Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland, Ont.):

Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house

I move that the first report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented to the house on the 14th instant, be now concurred in, as follows:

Your committee recommends that it be empowered:

(1) To print, from day to day, 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of its minutes of proceedings and evidence, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.

(2) To sit while the house is in session.

(3) To employ clerical and stenographic assistance.

(4) To sit, for a period not exceeding two days, in the city of Toronto, and that the payment of any travelling expenses incurred be authorized.

Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the report be not now concurred in but that it be referred back to the standing committee on public accounts with instructions to delete clause 4 therefrom.

Under clause 4 authority is requested from this house that the public accounts committee may sit for a period not exceeding two days in the city of Toronto, and that the payment of any travelling expenses incurred be authorized.

i938 COMMONS

Public Accounts Committee Report

As one of the minority of that committee who protested against this procedure, I find it necessary to carry the protest in this form to the floor of the house. It is not my intention to obstruct the business of the committee but rather to protest against a plan which I believe will obstruct the true purposes of the inquiry.

I submit that this procedure is not within the intentions of parliament when the inquiry was authorized. As far as I can discover there is no precedent for it in the records of parliament. Not a word of evidence has yet been heard; and apparently the members of the committee are to be transported to Toronto and to be dazzled, or to be influenced, before any evidence is heard, by the sight of a humming industry. I submit that the present state of the plant is not in question. What is in question is the state of the plant in October 1936 and at the time the contract was executed in March 1938. This is an attempt to focus attention on that which has occurred since the execution of the contract, whereas the purpose of the inquiry is to deal with that which occurred prior to the execution of the contract. Since the execution of the contract, and according to the statement made by the minister in the house the other evening, a sum approximating $844,000 has been spent on the plant. It should be in good shape. If it is not in good shape, others should pass judgment on that matter. Apparently it is in such good shape that the John Inglis Company is in a position to advertise in all the trade journals that it is prepared to take on a great deal of other business. It is altogether too late for the jury to visit the scene of the crime.

I submit that the committee is not in a position to determine the ability of the company to execute the contract according to schedule. It has been contended that that should be the purpose of the committee at its outset. For that purpose experts are required, and if during the proceedings of the committee it be found necessary to secure evidence on any of these matters, experts should be secured. There are many on the committee-and perhaps I may include myself in the number,-who could not tell the difference 'between certain types of shaping presses and heavy duty boring lathes. If we are to determine whether or not the company is in a position to carry out the contract according to schedule, it will be necessary to examine production schedules. I can readily imagine that there would be objection to such a procedure, and in any event it is entirely beyond the resources of the committee. Appraisal and inspection companies

now employed by the Canadian government could carry out this work if in the judgment of the committee it were considered necessary.

Statements have been made repeatedly that discussion of this contract in the house has delayed the company in meeting the requirements of Canada's defence forces. What could delay the work in this factory more than to conduct through the premises at this time fifty members of a standing committee of this house, and to require that company to make preparations for such a visit? In addition, prominent officials of the company will later be required to give evidence at length before the committee.

I have also in mind the warning given on various occasions by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that committees of this house should exercise care in incurring expense for printing and the calling of witnesses. Therefore the cost of this plan should be taken into consideration. And it should be taken into consideration on the basis of the outside liability. The phrasing of this report is such that it does not restrain hon. members who take the trip from submitting accounts for their out-of-pocket expenses. It has been the custom when members of this house are required to undertake journeys on public business of this kind that they seek reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. The suggestion has been made that members of the committee might refrain from submitting expense accounts, but there is nothing in the phrasing of this report to restrain them, and therefore the outside liability should be considered. I have made a rough and ready calculation, and the lowest estimate of the cost of a two-day sitting in Toronto is something in the neighbourhood of S650. I can itemize that if any hon. member requires it.

In justice to all the firms concerned it follows that similar visits should be made to other plants-to Montreal in order to visit the premises of Montreal Construction Supply and Equipment Limited, and possibly to the dominion government arsenal in the city of Quebec. Certainly if proper comparisons are to be made, visits should be made under this precedent to other established firms in Canada equipped to do machining work of this kind.

I submit therefore that the ultimate cost of the policy for which this report establishes a precedent would involve a sum of over $2,000 to be paid out of the public treasury, and for no good purpose. For that reason the trip would be regarded simply as a junketing trip.

I desire to restate the purposes of this inquiry as I stated them when I moved the

Public Accounts Committee Report

motion of reference to the committee. I moved the motion of reference because of specific issues raised by Mr. Justice Davis. He stated in his report that certain matters would have to be determined by parliament. The first was whether or not the Bren gun could be manufactured under public auspices or by private manufacture. The second was whether the conduct of the individuals concerned was above question, as referred to on page 35 of the report. The third was whether adequate reasons existed for the failure of the interdepartmental committee to report back to the government when the system of supervision of contracts broke down, as referred to on page 41 of the report. The fourth was to discover whether the procedure followed in negotiating this contract protected the public interest, as referred to on page 49. The fifth was whether proper steps were taken to ensure proper discharge of the responsibility assumed in the selection of one particular contractor, as referred to at page 50.

These were the main reasons I advanced in moving my motion of reference to the committee. I protest most vigorously against the proposal embodied in clause 4 of the report of the committee, inspired by the eminent and learned counsel for the defence on the committee, as being nothing more or less than a brazen window-dressing to obscure the real purpose of the inquiry.

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):

I think little need be added to what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) in regard to the motion and on the amendment now before the house; that is, that the committee on public accounts proceed to Toronto to take evidence there. I took the position in the public accounts committee that we should first proceed with such evidence as could be obtained and such investigation as could be made in Ottawa, and that if subsequently we found it necessary to go to Toronto and inspect the John Inglis plant, that the permission of the house could then be requested. I am sure there would be no objection from the committee if it became evident as we proceeded that that was necessary. However, the majority of the committee thought otherwise, and we have this motion.

I sumbit that there is no reason at this time for inspecting the John Inglis plant. The commissioner who was appointed to investigate this contract and who heard evidence for something like two months, did not at any time during that time consider it a part of his duty to go to Toronto to inspect this plant officially. As the hon. member for

Vancouver North has already stated, if this committee inspects the John Inglis plant it will be bound to inspect all the other plants in Canada that %re capable of carrying on this kind of work.

We have in the report of Mr. Justice Davis, on page 37, the evidence of Mr. Fraser Elliott of the interdepartmental committee. He 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 bi'ds 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 xvhat 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.

I submit that if we go to Toronto to see the John Inglis plant, and if we draw any inferences from what we see there, we are bound to visit these other plants and find out for ourselves whether they were or were not in a position to bid on this particular work.

One of the members of the committee, a medical man, speaking in favour of the motion to inspect the John Inglis plant and take evidence in Toronto, stated that he was taught by his professors never to make a diagnosis without seeing the patient. This is not a matter of making a diagnosis without seeing the patient. This is a matter of justifying a caesarean operation, two years after it was performed, by having a look at the infant. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we shall be merely wasting the time of the house, the time of the committee and the money of the people of this country by taking this trip to Toronto. There are many things in regard to this contract, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has pointed out, that need investigating; but at this time it does not appear that there is anything that can be learned by going to Toronto to inspect this plant, because the John Inglis plant as it is to-day is not the John Inglis plant as it was at the time this contract was signed. As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) pointed out, I think on Tuesday last, something like $844,000 has been spent on this plant by the Canadian and British governments since that time.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order. There is too much noise in the house. I would ask hon. members to converse in lower tones; I can hardly hear what the hon. member is saying.

. COMMONS

Public Accounts Committee Report

Mr. MaeINNIS: Some other members of the committee said they wanted to go to Toronto to see the John Inglis plant because of certain statements made in the committee to the effect that it was a boiler shop.

A broken down boiler shop.

Mr. MaeINNIS: Yes, a broken down boiler shop. There is no question of that; that statement was accepted by the commissioner and by everyone connected with the commission as being correct.

No, no.

Mr. MaeINNIS: Well, just let us see. Mr. H. S. Alguire, of the aircraft inspection detachment at Toronto, made a report which was filed with the commission, in which he said that the factory at the time the report was written, October, 1936, was inoperative and had not been in operation since April, 1936. There was no staff in the plant at the time, with the exception of three maintenance men; and he stated that the plant was equipped for making boilers and heavy machinery of that kind, adding that in view of the time the plant had been in operation, the machinery was in reasonably good condition.

That is not the plant we are going to see; that is not the plant we will see if we go to Toronto. The plant we will see will be an altogether new plant, containing nearly a million dollars' worth of machinery which was not in it when this contract was signed. That is why I say we should not take up the time of the committee or spend the money of the people of Canada in a junketing trip of this kind.

Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):

As one of those who formed the minority in the committee in regard to this proposal I should like to make my position clear. When the suggestion that the committee visit the Toronto plant was first broached, I thought a smaller committee would be more effective and more economical. I voted for the suggestion of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) that a subcommittee go to Toronto instead of sending the whole committee. That amendment was defeated, and the main motion was carried. I did not vote for the motion, but so far as I am concerned if the motion carries to-day I feel that it will be my duty to proceed to Toronto with the rest of the committee. However, I still feel that a small subcommittee would have been just as effective and certainly less expensive.

Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, the first thing that strikes me in regard to this matter is the fact that the Bren gun contract and the report of Mr. Justice Davis were referred to the public accounts committee over four weeks ago. Almost four weeks went by before the committee was even called; almost five weeks have gone by, and we have had only one meeting. At that meeting the proposal now submitted by the chairman of that committee was adopted by an overwhelming majority. As one of those who opposed it I want to make my position clear, and at the same time I want to point out to hon. members what to my mind is a ridiculous situation. There has been a great deal of comment by the press and by citizens generally throughout the country as to the waste of time and of public money. If we take this proposed joy ride to Toronto I consider that it will be one of the worst pieces of burlesque to which this house has ever been a party.

What is proposed? It is suggested that we should send this committee, consisting of fifty members, to the city of Toronto to look over a plant which has a contract from this government. The original motion was that we should spend not more than two days there taking evidence. Now I understand the idea is that we should not take evidence. What is behind the motion? So far as I can see, the only thing behind it is that hon. members who resent the criticism of this contract may be able to go back to their voters and say, " We saw a very well-equipped plant, which is making the Bren machine gun." Why is this proposal advanced? For no other reason, Mr. Speaker, than that these hon. members, without any particular knowledge of machinery, or the equipment of this plant, or what it can do, may be in a position to try to offset the criticism that has come from one end of this country to the other with regard to this contract.

What brought about this whole trouble? It resulted simply because a man obtained a very important contract through political patronage, and it has been shown very clearly who that man is. He is a promoter; he has been promoting companies, not for the general welfare of the people of Canada but for his own welfare.

Order.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not wish to call the hon. gentleman to order, but surely he knows that this matter is before the committee and that he is not at liberty to discuss, as he is discussing, matters that are at present in the hands of the committee.

Public Accounts Committee Report

Mr. HOMUTH:

I still maintain that this motion is being made as a start. in the investigation of the Bren gun contract, and I am opposing this trip to Toronto for certain reasons. One of them is that throughout the whole thing we pointed out the inefficiency of the plant, the fact that it was not fitted to make Bren guns and that there was no assurance it was fitted to make any- kind of [DOT]ammunition. But as a result of getting this contract certain men who were promoting it and who got the contract and control of the business would have been in a position to make millions of dollars of profits, through stock manipulation alone.

Order.

Mr. HOMUTH:

I submit I am in order, Mr. Speaker; I am discussing the matter and pointing out the things that we as a committee are supposed to investigate as a result of the debate which took place in the house.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It has gone far beyond that.

Mr. IIOMUTH:

If I am out of order, sir, I will abide by your ruling. -

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member should confine his remarks to the motion and the amendment before the house. The amendment is that the report be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the committee with instructions to delete a certain paragraph. That is the subject matter at present before the house.

Mr. HOMUTH:

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But I do say that we are asked to go to Toronto to investigate a plant-not the plant that was there when the contract was given, but a new plant which has been constructed, in which the Bren machine gun is being made. It is not being made in that immense boiler factory with ceilings sixty, seventy or eighty feet high. The Bren machine gun is being made in an addition-and a rather cheap looking addition at that-which has been built outside the old John Inglis Company plant. In that part they have spent $844,000 in machinery, much of the profit from which is going to those who are promoting this whole affair. The plant we would see is entirely different from the plant which was there when the contract was made.

There were lies told about the plant, and untruths told about the condition of the plant, in order to get the contract. One lie led to another, and the whole thing was a case of misrepresentation. We charge that the old John Inglis Company plant was not a fit place

in which to make the Bren machine gun. The very fact that they had to build a new plant is proof of that.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is not discussing the merits of the question.

Mr. STEWART:

On a point of order, I submit it must be borne in mind that the reference to the public accounts committee is absolutely wide open. The reference to the committee included the Bren gun contract, the report of the commissioner on that contract, and all other contracts. The report of the committee suggests a visit to Toronto to inspect a plant. I submit every reason which can be urged against inspection of that plant i3 quite in order now on this motion.