statement, but I know the minister said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not say
I did not, but I cannot recall that I did.


Robert James Manion: I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment. I was criticized the other evening because I asked someone to quote me. Now the Prime Minister has put himself in the same position; not a bad game.
As appears on page 10 of the report, the Minister of National Defence was examined by Mr. Hellmuth. This statement is made on that page:
Under examination by Mr. Hellmuth, the Minister of National Defence said that he had stated in the House of Commons last year (1937) that he believed in public ownership, personally, through and through in regard to armaments; "and I still say so." Mr. Hellmuth proceeded with some questions to which, and the answers, I now refer:
Q. I put it before you here, that the best plan is government ownership?
A. I thoroughly agree with you.
Q. So that there will be no inducement for people to make money out of necessities which arise from war?
A. Mr. Hellmuth, as a matter of an ideal objective, I completely agree with you.
Then lower down in the same report it is stated that General Ashton-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will you finish the answer, please?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend can finish it. I am not going to read the whole report. Does the minister deny that he said that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order. My hon. friend, I am sure with the best intentions in the world, has read only part of the reply I made to learned counsel. Would he be good enough to quote the entire reply?


Robert James Manion: I shall read the remainder of the statement which shows absolutely that the minister favoured manufacture by the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: An ideal objective.


Robert James Manion: I have it right here and I shall quote it. I have the minister's remarks last year as reported in Hansard where he came out quite clearly for that. I am not so sure of the Prime Minister, but I am sure of the minister. Here is the rest of the answer:
-but you should read carefully the recommendations made by a distinguished committee to us early in 1937, in regard to ways of dealing with practical necessities of the Department of National Defence. You should read that.
I do not see where that is a contradiction of what I said. The minister will have an opportunity to put his case before the house.
I am not going to read the whole report.
I was going on to show that General Ashton and General McNaughton both favoured the doing of this work under government ownership. I quote from page 10 of the report: The minister said that General Ashton (the then chief of the general staff) was very insistent upon the development of government arsenals and that the former chief of general staff, General McNaughton, evolved a very comprehensive scheme for Valcartier which would include practically all the requirements of the Canadian Forces.
I find myself wondering why General Ashton and General McNaughton were not called before the commission. Incidentally I might mention here that South Africa and Australia both manufacture munitions in their own plants.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say to my hon. friend that General Ashton's testimony was offered to the commissioner.


Robert James Manion: There is no doubt that it was offered, but he was not called as a witness.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was not the government's fault.


Robert James Manion: I mentioned that he was not called, that is all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I tell my hon. friend also that these big interests which he has mentioned were all ready to give testimony with regard to public tenders, but they were not called.


Mr. CAHAN:: That would depend upon government counsel.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It did not.


Robert James Manion: Since the question is very apt, I shall say now what I intended to say later on. I made it my business to ask six of the outstanding manufacturers in this country as to their ability to manufacture Bren guns. They had all read the press reports of the inquiry, which were very popular reading during the fall months. With the exception of one, they all answered that they could. One said he could not, but the others all said they would be willing.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend be kind enough to let us have the names?


Robert James Manion: No, I will not. I am
going to try to treat with every respect my hon. friend over there who is interrupting so
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

freely, but I think he had better treat me in the same way. I am not going to hand out names of companies to this government, and then if they have a job, have these people forgotten. No, I am not going to do that.
It is pointed out by the judge that the whole plant of the Inglis company costs only
8120.000,	or some such figure. But the argument the minister made against government ownership was that it was going to cost
830.000.	000 to 835,000,000.
Then on page 11 the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on April 2, 1937, is quoted:
Mr. Mackenzie King: For some months past an interdepartmental committee has been going very carefully into the whole question of the control of profits with respect to munitions of war.
I am quoting this to give his viewpoint. A little further down he says:
At the present time, in a time of peace, the government is proceeding on the theory of permitting competition with reasonable remuneration, the work to be subject to inspection and audit.
Then a little further down:
I can assure him-
I do not know of whom he is speaking, but I presume it was somebody who had asked the question:
-I can assure him that the whole question is one to which the government is giving careful consideration, and that it will continue to do so. We agree with him in asserting the principle that no profits should be made out of war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I agree with that. I join with the right hon. gentleman on that question. I have taken the same attitude right along. I took it in Geneva, in 1934, as the head of the Canadian delegation to the League of Nations. Many other public men have taken the same attitude, so there is nothing new in that. I am merely pointing out that the Prime Minister took exactly the same position.
The next point to which I want to draw attention-it is a little out of chronological order-is a letter written by Mr. Plaxton, the hon. member for Trinity, to the Prime Minister, dated August 24, 1936, and it appears on page 17 of the report. I quote from the report:
Mr. Plaxton wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Exhibit 336) on August 24, 1936. This letter was written by Mr. Plaxton while he was in Ottawa, and at the request of his brother, Mr. Herbert Plaxton, who had telephoned him from Toronto. The letter reads as follows:

"A group of friends of mine in Toronto are equipped fully to manufacture munitions."
I emphasize that-"equipped fully."
Their plant is located in my constituency.
We know very well that that statement was just not true, to put it in the simplest language. They were not equipped fully. They had this more or less broken down Inglis Company plant. That letter was deceiving the Prime Minister; whether intentionally or not, I am not discussing. I am simply stating that the letter was deceiving the Prime Minister. The letter also says, "A group of friends." Now the group was Major Hahn, a brother, or two brothers, of the member himself, and the firm of Cameron, Pointon and Merritt, in Toronto. That was the group.
I turn to the next page, and I quote the evidence given by Mr. Plaxton, the member for Trinity. This is from page 18 of the report:
Mr. Plaxton was asked during his evidence who were the "group of friends" of his in Toronto who were fully equipped to. manufacture munitions at the time he wrote the Prime Minister on August 24, 1936, and his answer was:
"A. I was speaking as of that date of Major Hahn, Cameron, Pointon and Merritt, and Mr. Herbert Plaxton.
Q. And Mr. Gordon Plaxton?-A. No, not at that time.
Q. They were the group of friends who were fully equipped to manufacture munitions?- A. Yes.
Q. Where?-A. At the Inglis plant.
Q. How did you know that?-A. Well, I did not. I assumed as of that date that, speaking from memory, the deal was virtually concluded or had been-I was not definite as to any date."
That is the answer of the hon. member for Trinity.
The Prime Minister replied to the letter of the hon. member (Mr. Plaxton) on September 12, 1936, about three weeks after he had received it. The Prime Minister said in his letter to Mr. Plaxton-I hope the house will forgive me for saying "Mr. Plaxton" instead of the hon. member for Trinity, but it makes the record more clear-Mr. Plaxton having asked him if Canadians had the right to get contracts from the British government:
It would be necessary-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suggest that my hon. friend read the beginning of that paragraph.


Robert James Manion: Certainly. I was quoting
only the part that was pertinent to my argument. The paragraph begins:
I may say, in reply, that we see no reason why a Canadian firm established for the manufacture of munitions should be precluded from obtaining orders from the British gov-

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
ernment. It_ would be necessary, of course, to see that it was distinctly understood that such orders as were obtained, were at the instance of the firm itself and not either directly or indirectly, at the instance of the government of Canada.
I interject now that Hahn would never have had a look-in of any kind with the British government if it had not been that he was pushed in by the Minister of National Defence-none at all.
Now in regard to Major Hahn, I want to give his record briefly. He called with my hon. friend from Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) on the deputy minister of national defence on October 9, 1936. Apparently he saw the Bren gun sitting there in the office, and he borrowed it, although it is specifically stated in two or three places in this report that there were secrets that had to be kept in connection with the Bren gun. But apparently, without, any great trouble, he walks into the office of the deputy minister and sees the Bren gun, and they give him every encouragement. They send the gun to Toronto for him to examine. On October 19, 1936, ten days later, Major Hahn came again to Ottawa. He was staying at the Chateau Laurier. He and Mr. Plaxton asked the minister to join them, which he did, and the minister gave him, as a result of that visit, a letter of introduction to Mr. Massey.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gave it to Mr. Plaxton.


Robert James Manion: Was the letter of introduction on behalf of Mr. Plaxton or Major Hahn?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For
Major Hahn.


Robert James Manion: It was a letter of introduction for Major Hahn. Then on November 10, 1936, about three and a half weeks later, Major Hahn rvas in England, and these are the facts: On November 10 Major Hahn was made government representative, and if I mistake not he was made government representative by the Prime Minister himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Robert James Manion: Then I will hold that point in abeyance, but I think I am right. It was the Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will come to that in a few moments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Department of External Affairs communicates on behalf of -every department. It is quite possible that the defence department had asked for some word to be sent through the Department of 71492-42
External Affairs to the British government, and to that extent my hon. friend's statement would be correct.


Robert James Manion: I will deal with that point right now, although it means I shall have to anticipate somewhat. When Major Hahn and Mr. Plaxton got over to London they called on Mr. Vincent Massey. He is a very capable civil servant, and he showed intelligence in this matter. He did not, on the word of the Department of National Defence alone, want to push Major Hahn along too fast. Mr. Massey had been asked to get appointments with the British War Office for Major Hahn, so Mr. Massey cabled to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Ottawa this message, which appears on page 24 of the report:
Secret 396. Have received to-day following request in a wireless message direct from National Defence, Begins:
"Please request Major Hahn now in England to communicate with me through your office in cypher his impression as to possibility of producing Bren gun in Canada. This is urgent and ask him to give details such as time required for delivery and estimated cost. Ends."
In order to obtain information desired. War Office must be requested to give Major Hahn, as representative of the Canadian government, access to information of a secret nature which normally is not given to other than government officials.
Major Hahn also informs me that Minister of National Defence has requested him to obtain, if time permits, all available information regarding manufacture of tanks and shells which would also necessitate similar requests from the War Office.
Before making any application to war office, would appreciate instructions. Would be grateful for such instructions by to-morrow if possible.
This message was transmitted by External Affairs to the Department of National Defence, and, in reply, is a cable (exhibit 99), on November 10, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the High Commissioner in London.
That is the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: It goes on:
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 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.
Surely the Prime Minister does not deny that he made him the representative of the Canadian government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly as this communication states. As Secretary of State

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

for External Affairs, I passed on to the high commissioner in London the wishes of the Minister of National Defence in this matter.


Robert James Manion: I was merely stating a fact, which is there in black and white, absolutely undeniable, that the Prime Minister, as Secretary of State for External Affairs, made Mr. Hahn the representative of the Canadian government. Nobody else did. Furthermore, I emphasize it, since the Prime Minister appears to wish to get out from under. I do not blame him much if he has read the report, but since he takes that attitude I emphasize it, because it has gone all over the country that apparently it was the Minister of National Defence who made Major Hahn the representative of the government. It was the Prime Minister. I believe the Prime Minister got false information or he would not have done it.
Now, I have gone ahead of my story, because I did not intend to deal just here with that aspect of the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend notes the significance of the words "in this particular"?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and that in itself is a reflection upon the department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Why?


Robert James Manion: Because the department was asking that Major Hahn be given information regarding shells and various other things, and the Prime Minister limited him to Bren guns.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was the most urgent requirement at the moment.


Robert James Manion: Argue that between yourselves. I will read a few more bits of evidence. I am afraid I shall have to go back because I got ahead of my story in consequence of this interjection, which I did not invite. I was simply stating a fact which appears in the report:
Then on October 19th, 1936, Major Hahn, Mr. Cameron (of Cameron, Pointon & Merritt -Toronto stock brokers) and Mr. Hugh Plax-ton, were in Ottawa and had an interview with the Minister of National Defence in his suite in the Chateau Laurier hotel.
As a result on October 19th, 1936, a letter of introduction addressed to the Hon. Vincent Massey, High Commissioner for Canada in London, was given by the minister to Mr. Plaxton-exhibit 135. I will not read the letter; there is no necessity. I will turn now to page 19:
When the minister was asked in his evidence-
Remember, he had given a letter of introduction for Major Hahn, and yet in his evidence we find this:

When the minister was asked in his evidence:
Q. When did you first meet Major Hahn?
His answer was:
A. To the best of my recollection I met him first of all in May of this year (1938). But last week I was corrected when I was informed by Major Hahn himself that he was introduced to me in 1936, and I heartily accept his recollection.
I do not question that except to observe that it seems strange that the minister should forget that he had given a letter of introduction to someone whom apparently he had not remembered meeting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I gave some to your colleagues.


Robert James Manion: Well, that is all right. The hon. gentleman probably knew my colleagues, but apparently he did not know Major Hahn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I did not know the friends of my friend's colleagues. Ask the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). I gave a similar letter.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A letter of what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A letter of introduction to friends of yours of exactly the same type.


John Ritchie MacNicol: To what purpose?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: John T. Hepburn of Toronto.


Robert James Manion: When this difference is straightened out I will go on.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let us have fair play.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A letter in what connection?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have a copy of it if my hon. friend requires it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It will be all right to read it.


Robert James Manion: Then from Hansard of last year, at page 4524, to emphasize the attitude taken by the Minister of National Defence, I quote what the hon. gentleman says:
I want to say in the second place that the minister cannot take the slightest credit for the contract, and the minister never sat in on any of the consultations, and never met Major Hahn until after the contract was signed.
That is his statement. The Minister of National Defence so stated last year as reported in Hansard.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) What was that?


Robert James Manion: I will repeat it. Emphasizing the evidence that the minister gave

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
before the commission is the statement which he made as reported in Hansard. There was an argument with Mr. Bennett about the Bren gun contract, and at page 4524 of Hansard the minister is reported to have said:
I want to say in the second place that the minister cannot take the slightest credit-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right.


Robert James Manion: -for the contract, and the minister never sat in on any of the consultations, and never met Major Hahn until after the contract was signed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And that is my recollection at the moment.


Robert James Manion: I do not question the hon. gentleman's recollection, although he has a bad memory.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend must accept my statement.


Robert James Manion: I am accepting his recollection but I simply say-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not represent the fact.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I corrected it voluntarily myself in sworn testimony when I was apprised to the contrary.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It does not represent the fact.


Robert James Manion: Surely a letter of recommendation of that kind should be regarded as more sacred than to be given to someone whom the minister did not even remember. He said he did not know Major Hahn last year. Last year, in the House of Commons, he said he did not know him until after the contract was signed, and yet in 1936 he gave this gentleman a letter of recommendation. On page 19, the report states:
_ Following upon the interview with the Minister on October 19, 1936, and without waiting for the report of the inspector who had been asked by the department on October 10 to inspect the Inglis plant in Toronto there was sent by the Deputy Minister of National Defence to the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, on October 20, 1936, the following letter (exhibit 74), suggesting, in view' of Major Hahn's early departure for England, the desirability of communicating with the high commissioner as soon as possible.
The letter says in part:
Major J. E. Hahn, D.S.O., M.C., a former officer of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and representing a reliable group which controls certain manufacturing plants-
Note the plural.
-capable of manufacturing armament and munitions located in a large industrial centre where the labour and material factor is stable and favourable, has been in communication with the department.
71492-42J
And Mr. Justice Davis, on page 21, draw's attention to this. He says:
It is to be observed that the letter states that Major Hahn represents a reliable group which controls certain manufacturing plants capable of manufacturing armament and munitions located in a large industrial centre where the labour and material factor is stable and favourable.
Then the deputy minister appeared before the commission. He was asked:
Do you mean to say now-
That is, two years later.
-that when you wrote that letter on October 20 you did not know the names of the individuals who made up that group?-A. No, I did not, but I did know that Major Hahn was a leading figure in the whole thing, he had a controlling interest and he had grouped w'ith him worth-while people, which is the natural thing.
Q. How did you know that-A. I was told it.
Q. By w'hom?-By himself and by Mr. Plax-ton.
Q. Anybody else?

A. No.
And further:
Q. You did not know on October 20

That is 1936:
-who Major Hahn's associates were? Do you know now who Major Hahn's associates were, in the enterprise?-A. I am not certain that I do know who they are now, no.
This was two years later, last October. A little lower down the commissioner reports:
The deputy minister had asked Major Hahn on his first visit on October 9, 1936, that the Inglis plant be inspected and that was done by the resident inspector (aircraft inspection detachment) at Toronto, whose report is dated October 21, 1936.
That is an interesting date. He gave the letter to the under-secretary of state on October 20, 1936, and he did not get the report on the plant "until the following day, yet he says he not only had the plant but he had plants. And the report said in part:
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.
Yet it, or Major Hahn, is said to be fully equipped to manufacture a much more delicate implement than tanks or shells, namely the Bren gun. Then he goes on and says:
It was October 26, 1936, that Major Hahn, Mr. Gordon Plaxton and Mr. Hugh Plaxton left for England.
Then lower down on page 23:
Major Hahn and Mr. Hugh Plaxton called upon Mr. Massey, the High Commissioner, upon their arrival in London and gave to him the
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

minister's letter of introduction (exhibit No. 135). Major Hahn was given to understand, he said, that an appointment would be arranged for him at the war office and after waiting for something over a week he says he became "very, very impatient, I am afraid," and he telephoned the Minister of National Defence in Ottawa from London. Mr. Hugh Plaxton says he was in the room with Major Hahn when the latter was telephoning to the minister. Major Hahn said he had a curt reply from the minister and that Mr. Hugh Plaxton then sent two cablegrams-one to the minister and one to the deputy minister, both dated November 9 (exhibits 82 and 204). The next day Major Hahn was made the representative of Canada in this particular; i.e., the Bren gun (exhibit 99).
I said the Prime Minister had appointed him, and that is the fact as shown in this record-that he was appointed the representative of the Canadian government so far as the Bren gun was concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt there to make it perfectly clear? That statement from myself to Mr. Massey was:
You might request war office to give Major Hahn, as representing Canadian government in this particular, any information which they consider desirable or necessary-
Note the words, in just one particular, and any information which they consider desirable or necessary.
-to enable National Defence to reach conclusion on possibility produce Bren gun in Canada.
Simply to get information to enable the Canadian department to reach a conclusion on possibility of producing in Canada. But not to get contracts.


Robert James Manion: Why should not the Canadian government get its own information? But I have not misrepresented the Prime Minister. I quoted his words. When I say that he appointed Major Hahn representative of the Canadian government, no word he has said contradicts that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just for one particular purpose, to obtain information to send to the Department of National Defence to enable the department to make up its mind.


Robert James Manion: Since the right hon. gentleman is cross-questioning me, does he know Major Hahn?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I never met him.


Robert James Manion: I thought so. Yet, having never met him and without knowing him he makes him the representative of the dominion government. Does my hon. friend think that was a wise thing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I have to limit any communications I have with the high commissioner in London to those concerning gentlemen I know, I am afraid it will be found such a rule places an impossible restriction on a prime minister.


Robert James Manion: Letters from the right hon. gentleman to the high commissioner in London deal with a great variety of subjects, but it is not very often that any government makes anyone who is not in the civil service or employed by it a representative of that government to act on anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It depends on the extent of the representation.


Robert James Manion: I do not need to argue any further; the story speaks for itself.
Then on page 28 the report states:
The minister and the deputy minister were examined as to their knowledge of the "reliable group which controls certain manufacturing plants." The letter of October 20, 1936 (exhibit 74) having been read in full to the minister, Mr. Hellmuth asked him:
Q. Did you know at that time who Major Hahn's associates were?
A. No, and I do not know now.
A little further down the question is put to the minister by Mr. Hellmuth:
Q. I would like to have that question answered, with all due deference. I would like to know whether you knew whether Major Hahn had or controlled any plant or plants.
A. Not to my own knowledge-certainly not.
Q. Do you know whether he had any company at that time?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Q. When did you find out that Major Hahn had associates, and who they were?
A. I did not know who they were until the article referred to in this investigation (i.e., in MacLeans magazine).
Q. So that we may say the contract-at the time the contract was signed you had no knowledge of who his associates were?
A. That is quite correct. [DOT]
Q. Nor had you any knowledge of who the reliable group were?
A. Quite correct. I accepted the reliable supervision of men in whom I had absolute confidence.
Q. I am asking you if you knew of any of these. Did you know what experience Major Hahn had in the manufacture of precision
steel?
A. No, not to my own knowledge.
Q. Did you know what his previous industrial experience or activity had been?
A. No, not to my own knowledge.
And on the next page:
Q. So that you are still-I do not wish to say this at all offensively-you are still in the dark as to who these associates are and the group behind him?
A. I think we all are.
The deputy minister swore that he too did not know who were the "reliable group" which controlled certain manufacturing plants.

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
Now, that is an interesting picture. They recommend Major Hahn very enthusiastically, send him across there to get information from the British government, make him a representative of the Canadian government, yet two years later none of them appears to know who Major Hahn's associates were, who this " reliable group " were, where these plants (plural) were-in fact there were not any " plants," there was one plant in Toronto. In addition there was pressure put on the British government in regard to this. For instance at page 44 the commissioner said:
That the Canadian department pressed the war office in the matter up to at least November, 1937, is frankly admitted. The minister stated the situation generally in these words in his evidence:
... it was a sustained endeavour to press the British authorities for a decision as to whether they would produce in Canada or not.
How do these words fit in with what I quoted the Prime Minister as saying, that Major Hahn must get the contract himself without the Canadian government intervening? And further down:
As early as December 24, 1936, the minister had revised and approved a letter (exhibit 107) to External Affairs requesting that a cable be sent to the government of the United Kingdom. . . containing these words:
Canada is prepared to proceed if war office can place initial order for not less than 5,000 Bren guns.
Then on April 20, 1937, the deputy minister wrote Doctor Skelton, the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, as follows:
On discussing the matter with my minister this morning he requested that I explain the great importance and urgency of this problem and to request that immediate action be taken to assist Major Hahn who evidently intends to remain in London for a few more days.
Then further down:
A good many communications passed directly between the department and Colonel Loggie, who was sent by the department to London in October 1937. Colonel Loggie is a senior Ordnance corps officer and has his office in Canada House, London. This was the first time that the department had appointed an ordnance officer to London. Although communications could be sent by the department to London through the government naval wireless without any charge, the evidence discloses several transatlantic telephone calls at critical periods from the department to Colonel Loggie costing, for instance, in one case $77 and in another case $42 and others at $28 and $35 (exhibits 266 and 267) of which conversations no records were kept by the department.
That is unnecessary waste.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the commissioner's
report?


Robert James Manion: Yes, that is the commissioner's report. Then on page 47 he continues :
As appears from the communications quoted above, the war office as late as February 3, 1938 (exhibit 190) was still adhering to its desire to deal with the Canadian government and not with a Canadian manufacturer direct.
And lower down:
It clearly results from the evidence that the department having introduced and sponsored Hahn to the war office and the war office having in November 1937 (after a full year of pressure by the department upon it) expressed its readiness to negotiate with the Inglis company for the production of 5,000 guns. . . .
And a little lower:
. . . the department felt it was really not in a position to propose to the war office the consideration of another contractor. Much stress was laid during the evidence and on argument upon what was termed the "pressure" from either the war office upon Canada or from Canada upon the war office, subsequent to the war office cable to Canada of November 9, 1937 (exhibit 182).
Then the commissioner adds:
That pressure from Canada upon the war office during the period was continuous is in my view the proper inference from the facts directly proved in evidence.
Then over on the next page he says:
No substantial objection can be taken in my view to the provisions of the Canadian contract-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Just a moment:
-though in the absence of any competitive bids 6r terms of manufacture I am unable to pass upon the substance as distinct from the form of the contract.
I do not hear any "hear, hears" about that.
It is important, of course, that the contract be a good and businesslike contract; but what is more important after all is whether the procedure adopted in making the contract was that best calculated to protect the public interest and to secure the confidence of the people of Canada that there would he no improper profiteering in the private manufacture of war armaments for the defence of the country.
And the commissioner adds:
That is a question upon which the government and parliament, in the light of the evidence brought before the commission, must pass.
So, sir, here was probably a vast business coming from the United Kingdom in the manufacture of munitions. Confidence is necessary on the part of the United Kingdom in their record, is it likely that there will be confidence in the government or the Canadian people? I doubt it very much. Then on page 42 there is another statement I want to put on the record:
During the last week of August, 1938, an advance copy of Colonel Drew's article that was to appear in Maclean's magazine came to the attention of the deputy minister and
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion

other department officials. As a result of a conference with Major Hahn in Ottawa at that time a letter was taken subsequently from the company (exhibit 43) dated September 3, 1938-
That was before the investigation, remember, -fixing the amount of the maximum overriding profit accruing to the company under the contract; the provision in the contract being thought susceptible of a construction by which the company might get a larger profit.
In other words, without saying so, he suggests loose construction of the contract. I have seen an estimate made in the press, though I do not know whether or not it is accurate, that the new arrangement with Major Hahn saved this country something like $250,000 in possible extra profits that he might have received if that letter had not been signed. So it must be said, whatever else has happened, that Colonel Drew has saved the people of Canada quite a vast amount of money.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It has cost them far more.
Mr. MANION; What has cost who far more?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will develop that later.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman will have plenty of time to explain what he means. Then the commissioner adds:
No lawyer (excepting Colonel Orde who as judge advocate general has multifarious duties and would not claim to be a commercial lawyer) passed upon the intricate terms and conditions of the contract for the department; apparently the Department of Justice was not consulted.
The minister said he never went over the proposals of Major Hahn in detail.
There are two other points and then I will be getting close to my conclusion. One other person who apparently advised the department in connection with this matter was a young gentleman named Lieutenant Jolley, a graduate of McGill. Lieutenant Jolley graduated in 1933, when he was twenty-three years of age, which would make him just over twenty-eight years old to-day and twenty-six years old when these negotiations were started. Here is what the commissioner says about Lieutenant Jolley, at page 35:
As already mentioned, several written proposals to the Department of National Defence were made by Major Hahn, or by the company which he and his group incorporated, during dealings with this government and with the Canadian people. After this, in view of this the year 1937, commencing with proposal "B" submitted December 29, 1936. These were analysed and examined mainly by Lieutenant Jolley, who worked alone on these different proposals down to the first part of December, 193?. It was essentially a matter for practical

business judgment and experience. Lieutenant Jolley was twenty-three years old when he graduated at McGill in 1933.
That made him twenty-six years of age when this matter was being considered; yet he was the special adviser for the department.


Mr. GARDINER:: Pitt was only twenty-four when he was prime minister of England, and he won a war.


Robert James Manion: I do not suppose my hon. friend is claiming that we have another Pitt in Lieutenant Jolley. Perhaps we have; I am not saying anything against this young man, but he had just graduated from college. The hon. gentleman who just interrupted me has had a great deal of experience in handling men. If he were back as premier of Saskatchewan I am sure he would not call on a young man just out of college to give him special advice on a subject which, as the commissioner said, required legal knowledge, business knowledge and mechanical and engineering knowledge as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have often received good advice from young fellows.


Mr. MULOCK:: What experts in the British war office examined the contract?


Robert James Manion: I am not dealing with the British war office; my hon. friend can do that. Then the commissioner goes on:
Lieutenant Jolley impressed me as an earnest and scholarly young man, skilled in his own technical branch. But he was obviously without the business experience and judgment necessary for dealing with a proposed business contract of an intricate nature involving the expenditure of millions of dollars.
This is the commissioner speaking.
At the conclusion of his evidence I said to him:
"Q. . . . there seems to be a good deal of responsibility upon you by way of analysis of all the different proposals which were made in your report. Of course I have not evidence yet as to whether or not your reports were acted upon, but I am asking you if . . . prior to December, 1936, you really had any experience in dealing with contracts of this kind?" To which Lieutenant Jolley very frankly answered: "No, I had not."
That is another illustration, sir. There is another group with which I wish to deal, and then I shall have dealt with most of the evidence upon which I wish to touch.
The interdepartmental committee has been very much in the limelight; the minister quoted it on many occasions. It was made up of men like Doctor Skelton, Loring Christie, Doctor Clark, Colonel Orde, Fraser Elliott, and in this case the deputy minister of national defence, who was chairman. Of this interdepartmental committee I say at once that

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
these are among our very ablest and most outstanding civil servants. But in this case, I repeat, the deputy minister of national defence was chairman. It was the deputy minister who was doing even more pressing in this regard than the minister himself. The deputy minister controlled the actions of this committee, as will be found in the evidence which I intend to quote. Of course it is always subject to the government, but at the same time the deputy minister was chairman and he showed his control. At page 37 the commissioner quotes Mr. Fraser Elliott, who was in the witness box for quite a long time; I do not know how long, but at any rate a day or two. In giving his testimony Mr. Fraser Elliott said that-
. . . after the chairman, the deputy minister, had opened the meeting with a general statement indicating the purposes for which the meeting was called
the committee began to take an active part in the sense of asking questions and getting to grips with the problem. In so doing the committee indicated that competitive bids should be one of the main considerations, and one of the first considerations.
A little further on he speaks of competitive bids again, and then on page 38-
The committee appointed a subcommittee of three, of whom only one was a member ot the original committee, for consideration and study and report.
Further on:
The subcommittee made its report on January 13, 1938 (exhibit 50). The report contained in part the following:
Having in mind the main committee's suggestion that competitive bids be called for, the subcommittee, as an indication only of the names of concerns from whom competitive bids might be asked, mention the Steel Company of Canada, Dominion Bridge, Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited, Bertram Company, National Steel Company, and possibly automobile manufacturers who undoubtedly have suitable plants and precision tools, together with such others as, in the opinion of the main committee, might be asked to tender.
The subcommittee appreciate that time is an essential factor but inasmuch as the duration of the contract is from five to six years, the suggestion of a delay of two to three months to allow intending bidders to gather essential information does not appear to be unwarranted under the circumstances and in view of the amount of money involved in the contract-
It might be interjected here that according to this very contract between the department and Major Hahn no guns need be delivered for three years from the date of the contract; the delivery of some five hundred guns any time within three years would fulfil the terms of the contract. So here was a contract the performance of which did not need to be
started for just under three years. Yet the deputy minister of national defence kept pressing his opposition to anything in the way of competitive bids.
Later in the report the commissioner says that a second meeting of the interdepartmental committee on the proposed contract was held, and the question was asked:
"What was the main subject of discussion at the second meeting, Mr. Elliott?"
Mr. Elliott replied:
"Competitive bids and why the John Inglis Company should get this contract, the financial status of the company and a number of other things. . . .
"The committee wanted to get price comparisons from other competent companies. They felt the lack of them in considering this individual contract. They kept urging for some method of competitive bidding and comparative prices being entered upon."
Over on the next page the deputy minister as chairman of the meeting is referred to. Mr. Elliott continued:
"The chairman indicated that he had an understanding-exactly how it was acquired I do not know-from England that they would not deal with any other firm."
Pressed as to exactly what was said, Mr. Elliott put it this way:
"I said as a statement of fact that the chairman stated to us that he believed, or he was of the opinion, whichever way you wish to put it-he believed that England would not place the contract with any other company in Canada."
The commissioner goes on:
Mr. Elliott said that the suggestion was then made that a cable be sent to England to ascertain definitely England's position in respect of competitive bids.
Mr. Elliott is quoted again:
"The chairman pointed out that to ask such a question at this juncture might endanger the placing of the British order, and endanger thereby the loss which he obviously was anxious to save Canada in the cost of the machinery and equipment.
And over on the next page-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Let the hon. member finish that quotation. The cable was actually sent. Would he mind finishing that paragraph?


Robert James Manion: The committee nevertheless did not take such notice of that opinion as to withdraw their desire to have the cable sent. They were willing to risk the danger. The form of the cable was then drafted.
However, it is not given here. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) tells me that the cable was not sent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was.
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: The commissioner then goes on to say that Mr. Elliott stated:
"An important matter then developed, so far as the committee was determined by the chairman indicating that responsibility for the way in which this particular company had been selected necessarily rested with the Department of National Defence."
Mr. Elliott said that the chairman (the deputy minister of national defence) pointed out that
"his department had followed the practice of the British government where competition is not always obtainable, and they unhesitatingly go into non-competitive contracts in order to secure their requirements. In this particular case the British government had picked the firm to manufacture its guns."
Lower down:
In view of the deputy minister's statement, Mr. Elliott said that the committee "practically reorientated itself in respect of the whole matter.
"We stated in the meeting at that time that if the department took the responsibility, then there could no longer be any objection. That was a fait accompli, and we had to meet it."
On the next page, page 41, Mr. Elliott is reported to have said:
"The committee gave the opinion that it was difficult to conceive that the war office was willing to deal only with one Canadian company, and that company in point of fact, as we stated, recently having gone through receivership."
He goes on:
"The committee pointed out that there had not been received from England a categorical denial that they would not deal with any other company. We therefore suggested a further wire or cable asking them, 'Will you or will you not deal with a selected list of companies?' That was quite a thing to raise, after the several cables that had passed."
He gives the numbers of these cables, and goes on:
Mr. Elliott said that the committee's suggestion of a further wire gave great concern to the chairman.
And Mr. Elliott is quoted as saying:
"He really felt so strongly about it that it amounted to a suggestion that we must not do it. And the committee accepted that. Then again, the committee dealt with the possibility of changing the war office's determination not to deal with other companies. We stated that if it could not be otherwise, then again we would have to agree to giving the contract to the John Inglis Company."


Mr. STEWART:: So the cable was not sent.


Robert James Manion: The commissioner goes
on:
The system broke down when the committee failed to report back to the body that had created it.

That is the story of the interdepartmental committee.
One more quotation from Mr. Justice Davis and I shall have finished. On page 49, in closing his report, he says:
No substantial objection can be taken in my view to the provisions of the Canadian contract. . .
I have read this already, but I will read it again:
. . . though in the absence of any competitive bids or terms of manufacture I am unable to pass upon the substance as distinct from the form of the contract. It is important, of course, that the contract be a good and businesslike contract; but what is more important after all is whether the procedure adopted in making the contract was that best calculated to protect the public interest and to secure the confidence of the people of Canada that there would be no improper profiteering in the private manufacture of war armaments for the defence of the country.
That is a question upon which the government and parliament, in the light of the evidence brought before the commission, must pass.
Mr. Justice Davis repeats again and again that it is up to the government and the parliament of Canada. On page 50 he says:
What is obvious, of course, is this; that if the government has an article to be manufactured for which by its very nature it is not practicable to call for tenders and the policy of private manufacture is to be adopted, then at once the heaviest sort of responsibility falls upon those charged with the duty of selecting the individual, firm or corporation to manufacture the article. The question is: Were proper and sufficient steps taken in this case to discharge that responsibility? Upon the whole evidence, that is a question fcr the government and parliament to pass upon.
As one of the members of this house I would certainly say that "no" is the answer to that question.
The government and parliament have all the facts. I have given from this fifty-two page report what I think are the outstanding facts, and therefore I say, why should a committee be appointed? There has been already great expense. It would mean that the evidence would be repeated, and without any doubt it would end-I say this not disrespectfully-in the old way that all these committees do end, that is in a political whitewash.
What conclusion can we come to after all this evidence? If Mr. Justice Davis wishes to find only as the Prime Minister quoted the other day from page 51, that there was no evidence of corruption, why did he include all these pen pictures of startling incidents shown in the evidence? It does not require much imagination to answer that question. The reason was that he considered the whole

Bren Gun-Mr. Manion
thing was irregular. I have touched on some of these points; but almost every page, nearly every paragraph in the report, criticizes the whole deal. It receives the greatest condemnation, as I have already mentioned, in the suggested appointment of a defence purchasing board, which by the way was recommended as far back as November 1936 by the conference of defence associations of Canada and was recommended in February 1938 by the artillery association; but nothing has been done until now.
My submission is that the whole report is one of political patronage in its worst form, favouritism to one man, Major Hahn; injustice to other industrialists far more capable and fully equipped-which Major Hahn was not; deception of the Prime Minister in the letter from the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton); of the interdepartmental committee by the various statements made to it by officers in authority; of the British government; and of the people of Canada. Has the Prime Minister-I ask this in all sincerity-read the report completely? Frankly it seems to me impossible that he could have read the report and not have condemned the whole deal.
Has he followed public opinion in the press? Take for example the two papers in this city, the Journal and the Citizen; the two newspapers in Winnipeg, the Free Press and the Tribune; the Toronto Telegram, the Financial Post and Saturday Night. These, to name only a few, as well as other papers across the country, have condemned the deal. In the debate on the address, I twitted the Prime Minister upon being too much interested in external affairs to be really interested in or understand internal affairs and the needs of the people, and upon not having been within a thousand miles of his own constituency since the last election. In reply, he said:
The position of the leader of a government in Canada to-day is not unlike that of the captain of a ship when the ship is in a storm. The captain of the ship must not be spending his time wandering among the passengers on the decks; his place is at the helm.
Well, we have 11,000,000 passengers on the ship of state which the right hon. gentleman is controlling at the present time; over 800,000 are on relief and over 450,000 unemployed, and they are not in a very docile mood to put up with such matters as this Bren gun contract. Indeed the right hon. gentleman's metaphor was not a particularly happy one, because in a modern ship the captain does not stay at the helm; he has helmsmen to do that. He goes down among the passengers daily, inspecting the vessel, and what is more, he keeps his eye on the crew-a very important thing to do. I
think it about time that the captain of this ship of state took a look at his crew and at the passengers. Does the Prime Minister endorse these pernicious proceedings? I use the word "pernicious" advisedly because to me that is what they are. Does he endorse the unfair methods by which Major Hahn was selected from among all the business men of this country, a man who, as Mr. Fraser Elliott said, had gone through receivership? A man who at that time was not manufacturing anything, so far as I know? So far as the record shows he had been idle between 1934 and 1938 and had had no experience in manufacturing anything of this kind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who else in Canada had?


Robert James Manion: There were many firms in Canada which had had experience in manufacturing shells and munitions. During the last war a number of large companies were manufacturing shells on a huge scale.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has nothing to do with it.


Robert James Manion: They have precision tools. Mr. Justice Davis himself mentioned a number of companies which were capable of doing it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did not.


Robert James Manion: I read the list a few moments ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will my hon. friend please read the evidence correctly?


Robert James Manion: Does the minister suggest that this Major Hahn, who was not a manufacturer, was the only man in Canada who could do this?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Certainly not.


Robert James Manion: That is all the answer I need. There were any number of companies. I make this statement: There is not a manufacturing company in Canada, not a company manufacturing steel products of any kind- and there are many of them-which was not far more capable than Major Hahn of carrying * out this contract. I ask the Prime Minister: Does he approve-and I know he does not in his heart-of patronage of this sort, particularly patronage in munitions?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is the patronage?


Robert James Manion: Does the minister suggest that he does not know where the patronage is?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I defy my hon. friend to prove it. I defy my hon. friend to prove any patronage.
Bren Gun-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton), who is in his seat now, brings in a friend of his and he gets the Minister of National Defence to help him out-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Your
friend, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), brought in a friend who got the same sort of letter.


Robert James Manion: But he did not get a contract for Bren guns. I say now that there never has been a more shameful piece of patronage. I can understand a certain amount of patronage in other matters, but not in munitions. I do object to one man in all this country being chosen, while other industrial people are ignored, and given a contract totalling several millions of dollars. In the estimates this year there is a total of $63,000,000 for the Department of National Defence. If it is not the biggest, it is at least one of the biggest spending departments in the government this year. I meant to look that up, but I omitted to do so. We hear a lot of criticism of the Hudson Bay Railway which cost only S50,000,000. I say " only " when the fact is that that is a huge sum of money, but compared with this it is a lot less.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Do you object to this?


Robert James Manion: Do I object to what?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: To the vote for defence.


Robert James Manion: I will tell you what I object to: I object to the minister over there having anything to do with it. Since he is fishing for answers, I shall give him some. I was leaving the minister largely alone, and was dealing with the government as a whole. I am ready to answer any question which he chooses to ask. I say this is a shameful contract which the Inglis company, which is Major Hahn, received. The Department of National Defence has no right to spend this $63,000,000. We hear a great deal about the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. The deficit last year was $42,000,000. This vote for national defence is fifty per cent greater than the deficit on our national railways. Is this money to be spent in this manner? What confidence can the people have in this government after these facts have been disclosed? They were not known to the people generally because as soon as the report was issued the Minister of National Defence or some of his friends made it their business to put out a story all across Canada that they were exonerated. I will admit that in so far as any corruption is concerned,

but there was not complete exoneration. There was absolute condemnation of the whole deal by Mr. Justice Davis.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is it?


Robert James Manion: On forty of the fifty-two
pages.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is it?


Robert James Manion: I am not taking any different attitude with regard to munitions from that which I have taken for years. At the League of Nations in 1934 I took the attitude on behalf of the dominion government that there should be nationalization of the manufacture of munitions. I think my right hon. friend has taken the same attitude on some occasions, and the Minister of National Defence has taken it on a number of occasions. A few months ago in London, speaking before the Kiwanis club, and again in Toronto before the Commercial Travellers' Association, I took the same attitude. I took the same attitude and put myself on record in my speech in the house at the opening of the session. I said that huge profits in munitions were repugnant to the people of this country. I said it was like taking blood money, that it was profiteering in patriotism. I went on to say that munitions for Canada should be manufactured without profit, that the manufacture of munitions for Great Britain should be so completely controlled that an absolutely fair deal would be given to the British government. I said that we should have the absolute confidence of the British government and that we must have a new deal in munitions.
This is not ordinary government business. No one can deny that this is a question of life and death, a question of peace and war; it is a question of the life of our boys. It is a question of the safety of this country, and perhaps it is more than that, it is a question of our freedom as a nation. Are we going to carry on as we have? Surely not. The Prime Minister has expressed high ideals on democracy and on social justice, and so do
I.	I say that if we are to preserve democracy, if we are to preserve our social system, these ideals will have to be lived up to better than they have been in the past. And this applies not only to my right hon. friend and his government, but to other governments as well.
The Prime Minister alone can clean this up, and he must clean it up. On this depends the faith of the people of Canada. On this depends national unity and understand-

Bren Gun-Procedure
ing. On this depends confidence in the parliament of Canada, indeed confidence in the whole British parliamentary system. People across the country are asking themselves if democracies are worth while, if they are comparable with dictatorships. We all know that our democracies have very serious defects. As I have said many times, if we do not cure these defects, then to my mind the end of democracy is in sight.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister can clean this up, and he can do it quickly. There is only one way in which he can do it, and that is by cancelling the Bren gun contract. There need be no injustice done to Major Hahn and the John Inglis Company in that action. Out of pocket expenses could be paid. The work that has been done need not be lost because the government can expropriate the plant. To my mind that is the only way in which the confidence of the people of this country in our democratic government can be restored. That being my opinion, I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) that the motion be amended as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line thereof be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
" In view of the evidence produced before the royal commission the opinion of this house is that the agreement made between His Majesty the King, represented by the Hon. the Minister of National Defence, and John Inglis Company, Limited, for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, should be cancelled."


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The
motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is what is called a routine motion. It is a motion to refer a certain matter to a committee of this house. Under the rules of the house this motion is debated on routine proceedings, and not in the ordinary way as are other motions of *which notice is given by an hon. member.
The amendment which is proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) would have the effect of changing the motion before the house into one which could not be debated on routine proceedings. The motion of the hon. leader of the opposition asking that a certain step should be taken by the government is a motion that should be put under notices of motions, like all other resolutions proposed by members of the house, and I submit that it is out of order.
I wish to call the attention of your honour to citation 132, page 41 of Beauchesne, which describes what is a motion allowed on routine proceedings:
The motions allowed on routine proceedings are motions relating to the business of the house and for the discussion of reports from committees.
Obviously the motion before the house, if the amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is accepted, is no longer a motion that comes under routine proceedings. I would also call the attention of your honour to citation 397 of Beauchesne:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
The motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, just like any similar motion proposed by a member of the house, could not be moved without notice, and the fact that he tries to substitute his motion for that of the hon. member for Vancouver North, which could properly and did properly come under the routine proceedings, does not give any validity to the amendment.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has confused two things. He has quoted a rule applicable to motions brought before the house under routine proceedings, and then applied it to a motion which is already properly before the house. The closing words of the right hon. gentleman that the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) was properly before the house marks the point of departure in this matter. To quote again the standing order which the right hon. gentleman cited, and referring to citation 130 we read:
The house may, by unanimous consent or upon motion after forty-eight hours' notice, make such alterations in the order of business as it deems advisable.
No one would contend for one moment that the motion we are discussing, the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North, is not properly before the house with the full consent of parliament, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself emphasized the other day that he was most anxious that the resolution should be considered; so I assume, your honour, that the motion is properly before the house.
The question now arises whether the motion which is offered as an amendment may be properly entertained by your honour. If we turn to standing order 48 and certain citations thereunder it will be found, I think, that this amendment is in order. Standing order 48 reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it.
The motion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is to amend the original motion before the house.
Then citation 394 of Beauchesne states:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain
Bren Gun-Procedure

words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
The amendment follows the usual course followed in this and other parliaments, in that it leaves in the word "that," which has always been considered sufficient to maintain the status of the original motion, and then it proceeds to strike out all the words after "that" and to insert certain other words in place thereof.
Citation 395 of Beauchesne has this to say:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
No one, I think, will argue that this amendment is not relevant. The motion under discussion is to send a certain report to a committee of the house, and the amendment says that in view of all the evidence which has been produced-and this point was emphasized the other day by the Prime Minister-and in view of the consideration given to the evidence in the report of the commissioner, which the original motion suggests should be referred to a committee, it is unnecessary to refer such report to a committee because we have already sufficient evidence before us to warrant parliament in now indicating to the government that the contract be cancelled forthwith. So the amendment is strictly relevant to the question.
Citation 395 of Beauchesne continues:
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
No one will deny that this amendment is both intelligible and consistent-possibly a little too intelligible.
Then citation 400:
An amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the chair.
That, of course, is one of the most commonly accepted rules and is frequently applied. It cannot be argued that the amendment is a negative motion.


Mr. DUNNING:: Positively.


Mr. POWER:: Read it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The motion is for consideration by a committee. The amendment is a direct negative.


Robert James Manion: It is more than a negative.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let us examine that point. The motion is 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, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
That is the motion, and the amendment is that:
In view of the evidence produced before the royal commission the opinion of this house is that the agreement made between His Majesty the King, represented by the honour-, able the Minister of National Defence, and John Inglis Company Limited, for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, should be cancelled.
That is, the amendment invites parliament, instead of dealing with this contract and report by reference to a committee, to deal with the matter here. That is not a negative. It is an amendment offering an alternative method of dealing with the question.


Charles Gavan Power: What words are proposed to be stricken out of the original motion by the amendment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All the words after "that," which is the usual practice quite commonly followed both in this house and elsewhere. In this connection, citation 406 of Beauchesne reads:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
That covers exactly the point made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the hon. gentleman who interrupted me a moment ago. It is within the rules of parliament to propose an amendment as an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. I submit, therefore, that the amendment must be considered as in order.


Mr. ROBICHAUD:: The hon. member for
Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has cited standing order 48. It is unfortunate that he did not consult standing order 50, which reads:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution, or any question to the committee of the whole, or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
That is clear enough.


Walter Edward Foster: This is a question of considerable importance and I shall have to defer my decision.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend's point is still stronger than mine.


Walter Edward Foster: I shall defer decision for
the time being.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct
attention to citation 400, which the hon. mem-

Bren Gun-Mr. Woodsworth
ber for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has indicated:
An amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the chair.
My hon. friend asked the house to notice particularly that citation. The motion before us is to refer a particular agreement to the public accounts committee. The amendment is to annihilate the agreement altogether. Surely that makes the amendment an expanded negative.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Citation 406 offers a new
alternative.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to join with
the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in protesting against what seemed to me to be an effort on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to curtail discussion. He quoted a rule which applied to a special committee and then said that in this instance the public accounts committee was in very much the same position as a special committee. If his reasoning applied, no hon. member who might express views in this house which prejudged a situation would be entitled to sit on that committee. If that rule of the Prime Minister were made general it would be quite impossible to carry on the business of almost any committee of this house. For example, there is no subject on which feeling runs higher than that with regard to privileges and elections. How could it be possible for the committee on privileges and elections to discuss matters in which a large number of members who were vitally interested had already expressed themselves? Take the committee on railways. In the past there has been a good deal of discussion with regard to branch lines and so on. Does the Prime Minister suggest that anyone particularly interested in the question would be debarred from taking part in the work of the railway committee? Almost everyone has some definite ideas with regard to railway amalgamation or even railway cooperation. Does that mean that no one with definite ideas should sit on the railway committee? And what about the committee on banking and commerce? I am quite sure that the whole Social Credit party would be absolutely debarred because they have definite ideas, as indeed many of us have. Unfortunately, perhaps most of the members of the house have definite ideas along orthodox lines especially when it comes to finance. Are they to be debarred from sitting on the banking and commerce committee on any special question that may come up there?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is misconstruing ivhat I said. He is speaking about the general powers of committees. My point was with respect to a specific matter, where anyone had committed himself in respect to a specific matter, and the question of his serving on a committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point is that a great many specific matters come before the committees which I have just enumerated. If the general rule which the Prime Minister is seeking to lay down were adopted it would mean that the house could not carry on its ordinary committee work. The Prime Minister seeks to lead us to believe that the work of this committee will be judicial. I question that very much. The work of the committee, if this motion is carried, is to find out whether public money is being wisely expended, and if somebody's toes are stepped on in the course of finding that out, all the worse for that person. The committee is not in any sense a judicial committee.
I did not think the Prime Minister was well advised in what he stated with regard to the member of the supreme court who was appointed as commissioner. He urged that this judge would be completely disinterested because he had not been appointed under the Liberal administration but had been appointed by a Conservative government. It seems to me there is an inference there that the people generally would not have had the same confidence if the judge who was selected had been appointed by a Liberal administration, and I respectfully suggest that after that statement the Prime Minister will have to be careful in his future selections to see that any judge who is chosen for any such position is one who has not been appointed under a Liberal administration. Otherwise, the public will draw their own conclusions.
I am in favour of the reference of this whole matter to a committee, because so far it has been quite impossible for the house to secure full and accurate information. In view of the large sums involved in the contract, my point may seem to be unimportant; but I think, in harmony with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said, it is essential to maintain confidence in the parliamentary system.
The situation which I wish to emphasize is very important, because it involves the rights and privileges of the house. I refer to the minister's answers to my questions last year. My colleague a few days ago, on the orders of the day, asked a question in order that there might be no misunderstanding as to the accuracy of the record. The minister gave no
Bren Gun-Mr. Woodsworth

satisfactory information; he simply reasserted that the statements were "honestly, honourably and truthfully made."
I submit that such vehement protestations do not inspire confidence but rather tend to create the suspicion, "methinks the lady doth protest too much." I cannot know what is in the minister's mind; I cannot say that I am very much interested in that. It may be that the minister is ignorant in this matter; it may be that he has been misinformed; but the fact is that the house is entitled to certain information and the house has not received that information. Indeed, it received what I regard as misleading information. The minister's original statement, with regard to the Bren gun, as found in Hansard of 1938 at pages 2912 and 2913 is very sketchy indeed. He asserts:
The Canadian government has let a contract for 7,000 Bren guns to a firm in Toronto, the John Inglis Company Limited, I believe it is.
That is very offhand. One might judge that the minister knew the situation in only the most casual way.
Then came rumours that there was something very strange about the Bren gun contracts. And I asked these questions, answered in the house on June 22:
1.	Was Major James Hahn appointed by the Canadian government to go to England in 1937 and 1938 to make a survey of munitions production for the purpose of advising the Canadian government?
2.	If so, were his expenses paid by the Canadian government?
3.	What were the terms of Major Hahn's employment ?
4.	At what date did Major Hahn cease to be employed by the Canadian government to advise on munitions and begin negotiating for production by him of Bren machine guns?
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):
1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by 1.
It seems to me that the minister hides behind technicalities. Apparently I should have included in my question the year 1936. In his evidence as reported at page 2356 the minister said:
The question refers only to 1937 and 1938 and in my judgment the question is absolutely properly replied to or answered.
Well, if that is the kind of answer we are to be given, in the future we shall always have to put in a great many dates or general statements, such as " in the year 1936, 1937, 1938 or 1939 or any other year." I suppose that is the only way to get a definite and reliable answer from the minister. Major Hahn was apparently a promoter, then a representative of the government in one particular, and again a probable contractor.

This house has a right to know about such an arrangement. That was the reason for my questions.
Let us look at this question of dates. On October 19, 1936, there was a letter of introduction from the minister to the high commissioner in London. On November 10, 1936, there was a cable from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the high commissioner asking the latter to arrange with the war office to supply information regarding the Bren gun to Hahn, " as representing the Canadian government in this particular." On December 5,
1936,	Hahn wrote a letter to the minister enclosing a voluminous report of his investigations. On December 7, Hahn was in conference with officers of the Department of National Defence. On December 29, 1936, Hahn submitted a written proposal. In May,
1937,	during the imperial conference the minister was informed by the deputy that Hahn was making progress with the war office. He therefore became, in the words of the minister, at least so far as they were concerned " a probable contractor." That was in May, 1937, according to the minister himself. Up to that time presumably Hahn was a representative of the Canadian government. And the minister goes on to say:
I asked the deputy minister myself immediately to obtain for me some details of his company and of his financial standing.
Incidentally may I note that it was not until May, 1937, when Hahn became "a probable contractor" that the minister sought to find out anything about the details of his company or his financial standing. But I go on with these dates: In June, 1937, Hahn and the deputy minister were in England together. They saw the officials of the war office together. Remember that the minister had stated it as his opinion that Hahn had ceased to be a representative of the government and became a prospective contractor on December 5. That is the date of the report to the department of his investigations in England. He adds, however-I quote the minister himself->
On December 5, I take it in my judgment. It is a matter of opinion and argument.
Despite the admission of the minister that the point is one to be argued, a matter of opinion, he comes out in this house with his categorical "No" with regard to the whole series of questions. The second question I asked was:
2. If so, were his expenses paid by the Canadian government?
The answer is:
Answered by 1.

Bren Gun-Mr. Woodsworth
Let me point out that in 1937 Hahn put in a bill for legal fees amounting to something like $6,500; yet according to the minister he was no longer a representative of the government but only a probable contractor. Also he put in a bill for $7,191.31 for travelling expenses to England in the middle of 1937.
I would ask the minister whether Mr. Hahn was then a representative or a potential contractor. My question covered that period. Curiously enough, on this particular trip Hahn was said to be on private business. During the discussions regarding his contract Major Hahn was in Ottawa from March 14 to 18, 1938, and later submitted his bill for $326.80. It is true there is no evidence that I can find as to whether or not these bills were paid, but that does not alter my argument.
There is still another item that is of general interest to the public of this country with regard to moneys to be paid by the government to the company. Turning to the agreement we find at page 5 that:
A sum not exceeding $20,000 in respect of actual cost of preliminary investigation, planning and engineering services carried out by the party of the second part prior to the execution of the agreement as evidenced by vouchers-
Let me emphasize that. This large amount of $20,000 was to be granted for services rendered prior to the execution of the agreement. Yet the whole transaction was brushed aside by the minister in his answers to my questions by that one word "No".
My question No. 3 related to the terms of Major Hahn's employment, and I submit that this was not covered by the answer to question No. 1; it was a wide-open question, a very important one. But all the minister does is to say "No." Yet a few minutes later on that self-same day the minister said emphatically with regard to this same Bren gun matter that there was not the slightest intention to misrepresent the situation. I read the minister's own words as reported at page 4120 of Hansard of 1938:
I want to assure my hon. friend that there was not the slightest intention to misrepresent the situation.
Again a little later:
There was not the slightest intention to suppress nor was there a suppression of any information, in the slightest degree.
The minister, I may say, succeeded admirably in doing what he says he had not the slightest intention of doing; he succeeded in misrepresenting the situation to this house and in suppressing information that was highly necessary if we were to make an intelligent decision on the question at issue.
This brings me to another point. During the discussion of the defence estimates Mr. Bennett had asked whether the order from the British war office had not been secured through the good offices of the Department of National Defence. The minister replied, as reported at page 3555 of Hansard of 1938:
No; as a matter of fact I think negotiations were carried on entirely by the company's representative in England for the last two years, since 1936.
A week later I followed this up by a question with regard to United Kingdom munitions, and was told that the Department of National Defence played no part, directly or indirectly, in those negotiations. Let me read the Hansard report in order that we may be quite sure:
I have seen the article referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and I wish to assure him at once that the Department of National Defence has played no part either directly or indirectly in these negotiations. With reference to any orders to be placed in Canada, we have no more information than is in possession of the hon. member who asked the question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is right; "to be placed."


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister concluded :
I think that that is as definite as I can make the statement.
And the minister still maintains that position.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is true, as the minister says, that the contracts were signed separately. It may be true, as he asserts, that he has no knowledge of the signing of the contracts. In that regard he may be correct, but I ask the minister, whether as he affirmed the other day, he had been answering the questions " honestly, honourably and truthfully." I am afraid that the house will be inclined to ask how honestly, how honourably and how truthfully. The house itself, and the public, must be the judge of that. Consider his own statements. Let me read from Hansard for 1938 at page 4120. I questioned him:
I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, as it is asked both in the despatch and in a long editorial in the Free Press of last Monday, how he reconciles this state of affairs with his statement across the floor of the house to me the other day when he said:
"With reference to any orders to be placed in Canada, we have no more information than is in possession of the hon. member who asked the question."
Apparently there has been a joint arrangement between the British authorities and the Canadian authorities, together with a loan
Bren Gun-Mr. Woodsworth

of certain machinery from Quebec. If that statement is correct, how does the minister reconcile this seemingly very careful arrangement, and the signing of the contract, with his statement to me that he knows nothing more about the matter than I do?
The minister replied:
If my hon. friend will look over the discussions which took place in committee of supply when my own estimates were under consideration, he will find that in response to the question of some hon. gentleman opposite, details were very carefully stated at that time. There was no cooperative contract-
I call the attention of the house to this:
There was no cooperative contract; the contract with the war office was signed by the Toronto firm entirely separately from the contract with the Canadian government; but, as the result of the two complementary contracts being signed, there will be a saving to this government of over one and a quarter million dollars.
Later on he did seem to give some indication that there had been negotiations, for he said:
I say now in regard to these contracts that there has never been a cooperative effort between the British war office and the government of Canada except in regard to the Bren gun-
That was the very item and the only item under discussion. That is a most peculiar statement, which really I fail to understand. As I said a moment ago, it may be true that the contracts were signed separately, but there is very full evidence on the record showing joint consultation, cooperation and pressure prior to the contract. Take the report of the commissioner, from which I read this extract from the evidence:
Under such an arrangement guns sold to the Canadian government would carry their proper pro rata preparation cost. There are other obvious details which can be dealt with once the general basis has been found acceptable.
That is on page 26. Then on page 27:
-for cooperating in the form of "educational orders."
Then Mr. Geoffrion said this:
These two contracts are so fearfully interwoven that you cannot touch one without touching the other.
That is on page 32. Again on page 43 there is another interesting extract:
Then on March 28 or 29 Colonel Orde went to Toronto to represent the department in settling the terms of the British contract so as to make it uniform, so far as possible, with the Canadian contract.
All I can say is that if the minister does not know about the contract he should have known something about it. I want to read that passage once again:
Then on March 28 or 29 Colonel Orde went to Toronto to represent the department in

settling the terms of the British contract so as to make it uniform, so far as possible, with the Canadian contract.
Yet the minister dares to assert even today, as I understood his interruptions, that he knew nothing about it, that he had no more information than I had. The deputy minister, in his letter to the high commissioner's office on May 20 said in part:
For the reasons which I have outlined, the department ventures to suggest that it would be preferable to have the war office contract conform in detail with the one which the department has executed, but of course this is a matter for the war office to determine, and it is understood that the contractor will accept any changes by way of clarification which are desired.
That is on page 44.
That the Canadian department pressed the war office in the matter up to at least November of 1937 is frankly admitted. The minister himself stated the situation generally in giving his evidence, in these words:

it was a sustained endeavour to press the British authorities for a decision as to whether they would produce in Canada or not. That is the tenor of all the correspondence for nine or ten months in 1937-a sustained endeavour to obtain a decision from the war office as to whether or not they would place an order for Bren guns in the Dominion of Canada. That was carried on until November of 1937, I think.
Then the commissioner states:
That pressure from Canada upon the war office during the period was continuous is in my view the proper inference from the facts directly proved in evidence.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I confess myself to be utterly nonplussed. Whatever his motives may have been or whatever his capability may be, the minister did not give the house satisfactory information and, further, information to which the house was clearly entitled. All I can say is that the situation is a serious one. If the house loses confidence in the statements of the minister in the Bren gun affair, how can we have confidence in his statements when his estimates again come up for discussion in this house? It is especially serious when the minister is so largely responsible for the greatly increased estimates for national defence which are being presented to the house this year. I would urge that it is not merely the minister who is concerned in this matter; if the government maintains present arrangements, it must accept a very, very serious responsibility.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, as you are reserving decision on the validity of the amendment which has been moved by my leader, (Mr. Manion) I shall not deal with that as I had intended to, but will refer to the motion itself, the motion of

Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling
the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), that the contract and the commissioner's report should be referred to the committee on public accounts.
On the last occasion that this matter was before this house, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read from the report the reasons why the government had created a royal commission, and he read also the terms of reference which had been given to that commission-terms of reference so wide, I think, as to satisfy the general public of Canada that the investigation which was about to take place would be wide and general and that the report which would follow it would give the views and the opinion of the commissioner on the facts collected.
The Prime Minister went further than that, and explained his reasons for selecting the commissioner. He read a copy of the letter in which he expressed his appreciation that the particular commissioner had accepted the task, and he also read a statement which had appeared in the press at the time of the institution of the commission in which the view was expressed that the government would be ready to enlarge the scope of the inquiry if in the opinion of the commissioner that was necessary.
After thirty-five meetings of the commission, when all the evidence which appeared to be forthcoming had been laid before the commission, counsel one after another, began to make representations to the commissioner giving him advice as to what his report must not contain. My leader has referred to them, but I wish to emphasize one or two points which they raised.
First, counsel representing the John Inglis Company drew attention to the fact that the commissioner must suppress the word "misconduct"; he must go even further than that; he must see to it that he did not imply misconduct so far as that counsel's clients were concerned. He said-I am referring to page 32 of the report:
You are limited in your power to find facts, but your inability to find facts against us.
Then he made the reference to the fact that the British contract was outside the commissioner's jurisdiction.
Counsel who was affiliated with him in the representation of the John Inglis Company supported the views of the first counsel and also emphasized the fact that nothing outside the collection of facts should be contained in the commissioner's report.
Then, counsel for Plaxton and Company and the stockbrokers of Toronto, goes so far as to say that the commissioner would be forbidden to make a report against this counsel's clients. While this counsel had begun to address the commissioner, the commissioner asked the counsel for the government if he would be prepared to express an opinion with regard to limitations which might be put upon his, the commissioner's, words and the following day that counsel did express his opinion. It will be found at the top of page 34, and it is very much to the same effect as that of the other counsel. It is not very clear to follow, but he does make the point:
While government counsel said that there was no desire on their part "to whittle down your jurisdiction; nor is there any power or authority to extend it.
I suggest that with these views coming at the end of thirty-five days of inquiry, it was scarcely likely that the commissioner, at that late date, would turn to the government for an extension of powers to enable him to give the type of report that I for one, as a member of the general public of Canada, would have expected that commissioner to give. The commissioner does restrict himself; he restricts himself to the extent of saying this:
Having fully weighed the objection advanced on this ground

That is the charges of misconduct.
-as well as the weighty consideration brought to my attention by counsel that the rights of the individuals interested in the contract might become the subject of legal controversy elsewhere, I have come to the conclusion that it is inexpedient to comment upon the evidence in respect of its bearing on the conduct of the individuals concerned.
The facts are all in evidence; and as said by government counsel in opening their argument
So far as the facts are concerned, there are very few which are even in dispute.
I cannot recall myself at the moment any fact to which direct proof was adduced that is in dispute. It will be for those charged with the responsibility of dealing with the facts, i.e., the government and parliament, to examine and study them and to take such action, if any, thereon as they may see fit.
I turn to page 50 and quote again the words of the commissioner:
What is obvious, of course, is this: that if the government has an article to be manufactured for which by its very nature it is not practicable to call for tenders and the policy of private manufacturer is to be adopted, then at once the heaviest sort of responsibility falls upon those charged with the duty of selecting the individual, firm or corporation to manufacture the article. The question is: Were proper and sufficient steps taken in this case to discharge that responsibility? Upon the whole evidence, that is a question for the government and parliament to pass upon.
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
Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling

public accounts committee. Rarely if ever in my fourteen years in this house has the public accounts committee met; 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-


An hon. MEMBER:: On every committee.


Grote Stirling: -and the object of the government supporters on that committee would be to ensure as far as they could, by such means as were at their disposal, that criticism of the government of the day should not be contained in the report of that committee. The public accounts committee as set up is composed of thirty-six Liberals, eight Conservatives, the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and two of his associates, and three members of the social credit group. I cannot bring myself to believe that any further light will be allowed to be shed on this matter by government supporters if it is sunk in the public accounts committee. If the commissioner had had suggested to him by government counsel that he should not report thus, and he had to content himself with collecting facts and emphasizing them as he did most notably, I do not consider that there will be any probability that we shall be allowed to be told in the public accounts committee some of the things which will have to be told before the public of Canada can really understand this matter.
Every time I read or think of this matter I ask myself: Why was Major Hahn selected? How did he become the favourite of the government? When the minister's estimates were before the house last session, reference was made by myself to an investigation which was being carried on as to the potentialities of Canadian industry as far as the manufacture of munitions, guns and other armaments was concerned. At that time I asked him if the Bren gun contract was a case in point. I asked if the Bren gun contract was one of the pieces of work undertaken as a result of the findings of the committee of inquiry into industrial possibilities, and the minister answered that it was.
Shortly after the minister took charge of the department he started this inquiry. I do not know the number of firms which had been investigated at the time Major Hahn was introduced to him, but by the time the contract was signed between seven and eight hundred firms had been investigated as to their potentialities. I am of opinion that at the time the introduction took place the minister

must have been in possession of facts which would have led him to believe that Major Hahn was far from being the only possible contractor for this purpose. But he was selected and he proceeded to England. Accompanying him was a letter of introduction which the minister had written and which he tells us was written on behalf of a man whom he did not know. It was a letter of introduction which was to take Major Hahn as far as the high commissioner's office in London. About the same time as that interview the deputy minister of national defence wrote a letter to which reference has been made already. This letter, to be found on page 20 of the report, was addressed to the undersecretary of state for external affairs. Its object was to enable the under-secretary of state for external affairs to prepare the high commissioner for the coming of Major Hahn so that the doors of the war office might be opened to him. The question of the inaccuracy and misleading nature of that letter has been drawn already to the attention of hon. members and I shall not stress this any further.
It should be remembered that at this time the deputy minister of national defence, upon whom the minister so properly relied and for whose work the minister properly takes full responsibility, was able to associate himself in this ordnance matter with the master general of the ordnance. The master general of the ordnance had been retired in 1934, I think it was, and given the customary twelve months' leave of absence. The Liberal victory occurred in 1935, and just before his year of leave had expired the position of master general of ordnance which had been abolished was recreated and this general officer was made master general of the ordnance. The deputy minister could scarcely be expected to carry all the details of Bren gun supplies in his head, but we must assume that the master general of the ordnance was in a position to keep the deputy minister straight on the matter. It is most unfortunate that the master general of the ordnance was not able to appear before the commissioner to give evidence of a technical nature which in the ordinary state of affairs he would certainly have done. Unfortunately his condition of health prevented his appearance. I draw no inference nor do I make any suggestion; I simply say it was most unfortunate under the circumstances that the evidence of the master general of the ordnance in connection with gun making was not available to the commissioner.
When Major Hahn reached London he found that the doors of the war office were not open and that he was unable to make the contracts he desired with the senior officers in

Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling
London having to do with matters of defence. The high commissioner did not see fit to give him an entree. Becoming disappointed with the delay, he telephoned long distance to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). The Minister of National Defence did not seem particularly ready to help him. So the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) sent two cables which are mentioned in the report. Immediately the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is the Prime Minister, sent a cable which has been referred to already and which indicated that he had taken Major Hahn under his wing to the extent of representing that he was Canada's representative in this particular Bren gun matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just . direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that the cable to which he refers as having been sent by myself was sent in reply to a cable to me from the high commissioner? It was not sent as a result of a cable from anyone else. The high commissioner cabled to me and there was a reply within twenty-four hours as he would expect.


Grote Stirling: If I may turn to that page of the report for a moment.


Robert James Manion: That does not change the question at all.


Grote Stirling: I have said that immediately after the two cables from the hon. member for Trinity were sent, the Secretary of State for External Affairs sent the cable referred to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has before him the report of the commissioner and he will see that the cable which the Secretary of State for External Affairs sent was sent on November 10. It was sent in reply to a cable which had been received from the high commissioner on November 9, the day before. So far as cables from any other source were concerned, they had nothing whatever to do with my reply. I had no knowledge of them and could not have.


Robert James Manion: Except that the right hon. gentleman by his cable made Major Hahn the representative of the Canadian government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Grote Stirling: I do not follow the Prime Minister's interjection. My statement is tine in fact. The hon. member for Trinity telegraphs the Minister of National Defence and his deputy minister on November 9, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs cables the high commissioner on November 10.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Connected in point of date.


Grote Stirling: I never said there was any connection between the two but in point of date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But-


Grote Stirling: Allow me to make this speech. I make the statement that immediately after these two cables came the cable from the Prime Minister to which I am referring.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon. friend will not say that the cable to which I replied was a cable from the high commissioner. My cable was to the high commissioner, and had nothing to do with any other cable.


Grote Stirling: I have not been suggesting that it was to the high commissioner, the hon. member for Trinity or anyone else. I merely drew attention to the fact that immediately afterwards, in point of chronology, the Prime Minister's cable went to London. The Prime Minister took this selected, favourite contractor under his wing as Canada's representative for the Bren gun.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend is not accurate when he says "as Canada's representative for the Bren gun," because the cable read:
You might request war office to give Major Hahn, as representing Canadian government in this particular

Just one particular question.


Grote Stirling: And that was the Bren gun.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It continues:
*-any information which they consider desirable and necessary to enable national defence to reach conclusion on possibility produce Bren gun in Canada.
Not to give Major Hahn any contract.


Robert James Manion: What was the object of the introduction?


Grote Stirling: Mr.Speaker, am I making this speech or am I not? The Prime Minister has introduced this interruption four times now, and everything I have said so far has been absolutely accurate.


Mr. EULER:: With a wrong inference to be drawn.


Grote Stirling: Then I am very sorry for my hon. friend's mind. I am not suggesting any inference whatever in the matter. Canada's representative "in this particular" is referred to in this cable; "in this particular" refers to matters connected with the Bren gun, and Major Hahn had gone to London, as shown by the letter from the deputy minister of national defence to the high com-
Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling

missioner for	the	purpose	of going	into
matters connected with the Bren gun, to ascertain the possibility, speed, and so on, with which they could be made in Canada. There has been no inaccuracy in my statement.
We reach then the position that the Prime Minister has taken up in that cable, and I find it extremely	difficult	to equate	thePrime Minister's position in this matter with the position that I have understood him previously to	take	in this	matter of	contracts, profits	to be made	from contracts,
and particularly profits to be made from munitions contracts, because in his statement to the house in April, 1937, which was the first session of parliament after these events began to occur, he told the house:
.	.	. the government is proceeding on the
theory of permitting competition with reasonable remuneration, the work to be subject to inspection and audit.
By taking Major Hahn under his wing, the contractor that the minister had selected and had made favourite in this matter, the Prime Minister is shutting the door on competition. I find it very difficult to make these varying views of the government fit.


Robert James Manion: They do not fit.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Grote Stirling: Just before six o'clock the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was interjecting into my remarks his views with regard to the cable sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the high commissioner on November 10, and I think I understand now what the right hon. gentleman was referring to. He took it that I was connecting that cable with the one sent by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton). That was not at all my intention. I was dealing merely with the matter chronologically. Whereas these cables were of November 9, this was the tenth; and the Prime Minister is quite right in pointing out that his cable of November 10, sent from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was in reply to the cable of November 9, which he had received from the high commissioner.
Let us see how the Prime Minister's cable answered that of the high commissioner. The high commissioner, after referring to a wireless message from the Department of National Defence with regard to the possibility of producing the Bren gun in Canada, cabled the Secretary of State for External Affairs in order to obtain information:
	-
In order to obtain information desired war office must be requested to give Major Hahn, as representative of the Canadian government, access to information of a secret nature, which normally is not given to other than government officials.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister, replying to this cable of November 9, acknowledges receipt of it; says that he had discussed the matter with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and continues:
You might request war office to give Major Hahn, as representing the Canadian government in this particular-
And so on. I do not know in what way that will assist the Prime Minister in the position which he occupies, but it is quite correct that the one cable was in reply to the other.
I want to turn once more to the position occupied by the minister with regard to his choice of Major Hahn; for the first mysterious part of this whole mysterious question is: How and why was Major Hahn selected? I drew attention this afternoon to the fact that the minister, in the house in the session of last year, had replied to me that the Bren gun contract was one of the results of the work of investigation of the committee of inquiry into industrial possibilities, which certainly led me to suppose that as a result of the committee's inquiries Major Hahn had been discovered. I am afraid that after reading the contents of this report I cannot any longer hold that view.
I want now to draw attention to the position taken by the interdepartmental committee. The Prime Minister, just about the time he sent that cable to the high commissioner requesting that Major Hahn be selected as Canadian representative "in this particular", came to the conclusion that it was desirable to have a special committee set up which should inquire into the existing procedure for letting armament contracts. That was an important committee, the chairman of which was Doctor Skelton, and there were various most responsible members of the civil service thereon. It reported in a very few days that "the problem appears to be essentially an administrative one," and that seems to dismiss the special committee. In consequence of that report, what is known as the interdepartmental committee was created by the government by order in council on a certain date mentioned, and the Minister of National Defence was its chairman.
It is interesting to note that this interdepartmental committee did not hold its first sitting until just one year after the Prime Minister had made up his mind that a special committee was necessary, and at that first

Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling
sitting, to quote from the report in which the commissioner refers to the evidence of Mr. Elliott, the latter said:
The committee began to take an active part in the sense of asking questions, and getting to grips with the problem. In so doing the committee indicated that competitive bids should be one of the main considerations, and one of the first considerations. We pointed out that there was a number of very substantial subsisting companies in Canada that were manufacturing precision tools, and had had experience in what we thought was this line of work. We felt that they should be consulted and given an opportunity to submit competitive tenders. . . . The committee also thought there would be considerable time required for further consideration of the contract.
Mr. Elliott went on:
It early became clear to all members of the committee that there were two phases under consideration. One phase was that there might be competitive bidding . . . The second phase was the study of the terms of the contract in itself.
The committee therefore appointed a subcommittee of three, of whom only one was a member of the original committee, for consideration and study and report. Mr. Elliott said:
We recognized that we did not have the time to go into the necessary details to bring out the information in the form that we should have it. Therefore we simply asked this subcommittee to act as a sort of specific informer in connection with the terms of this contract and such other thoughts as might come about in the analysis of the contract for our guidance in considering this matter as a committee.
The subcommittee made its report a few days later, and that report contained in part the following:
Having in mind the main committee's suggestion that competitive bids be called for, the subcommittee, as an indication only of the names of concerns from whom competitive bids might be asked, mentioned-
The Steel Company of Canada
Dominion Bridge
Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Limited
Bertram Company
National Steel Company and possibly automobile manufacturers who undoubtedly have suitable plants and precision tools, together with such others as, in the opinion of the main committee, might be asked to tender.
And then the subcommittee proceeds to deal with the details of the contract.
The second meeting of the interdepartmental committee was held on January 24, 1938, and Mr. Elliott was asked:
Q. What was the main subject of discussion at the second meeting, Mr. Elliott?
A. Competitive bids and why the John Inglis Company should get this contract, the financial status of the company and a number of other things.
The committee wanted to get price comparisons from other competent companies. They felt the lack of them in considering this individual contract. They kept urging for some method of competitive bidding and comparative prices being entered upon.
Again I remind hon. members that the minister's investigating committee of inquiry had by that time unearthed a considerable number of firms in Canada capable of taking on this very work. But Major Hahn was the selection.
The deputy minister, as chairman of the meeting said he felt
that while competitive bids are always desirable, in this case there was a record of a substantial saving, a potential saving to the ' government, and that, together with the pressure from the war office for action, to get on with the job, we should enter into consideration of the terms of this contract with the Inglis Company.
And then Mr. Elliott refers to the fact that .because of his official connection with income tax affairs he was aware of certain difficulties which the old John Inglis Company had met with. Mr. Elliott continued:
The chairman indicated that he had an understanding-exactly how it was acquired I do not know-from England that they would not deal with any other firm.
Pressed as to exactly what was said, Mr. Elliott put it this way:
" I said as a statement of fact that the chairman stated to us that he believed, or he was of the opinion, whichever you wish to put it-he believed that England would not place the contract with any other company in Canada.
Mr. Elliott said that the suggestion was then made that a cable be sent to England to ascertain definitely England's position in respect of competitive bids.
The chairman pointed out that to ask such a question at this juncture might endanger the placing of the British order, and endanger thereby the loss which he obviously was anxious to save Canada in the cost of the machinery and equipment. . . The form of the cable was then drafted."
And we know the cable was amended with the subsequent approval of the committee, and was sent.
Then the deputy minister happened to meet Major Hahn in Ottawa. He had not been called before the committee, but at Major Hahn's suggestion the committee had been continued. Major Hahn unexpectedly goes to England, and is back on February 18, before the third meeting of the committee. That was February 25. Mr. Elliott said:
The committee then swung into the repetition of this statement, namely the fact that competitive tendering had not been entered into by three or four companies capable of manufacturing guns and that that was one of the main objections still tentatively retained by members of the committee.
An important matter then developed, so far as the committee was determined by the chairman indicating that responsibility for the way in
Bren Gun-Mr. Stirling

which this particular company had been selected necessarily rested with the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Elliott said that the chairman-the Deputy Minister of National Defence-pointed out that-*
his department had followed the practice of the British government where competition is not always obtainable, and they unhesitatingly go into non-competitive contracts in order to secure their requirements. In this particular case the British government had picked the firm to manufacture its guns.
By the Commissioner:
Q. Just a minute; the British government had done what?
A. Picked the firm.
Q. In this ease?
A. Yes.
Q. In this case the British government had done that?
A. Yes, that in this case the British government had picked the firm to manufacture guns, and that they had made the best possible deal with that particular firm.
Then Mr. Elliott described how that completely reorientated them in respect to the whole matter. The interdepartmental committee assumed that the Department of National Defence took at least that onus off its shoulders. I would remind hon. members that the minister in his evidence said that he made himself responsible for all the doings of his officials; that he accepted the reliable supervision of men in whom he had absolute confidence, and that he was leaning on the recollection that he knew that in the end the whole situation was to be thoroughly reviewed by the subcommittee of the interdepartmental committee. Yet the work of the interdepartmental committee at meeting after meeting was to the effect that they were not satisfied, and were not going to let the matter go because they were not satisfied. Once again the committee .wanted to cable to London; they wished the cable definitely to ask the war office, "Do you adhere to the view that you must deal with that selected contractor or not?" That cable was never sent.
The motion is to refer this matter to the committee on public accounts. I have already indicated that I would have absolutely no faith in that treatment of this matter. I wonder whether in this regard members of the government recollect, as I certainly believe they must, that the Prime Minister and his 179 followers in this house occupy those seats under the sufferance of 46 per cent of the electors who voted Liberal in 1935, and that 54 per cent of those who voted in 1935 voted against Liberal candidates.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to be able to speak on the amendment to the motion which was  moved by my honoured leader (Mr. Manion). But as you, sir, have reserved your opinion on this matter, I am forced to speak to the motion itself, which is to refer the matter of the Bren gun contract to a standing committee of this house. I am sure that all hon. members have noted the almost acrobatic willingness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) to have the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil) carried, and thus to have another extensive and expensive investigation conducted, which in the opinion of many of us would be a great redundance. Last autumn there was a most thorough investigation by a royal commission presided over by no less a gentleman than a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. The inquiry was characterized by the virtue of completeness, and that virtue is best expressed in the words of Mr. Justice Davis himself at the conclusion of the report, when he says: -
All the sittings of the commission were public and your commissioner was pleased to hear counsel characterize the inquiry, at its close, as "a most searching and thorough inquiry."
Mr. Justice Davis states at the commencement of his report on page 4:
Your commissioner has had the assistance of the Honourable J. L. Ralston, K.C., Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C., and Mr. Jacques Dumoulin, K.C., appointed by the government of Canada as government counsel and to assist the commission; Mr. Aime Geoffrion, K.C., and Mr. J.	C. McRuer, K.C., who appeared for John Inglis Company, Limited; Mr. I. F. Hellmuth,
K.	C., who appeared with Colonel Drew, representing both Colonel Drew and the Maclean Publishing Company Limited which published the article in Maclean's Magazine which gave rise to this inquiry; and Mr. II. F. Parkinson, K.C., who appeared for the legal firm of Messrs. Plaxton & Company and for Messrs. Cameron, Pointon & Merritt.
The commission opened on September 19, 1938. and concluded on Thursday, November 24, 1938. The taking of testimony and the argument of counsel occupied thirty-six days.
Then later:
Your commissioner is satisfied that all available documents in any way relevant and material to the subject matter of the inquiry were presented to the commission.
The evidence taken before your commissioner extended to 4,122 pages of stenographic notes besides the documentary evidence, which was filed in 388 exhibits, and the argument of counsel was extended in the stenographic notes from page 4123 to page 4711 inclusive, all of which is returned herewith.
It is obvious that in the opinion of the learned justice the whole matter of the Bren gun contract has already been thoroughly threshed out; that the evidence compiled, as well as the report of the royal commission itself, are available to this parliament, and

Bren Gun-Mr. Massey
that any further investigation is merely unnecessary repetition at the public expense. I absolutely agree with the commissioner that there is no need whatsoever for this matter to be referred to a committee of this house, standing or special; that the evidence at hand supplies all the information necessary to any action which this house wishes to take in this matter. Let it be further borne in mind that on page 35 of the report the commissioner states:
The facts are all in evidence; and as said by government counsel in opening their argument:
So far as the facts are concerned, there are very few which are even in dispute.
I cannot myself recall at the moment any fact to which direct proof was adduced that is in dispute. It will be for those charged with the responsibility of dealing with the facts, i.e., the government and parliament, to examine and study them and to take such action, if any, thereon as they may see fit.
Also on page 49 of the report:
The contract is not for a fixed sum: it is on a cost plus basis. It is admitted that we do not know how much the guns are going to cost. There are of course adequate powers of inspection, supervision and control vested in the department under the contract and with the estimates from Enfield of what the guns there are costing it should be possible to keep actual costs here well within bounds.
No substantial objection can be taken in my view to the provisions of the Canadian contract; though in the absence of any competitive bids or terms of manufacture I am unable to pass upon the substance as distinct from the form of the contract. It is important, of course, that the contract be a good and businesslike contract; but what is more important after all is whether the procedure adopted in making the contract was that best calculated to protect the public interest and to secure the confidence of the people of Canada that there would be no improper profiteering in the private manufacture of war armaments for the defence of the country.
That is a question upon which the government and parliament, in the light of the evidence brought before the commission, must pass.
It is obvious then and beyond argument that Mr. Justice Davis considers that parliament may act upon this matter with the information at hand and feel fully satisfied that they are possessed of all the important factors relative to this unfortunate situation.
A study of the evidence and the commissioner's report reveals facts which, with the procedure followed up to the time of the signing of the contract itself and the nature of the contract, fully justify the amendment to the motion which was introduced this afternoon and which is still before the house, to the effect that the contract signed between the Canadian government and John Inglis Company Limited should be forthwith cancelled.
Let it be borne in mind that the Bren machine gun is an instrument of war, invented in Czechoslovakia and further developed to conform to British conditions. The agreement between his majesty's governments in Great Britain and the dominions for the manufacture of this gun for his majesty's forces at home and abroad covered not only the gun itself but the tripod and the filling machine as accessories. One of the conditions of the agreement is cited by Mr. Justice Davis at page 5 of the report:
. . . such manufacture shall be in a factory operated by the government in question.
Also in a memorandum dated June 3, 1936, from the director of mechanization and artillery in the Canadian Department of National Defence to the master general of the ordnance, it is further stated:
The privilege of so doing (i.e., production in Canada) was vouchsafed to the Canadian government by the War Office when it acquired the rights of manufacture from the patentee, the only stipulation being that such production must take place in a government-owned factory.
That is also on page 5. The Minister of National Defence and his deputy have stated what they consider to be their reasons for departing from this procedure; but the two reasons given, first, the vast expense to the Canadian government for the erection of plants for the manufacture of this gun, and, second, that Major Hahn was the only gentleman with whom the British government would deal, have fallen down miserably and have been found to be hopelessly unfounded I Thus perforce we should return at once to the highly desirable position of manufacturing these guns free from private enterprise and the obvious feature of profit to individuals in the manufacture of arms. Later in the course of my remarks I plan to deal more fully with that point.
Now to return to the contract itself. In the article by Lieutenant-Colonel George A. Drew which appeared in Maclean's magazine in its issue of September 1, 1938, various statements were made in regard to the contract which were not contradicted or disproved in any shape or form by the prolixious evidence given by the various witnesses at the inquiry. Let me quote a paragraph or so, starting at page 2 of the article:
It is true that there is a provision in the Canadian and English contracts which appears to limit the profit to ten per cent with an over-all limitation of $457,000 for the 12,000 guns covered by the two contracts, but there is another provision which overcomes that limitation. Section 6A provides that when the company is in production a "standard cost" for each gun shall be agreed upon, based on the costs up to that time. If after that
Bren Gun-Mr. Massey

time costs are reduced below that standard cost, the company shall receive one-quarter of the difference, in addition to its other profits. As the costs during the experimental stages are bound to be higher than when normal production has been reached, it is clear that this is likely to add a very substantial figure to the profits.
Was that statement disproved? It was not. Then again:
Agreements providing for production on a "cost plus" basis are not at all unusual. But many of the items on which the ten per cent profit is allowed in this contract are extremely unusual. Profit is in no way limited to actual factory costs. For instance, the government pays the salaries of executive officers of the John Inglis Company Limited, although their activities are not confined to the manufacture of machine guns. It also pays travelling expenses, and under the contract Canada would pay two-thirds of the cost of travelling which might be necessary to England or Czechoslovakia, where the gun originates. Not only that, but both salaries and travelling expenses are paid by the government from the date of the contract whether any machine gun is ever delivered or not. It is doubtful if such a contract ever was signed in Canada before. But even that is not enough. The company receives from the government as part of its "cost plus" profit, ten per cent of the amount of these salaries and travelling expenses from the date of the signing of the contract.
Other unusual items to be paid by the government, and on which ten per cent profit is also to be paid, are legal fees; telephone, telegraph, and other office expenses; cost of light, heat and power; of all plant alterations {including even the cost of removal of any or all machinery which may ever be removed), and the cost of all tools, dies, jigs and gauges, whether bought from the company or manufactured by the company itself, if they are to be used in the production of Bren guns. Nothing is forgotten. The government even pays for all cartridges and explosives used in testing the guns before delivery. The government, or rather the Canadian public, pays everything, and then pays a profit as well to the company of ten per cent of the amount of these already remarkably generous payments.
The least that can be said is that the contract is extremely favourable to Major Hahn and his company. Even if the contract is * cancelled before the company gets into production, the company will receive $43,750.
If the contract is cancelled to-night, Major Hahn and his associates receive S43,750!
The reason for this generosity is not given. As the government pays all costs of installation of machinery, of the machinery itself, and even of its removal, as well as profits and salaries in the meantime, the public might be inclined to think that it had already done enough for Major Hahn and his company. But the contract says that there must be a substantial profit in any event.
Has any one statement of those I have just read been disproved?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.
JMr. Massey.]


Denton Massey: It was not. I have read the evidence, and it was not. May I ask the minister what statement was disproved?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Three of those statements were disproved. I shall deal with them later on.


Denton Massey: I see; that is very interesting. I will admit that the profit feature was changed after this article came out, if that is what the minister means. Certainly that was changed, and I shall come to that in a moment.
Let me read further from the same article:
There are several other interesting features of this contract. For instance, the Inglis Company Limited is to be equipped not only for the production of Bren machine guns, but also for the production of Enfield rifles and other small arms. In each case every cent of cost of machinery and installation is to be paid by the public. That being the case, the public has the right to know what the plans of the department are for the purchase of rifles and other small arms to replace the obsolete weapons with which our forces are now equipped. As the cost of 200,000 rifles, which would be our approximate requirements, would be at least five million dollars, further interesting prospects of profit are opened to our new armament producers.
Another provision which requires some explanation is the undertaking by the government to grant a licence for the manufacture of the Bren gun for a period of ten years, although the contract calls for the delivery of all the guns now ordered within five years and four months. There must have been some reason for granting the licence for the longer period and making it renewable at that time. Is this contract only for part of orders the government intends to place? If so, what further orders are contemplated As the Canadian public will be paying for any further guns it has the right to know.
Was any statement therein contained contradicted by evidence given at the inquiry? The minister remains silent. Was any statement there made shown to be in error? It was not. The minister remains silent again.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: I am sorry; I did not wish to take advantage of the minister, but he could not have answered in any other way. It is evident, then, that in connection with this contract there are some very unusual, unfortunate features which, to say the least, are open to serious criticism. It is not without peculiar significance that immediately after the appearance of this article, as I said a moment ago, the contract itself was altered. We find that statement at page 42 of the report:
During the last week of August, 1938, an advance copy of Colonel Drew's article that was to appear in Maclean's magazine came to the attention of the deputy minister and other

Bren Gun-Mr. Massey
department officials. As a result of a conference with Major Hahn in Ottawa at that time a letter was taken subsequently from the company (exhibit 43) dated September 3, 1938, fixing the amount of the maximum overriding profit accruing to the company under the contract; the provision in the contract being thought susceptible of a construction by which the company might get a larger profit.
It is extraordinary, is it not, that so important a change in a contract was made only and immediately after the appearance of an article which was damaging and which proved to be absolutely accurate, an article which appeared in a national magazine of wide circulation.
Mr. Speaker, I am one of the newer members of this house. I have not had the long and hoary parliamentary experience of many hon. members here.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The hon.
member is doing very well.


Denton Massey: I thank my hon. friend.
Perhaps my idea of this chamber and its functions is too altruistic and too pristine; but for the three sessions I have had the privilege of sitting in this chamber I have been under the impression that our deliberations should have been characterized by an effort, on the part of all of us who take part, at frankness and straightforwardness and that no attempt should be made by any hon. member, let alone a minister or the Prime Minister, to mislead the house; that questions asked in the public interest should be answered in the public interest; that inquiries of a minister should be answered accurately without any attempt to mislead.
I have always felt that, and have accepted the answers by the ministers to questions upon the order paper as being predicated upon that basis. It may be I have assumed that position because I am naive in this house, but I have at least that hope for our deliberations.
But, in the matter of the Bren gun there have been statements made and answers given to questions submitted by hon. members that have certainly misled the house. The Minister of National Defence states with some heat that his statements in answers to questions have been "honourably, honestly and truthfully" made. I want him to understand that I do not challenge that for a single moment; but I do say to him that, as one reviews his statements of last year in the light of the evidence submitted to the royal commission, it is obvious that either one of two things has happened:	First, that he has
been victimized by a lack of information- which is his own fault-or, second, that he
himself has been misled-which also is his own fault. So it is his own fault in either case.
Let me review the sequence of events in this house towards the end of last session relevant to this matter. In a copy of Hansard of June 22, 1938, on page 4118, I read:
Mr. Woodsworth:
1.	Was Major James Hahn appointed by the Canadian government to go to England in 1937 and 1938 to make a survey of munitions production for the purpose of advising the Canadian government ?
2.	If so, were his expenses paid by the Canadian government?
3.	What were the terms of Major Hahn's employment ?
4.	At what date did Major Hahn cease to be employed by the Canadian government to advise on munitions and begin negotiating for production by him of Bren machine guns?
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):
1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by 1.
I admit at once that the answers of the minister to the questions I have just read are accurate, but poisonously accurate. It is obvious that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was asking it' Major Hahn had been a representative of the Canadian government. That was the question. Unfortunately, however, he specified 1937 and 1938, so the minister answered No." Major Hahn was, however, until December 5, 1936, about three weeks before 1937, a representative of the Canadian government to the British war office. Thus I declare, that question 4 which I have just read, At what date did Major Hahn cease to be employed by the Canadian government to advise on muntions and begin negotiating for production by him of Bren machine guns?" is not answered by the "No" which is given in answer to the first question. Major Hahn visited England subsequently to December 5, 1936. I should like to ask the minister, had the British war office been informed that Major Hahn was no longer the representative of the Canadian government? Was official word sent from his department subsequently to December, 1936, to the British war office that Hahn had ceased to be the representative of the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend had studied the evidence, which unfortunately he has not, he would find that the answer is there.


Denton Massey: I have studied the evidence very carefully, too carefully for the minister.

Bren Gun-Mr. Massey

I found no evidence that the British war office was officially informed that Hahn was not a representative of the Canadian government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is definite evidence in the record asking the Canadian government subsequently to send a definite representative of the Canadian government to the negotiations.


Denton Massey: Yes, I shall come to that. In the eyes of the British war office Major Hahn continued to be the representative of the Canadian government in all his trips to England. He was received accordingly and was treated as such. Therefore I say that the answers given to the questions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are grossly misleading and should at least have been qualified by a statement of the Minister of National Defence when submitting his answer of June 22, last.
The opinion I have just expressed is that of a new member of this house; and lest I be accused of presumption or lack of knowledge, let me read to the house an editorial appearing in a newspaper which I do not think any hon. member can question is virtually the organ of the Liberal party in the prairie provinces. Certainly the Winnipeg Free Press could never be accused of Conservative tendencies; it could never be accused of supporting the Conservative party; nor has it ever disclosed any such desire. I have in my hand an editorial taken from the Winnipeg Free Press of October 27, 1938, headed "Mr. Mackenzie's Evidence":
There will be no satisfaction and much regret over the remark made by the Hon. Ian Mackenzie, Minister of National Defence, during his evidence before the Bren gun inquiry, that he was satisfied the statements he made in the House of Commons were correct. The fact is that very essential information was withheld from the house, which rose without the faintest idea of the most important circumstances surrounding the letting of the contract to Major Hahn.
This was hardly the fault of the members of the house. Various men made strenuous efforts to get at these facts. They failed because Mr. Mackenzie eluded them by making replies which, though perhaps technically justified under the rules of the house, were not justified at all when the public interest is considered.
Later in the same editorial:
On the same day that he "answered" Mr. Woodsworth's question he told the House of Commons this:
"I want to assure my hon. friend that there was not the slightest intention to misrepresent the situation . . . There was not the slightest intention to suppress nor was there a suppression of any information in the slightest degree."
Twelve days later, on July 1, he went back over ground he had covered before, and recited

his explanation of how Major Hahn got the contract. This has already been quoted by the Free Press. It is worth repeating once more:
"Major Hahn went to England in 1936 and evidently made a favourable impression upon the British people. He also had access over there to the specifications of the Bren gun. I want to leave the idea with the committee that these are secret specifications and we had no control over them. It is quite possible they would not be available to any competitor of the firm that got the contract."
Consider these two statements were quoted, and consider the facts as' they have since been brought out. We have Mr. Mackenzie's assurance that nothing whatever has been suppressed. Then we have his statement about Major Hahn's stand-in in London and the drag he had with the war office. Is there anything here to suggest to anyone that Major Hahn got the inside track because he was put there officially by the defence department? Is there anything on the record of Hansard to show that Major Hahn was treated by the British war office just as one more Canadian promoter until cabled instructions were received to consider him an official representative?
The impression Mr. Mackenzie left on the house-and it is difficult to imagine that so practised a debater would leave an impression on his audience other than that he wanted to leave-was that, quite independently of the Canadian government, Major Hahn had made "a favourable impression upon the British people." We now know, of course, how that came about. Major Hahn "had access to the specifications for the Bren gun." How did he get them? We now know, though the House of Commons did not. "It is quite possible the specifications would not be available to any competitor." We should say not; not after all the Department of National Defence had done for Major Hahn! But did Mr. Mackenzie breathe a word of all this to the House of Commons? Not one word. Why?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He had nothing to do with that. That is what my hon. friend does not know yet.


Denton Massey: I know, as I said a moment ago, too much. I know I sat in the House of Commons last session; I listened to the statements of the minister; I left this chamber without any idea that any condition such as this existed, and I based my opinions on the minister's statements, in which I had confidence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does my hon. friend say that our Department of National Defence have control over these specifications?


Denton Massey: They seem to have had a great deal of control over the specifications. I have read the evidence and that is why I make the statement I do. I have in my hand Hansard of July 1, 1938. I turn to page 4523, on which Mr. Bennett is reported as follows:
Mr. Bennett: The second point I desire to raise is much more serious. It has to do with whether or not we should have the private manufacture of arms in this country. The

real truth is that the papers brought down, dealing with an agreement in connection with the manufacture of Bren guns, contemplates a profit of ten per cent.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver):	No. That is
the outside limit, but it actually works out much less.
Mr. Bennett:	I should say they contemplate
a possible profit of ten per cent. Time after time we have had discussions with respect to that matter; articles and indeed volumes have been written as to the evil effects of this practice upon the general life of the country, let we have made a bargain with a private enterprise, through a man untrained in this particular job, who has nothing to do with manufacturing, who has taken the old, second hand machinery of the John Inglis Company, which everyone in Toronto knows is obsolete and to that we have added about $250,000 worth of our own machinery.
The minister states that the contract does not contemplate a profit of ten per cent. His actual words were. " That is the outside limit, but it actually works out much less." How can the minister possibly defend that statement under the terms of the contract itself? It is not there in the contract.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was in the evidence.


Denton Massey: It was not in the contract when the minister made that statement in the house because that very point was altered in the contract on September 3, 1938.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is an entirely untruthful statement. The evidence of Mr. Sharp before the royal commission was that the profit was only 7-76 per cent.


Denton Massey: Does the minister say the report is untruthful? There was the statement which I read a moment ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read where it says the contract is changed.


Robert James Manion: Thanks to George Drew's article, it was changed.


Denton Massey: I quote again from the report:
During the last -week of August, 1938, an advance copy of Colonel Drew's article that was to appear in Maclean's magazine came to the attention of the deputy minister and other department officials. As a result of a conference with Major Hahn in Ottawa at that time a letter was taken subsequently from the company (exhibit 43) dated September 3rd, 1938, fixing the amount of the maximum overriding profit accruing to the company under the eon-tract; the provision in the contract being thought susceptible of a construction by which the company might get a larger profit.
What is the matter with the statement being made that the company got a larger profit?


Charles Avery Dunning: That was not the language used by my hon. friend. He said the contract had been changed, but the commissioner does not say that.
71492-m
Bren Gun-Mr. Massey


Denton Massey: It certainly has been changed by letter.


Ernest Lapointe: Poisonously inaccurate.


Denton Massey: Poisonous to the contract. The words are, "the provision in the contract being thought susceptible of a construction by which the company might get a larger profit." Does that mean the contract was. changed or was not?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No,


Denton Massey: Then the contract is worse' than I thought it was if that has not been changed. Of course it has been changed. I quote again from page 4523 of Hansard of last year, Mr. Bennett speaking:
* [DOT] * machinery of this kind is entirely obsolete, that long since its obsolescence has been such that it would be no longer regarded as satisfactory for the purpose.
.Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver): I may say that the technical advice is to the contrary in regard to this particular machinery.
The evidence produced before the commission disclosed that the resident inspector, aircraft inspection detachment, at Toronto, made a report which appears in part on page 22 of the report of the commission. I quote:
This plant is primarily equipped for the manufacture of boilers, turbines and the working of heavy plate generally. All equipment is m reasonably good condition, considering the length of time it has been in use.
In other words, it is fine machinery for the shape it is in. The report continues:-
The machinery at present in this factory with few exceptions, is unsuited for the manufacture of aircraft, but it might be used tor the manufacture of tanks or shells
Precision work to limits of one ten-thousandths of an inch is to be done in some instances, and yet we have machinery to be used in the manufacture of tanks and shells.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely my hon. friend knows that machinery is not being used for the manufacture of Bren guns.


Denton Massey: The report continues:
There is no design staff at present employed and the total number of work men now employed consists of three men as factory maintenance staff.
Now what is the question?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Surely my hon. friend knows that the machinery referred to in that report of October, 1936, is not being used to manufacture Bren guns.


Denton Massey: I hope not as I have seen it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It could not be.
Bren Gun-Mr. Massey


Denton Massey: That goes back to the letter from our hon. friend, the member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) about his fully equipped plant.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no plant in Canada equipped to manufacture Bren guns.


Denton Massey: There was and is plenty
of precision machinery in Canada. Like the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) I had the privilege of graduating in engineering.
I have worked in machine shops and I think I know something of machine tools. There are plenty of machine shops in Canada capable of producing Bren guns. I am not a lawyer; I am an engineer. I make this statement in the face of what the minister said. A statement has been made which is shown to be unfortunately in error by the evidence submitted to the commission. Let me read again from Hansard, page 4524. The Minister of National Defence is reported as follows:
With reference to the contract for Bren guns, I want to say immediately that it is a very important question. I suggested myself very early this session that all these contracts could very well he examined by either the public accounts committee or a special committee of this house. I feel it is due to myseli :as minister, and to the department, that there .*should be a complete investigation from the business point of view, because I do say -this, that from the business point of view this is one of the finest contracts that was ever signed in the public interest of Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So it is.


Denton Massey: "One of the finest contracts that was ever signed in the public interest of Canada." Does the minister say that to-day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I certainly do, and it never was challenged for one second before the commission.


Denton Massey: That is all I want to
know. I just want to have that on record. Then the minister goes on, as reported on the same page:
I want to say in the second place that the minister cannot take the slightest credit for the contract, and the minister never sat in on any of the consultations, and never met Major Hahn until after the contract was signed. The contract was discussed by an interdepartmental committee which was formed about two years ago.
The evidence given before the inquiry disproved that absolutely, for the minister claimed under examination that he did not remember the incident of meeting Major Hahn. Some hon. members may say that failure of memory on his part is a small matter, but I say it is no small matter in any way, shape or form.
IMr. I. Mackenzie.]
There is the fact that on October 9, 1936, Major Hahn was introduced to the deputy minister of national defence; and even though the deputy minister knew nothing about Major Hahn except that he had been introduced to him by the hon. member for Trinity, a secret Bren gun was sent to Major Hahn in Toronto for dismantling and examination. A secret war piece which had been given into the custody of the Canadian Department of National Defence by the British war office was sent to an unknown in Toronto for dismantling and examination. Does the mblister deny that statement? Further evidence was brought forward to show that Major Hahn was introduced to the Minister of National Defence in his apartment in the Chateau Laurier on October 19, 1936. After five minutes the minister gave Major Hahn a letter which subsequent events proved served to pave the way for Major Hahn to become the accredited representative of the Canadian government to the British war office. He was accredited by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself. Let me read the letter, which appears on page 17 of the report. It is dated October 19, 1936, and is addressed to Dear Mr. Massey." May I say that is not the member for Greenwood; it is the high commissioner in London. The letter reads.
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 motions and armaments. I am anxious that lie be afforded averv facility and access to enable him to ascertain and bring back complete manufactur ing data and costs governing manufacture of
How can it be said that in connection with so vitally important a matter as the manufacture of the Bren gun, such an all-embracing document can be given to a private citizen and yet the experience foe forgotten by the minister? The agility and facility of his brain have never been questioned in this house. The best thing that can be said is that here is a manifestation of the most extraordinary careless dealing and the most extraordinary disregard of public interest. Let me quote again from page 4524 of Hansard, the minister
speaking:
Major Hahn went to England in 1936 and evidently made a favourable impression upon the British people. He also had access over there to the specifications of the Bren gun. i want to leave the idea with the committee that these are secret specifications and we had tin control over them.
No control over them! Yet they were sent to an unknown in Toronto. I quote again.
It is quite possible they would not be available to any competitor of the firm which got the contract. I want to say this: Once we were informed by the war office of the attitude

Bren Gun-Mr. Massey
of the British government we went into figures with the Enfield factory in England which produces those guns at the rate of fifty a week-
Here again is an extraordinary statement, that Major Hahn went to England, saw the British war office, was admitted to the Enfield factory and given the specifications of the Bren gun. That is a statement of fact. But how did this happen, and why did this happen? Why was it Major Hahn? Because Major Hahn was the accredited representative of the Canadian government, accredited by the Prime Minister himself; and with him, and with him only, would the British government deal. The British government did not deal with Major Hahn because they liked him or thought him to be the proper man as a result of their own opinion. The British government dealt with Major Hahn because, I repeat, he was the accredited representative of the Canadian government, and had received the benediction of the Prime Minister in this matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope that my hon. friend will not think, because I am not interrupting him every time he repeats that statement, that I agree with him every time he repeats it.


Denton Massey: I am simply stating the facts, and there can be no mistake about that, because the evidence is right here in the report on page 24.
What is back of this? Major Hahn arrived in England, accompanied by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) and his brother, Mr. Gordon Plaxton. Let it be said to the resounding credit of the high commissioner in London that he refused at first to accept Major Hahn or to pass him through to the British war office until he was satisfied that Major Hahn was properly credentialed, and a delay ensued during which the major became, in his own words, "very, very impatient." There were telephone calls and cables until at last a cable from the high commissioner in London was sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs-in other words, the Prime Minister-and Mr. Massey was answered by the Prime Minister as follows:
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 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.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious, then, that Major Hahn was not accepted as the representative of the Canadian government when he first arrived in England; that later he was established as such by a cable in code from the Prime Minister; and it was then, and only then, that he was received by the British government and given secret information.
What is the significance of this? The significance is that upon this thin and slender thread, the all-embracing decision to depart from the policy of arms manufacture by the government to arms manufacture by private citizens for profit was arrived at by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of National Defence and by the Department of National Defence.
Let us now return to the evidence. The interdepartmental committee objected strenuously to going forward in this matter without competitive bids, but they were told by the deputy minister of national defence, who presided at the sittings of the interdepartmental committee, that the British government had picked the firm with which they were going to deal. Let me turn to pages 40 and 41 of the report, where I quote the commissioner:	.
Mr. Elliott said that the chairman _ (the deputy minister of national defence) pointed out that "his department had followed the practice of the British government where competition is not always obtainable-"	.


Walter Edward Foster: I must inform the hon.
member that he has exhausted his time.


Denton Massey: I should like a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to finish if I may, just one more sentence.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just one sentence.


Walter Edward Foster: With the consent of the
house.


Mr. YOUNG:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. All during the debate on the address it became the practice of speakers to say that they would like to continue for just a little while; and the unanimous consent of the house having been obtained on the understanding that they would speak only a few sentences more, my observation was that they continued for a long time thereafter, thereby prolonging the debate. In this particular instance, lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I am not going to make any objection to the hon. gentleman continuing. I am rather enjoying the remarks he is making-he is adding nothing to the debate- but I do want to register my objection to the practice that is growing up of a speaker exceeding his forty minutes. The rule imposing a forty-minute limit should be observed or we should abrogate the rule.
Bren Gun-Mr. Massey


Robert James Manion: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that while' it is true that a number of members on this side of the house were permitted to exceed their forty minutes, many more members on the other side of the house were given the same privilege. I just want to have the record kept straight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While everyone is contributing to this discussion, might I draw attention to the fact that there is a rule which says that newspaper articles should not be read in the house. The greater part of my hon. friend's speech has been taken up with quotations and reading editorials. If he had confined himself to oratory and left quotations alone, he would have had plenty of time.


Denton Massey: In reply to the Prime Minister I turn to page 305 of Hansard where I find that the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) spent a good part of his time in quoting a rather objectionable article which appeared in Saturday Night, and he was not called to order. I also find that the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier (Mr. Mallette) as reported at page 208 of Hansard, read in full a most objectionable and unfair editorial in the Montreal Gazette, occupying two full pages of Hansard, and he was not called to order. The rules of this house apply to all members or to none.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot understand the heat or passion of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). He was allowed to proceed and read his article.


Denton Massey: Speaking further on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I object to being singled out by the Prime Minister and reminded that I had been reading from editorials, when he made no mention of other members who had done the same.


Walter Edward Foster: I always endeavour to put the rules into practice, but there are cases where unanimous consent is given to an hon. member to exceed his forty minutes. I am in the hands of the house as to whether the hon. gentleman should continue. I have always endeavoured to apply the rules fairly.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have not the good fortune to know either Colonel Drew or Major Hahn. I am speaking now within my memory, and of course I might find myself eventually in the same position as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in that someone might have inadvertently
JMr. Young.]
introduced me to him, and so I may be corrected; but at the moment I do not know either of these gentlemen.
There has been a great deal of discussion about a very important question, namely, the defence of Canada, hinging largely on the names of these two particular individuals, more especially about the name of Major Hahn. I should like very much, before this debate is concluded, to be satisfied why so many members on the other side of the house hold such antagonistic views towards that gentleman.


Denton Massey: I never expressed any in any shape or form.


Robert James Manion: I praised him.


James Garfield Gardiner: The whole argument so far has revolved around the fact that this man got a contract from the Department of National Defence. The discussions which have taken place in connection with that contract were given rise to largely by an article which appeared in Maclean's magazine under date of September 1 last, which article by the way, Mr. Speaker, made no charges against anyone but did give expression to quite a number of insinuations which might be taken by the general public as indicating that there was something wrong, if no actual charges were made.
Very shortly after that article appeared, we had a Commission appointed by the government to inquire into the insinuations which had been made and into the contract which had been entered into. After many sittings of that commission had been held; after the commission had found it unnecessary to subpoena any witnesses in order to get them to appear before the commission because all witnesses came quietly of their own free will when called upon to do so; and after they had listened to the evidence from day to day, the commission itself decided that there were no charges and no findings to be made, against any individual, and that there were no charges and no findings to be made in opposition to the contract which had been entered into. So that we are in the position, after having read the article in Maclean's magazine and after having listened to the evidence before the commission, where no proven evidence has been brought forward against either the contract itself or any individual who was associated with that contract or with the government or with departments of the government in negotiating the contract.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) presents to the house a resolution which calls for the placing of this

Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner
contract for further inquiry before a committee of the house. The government takes no exception to that motion. The government is quite prepared to have this contract inquired into to the heart's content of any member, of this house or of any person outside this house, whether such persons are interested in newspapers or are other private individuals in Canada.
Well, the opposition-that is, the official opposition-comes along with an amendment in these terms:
In view of the evidence produced before the royal commission, the opinion of this house is that the agreement made between His Majesty the King, represented by the hon. the Minister of National Defence, and John Inglis Company, Limited, for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, should be cancelled.
We have before us at the moment an amendment calling upon the house' to cancel the contract with regard to which even the article in Maclean's magazine has not made any particular charges; with regard to which those who appeared before the commission did not make any charges; with regard to which the commission itself did not make any charges. We are asked, rather than to send it for further inquiry' to a committee of this house, to cancel that contract forthwith. Well, if that does not raise some questioning in the minds of hon. members as to what all the noise is being made for with respect to the individual Major Hahn, then I cannot understand what would raise that sort of questioning in the mind of anyone.
We listened this afternoon to a good deal of discussion beginning with the address of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) with regard to this matter, and even yet I have to hear any condemnation of the contract itself from the individuals who have been addressing this house. They have insinuated certain things and drawn certain pictures, so to speak, using, in order to describe those pictures, certain terms which even members of this house do not understand. They have left inferences with regard to what the contract may have in it; but I repeat that no one has risen in his place and told us what the terms of the contract to which they take such serious exception are.
I wish to go ove'r some things that have happened in recent months in connection with matters of defence to see if I cannot reason out for my own instruction the position with respect to this contract. I wish to indicate the position I have taken in connection with this contract from the beginning and the position which I hope the house will take with regard to it. There has been a great deal of discussion respecting what has appeared in
Maclean's magazine, and the hon. member who has just taken his seat has quoted extensively from it. I shall not quote from it, but I wish to direct attention to the fact that at the end of that article there are some twenty questions stated in such a form as to leave the insinuation that something might be wrong in connection with the matters referred to in every one of those questions. In the centre of that group of questions, beginning with number three and extending to the end of question twelve-there is some reference to it in later questions also-there is a group of questions all of which refer to the activities of certain private individuals who had to do with the formation of a company in the city of Toronto which eventually got a contract for the manufacture of Bren guns. There has been a great deal of quoting of the report in order to try to indicate that certain statements made by the commissioner in his finding had to do with everything that is in this report. If hon. members will turn to page 30, they will find the following:
A large portion of the evidence-
Here let me point out that the part of the report which I am about to read is separated from what goes before by asterisks.
A large proportion of the evidence taken before the commission was in connection with the facts leading up to and the purchase of the assets of the old John Inglis Company by Major Hahn and his associates, the financial structure of the new company, the shareholdings of the new company, the consideration given for the allotment and issue of the shares of the new company, the incorporation and organization. . . .
And so on. Then at the bottom of the paragraph there is this reference:
Mr. Geoffrion, who appeared with Mr. McRuer for the John Inglis Company, stated that, for purposes of argument, Major Hahn and the John Inglis Company may be identical, because he was the spokesman of the company and the party in control. Mr. Geoffrion. relying upon sec. 13 of The Inquiries Act, R.S.C., 1927, eh. 99, argued that as no charges of misconduct had been laid or been formulated during the inquiry, no report against any person can be made by your commissioner.
Then later:
Mr. Geoffrion said:
No charges being laid, no report of misconduct or no report can be made against us, because there was no charge of misconduct, and no notice to us.
"Us" there refers to his clients; and as one reads through statement after statement by counsel who appeared before this commission, one finds that they are referring to private clients who retained them to appear before this particular commission. The finding is finally made by the commission that
Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner

in relation to these matters having to do with the formation of a company in Toronto, and with the individuals who formed the company, he is not making any findings because no particular charges were made against these individuals.
It should be clear to any member of this house that there are many things which he and I might wish to criticize with regard to the formation of companies from one end of the country to the other, companies dealing with the manufacture of machinery of different kinds, companies for the purpose of carrying on financial operations, companies for the conduct of many affairs. I could make many criticisms to-night from the floor of this house with regard to the formation of many such companies, but such criticisms would not have anything to do with many of the activities carried on by these companies when once they are set up, unless we are prepared in this house and elsewhere to change the whole company law of the country and make it impossible for people to set up companies under the forms which were followed in this particular instance.
It was proper for the commissioner on that occasion to make that reference, but it was entirely improper for the leader of the opposition this afternoon to say to the members of this house, and through the house to the people of Canada, that these statements were made by counsel on behalf of their clients apparently for the purpose of frightening the commissioner. I can think of no more slighting statement that could have been made against the chairman of any commission that ever sat in this country than to suggest that any counsel appearing for anyone could frighten the commissioner when making a finding in connection with this or any other matter.


Robert James Manion: I made no such suggestion, in any shape or form, about frightening the commissioner. I did quote Major Hahn's counsel, but I also quoted Colonel Ralston, the government counsel, who took exactly the same attitude.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think when my hon. friend reads Hansard to-morrow he will find that he did convey the inference I have just stated. To say that when the commissioner was not in a position to make findings he drew pictures and placed those pictures on the wall before us so that we might come to our own conclusions-if that is not insinuating that the commissioner did not have the back-bone to give his own opinions in regard to this matter, I do not know what the hon. gentleman meant. I am not going to insinuate that

the commissioner showed any such spinelessness in connection with this investigation. He carried on the investigation as it should be carried on; he brought down his findings as they should be brought down, and his findings give pictures quite different from those drawn this afternoon by my hon. friend. For example, my hon. friend spoke of the young gentleman who was sent to England to study the manufacture of guns, munitions and machines of war for the government of Canada. He read certain parts of the report of the commissioner in order to convey the impression to this house and this country that this young man was not capable of giving advice to the government in connection with that matter.


Robert James Manion: He admitted it himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: Who appointed this young man? The government of which my hon. friend was a member appointed him in 1933.


Robert James Manion: Not in connection with Bren guns.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, turn to page 5 of the report and see what they appointed him for:
Lieutenant Jolley, of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, presently employed in the branch of the Master-General of Ordnance of the Department of National Defence, who received his technical education at McGill university where he graduated with honours in mechanical engineering in 1933

Taking the same course as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey).


Denton Massey: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: . . . was sent to England in August, 1934-


Charles Avery Dunning: Emphasize that date.


James Garfield Gardiner: . . . was sent to England in August, 1934, to receive instruction at the Military College of Science at Woolwich to qualify him for the position of ordnance mechanical engineer. He took a year's course at the government instructional centre at Woolwich arsenal.
Then the commissioner goes on to say that they did not study small arms there; and he continues:	*
From Woolwich he went to the royal small arms factory at Enfield, which is the government factory for the production of small arms in England." Here he was given the opportunity to have a prolonged tour through the various sections of the factory in order to obtain an intimate knowledge of the processes of the production of small arms generally. He spent a portion of the time -with the cost accountant's branch and worked with the personnel engaged in obtaining the costs of the various components at that time going through the factory. The

6S1
Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner
period Lieutenant Jolley *was at Enfield was from September 19, 1935, to July, 1936. At that time the royal small arms factory were engaged in preparing the design of tools-
My friend says we had the tools in Canada even before this time, but here is what is said:
At the time the royal small arms factory were engaged in preparing the design of tools and the methods of production which would enable them eventually to produce the Bren gun in relatively large quantities.
This young man was there when this study was going on for the first time in Enfield in order to prepare British mechanics and engineers to produce this gun in England.
He says that at Enfield his chief interest was in getting as much information as he could on the basic equipment of machines and tools which are required for small arms production generally.
Well, whether the young man was twenty-three when he went there or is twenty-nine now or whatever age he may be, every man in this house knows that every factory which is making articles from precision steel in this country to-day is employing young men from twenty to thirty-five or forty, years of age and after that age they let them go. Why? Because that kind of work is a young man's job. It is young men who are doing the work at the factory being opened in Fort William; it is young men right across this country who are being trained to-day in these very things, to make the machines, the aeroplanes and all the equipment which will be required in the next war, if it comes. That is a young man's job. As I said this afternoon, when other countries have been in the midst of great difficulties before, they have called upon young men; and if this country goes into a war it will not be the men over twenty-nine who will be conducting it, it will be the men under twenty-nine. Most of them will be around twenty years of age. It is therefore important that they should know something about the guns, how they are made, how they are prepared, and something about what is going to happen if this country ever goes into a war. There is one other thing-


Robert James Manion: Before the hon. member leaves that, would he read what the commissioner said at the bottom of page 35 about the young man?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend read that this afternoon. I am not going to take time to read it again. I am giving the information in regard to the young man that appears on the first page-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But the hon. member is not giving all that is in the report.


James Garfield Gardiner: That information convinces me that the young man has had the training; seeing that my friends opposite appointed him, I assume he had the intelligence in the first place, and with the training he has had, he should know more about the Bren gun than any other man in Canada, whether he be an official of the department or of this company.
Then the commissioner goes on to say:
No contract for the purchase or production of the Canadian defence requirements of the Bren machine gun was made however until March 31, 1938.
On the next page of the report the commissioner goes on to deal with the statement made by an important official of the department at that time as to what would be a proper policy in Canada in connection with the making of munitions and machinery of war. The commissioner said:
There were read into the record extracts from memoranda produced by government counsel, made by the then Chief of the General Staff, Major-General E. C. Ashton, _ to the Minister of National Defence (exhibit 281). From a memorandum of January 27, 1936, the following:-
Our greatest need is a proper arsenal capable of manufacturing up to 8-inch gun ammunition and large enough to supply our annual expenditure. We have no small arms factory and are therefore unable, as the Australians are, to manufacture rifles or machine guns. It was proposed to erect a small arms factory at Yalcartier after the ammunition group had been completed; the majority of the necessary machinery is available from the old Ross rifle factory.
Well, I hope we are not going to be told that after the experiences of the last war those who designed the Ross rifle are capable of producing for Canada in the future that which we desire in the way of armaments. It requires something more than machinery, apparently, to produce a rifle which will work when used in the trenches. Our men who were in the trenches during the last war and were armed with Ross' rifles made by this machinery of which they speak had to throw the rifles themselves at the enemy.


Mr. COLDWELL:: How can the guns be
any better?


James Garfield Gardiner: Everyone knows that no particular success was made of making rifles at that time. Then the memorandum goes on to say:
There is no reason why suitable guns should not be manufactured in Canada and Canadian workmen receive the advantage of the expenditures which will be involved. As a

Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is for the whole
of it.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Listen to this, those who say " hear, hear ":
Draft heads of agreement have to be considered, and any hon. member w'ho thinks that you can immediately increase the output of shell and shell components by running over the country giving an order to any engineering firm of experience-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: Listen to this:
-giving an order to any engineering firm of experience-
Giving an order to those who are making motor cars, for example, and all that kind of thing.
-can be but little familiar wfith the processes to which I have referred.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Garfield Gardiner: And I repeat that statement to my hon. friends in this house. If they think that you can go about this country giving out contracts to people before they have been given some training, in order to bring about the production of these different commodities, then they are going to find themselves in considerable difficulty. I continue quoting:
I am happy to say that these preliminary stages, inevitable and elaborate as they are but still only preliminary, have been passed. Fifty-two new firms have been offered contracts for the supply of ammunition, and of those fifty-two firms, at any rate up to ten days or a fortnight ago, fourteen have accepted term contracts.
Then he goes on to say that in developing this policy other companies must be still further trained, and points out that it is impossible to have what we call competitive

Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner
bids in connection with a business of this kind; that in times of peace a government has to allow for reasonable profits in connection with contracts of this sort. Draft heads of contracts must be drawn to meet different situations, and by that process they get the production of their munitions and machinery of war.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if in 1936 I went to England convinced that government ownership and control of a plant in this country for the production of munitions would be a good thing under certain circumstances, I came back convinced that the British had had far more experience in this matter than we; that they found themselves confronted with a world situation which required them to develop the production of the machinery and munitions of war in the ordinary factories throughout the country, and that in order to get that done, they had to go into those plants, educate some of the staffs, reequip some of the plants with machinery and set up facilities by means of which the munitions of war could be produced. And that is what they did.
Some of my hon. friends opposite have been shouting to this government that we should show closer cooperation with the old country; that we should coordinate our efforts more closely with theirs. Here is one opportunity of coordinating our efforts without doing any injury to the national feelings, or to the feelings of any particular section of this dominion, and, while coordinating our efforts with theirs, we have an opportunity to develop our own industry so that in more peaceful times than we are enjoying at present we can go on to greater and greater development here.
Not so very long ago I said somewhere in this country-not while I was making a speech by the way, but while I was sitting at a table talking to a group of individuals- that what we wanted in Canada to-day if we were going to bring British settlers here from the industrial areas of England, was the transfer of some of the capital of Great Britain to this dominion. Immediately my hon. friends, particularly those over in the far corner on the opposite side, thought of capital as something in the form of money, something you could pick up and carry round with you. But the capital of the industrial areas of England is the machinery of production and the buildings that have been constructed to house that machinery. That machinery and those buildings, Mr. Speaker, represent the surplus labour of generations of Britishers who have established the industrial sections of that country. What I say is this, that
when we are faced with great difficulties such as those that are present in the world to-day; when we are faced with great threats such as we have in the world to-day, it is time to take advantage of our opportunities, and, while taking advantage of our opportunities, to give assistance to the industrial centre of the empire by seeing to it that some of these industries are carried on in Canada; for in carrying them on here we shall be transporting to this dominion not only the people who carry on those industries, but also the capital that has been built up through generations. By that method we can bring the men and women who are going to eat the foodstuffs of this country right to tie areas where those foodstuffs are being produced; we can put them to work developing our natural resources, instead of going on generation after generation supplying the needs of 30,000,000 industrial people from a country with only 10,000,000, located hundreds of miles away, and then wondering why there are threats of war from the thickly populated areas of this world.
This government entered into a joint contract with the British government to make guns which are needed by both governments, in one of the great cities of Canada where unemployment has been rife and where men are looking for work. My opposition friends who have been shouting, in Toronto more than anywhere else, that what we need is more cooperation with Great Britain, have seen one of their leading periodicals publish an article which insinuates all kinds of things. I say "insinuate" advisedly. I have had some experience with this periodical. On one occasion they wrote one of these insinuating articles with regard to me; inside an hour after it appeared on the news stands of my home city it was taken off the news stands, and my friends who publish this particular periodical took the trouble to send me the man who wrote it. He came half way across Canada to see me to find out what was wrong with it. When he came into my office and asked me what was wrong with it, I said, "There isn't anything wrong with it; I got more publicity out of this article than I ever got out of anything that was written about me in my life. I have found for the first time how many friends I have in my own city." Before that magazine had been on the news stands for an hour men were telephoning my office to ask me if I had read Maclean's magazine. I thought Maclean's magazine had really published something which was worth reading. I said, "No, I really do not waste much time reading
Bren Gun-Mr. Gardiner

it." "Well," they said, "you ought not to read it to-night because it says some terrible things about you, and we have put it off our news stands." This came from men who were not political friends of mine but who had read the article, as well as from friends. Having had that experience, I suggest to this house that this periodical is insinuating again, insinuating about the Minister of Defence {Mr. Mackenzie)-I do not know why-insinuating with regard to Major Hahn, who has entered into this contract. Let us look at what the commission's report says about Major Hahn. Not knowing Major Hahn, I can say freely what I am about to say. If hon. members will turn to page 12 of the report they will find some remarks in regard to him. I have not time to read all of these, but I want hon. members to read this. The deputy minister said, at page 15:
Major Hahn, he said, had come in to see him to ascertain whether there was any business which the department was giving and in which he might be interested.
It is interesting to note that this was on *October 9. It is also worth noting that the evidence shows that this plant was arranged for by Major Hahn in July and August of that year. On October 9 he called at the office of the deputy minister.
Major Hahn, he said, had come in to see him to ascertain whether there was any business which the department was giving and in which he might be interested. He mentioned aircraft, the possibility of making aircraft, and making shells or military equipment.
It appears that Major Hahn did not go there to get the contract for the Bren gun. He went there to make general inquiries from the department as to whether there was anything he could make that the department required. I have no doubt that a great many men have done that. The gentleman who got the letter of introduction through the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) came there to make the same kind of inquiry. Well then, the question in the evidence is:
"Q. Did the Bren gun come up as a topic of discussion on that occasion?
A. Yes, very much.
Q. Will you just tell the commissioner how the discussion came up and what was said?
A. I had had one of the two guns we had mounted in my office. I had wanted to see it myself and it was mounted in my office. Anyone entering for those two or three days could :see the gun. On seeing the gun both of them (Mr. Plaxton and Major Hahn) went over to it, looked at it and asked what it was. I told them it was the new Bren gun. I do not believe that either of them had ever seen the gun."


Grote Stirling: Or heard of it.
\Mr dardiner.]


James Garfield Gardiner: Listen to the next
paragraph:
"They were much interested in it, particularly Major Hahn, who understood what it meant. He made inquiries as to whether the gun would be used in the Canadian army, where it was being used, where we would buy them and points related to the possible future use of the gun. I told them we had no funds with which to buy Bren guns. I told him that possibly, as in the other items, England might be interested. I was referring all comers to England as a possible market. I did tell him undoubtedly the gun would be used in the Canadian forces, but when, I did not know. . ."
Major Hahn told the deputy minister at the time (i.e. on October 9, 1936), that he thought he could make the gun and he wanted to inspect it to see whether or not he could make it, and Major Hahn asked for an opportunity of inspecting the gun closely. The gun was then sent by the department to Toronto, where Major Hahn "and not more than two engineers or mechanics" could inspect it under arrangements to be made by the District Officer Commanding.
That is the whole story. My hon. friends talk of mechanical engineers and men who can use the instruments required for the moulding of precision steel; but I refer them to the fact that what any factory in this country requires first is a manager, the man who can see the possibilities in things of this kind, the man who can go out and arrange for production, build up the necessary equipment and machinery and acquire a factory with which to do the work. I believe, without knowing anything about it, but being satisfied that I know the higher officials in the departments of government in Ottawa, whether they were appointed by previous governments or this government, that Mr. Hahn sold himself to the officials of the Department of National Defence as a man capable of doing a job of that particular kind. My hon. friends say he was not chosen in England. Are they trying to tell us that Sir Thomas Inskip, Mr. Ernest Brown and others in England did not make exactly the same kind of investigations?-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his time.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I finish this
sentence? I claim they did-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: -and found that this was a man quite capable of doing the job. The reports shows they did.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the remarks made this afternoon by my right hon. leader (Mr. Manion)-

Bren Gun-Mr. MacNicol
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Right honourable!


John Ritchie MacNicol: He will be "right honourable" after the coming election-the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) interrupted the remarks. The leader of the opposition had been speaking about a letter of introduction given by the minister-I should like the minister's attention-to Major Hahn to take to England, and the minister rose to say that he had given letters of introduction to friends of the leader of the opposition's friends. On being asked, to whom? he said, "Ask the hon. member for Davenport." He added, "I gave some letters of introduction to friends of your colleagues." I asked the minister to whom he referred; for I often give letters of introduction, not only to ministers but to managers, to people who I feel are entitled to receive letters of introduction. At this point I may tell the minister, or any other minister, or anyone else who receives a letter written by me as an introduction, that he can publish it to the world. I asked the minister this afternoon to rise in his place and read the letter. If I gave a letter to Mr. John T. Hepburn, it would perhaps be along this line. I have not the letter, so I do not know just what I wrote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is absolutely no objection whatever to the terms of the letter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to hear the minister say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I commend my hon. friend for his industry in giving a letter.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. John T. Hepburn is the president of the John T. Hepburn company, a company which has had a distinguished record for the last thirty-three years. The president came from Scotland, started with very little and built up one of the best concerns in Canada which has been operating continuously for thirty-three years. At the moment it employs about 250 men and it has employed as many as 500. I think it was very thoughtless of the minister to mention the president of a great concern like that in connection with the gentleman to whom he finally gave this contract. A little later on, replying to something the leader of the opposition said, the minister said that I had taken Mr. Hepburn into his office. I never was in the minister's office in my life, nor have I ever taken anyone there. I am going to ask him to withdraw that remark for it is now in Hansard.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If my hon. friend will look up Hansard I think he wilH find I said that he wrote a letter introducing; Mr. John T. Hepburn.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You said that I introduced Mr. Hepburn in your office. I never was in your office. I am sure you gave Mr. Hepburn a nice letter, for he was worthy of it. I understand he was going to England: at the time of the coronation. During the-dinner recess I took the trouble to telephone Mr. Hepburn to ask him about the letter. He said the minister had given him a very nice letter, but unfortunately when he arrived in England he found it had been addressed to the wrong person. He could not use it because he wanted to see someone in another department.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The letter was given at your request nonetheless.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the minister
for his courtesy.


Charles Avery Dunning: He got some business
too.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not know anything about what he did. He certainly did not do any business as a result of the letter he got from the department.


Robert James Manion: He did not get a gun contract.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to refer to one
or two things the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said during the course of his speech. If I understood him correctly he said that we of the official opposition had not given loyal or fair support during the last two or three years to the defence estimates.
Mr: GARDINER:	I was referring to the
people in the far corner on the opposite side.


Robert James Manion: I understood the minister to refer to our side of the house.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was referring to the
members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and I named some members.


John Ritchie MacNicol: While we have been in
opposition we have given hearty support to the militia estimates. Then I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say something about the cost of the proposed factory in Canada. Perhaps I might have his ear now because I do not want to have to say this the second time. He read a statement from the report that a plant capable of manufacturing
Bren Gun-Mr. MacNicol

munitions would cost from $30,000,000 to $35,000,000. I should like to read the paragraph in the report; it follows:
The minister said that General Ashton (the then chief of the general staff) was very insistent upon the development of government arsenals and that the former chief of general staff, General McNaughton, evolved a very comprehensive scheme for Valcartier which would include practically all the requirements of the Canadian forces.
The minister did not mention this when he was talking about the plant that wras purchased. I looked into the report and I found that what would cost between $30,000,000 and $35,000,000 was a comprehensive scheme which would include the manufacture of all the requirements of the forces. That did not refer in any way to the Bren gun contract, unless it were proposed to manufacture the Bren gun in that plant. The next paragraph in the report states that a new plant, apart from the land, would cost approximately $120,000. That is not $30,000,000 or $35,000,000. I think the minister is unfair to give out a statement like that and not state what the $30,000,000 to $35,000,000 are for. What is going on in Toronto at the John Inglis plant? I know the plant quite well, for I have been in it hundreds of times.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I must correct my hon. friend. He will find in the sworn evidence given before the commission that I stated that according to the minutes of the defence council these figures were submitted, and were concurred in by the recent chief of the general staff, General Ashton.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That was to cover the manufacture of everything.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was for what they called the grand arsenal scheme at Valcartier.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We are talking about the Bren gun.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was never any suggestion that the $35,000,000 applied to Bren gun manufacture.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That was the inference given out here. I started to say that I knew something about the John Inglis plant.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not want to misrepresent. What I did a few moments ago was read to the house the full policy that was outlined in 1936 by General Ashton. He outlined a policy which I said would take, not $35,000,000 but $200,000,000, in my judgment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Shall I read what General Ashton said? It was to be a comprehensive scheme. Then the next paragraph goes on to speak about the cost of the new Bren plant being $120,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not what I was speaking about.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The permit taken out in Toronto to cover the addition to the John Inglis plant is for $50,000. I saw the report the other day. This addition was in the form of a shed being erected between two buildings, one side of the shed facing south.


Mr. PLAXTON:: How many buildings are on the property?


John Ritchie MacNicol: You will have to give a speech and you can tell all about that. This whole business is the result of your monkeying with things you should not have monkeyed with.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) wants to say anything, he can say it later. He has a pretty sharp and witty tongue. I do not care what he wants to say, but I should not be interrupted while I am speaking. You can say any mortal thing you want to say about me. I have nothing to hide. I am not mixed up with any government contract and I am not defending anybody. My hon. friend is ready to defend anyone who comes to him for defence. I have such a high regard for his ability to defend people that if I ever got in trouble I would ask him to defend me if he wrere free.
The minister said something about British plants. When I was in England two years ago I visited a number of plants and I discussed with the officials the very point raised by the Minister of Agriculture. While there I listened to a debate in the House of Commons in connection with the removal of certain plants adjacent to London which were engaged in the manufacture of munitions. In Slough and other districts adjacent to London many plants had been erected and it was thought advisable that some of them should be moved farther away from London. I suggested to some of these officials that perhaps they could erect new plants in Canada. I may say to the minister that a number of these men told me that if any scheme could be worked out whereby a new plant could be erected in Canada and the necessary trading arrangements made, they would be glad to do it. As he and everybody else knows, they are moving their plants

Bren Gun-Mr. MacNicol
not only outside London but away north of Birmingham, and some of them have been moved north into Scotland. I think it would be a good scheme to induce British manufacturers to move out into this country. I would much rather have done that than induce three or four men, without a plant, and without machinery to operate a plant, to tiy to manufacture the Bren gun. I would have tried to encourage the manufacturers of the Enfield arms to build a branch plant here.


James Garfield Gardiner: Is what we are doing not exactly what they were doing?


John Ritchie MacNicol: You did not do it. You got hold of a man who made radios and got him to go into the armament business.
The Minister of Agriculture referred to my giving a letter of introduction to the Minister of National Defence. I would not hesitate two seconds to give a man dealing in wheat or flour a letter of introduction to the Minister of Agriculture. If every member of this house who has written a letter of introduction to a minister were asked by you, Mr. Speaker, to rise in his place, three-quarters of the membership of this house would have to rise. There is no crime in that, and I do not want any wrong inference to be drawn from that side of the house from the letter of introduction I wrote for John T. Hepburn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I assure my hon. friend that there was not the slightest inference in the world with respect to himself.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Thank you. I would expect a brother Scot to say that.
I want to deal now with two or three other matters. The company with which I was associated for a great many years bought a great number of boilers from the John Inglis plant, and I can say from my knowledge of the John Inglis plant that it was a fine plant for engines and boilers and heavy steelware. The Inglis family were a fine family, and it grieves me to see the Inglis name, which has meant so much in the city of Toronto for so long a time, dragged into an affair like this.
I knew the father, John Inglis, and I knew Mr. William Inglis who died, I think it was in 1935. They were very, very fine men, and it is a grief to every man who knew that family to have their name dragged into this affair, and as an old friend of the family, I am very, very sorry that the company which has taken over the plant was permitted to use the name Inglis. Give it any other name than the highly respectable name of Inglis. I am not saying that those who took it over were
not respectable; but the Inglis name had a fine record, and I never like to see an old established name like that used for any other purpose.
Something has been said about plants not being asked to tender for manufacturing the Bren gun. This afternoon, when my leader was speaking, he asked the Minister of National Defence if he denied that other manufacturers could make the Bren gun, and the minister replied, "Certainly not." I too would say, "Certainly not." I have been connected with the iron and steel business for many years and know a great many men who are in that business, making all kinds of precision tools and machinery that requires the finest of tools and the finest of mechanics, and I could name without hesitation many firms which could manufacture the Bren gun. When I was home on Saturday I took the trouble to ask two firms if they could manufacture the Bren gun. I do not want to mention their names, but I asked them if they could make the gun in their plant or on their property. They are both well known, reliable firms making various lines of machinery that require precision tools, and both answered without hesitation: Yes, they could have done so. That is one of the things I find fault with about this contract. It was given without tenders being invited, and at least twenty companies which could have made the Bren gun were not invited to tender at all. I have no doubt that when the Minister of National Defence rises to speak he will give his reasons why tenders were not invited. But speaking as a business man, engaged in large business for twenty-five years,
I would say that at least twenty companies could have made the Bren gun with some alterations in their plants. It is not necessary for me to read their names.
I know that the minister's department two or three years ago made an exhaustive survey of the industrial plants throughout Canada, and there is to-day in the department a compilation of their equipment and capacity, and what use could be made of these plants for military purposes. That report has been referred to several times since it appeared in the press on November 2, 1938, and I shall not take time to refer to it in more detail here.
I want to say a word or two on the method of letting tenders on a cost-plus basis. I do not approve it. I have had a great deal to do with business in my time, and I have always objected to having anything done on a cost-plus basis. I venture to say that in the Inglis plant in Toronto or in any plant where some' thing is being manufactured on a cost-plus basis you will find people falling over one
Bren Gun-Mr. MacNicol

another. The cost-plus basis just invites adding to the cost of the article; but let your contract by tender and you get a right price.
I am going to tabulate, in chronological order, the various items referred to in the commissioner's report, so that the whole Bren gun business will be plain for all who wish to read.
On May 24, 1935, the British government made an agreement with the patentee of the Bren gun, whose plant was established, I believe, in Czechoslovakia.
In August, 1935-I have not the precise date-two Bren guns were ordered shipped to Canada, according to the report.
On February 27, 1936, the high commissioner in London advised this government that, with regard to the agreement that had been entered into, Canada herself might manufacture the Bren gun, but if the Bren gun were made over here, she should take particular care to see that the gun was made in a plant operated by this government. That is one point which I should like kept firmly in mind, and it is brought up again and again in this report, that the Bren gun, if made here, must be manufactured by the government under its own supervision.
On March 18, 1936, the director of mechanization asked the judge advocate to study the agreement for Canada.
On March 19, 1936, the judge advocate replied.
On April 6, 1936, the John Inglis Company went into liquidation, and now commences the long story of the John Inglis Company.
The report says that late in March or early in April, 1936-it must have been early in April-Messrs. Cameron and Herbert and Gordon Plaxton were considering the Inglis plant, with a view, I suppose, to purchasing it.
On April 22, 1936, Major General Ashton wrote re the Bren gun and pointed out that the gun would have to be manufactured according to the agreement in a plant operated by the government.
On June 3, 1936, the Department of National Defence set its requirements at 7,000 Bren guns.
In June, 1936-the precise date is not given in the report-Mr. Herbert Plaxton interested Major Hahn in a proposal to acquire the Inglis plant, which was then in the hands of the receiver.
In July or August, it does not appear which, Major Hahn decided to become interested in the Inglis plant, with Messrs. Cameron, Pointon, Merritt, and Herbert and Gordon Plaxton.
[Mr. MacNicol.1
In August, 1936, Lieutenant Jolley returned from England. Lieutenant Jolley is an able man and I like what the report says about him. I like the way in which the Minister of Agriculture spoke about him. When it became necessary to send a man to England, why therefore did the government not send Lieutenant Jolley instead of Major Hahn and some others?
On August 24, 1936, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a letter which has been quoted and which, therefore, I shall not quote again. The Prime Minister replied on September 12 and was cautious, as he should be. He went to considerable pains to point out to the hon. member for Trinity that certain methods should be followed. But I was very much surprised to read in the report that on September 15, after receiving the Prime Minister's letter of September 12, the hon. member for Trinity sent the letter to the Minister of National Defence.
On October 9, the report records that the hon. member for Trinity and Major Hahn met in the deputy minister's office and, while there, saw the Breh gun.
On October 10 the department very wisely sent an inspector to investigate the Inglis plant. At that time the department must have had a full report with reference to that plant, because such a report must have been sent in by the inspectors who had been authorized to inspect all plants in Canada.
On October 19 Major Hahn, Mr. Cameron and the hon. member for Trinity saw the minister.
On October 19, it does not say whether before or after that visit, an offer was made by Messrs. Cameron, Pointon, and Merritt to buy the Inglis plant. The offer was to acquire the plant for $250,000 and that was accepted by the Toronto General Trust, I presume on the same date.
On October 19 the minister gave his letter of introduction to Major Hahn, and on October 20 the deputy minister also gave a letter of introduction.
On October 22, Mr. Nurse declared that the interest he held in the Inglis plant as trustee for J. D. Cameron, Herbert Plaxton and others was transferred into a new company capitalized at $1,200,000.
On October 23 the chief aeronautical officer reported in reference to the Inglis plant. What does he say about this plant? It has been quoted before but I think it should be

Bren Gun-Mr. MacNicol
read again. It will be found on page 22 of the report. He says in reference to this firm:
This firm is equipped to do heavy engineering work, boilers, etc. The shops would require to be stripped of their equipment to be suitable for aircraft construction. The shops are more suitable for shells, gun carriage, etc., than for aircraft or aircraft engines.
I know that during the great war the Inglis company did make a vast number of shells for shipment overseas.
On October 26 Major Hahn, the hon. member for Trinity and Mr. Gordon Plaxton sailed for England.
On November 9, the hon. member for Trinity sent two cables from England, one to the minister and one to the deputy. As they have both been read I shall not quote them again.
On November 10 the cables were replied to, making Major Hahn representative of the government.
On November 16 the Anglo-Engineering Company was incorporated to hold some shares of the John Inglis Company.
On November 23 the British Engineering Company was incorporated, having 200,000 shares of one dollar each.
Having been associated with an old-line company that had been in business since 1884, and having customers from one end of the country to the other, I am perfectly at a loss to understand why there should be any necessity whatever for the incorporation of all these companies for the making of the Bren machine guns.
On March 5, 1937, an interdepartmental committee was set up.
On June 4 the company's name was changed to the John Inglis Company. That is something which I very much regret, and I say so in view of the fact that this was an old-established firm and one that was highly respected.
On December 17 another company was set up, Investment Reserves Incorporated, to act as trustees for certain shares in the John Inglis Company.
On January 5, 1937, the interdepartmental committee met to discuss the Inglis contract.
On January 13, a subcommittee of the interdepartmental committee made a report. What did they say? At page 38 of the report this statement appears, that various other companies might have made this equipment, or should have been asked for bids on the equipment; and they discussed the subject of competitive bids, the question why the
John Inglis Company should get this contract, the financial status of the company, and a number of other things. Now that is what the public wants to know. The people want to know why only one company was allowed to have the privilege of manufacturing these guns, especially a company that was not in the business, certainly not in the manufacturing business. They might have been getting ready to manufacture, but they were not actually doing so.
On January 24 the interdepartmental committee discussed the question why other companies were not invited to tender.
On March 22 the contract was authorized, and on March 31 the contract was signed. On April 1 the plant commenced operating.
That is the chronological order as far as I have been able to trace it from the report, giving the various dates of the transaction. The Minister of Agriculture made reference to the Ross rifle, and that recalled to my mind what I heard in Toronto on Saturday last from a man who has two sons who, in the event of war, would likely enlist or be enrolled in the forces. This gentleman said to me: "I am horrified to think what might happen to my sons because I have a clear recollection of what happened in connection with the Ross rifle in the great war." As the Minister of Agriculture said, soldiers threw that rifle away. As we read at that time, a great number of Canadian soldiers lost their lives through the inefficiency of the Ross rifle. What assurance is there to-day that the Bren will be worth a fig? At the time the Ross rifles were made, the Ross rifle factory at Quebec was supposed to be equipped with the finest machinery, but apparently it was not able to turn out guns which were reliable. What assurance is there that the Bren guns made in the old John Inglis plant will be any better? They would perhaps, however, be too heavy for the soldiers to throw away. I hope these guns will be efficient; I trust they will, but what assurance have we that they will be any better manufactured than the old Ross rifles were? That is a question that disturbs the people of the city from which I come.
I appreciate the fact that the government gave the contract, when it did give it, to a plant in Toronto. I am one of those who firmly believe that everything that can be made in this country should be so made; I know there were at least a score of plants in Canada at that time which could have gone into making Bren guns without too much change, companies with which I am well acquainted myself. So that the government
Bren Gun-Mr. Pelletier

has to answer that question why one company only, and that one apparently organized on purpose to make Bren guns, was given the opportunity to tender on the Bren gun, to the exclusion of several old-established companies.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: This debate has arisen on a motion by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil) that the Bren gun investigation report should be referred to the standing committee on public accounts. When the motion was made the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke on it; since then many other members of the government have also spoken, and they all insist that they have carefully read the report and found absolutely nothing wrong. If that be the case they must have been wearing rose-coloured glasses when they read it, because it is evident from the report that there certainly are things which need correction in connection with this matter. I am surprised at the attitude taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). He began by saying that in his opinion the commissioner had been limited in several ways in making his report. For example, he continuously referred to parts of the report quoting arguments presented by various counsel. For example, Mr. Geoffrion, counsel for one of the parties concerned, said to the commissioner :
No charges being laid, no report of misconduct or no report can be made against us, because there was no charge of misconduct, and no notice to us . . . and I say on the record, as it is now made, it is completely ultra vires, and it is of course inconceivable that there should be a report of misconduct, as there has been no charge.
He also said:
Under the circumstances, so far as Major Hahn and the John Inglis Company are concerned, I suggest-and I suggest this most emphatically-that there is absolutely no jurisdiction in finding misconduct of any sort on his part.
But the subject of public concern is, in my opinion, that at the conclusion of a long hearing. counsel in their arguments, except counsel for Colonel Drew, raised all sorts of objections to the commissioner commenting on the evidence, or expressing any opinion that he might see fit to express, or making any recommendation as a result of his investigation, although he was expressly directed by his commission to do so. Further on we find this statement by Mr. Geoffrion to the commissioner :
You can report the facts, but if the facts of the report necessarily involve a charge of misconduct, you cannot.

It seems to me that the meaning of the word "misconduct" certainly has something to do with the interpretation which the commissioner might place on the argument of counsel. If misconduct simply means that there is something directly wrong with the minister or with the contract, it is possible that the commissioner could not have looked into it from that particular angle. But if misconduct means that perhaps the negotiations leading to the letting of the contract were not conducted as they should have been, then it is my opinion that the commissioner should not have been influenced by the argument of counsel. There is, however, no evidence that he was. But I feel inclined to ask this question:	In view of the fact that this
statement was repeated to the commissioner so many times by various people appearing before him as counsel, is it possible to believe that the commissioner felt there were certain questions which, in the light of representations made by counsel, he should not ask? I doubt that, however, because the commissioner has stated that the inquiry was open. But in the light of the arguments presented by the leader of the opposition I fail to see why he should not be willing to let the matter go to the committee.
The other day the Prime Minister said something in connection with what might be the rights of hon. members if this investigation were put before a select committee of the house. I admit that at that time the words of the Prime Minister seemed to put a certain restraint upon hon. members of this house.
I felt that if I went ahead and spoke in this debate regardless of the words of the Prime Minister, perhaps I should be exceeding what would be considered proper by him. I recalled, however, that perhaps the Prime Minister was following the tactics sometimes used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who at times rises in his place and thunders at the house, telling hon. members what dire things will happen to them if such and such a course of action is followed. As a case in point, I should like to quote a few lines from Hansard to show the attitude that is sometimes taken by the Minister of Finance, which perhaps influenced the stand taken by the Prime Minister the other day. In 1938 we find the Minister of Finance, in an endeavour, I imagine, to compel some hon. members to realize the dire danger of some things which they were doing, thundering out these words, as reported at page 474 of Hansard for February 15, 1938: May I point out that in an authoritarian state a man who said what the leader of the opposition said would by now be in another

Bren Gun-Mr. Pelletier
sphere; he would have been "liquidated" or- what is the other word?-"purged." As for my hon. friend from Peace River (Hr. Pelletier) what would have happened to him I shudder to think.
Remembering the words of the Minister of Finance I thought the Prime Minister was perhaps following in his footsteps and in that manner trying to tell us not to do something which he felt should not be done.
I listened with great care to the argument of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that someone in this house was criticizing Major Hahn. As far as I am concerned I am not worrying about Major Hahn, but in the light of the report on the Bren machine gun the question that concerns u's is what will happen to the money which shortly will be in the hands of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), if such things as this are permitted to go on. True, no one has found any corruption of any kind; no one has ever suggested any corruption, but I am sure we are all agreed that the method by which this contract was negotiated is not a method which should be followed in a democratic country. That is the point at stake, rather than the reputation of Major Hahn or anybody else, and I submit that when the Minister of Agriculture dwelt on that point he failed to touch the argument at all. The minister also referred to the inference left by the leader of the opposition-of course according to the minister-


An hon. MEMBER:: Look at the paper.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Yes; I will look at the paper and get it right. The minister referred to the inference left by the leader of the opposition during the course of his speech. I suggest that if there were any such inference, it was no worse than the inference suggested by the leader of the government himself when he referred to the political affiliations of the judge appointed to conduct the inquiry. It seemed to me that when the Prime Minister stated that this judge was not of Liberal origin or appointed by the Liberal party, that he was a Conservative, it must have meant to the people at large that some doubt must be reflected upon those who had been appointed under a Liberal administration. It did not seem to me that the Prime Minister should have made any such reference, because it does cast some sort of reflection upon the Supreme Court of Canada. I have always felt that once men have been appointed to such exalted positions, they leave behind all their political partisanship and become solely interested in justice, no matter who may be concerned.
71492-44 J
It might be well to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman who was retained as counsel for one of the interested parties, namely Mr. Geoffrion, is the gentleman who last year was engaged by this government to present the case of the federal government to the Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of the reference of certain statutes of the province of Alberta. This is probably simply a coincidence, but I mention it in passing because I feel that it might be a good thing if it were more widely known.
In my opinion the purpose of this debate is not simply to find fault with any minister of the government but to make sure, by referring the matter to a properly constituted committee of this house, that we in Canada may be absolutely sure that there is no tinkering, shall I say, with anything having to do with the question of munitions or the awarding of contracts. Probably the Prime Minister remembers very well what occurred in this house last year during the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The then leader of the opposition made certain charges having to do with graft and political corruption. I said he made charges, but I should have said he made insinuations. At that time I suggested to the leader of the government that perhaps it would be best to ask the leader of the opposition to prove those charges and thus clear the atmosphere. There might not have been anything to them, and perhaps the whole thing would have died away. I believe if that course had been followed, such occurrences as we are discussing to-day might not have taken place.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Oh, no. You thrive on scandal.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I admit, of course, that this investigation does not concern any scandal, but the very fact that a committee had investigated political patronage naturally would have tended to restrain the ministers from considering granting favours to certain political friends. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture when he says Major Hahn simply sold himself to the Department of National Defence. Of course he sold himself, with the assistance of one of the supporters of this government. That was the way in which the thing was done, and perhaps if my suggestion last year had been adopted this situation would not have arisen.
I know very well it is the desire of the Prime Minister to have absolute integrity on the part of his government and to have nothing wrong with any contract dealing with

Bren Gun-Mr. Pelletier
the question of armaments for this country. In this connection I submit the following for his consideration; the commissioner made the following recommendation:
Wliat is plain to me at the end of this long inquiry is this: that if the policy of private manufacture of wa r munitions and armaments is to be continued in this country (a question of administrative policy for the government and parliament to determine), once the requirements are determined by the Department of National Defence 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-a capable and experienced manufacturer, a commercial lawyer who has had a wide practice in dealing with large commercial contracts, a representative of labour, and say a chartered accountant who has had experience in the examination of substantial business transactions. These persons should constitute a board (which might be known as the "Defence Purchasing Board") -
Knowing as I do the sincere, earnest desire of the Prime Minister to bring about such a happy situation, I suggest that it would be a wonderful gesture on his part if he were to arrange to have such a board properly constituted and to have it report not only to the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance but also to the leader of the opposition and to another member representing the independent groups in this house. Handled in that way, with such an open-handed gesture, I feel sure that this question of political patronage in connection with contracts would never again arise in this country. That is simply a suggestion; I realize that it might not be advisable from the point of view of the government, but I believe at a time like this the government would be quite willing to put aside questions of party and rise to greater heights for the sake of the economic welfare of the Canadian people. I feel confident that if such a plan were accepted by the Prime Minister, it would at once remove all doubt in the minds of the people of Canada in regard to the handling of matters of this kind. There is no doubt that to-day many people are questioning themselves and others with regard to what is happening in connection with contracts of this kind. People are too prone to go around the country saying, "Oh, sure, somebody is making money out of this thing, and we have to pay for it in taxation, or perhaps with the lives of our sons or husbands." It is only right that they should ask themselves such questions, when they read the report of the Nye committee of the United States senate. Anyone interested in this question of the private manufacture of munitions will find a great deal of interesting reading in that report. No doubt 
that question will be discussed by the committee, and perhaps a recommendation will be made that there should be no private gain in the manufacture of armaments. That I do not know; nevertheless one cannot help but be struck by words such as these, from the report of the committee to which I just referred:
*-it is clear that the private shipbuilders should very definitely be policed in any and all moves made by them or through them to confuse public defence needs with their private profit, or should be cut off entirely from the building of ships for the navy.
Of course this part of the report refers particularly to the navy, the shipyards, the building of battleships and cruisers, and armaments of that kind. But armaments are armaments no matter whether they are Bren machine guns or boats, and the people never like to make that kind of expenditure unless they feel it is absolutely necessary. That is why I say to the Prime Minister that if he were to follow, perhaps with certain modifications, the suggestion which I have made, he would at once remove from the minds of the people of this country any thought that there might be anything wrong with the handling of contracts of this kind.
Undoubtedly we shall have occasion later on to refer once more to the findings of this commission, when the report comes from the committee to which it is intended it shall be referred. I believe that nothing is to be lost by referring this report to the committee. I cannot agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that the debate arising out of the report has finally cleared the atmosphere. In my mind too many doubts have been raised to be left where they are; they need to be cleared up; and I feel that the only possible place to clear them up is where members of a committee have free access to all documents and have the power to bring before them any person whom they may see fit to call. I repeat this because there may have been the thought in the mind of the commissioner that he was precluded by a section of the Inquiries Act from asking certain questions which otherwise he might have asked.
I conclude these few words in the hope that the Prime Minister will give serious consideration to the suggestion that I have made, because I believe that only by rising above political lines shall we be able to retain the confidence of the people of this country with regard to armament manufacture.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's) :: Mr. Speaker, I have read the report and I believe the people have read it. I can come to only one conclusion, that we should have the full discus-

Bren Gun-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
sion on this matter which we are having. The people demand a full discussion right on the floor of this house, not in any committee. I do not want to take any chances of having discussion blocked by technicalities. We want to have the scope of discussion as wide as possible.
The impassioned speech which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made on this motion sounded to me, a new member, like intimidation. I am sure some other hon. members felt the same way, but I can assure him that I am not intimidated. He said, as reported at page 596 of Hansard:
What I am concerned about is that some other hon. members in the course of debate at this stage may without realizing the significance of their actions commit themselves by their expressions to such an extent that every man, woman and child in this country will know that they have arrived at a particular attitude which they intend to maintain in the committee, and that the committee therefore would lose in the public mind if not also in fact the judicial aspect which it ought to have.
I do not believe the discussion will lose any judicial aspect if it is conducted on the floor of this house. What I am more concerned about is that if this contract is referred to a committee which will be composed of some thirty-six members of the government and only fourteen members from other parts of the house, every man, woman and child will not know the facts. The Prime Minister knows he need have no fear, because before this discussion is over every man, woman and child in this country will know the facts and will be able to judge for themselves whether this contract is good or bad.
There is no need to refer this contract to any committee. It is bad. Anyone reading the report and studying it knows it is bad. It should be cancelled. Any man of the ability of the Prime Minister knows it is bad. Why refer it to the public accounts committee? "Why go to the expense of a further investigation? The facts are all before us in the report. The evidence is there. Why not now cancel the contract? Is the Prime Minister not apprehensive about its being carried out? If he is, he had better cancel it. What about the cost of production? Suppose we examine for a few minutes the stock set-up of the company. I draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that 250,000 shares are issued to the John Inglis Company at $6 a share. That amounts to $1,500,000, made up as follows:
58,333 shares of treasury stock
at $6	$349,998
5	shares held by various
people	 30
191,662 vendors' shares at $6.. ..1,149,972
What did they pay for these 191,662 shares? They paid $100,000, or a little more than fifty-two cents a share. Some treasury stock was sold for $231,000, at between $6 and $750. Nevertheless Major Hahn and his associates paid only a little more than fifty-two cents. The profit on the transaction, at $6 a share, was $1,049,972. If we take into account that they had to pay $100,000 for that stock and they made that profit, it was given them for the Bren gun contract.
It has been argued that it would be very costly for the government to undertake this contract. Yet all the real cash it was proposed to carry on with was the proceeds of the treasury stock, between three and four hundred thousand dollars, plus the $100,000 cash, or about $500,000. The argument that it would be too costly for the government to carry out this contract does not hold good, because it would cost them only $500,000 plus what they have put into it, and if the government had taken the contract themselves they would have saved the $1,149,972 which these other fellows are going to get. I shall speak again about that a little later.
Did the Prime Minister instruct counsel? He said he did, according to a press report. Who employs counsel? The Prime Minister. Who should instruct counsel? The Prime Minister. He asked if it was his duty. He should not need to ask; he should know. Possibly he will appoint another commission to tell him whether he should instruct counsel. On page 50 of his report Mr. Justice Davis states:
The question is: Were proper and sufficient steps taken in this case to discharge that responsibility? Upon the whole evidence, that is a question for the government and parliament to pass upon.
He says that is a question for the government and parliament to pass upon. That object can be attained only by full discussion without limit as to scope. The public are demanding it, and they are entitled to it. How were the individual firms or corporations selected? Were they selected as a result of a departmental investigation? I quote from page 2912 of Hansard of May 16, 1938, as follows:
Some eighteen months ago an industrial survey was commenced under the direction of the master general of the ordnance. Speaking in round figures, I believe about 700 firms in various parts of Canada have been surveyed with reference to their potential capacity for production in any particular direction in the event of a national emergency.
That is a statement by the minister. If the Inglis company were picked out as a result of this investigation by the ordnance branch, then it is an insult to the abilities,

Bren Gun-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
the capacities and reputations of the 700 firms investigated. I cannot think for one minute that the ordnance branch could have been so inefficient as to place the John Inglis Company at the head of the list of 700 odd firms which had been investigated. If they did, then we certainly need a clean-up in the ordnance branch. These are days of national emergency. What is the use of investigating 700, 800 or a thousand firms and then pigeonholing the investigation? That is something I cannot understand. Perhaps that will come out in the discussion on the floor of this house. This plant was inspected in October, 1936, at the request of the deputy minister. I quote from page 22 of the report as follows:
This plant is primarily equipped for the manufacture of boilers, turbines and the working of heavy plate generally.
I ask hon. members if the Bren gun resembles a turbine or a boiler, or if heavy plate is used in its manufacture? I quote:
... it might be used for the manufacture of tanks or shells.
Does the Bren gun look like a tank or a shell? I do not think it does. This plant was not the best plant in Canada. What are the main requisites for the manufacture of the precision parts in a piece of mechanism like the Bren gun? They are knowledge, experience and skilled workmen. Did the Inglis company have any of these? I quote again from page 22 of the report:
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.
These are the workmen and this is the equipment which formed part of this fully equipped factory or factories which were controlled by Major Hahn and his group. These are the factories which were chosen to manufacture this piece of precision mechanism. The deputy minister said that they had surveyed nearly a thousand plants. I submit that that survey of a thousand plants was disregarded entirely. Why was that survey disregarded? That is something which parliament should find out. I quote a question and an answer reported on page 29 of the report as follows:
Q. But there were firms in Canada who had been doing very delicate steel operations for a great many years, were there not?
A. In my judgment it had nothing whatsoever to do with the question, because for this reason, that any company in Canada could not undertake this particular contract unless there was a greater volume of production to reduce the cost of production-and that was essentially a vital factor in the whole thing.

That was the minister's judgment. He said that any company in Canada could not undertake this particular contract unless there were a greater volume of production to reduce the cost of production. It would be too expensive. How ridiculous it is to talk about the cost of producing these guns and the cost of putting up a plant! The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) certainly left in some of our minds an impression that it was going to cost some $30,000,000 or $35,000,000, or possibly $200,000,000, in his judgment. What was to happen to all the money that was to come from the promotion of the sale of this stock? Was there: to be profiteering? All they paid for the 191,662 shares which they got was a little over fifty-two cents per share. What was paid for the treasury shares which were sold to the public? The public paid between $6 and $7. Did they not have in their minds that these 191,662 shares would go up in value? Do you think they were not looking for profit? Not only did they get these 191,662 shares, but as time goes on those shares might be worth $10, $15, or even $20 each. Is that making armaments for this country without profit? The minister gave his judgment with respect' to the cost of production and stated that was why he did not ask other firms to do the job. How did he know what the cost of production was going to be? None of these firms had a chance to bid on the Bren gun contract. None of them was asked.
It may be said that possibly some of these firms would not go into production unless they got a big profit, but when I was home over the weekend I took the trouble to go round to several of these firms. Again I do not wish to mention names, but I was assured that if the manufacture of armaments in Canada were necessary, and if it was put up to them, they would manufacture armaments at a very small profit. They also felt that the manufacture of these armaments would be just as much for their own benefit as for the benefit of all the rest of the community. They would be willing to enter into contracts. They would get a group together to manufacture Bren guns, and they would not be paying out profits by way of stock promotion.


Robert James Manion: Of a million dollars.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: A million dollars profit by way of stock promotion! Parliament has to find out why these firms were not approached. There is a great deal in this report about why they were not approached, but I think we need to know a little more about it. The great thing to-day

Bren Gun-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
is that this country needs these guns. The minister himself says that they are of vital necessity to Canada. I am sure that if this contract were cancelled, there would be no difficulty at all in getting the manufacturers of this country together, telling them that there was an emergency and that guns were needed, and in having them manufacture all the guns that were needed. After all, Mr. Speaker, who is it that understands the manufacture of these things? Is it this gentleman who is a manufacturer of radios or refrigerators? What does he know about the heat- treatment of steel and alloys and precision steel down to the ten-thousandth of an inch? All he knows is no more than our young friend, Mr. Jolley, a graduate of my own university, knows, and Mr. Jolley is a good man. I know something about him, and he does know something about the manufacture of this stuff.
Canadian manufacturers are keen to manufacture all our defence requirements, and they do not want profits. They want to keep their workmen employed. We do not want profits out of armaments in this country. We do not want to make money out of blood. Our own manufacturers would do this job for you if you would only give them a chance, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that they have never had a chance. The Department of National Defence is responsible for that. I repeat, it is the Department of National Defence that is responsible.
I wish to quote further from the report with reference to the interdepartmental committee. That committee had somewhat the same ideas that I have expressed. They would have been able to find out the same sort of thing that I found out, and I am perfectly sure that they would have found that there would be no difficulty in getting our own manufacturers to make these guns. I know they could have got a group of manufacturers together to manufacture these guns, in a government-owned factory, if you like, and these manufacturers would give all the assistance that was necessary to the government to have these guns manufactured in Canada; but as long as we are going to have patronage in the manufacture of armaments in this country we are not going to get some manufacturers to sacrifice their chances, just at their own expense.
Let me quote from page 37 of the report:
We-
That is the interdepartmental committee:
We pointed out that there was a number of very substantial subsisting companies in Canada that were manufacturing precision tools, and had experience in what we thought was
this line of work. We felt that they should be consulted and given an opportunity to submit competitive tenders.
That is a pretty strong statement. I think it would take a great deal of persuasion to turn these men away from that attitude. They had evidently gone into this matter carefully, and they knew what their duty was with respect to the situation. They realized the seriousness of it. They are the highest type of men we have in Canada, and why was not their recommendation acted on? Why did somebody override them? What was the reason for their advice being disregarded? Parliament wants to know why. We do not want to take this thing into some committee, with a preponderance of government members, and be choked off, as so often happens in these committees, by technicalities being raised and things of that sort. We want a thorough discussion of the whole matter on the floor of this house, so that every man, woman and child in this country will know about these things. How can we ever expect our young men to enlist in the militia when they hear about this kind of thing; when they know this sort of thing is going on; when they know of the patronage that exists in the Department of National Defence? Look at the regiments in Toronto! How are they now? Away down below strength. How are they treated? They cannot get boots or anything at all. It is disgraceful. What an opportunity the Department of National Defence has to do something for these young fellows!
I see it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



CONTRACT AND SUPPLEMENTARY CORRESPONDENCE TO BE TABLED

Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence to lay on the table a copy of the Bren gun contract?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was done on June 29 of last year, but if the clerk is not seized of it I would be most happy to get a copy or two for my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And would he also lay on the table any supplementary letters or otherwise with respect to changes made in the contract?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I know of none, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Robert James Manion: The one my hon. friend is referring to is the change that was made after the article in Maclean's magazine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A letter?
Privilege-Mr. Finn


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should be very glad if the minister would lay on the table a few copies of the contract and that supplementary letter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall be very glad to do that to-morrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 7, 1939