Well, the picture I am referring to was not in Hansard. One thing that impressed me was the picture of the John Inglis plant, and because I saw that picture, I stopped off in Toronto on my way through to Ottawa and took a look at the plant. No greater misrepresentation could possibly have been made to the public of Canada than the picture which featured the article which by innuendo made the charges which have been under investigation for months.
What is this committee asked to do for parliament and for the people of Canada? It is asked to ascertain whether the plant was a broken down boiler plant, whether the personnel of the company was competent to carry out the contract. What better evidence can the committee have than to go and see the men carrying out the contract, the problems of production and of organization, and to have explained to them the manner in which those problems are being faced and carried out? In a matter involving much technical detail no man can form a judgment so well from the evidence of experts as he can by going and seeing for himself the problem and its solution.
We are told that the delivery of the guns will be indefinitely delayed, that the company's assets were not of the value stated in the evidence before the royal commission, that there wras gross misrepresentation as to the commercial value of the plant as well as its war-time value-
Subtopic: MOTION FOB CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT