Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):
The reply from the war office was:
Must emphasize that any further delay may adversely affect the proposal. In this connection firm having done necessary technical investigation obviously has the advantage.
Also, on February 5, 1938:
As regards alternative tender several months would necessarily be required for another firm to study job before making reasonable tender. This delay would be fatal to British interest in scheme.
Then there is Colonel Loggie's report to the secretary of Canada House. Colonel Loggie was the ordnance representative. His statement is contained in exhibit 224 as follows:
5. In his cabled reply, a rough draft of which was shown to me, Sir Harold emphasized the necessity of the immediate completion of a satisfactory agreement and mentioned the fact that a firm having carried out technical investigations obviously had the advantage, or words to that effect.
6. Sir Harold mentioned that should further delays occur a serious situation would arise in that the Enfield plant would be idle or nearly so before a Canadian entered production. He felt that unless immediate action was taken by the Canadian authorities the war office might be obliged to withdraw from participation in the scheme. I took occasion to ask him that in the event an auxiliary source of supply was established in Great Britain whether tenders would be invited or a suitable firm selected. He said, "We would select a firm."
The house divided on the motion (Mr MacNeil) which was agreed to on the following division: