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.

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.

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is not a condemnation; it is a recommendation.

Mr. 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?

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Read on.

Mr. MANION:

I do not want to read it all. Anyone can read it.

Some lion. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

Mr. 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

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

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.

Mr. MANION:

I am not charging corruption, neither is George Drew doing so.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The law is the law; we cannot get away from it.