-at my instance, I presume, for the purpose of being circulated broadcast throughout Canada.
The fair inference from
the words of the Solicitor General is that I read what purported to be an extract from the speech of Mr. Thomas, and that it was altered in Hansard for distribution throughout the length and breadth of Canada, so as to give a faulty impression of what Mr. Thomas had said. The extract as I read it to the House was seot to Hansard word for word, without lamy alteration. I did not see any member of the
Hansard staff upon the subject; I had no communication directly or indirectly with any member of the staff, and the error which occurred occurred in Hansard and without any fault of mine. As I read the extract, so I sent it out to Hansard with other memoranda for which the Han,-sard reporter asked. I noticed the mistake when I read over my speech in the Unrevised Hansard, and I immediately corrected it, striking out the word " far," and sent the correction for the Revised Hansard, before my attention wlals called to the remarks of the Solicitor General.
With regard to the matter of the purchase of submarines, my. hon. friend, veTy unfairly I thought, sought to convey the impression that when I made the statement to the House that to my surprise certain matters had been left uninvestigated, that certain questions had been left unanswered, I at that time had in my possession a copy of the evidence taken by the commission; because my hon. friend is reported to have made this statement, which appears on page 137 of Hansard;
I quote from the evidence. I am informed that the evidence has been handed to the Opposition-at all events to the leader of the Opposition-and, consequently should be at the disposal of his followers in the same way as it was at mine, which was only yesterday.
Now, Sir, the day when I spoke on the subject of submarines was the day before my hon. friend had himself obtained the evidence.
What I said was that 1 had received it yesterday.
I had not seen the evidence; I had not heard of it, and I presumed it w-o-ulH not be (available for anybody until the official report was brought down and submitted to the House. That is the time when we have a right to expect the evidence and when I expected that it would be brought down, and I very much suspect that, after I had made my remarks with regard to the submarines, my hon. friend took pains to get the evidence, and in all probability he had a copy of it sent to my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, but it was done after I had made my remarks.
Mr. hon. friend did me an injustice in another respect when he sought to convey the impression that I had been guilty of very great unfairness in not .quoting correctly the examination by Mr. Thompson before the commissioner with regard to the test.
I rise to a point of order. This is no question of privilege whatever. The hon. gentleman is endeavouring to make a reply to my speech. He is distinctly out of order. [DOT]
Not at all. The hon. gentleman went on to attack me. He stated that I had been guilty of conduct which in truth he could not describe as* the conduct of a gentleman. Before he closed, it is true, he said he had made remarks which he had not intended to make,, and which were unparliamentary or might be unparliamentary.
I am addressing His
Order. I, understand
that the hon. member for St. John-is speaking in order to correct some remarks which were made by the hon. Solicitor General, and, according to the practice followed in this House, as can be seen in Bourinot, I think that the hon. member for St." John can proceed with his remarks.
My hon. friend sought
to convey the impression that I knew when I made those remarks that the commissioner had inquired very carefully into the test which had been made of the submarines, and he quoted from the evidence, as reported on page 139 of Hansard. My hon. friend sought to convey the impression that Mr. Paterson had stated what the test was. An examination of the evidence as submitted by my hon. friend shows that no such test as the hon. member speaks of was-made, and therefore it shows that his attack on me as misrepresenting the test is entirely unfounded. My hon. friend proceeded to-say that there was evidence that there were tests, and one would infer from his remarks-that the test required the submarines to be weighted down to the extent of 5,000 tons. If we read the evidence, we find that Mr. Paterson only mentions 5,000 tons as an illustration of what the contract might require. When I call the attention of the House to the fact that the total displacement of the submarines is only 313 tons each, lion, members will see how unfair my hon. friend was when he said that there had been a full examination as to the actual tests that had been made, and that I was-unfair in my remarks.
I am only going to speak of these few matters, because from one you may judge all. My hon. friend says that I was entirely
wrong and unfair to this House when I stated that Mr. Logan had not been thoroughly interrogates as to his connection with this matter. Just a word as to that. When Mr. Thompson entered upon that examination, he must have had-presumably he would have, he ought to have had-that return. j
Order. I think the hon. member for St. John is trespassing beyond the question of privilege.
If, Sir, you will just
allow me to reply. I based my remarks upon the return which was made to Parliament, and I said I had been amazed to find that there had been no inquiry into Mr. Logan's connection with the matter. Do you not remember, Sir, that I mentioned the fact that I watched to see whether any question would be asked of Mr. Logan as to why he whistled over the telephone when the price of $1,150,000 was named?
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not a personal explanation.
I am addressing the
House on a point of order.
Sir GEORGE FOSTER:
I would rise to
a point of order also. This is the queerest personal explanation I have ever listened to.
I trust the hon'. member for St. John will keep to the question of privilege.
Mr. PUGSLEY": What I said with regard to the perfunctory examination of Captain Logan was said with the knowledge that the Order in Council passed by the British Columbia Government, which you will find at page 9 of the correspondence relating to the purchase of two submarines for the Canadian Government, contained these words:
Victoria, 'August 21, 1914.
In pursuance of negotiations conducted for some time previously. Captain W. H. Logan, of Lloyds, made arrangements with Mr. J. V. Paterson, general manager of the Electric Boat Company, Seattle, for the purchase of two submarines.
There is also the fact that Captain Logan had put in a bill to this Government which they paid, I believe, and which hon. gentlemen will find at page 32, as follows:
To personal fees, 15 days at $25 $375
Hotel expenses, 15 days at $10 150
Transportation from Victoria to Seattle and Tacoma, five trips 22
Wires, long-distance telephone, stenographer and other incidental expenses $ 5 0
Having knowledge of these things, I think I had a right to express amazement that Captain Logan was not questioned as to how it happened that, though he was negotiating for a period of fifteen days in relation to this matter, he had never heard of the price. That is the reason I made the statement I did, and that is the reason why I think I am right in saying that the hon. gentleman misrepresented the matter.
I quite understand the hon. gentleman's explanation that he had not read the evidence-