Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, before we go into
the discussion of the report proper I want to draw
your attention to a report I only received a short
time ago, with respect to the Hamilton River, and
in particular to the Muskrat Falls. This is a report
which was made by a qualified engineer in
1909.... That falls, which this report says is able
to develop 1,100,000 horsepower, is now controlled by the Royal Bank of Canada at
a rental
of $30 per year. The Muskrat is below the Grand
Falls
[2] on the same river, is that right Mr. Burry?
Mr. Burry That is right, I know it very, very
well....
Mr. Smallwood Has the company the right to
apply for water-power from that falls as well as
the Grand Falls?
Mr. Higgins Well, they might make a dicker
with the Royal Bank of Canada, because they
have the use of it for $30 per year.
Mr. Higgins The concession to the Muskrat
Falls was originally held by the Dickie Co.,
which was a lumber company, and they owed
money to the Royal Bank, and when they went
into liquidation the bank took it over. I think
that's correct.
Mr. Smallwood Do you happen to know the
terms and conditions of the Dickie lease which
the Royal Bank now owns?
Mr. Butt 99 years from 1901, according to this.
Mr. Higgins Well, that's practically as good as
the Americans in Fort Pepperell.
[3]
Mr. Smallwood Would Mr. Higgins explain to
us what possible hearing, if any, the existence of
the Muskrat Falls might have on this 1944 or
1938 act?
[4]
Mr. Higgins Well, the only difference would be
that if the company required extra power, other
than the power from Grand Falls, they would
make a dicker with the Royal Bank of Canada,
and the government would get no more than the
$30 per year, no matter what the Royal Bank got.
Mr. Smallwood But could they side-step the
Grand Falls altogether and make a deal with the
bank to give them all the power they want at
something less than what they are paying the
government?
Mr. Higgins The greatest distance that you can
transport power economically is 500 miles.
Mr. Smallwood Well, the cost of putting in
transmission lines for 150 miles would just about
mean that you can forget it.
Mr. Higgins The Royal Bank of Canada will
very likely give it back to the government as a
gift, you know!
Mr. Job There was a probability of establishing
a pulp mill there, and sawmills, and it was in
connection with that that this particular report
was made. It has no connection with the Grand
Falls project. It will be valuable some day for
lumber and pulpwood.
Mr. Higgins It may be valuable for some other
company operating some other project.
Mr. Burry The value is in any possible
development in timber and pulp and paper mills;
it is in the center of a rich area of timber in that
part of Labrador....
Mr. Fowler As a member of the Mining Committee I rise not to criticise the report but to
review briefly some of the facts and statistics
April 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 519
revealed insofar as they affect the economy of
this country. I have no intention of getting bogged
down again in sections and sub-sections of legislation enacted by the present and
past governments, the wisdom of which have been
questioned.
This is primarily a fishing country and the
majority of our people is dependent on that industry. For years it was our only industry.
But it
is a fact, gentlemen, that the more diversified a
country's economy, the greater is its chance of
survival and if this report is instrumental in
making our people more mineral conscious, then
in my opinion it will have accomplished one
important thing.
It is interesting to note that the Geological
Survey has to date investigated some 27 different
metals and/or minerals, and have published some
25 bulletins, maps and circulars on these investigations, some of which have been
supplied you
by the Committee. It has been shown that mining
is the most highly paid industry in the country as
far as the average wage is concerned Over 3,000
men find employment, about 2,800 of these in the
two major operations at Bell Island and Buchans,
the remainder at St. Lawrence and Aguathuna.
Last year these 3,000 men earned approximatley
$6 million. It is therefore evident how important
it is that no efort be spared in developing our
known mineral assets.
It is encouraging to note that the LaManche
mines may again go into production after lying
dormant for some 23 years, and the possibility of
a townsite near the asbestos desposit on the west
coast, where another 1,000 men will be gainfully
employed. This augurs well for the future and I
feel that if we had more holes in the ground like
those at Buchans and Bell Island, we need have
no fear about being self-supporting. We have in
Labrador one of the greatest known mineral
deposits of its kind in the world, and as far as we
can see at the present time, there is every
likelihood that it will be in operation in two or
three years' time. It is difficult for us to realise
the magnitude of this proposed operation. We
have never had anything approaching it before in
all our long history. Imagine, gentlemen, in the
unknown interior of the vast expanse of
Labrador, a self-contained modern mining town
five times as great as Bell Island, insofar as
production and population is concerned. A
townsite served by an electrified railway over
which will pass daily ten trains of 60 cars each,
carrying some 40,000 tons of ore, in addition to
the traffic necessary for the normal needs of the
population. It is, gentlemen, as Mr. Smallwood
expressed it yesterday, "a monumental scheme".
In view of all that has been said here these last
few days, it is evident that there is some difference of opinion regarding the amount
by
which the treasury of this country is to benefit
directly. As our chairman has pointed out to you,
the information regarding the Quebec agreement
came into the possession of the Committee since
our report was presented, therefore we have not
given you our considered opinions, but instead
have presented you with all the facts at our disposal. Anything I may say is not necessarily
the
opinion of the Mining Committee. I am still inclined to believe that the 1938 act
contained more
advantages than does the 1944 act, insofar as
Newfoundland is concerned. But then that is only
a personal opinion, and personal opinions are apt
to be prejudiced, and in fact we have had legal
and expert advice on the subject and all tend to
discredit that belief.
It is quite possible, that conscious of past
experiences, we may be loath to believe the true
facts when we are confronted with them. However, those who are supposed to know, and
in my
opinion should have the best interest of this
country at heart, state emphatically that our
agreement of 1944 compares favourably with the
Quebec agreement, and that under the l938
agreement the company could not operate. If we
were to have this major development in our territory it could only under the terms
of the 1944
act, and if we can believe this we would be
justified in accepting this agreement in the best
interests of the country as a whole. I fear that any
arguments l have heard expressed in this assembly would be very ineffective as compared
with
those advanced by mining experts whose integrity has, we are told, been long established.
However, there is one point I would like to
make; I find no equivalent in our act to compare
with sections A and B, clause 3 of the Quebec
act
[1] which would on the basis of licensed areas
have netted this country $350,000 to date. We did
not get that $350,000. True we have the benefits
520 NATIONAL CONVENTION April 1947
of the company's exploration reports, but so has
Quebec. I also contend, that if we grant a licence
to export power we should demand some definite
concession in return. In concluding let me express the hope that any fears or doubts
we may
have will prove to be groundless, and that with
this great new mining industry will come a
measure of prosperity for our people and
economic stability for our country.
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, there seems to be
little doubt left in the minds of the delegates here
that Newfoundland has been again handed a raw
deal in respect to the agreement made by the
government with the Labrador Mining and Exploration Co., Ltd. The very fact that the
government, on request from the company, changed the
original agreement from a 10 cents per ton royalty to 5% on the net profits has tended
to create
suspicion. It appears to be an established practice
for such companies to be associated with subsidiary companies, and it usually turns
out that
the original company shows little or no profit on
its operations. Therefore the 5% on profits could
mean nothing if there is no profit shown....
I must disagree with the remarks of Mr. Butt
yesterday that we should look upon such a
development from a labour point of view. I am
fully aware that we must encourage labour for our
own people from every available source. But,
Mr. Chairman, for the past 50 years,
Newfoundland's most valuable assets have been
sacrificed to labour. In every big development in
this country, the ship hand of resulting employment has been held over the heads of
past governments to extract concessions unheard of in other
lands. I feel it is time for us to demand something
more than labour in return for parting with the
assets of this country. Today the world supplies
of iron ore are being depleted, and the eyes of the
mining world have turned to Labrador, where
there apparently exists an unlimited quantity of
this much sought after metal, which I hope can
yet be mined for the benefit of our land....
Mr. Higgins Nothing can be done about the
agreement if the application is made for power to
export, which we understand it has. It might be
worthwhile if this house took a stand in the matter, our idea being an increase in
royalty to $1 and
an understanding that the town he in New
foundland.
[Mr. Higgins went on to quote {ram minutes of conversation with Mr. Howse.[1] The Assistant Secretary read a memorandum (August 13, 1943) by the Mining Law Technical
Committee[2]]
Mr. Vincent ....After listening to some of the
members of the Mining Committee yesterday
evening, I was reminded of the very likeable
characters immortalised in Lewis Carroll's
famous poem, who, finding themselves in a very
awkward position, said:
They wept like anything to see such quantities of sand.
If this were only cleared away, they said, it
would be grand.
It seems that the chief architect responsible for
the compiling of this report and his worthy associates did not entirely agree on the
question as
to whether the legislation incorporating this
Labrador Mining and Exploration Company was
the best that might have been enacted at the time
or not, but all were agreed that if a few vexing
matters could be cleared up, it would be grand
indeed. If, for instance, that Grand Falls waterpower agreement had read $1 per installed
horsepower, if only we had demanded that
Mr. Timmins keep to the letter of his 1938 agreement, yes, if these matters were cleared
away, the
Committee said it would be grand. Of course, it's
just talking in platitudes to say if it were thus. or
if we had gotten that, all would be well, and it's
not helping matters when we set up a whine and
assert, "Oh well, it's just what we expected, our
country was never much more than a fertile field
of speculators, in every deal with big corporations and companies we have always been
at the
wrong end of the stick." I cannot agree with this
school of thought, and like my friend Mr. Butt, I
would have the temerity to say that with no inside
knowledge of the technicalities of mining or
geology, and taking the report so ably explained
by Mr. Higgins, I would assert that the deal with
the Hollinger interests is not nearly as bad as
some would have us believe.
Let us recapitulate a few salient points, and
just to satisfy the critics we' ll prefix them all with
a big IF. If the mines are worked, and remember
if they are not worked we don't get fleeced, if the
mines are worked it means employment for 2,500
April 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 521
miners. Consequent upon this a townsite will be
built of more than 25,000 souls. To compare this
with any other undertaking in this country would
be like trying to explain a costly modem motor
car by talking about, or describing a wheelbarrow. If the mines are worked some $125
million
must be expended, and that is a lot of money. To
use Mr. Smallwood's superlative, "a monumental sum". I take it we all need money,
we would
like to have more money, even my good friend
and fellow Bonavistonian, Rev. Burry. Can you
assume then that a corporation which puts in
distribution in this country hundreds of millions
of dollars isn't a nice thing to have around? Now,
I am going to base my next statement on the
predication that this Labrador Mining corporation will make some profits. Assuming
that they
do, 40% of such profits will accrue to the benefit
of the Newfoundland treasury. Of course we
might be pessimistic, as some implied yesterday,
and darkly hint that some very astute chartered
accountants could doctor those ledgers so that
there won't be any net profits to collect that 5%
on. This, we must not forget, would be rather
regrettable for our local shareholders. Their objective like yours and mine, is to
make profits. No
corporation, no company, can long operate if it
had to operate at a loss, and I cannot subscribe to
the opinion that the Labrador Mining and Exploration, with a proposed expenditure
in the
hundreds of millions, predicts an annual operating deficit. It is perhaps a little
strange that none
of us seems to have thought of this vast mine, this
almost inexhaustable source of mineral wealth,
as something that has been lying dormant for
ages. Not one cent ever came out of it prior to
1938, but now that men of vision are willing to
gamble millions to explore and develop it, and to
set the wheels of industry in motion to wrest from
the vastness of the Labrador continent this great
wealth, we set up a howl, we shout, "Watch those
wolves fleece us, watch them steal our birthright,
watch them engage wily accountancy experts to
diddle the profits." Some of our criticism, even if
it appears logical, is, to say the least, unfair, for
we must appreciate that in exploratory work of a
highly speculative nature big corporations do
expect some reasonable concessions, and in
every highly industrialised country in the world,
particularly in the United States, concessions
have been the order of the day. Perhaps we have
been a bit too cautious, and thus have overlooked
the mighty impact that the future development of
this Labrador potential will have upon the
economy of our country. Maybe my friend
Mr. Hollett is right, that under the circumstances
we might have done a little better; but let's be
honest, it's going to mean more to us than the
value of a peppercorn, and if only a part of the
huge possibilities are realised, most of us here
will agree that the Labrador Mining company's
agreement was not so bad after all. Yes, let's call
the play as we find it, and with the
Newfoundlander's natural aversion to appreciate
the good intentions of any big corporation,
[1] let us
face the facts squarely and admit that if this huge
proposed development materialises it augurs well
indeed for the future of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman, before I close I would pay a
tribute to Mr. Claude Howse. His name has been
used quite frequently in this debate. Mr. Howse
is doing a big job aiding the development of
Newfoundland. If I may be personal for a mo»
ment, I might add that right in my home town
today, there are five diamond drill runners, young
men, expert in their line, all trained under Mr.
Howse, and five of them are now awaiting orders
to go up to Labrador as part of a field staff to do
the exploratory work. They're paid $1.30 per
hour. Newfoundland looks to men like Claude
Howse, well might Mr. Higgins say we owe him
much.
The mining report in general is a good one....
It embodies a bulk of information on mineral
resources that some of us never even heard of
before. A lot of this may be speculative but the
possibility of future mineral development walks
like a brightening ghost. I sincerely compliment
Mr. Higgins, and all the members of this Committee....
Mr. Northcott l'm not so sure the concessions
are so fine. This is where the shoe pinches. It's
been give, give, give and no get all down through
the ages as far as I'm concerned, and as far as all
past governments are concerned. You'll remember some two months ago in
Magazine Digest
there was an article in connection with the iron
ore in Labrador and how important it was.
[1] The following section was taken from the recording of the proceedings.
522 NATIONAL CONVENTION April 1947
Regardless of costs, it had to be used in the next
eight or ten years. If that is so,¹ I fail to see how
any company is not prepared to pay 10 cents a ton
on all iron ore mined in Labrador. I am sure if the
government had said, "You must definitely pay
10 cents a ton on the iron ore you take out of
Labrador", it would have happened, and the deal
would have gone through. The western world
needs the iron ore. If they had to pay $1 they
would have paid it to get the iron ore.
The same thing applies all down through the
years. You will notice the various companies
who came in here — some gave a peppercom,
some 10 cents a horsepower, some nothing. Now
this is a similar agreement — it is a little better,
we are getting 15 cents a horsepower. I am not
satisfied with a one-sided agreement. The
government will get very little royalty; any company going to spend $100 million knows
what it
is going to do. They know they are going to make
money. There are so many ways to diddle the
accounts. There is a lot of skullduggery going on,
and in nine cases out of ten the people coming in
here get the best of the bargain....
Mr. Jackman I would like to have the letter
from Mr. W.J. Walsh read.
[The letter was read by the Assistant Secretary[2]]
Mr. Higgins In reference to one section, about
the Commission having no knowledge of the iron
ore deposit, in reply to that I quote from a letter
[3]
dated May 25, 1946, from Dr. Snelgrove to Sir
John Hope Simpson.
[The quotation was read]
That is their comment. One big thing that has
arisen out of that correspondence is that the Commission of Government must have been
fully
informed of the possibilities in Labrador at that
time.... It would appear the government did have
full knowledge in 1936, when they made that
agreement. The Mining Committee has now
evidence of prospecting in the area at that time.
A group had made application for concessions in
Labrador under the Small Concessions Act,
whereby no person could get more than 100
square miles. The amended act had to be passed.
Prior to that, we are informed, an agreement had
been made by letter with Sir John Hope Simpson,
and in 1938 that act was passed. The war inter
vened, with the result the government agreed to
grant the extension to 1953.
The concession from the Quebec government
was in 1942; the Quebec act was passed in 1946;
and as we have explained, as a result of correspondence and interviews the amended
act of
1944 was passed — 10 cents a ton was changed
to 5% of the net profits. To the Mining Committee it was obvious that the Quebec government
made a better deal than we did; but as the acts are
binding it is impossible for all practical purposes
to change them except by the consent of the
government.
We are extremely doubtful whether any great
amount will accrue to the country from royalties.
We point out that if the company takes up
100,000 square miles, they pay $120,000 a year,
they have 35% corporation tax, and water-power
at 15 cents. The greatest return to Newfoundland
would be the employment the company would
give. The main reason for going into so much
detail is because we believe whatever value this
body may have is in publicising the facts of the
agreement, and we may make recommendations, as you may properly do today, whereby
in
consideration of the new application that has
been made by the company for the export of
water-power, it might be conditional upon the
power tax being put up to $1 to equal Quebec,
and chiefly that the town be in Newfoundland-
Labrador; because with the different methods of
earning money, apart from mining, it would be of
great benefit to whatever country the town is in.
For that reason we feel we have not overstressed
it and we feel it is only fitting and proper that it
should be brought through us to the attention of
the people of the country.
Mr. Hollett I would remind every man here that
while we have been criticising strongly the
various corporations on account of concessions
which they received, we have also been criticising past governments for concessions
which they
granted. I have noted all the acts carefully, and I
have also noted the 1938 and 1944 acts relative
to the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company. I have come to the conclusion, and
I think
every member of the Mining Committee has
come to the conclusion, that they must have set
April 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 523
their speed for getting concessions by the old
acts, because as far as I can see they have concessions here which are equally as
good to the corporation, if not better, than any in the days gone
by....
It is evident to me the government never saw
the Quebec act. There was no copy of the Quebec
act in this country until a few days ago.... Our
government never took the trouble to find out
what had been done in Quebec with the associated company; never got copies of the
Quebec act; there was not one in the country; we
could not get one from the Canadian High Commissioner....
I can't understand some of those who get up
in an elder statesman style, and suggest that this
act will redound to the benefit of this country. We
have got to think not of the benefits we will get
in the next ten years, but of the benefits of that
iron ore deposit 50 years hence. Mr. Higgins has
drawn to your attention they way in which the
iron ore deposits in the States have been depleted.
We have a deposit in the Labrador and we don't
know the extent of it, but we are told they are sure
of 260 million tons of ore, and they have only
scratched the surface. We have a deposit which,
if properly handled by the government, could
insure to the present population of this country
something which will certainly redound to their
benefit in the future. I therefore can't agree with
the people who get up, and more or less
sanctimoniously say, "We can't do anything, the
act is made and we will have to put up with it. We
hope they will make a profit, and if they do we
shall get 5%." If we don't get 5%, we will get
nothing. Some say, "Yes, you will have a town
down there and you will get the profits that way."
I can't see that. It will take a good many years
before we get a few thousand Newfoundlanders
working down there in Labrador. We have not got
2,500 Newfoundlanders to go down there and
mine for a good many years to come. They want
to mine, and they will get men from Canada,
Poland, Czechoslovakia and other places. They
want the ore, and they can't wait until we get the
miners to send there. I can't see that it will mean
much to Newfoundlanders.
It is my opinion that we should go on record
as a Convention elected by the people as being
opposed to it. Let it not be said of us 25 or 50
years hence, "That Convention knew about this,
and did they make no move whatsoever?" I tell
you, gentlemen, it is up to us to bring it to the
notice of the Commission of Government and the
Dominions Office, what we as a Mining Committee think, and I think the majority of
the Convention will agree....
Mr. Vardy ....Although we agree that profits are
very limited on iron ore, yet I cannot believe that
10 cents per ton is an unreasonable charge to
make for royalty. It is so insignificant that I
cannot believe that any company would attempt
to go there if they did not have a reasonable
assurance they would make a greater profit than
that. I realise we are not miners or great industrialists, but our concern over these
matters has,
I am sure, been motivated by a keen sense of our
responsibility to the people who sent us here, in
which matters the Commission of Government is
apparently very little concerned. I can assure the
Convention and the people that the changes made
in 1944 have caused us many headaches, and we
can only hope that some good will come to this
country as a result of the changes. We have the
railway and water-power acts to be drafted, and
I hope that the government responsible will see
to it that we get a deal more conducive to the best
interests of the people of Newfoundland....
Mr. Chairman I don't know how long this
debate will take. I assume that you will agree to
waive notice, and allow the resolution to be introduced immediately.
Mr. Higgins I was going to add that we will not
be able to finish any further debate on the
Labrador section. We still have the Summary, but
if there is any lengthy debate on the motion
Mr. Hollett proposes to make we will not be able
to finish before six, so I was going to ask if we
could wind up at this point by making a couple
of amendments to this report....
Mr. Chairman I take it that these may be permitted without formal debate....
Is there any further discussion, gentlemen?
Moved and seconded that this section be adopted
as read with the amendments made by the chairman of the Mining Committee. Is the committee
ready for the question?
[The motion carried]
Mr. Higgins I would now ask leave to rise,
report progress, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman This will be the final report to
524 NATIONAL CONVENTION April 1947
the Convention.
Mr. Chairman Moved and seconded that the
committee rise, and report having considered the
matter to them referred, made some progress and
ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman Now gentlemen, with the assent
of the whole House, and in view of the fact that
I have been handed a resolution which refers to
these mining matters, we might proceed with that
resolution before taking up the remaining orders
of the day. I know it is a bit irregular, but it will
probably be more convenient. Is there any objection to adopting that course?
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, the remarks which I
intended to make in introducing this resolution I
have already made, and I just want to make one
further remark, that this resolution is introduced
merely for the purpose of drawing the 1944 act,
the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company
Act of 1944, to the attention fo the Commission
of Government, and also drawing it to the attention of the Dominions Office.
Whereas in the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Ltd. Act of 1944 the
Commission of Government amended the
said Labrador Mining and Exploration Company, Ltd. Act of 1938, and thereby cancelled
the provision under which in the said
1938 act the Company would pay a tax of 10
cents per ton of iron ore exported from
Labrador and substituted therefore a
provision that 5% of the net profits of the said
company should be paid to the Newfoundland government as a royalty;
And whereas under both acts the company
may apply to the Newfoundland government
for a grant to use the Grand Falls waterpower paying only in the neighbourhood of
15 cents per horsepower;
And Whereas the company is understood
to be presently applying to the afore-mentioned Newfoundland government for the
right to export power from the Grand Falls
out of Newfoundland territory in connection
with their mining operations;
Therefore be it resolved that the National
Convention desires to express its strong conviction that as part of the consideration
of
permitting such exploitation of power, the
Commission of Government should provide
for a tax of $1 per horsepower installed, and
should further make provision that any town
erected in connection with the exploitation of
iron ore in Newfoundland-Labrador should
be built on Newfoundland soil;
And Be It Further Resolved that a copy of
these resolutions be forwarded to the Commission of Government and through the
proper channels to the Secretary of State for
Dominions Affairs.
Mr. Higgins I would suggest that for purposes
of being sure that we say the act no. 47 of 1944,
and no. 41 of 1938. That distinctly clarifies the
wording.
Mr. Harrington It gives me a great deal of
pleasure to second this resolution. I had some
comments to make on that section of the Mining
Report while it was in committee, but when I
learned that a resolution of this nature was coming up for discussion I resolved to
keep what I
had to say for the debate on that.
It seems to be generally agreed that it is the
same old story, we have come off on the wrong
end. I don't understand myself why the government should have taken the attitude that
it was a
question of "or else" — either we gave the concessions to the Labrador Mining Co.
the way they
wanted them, or they would go elsewhere. Surely
they must have known, as we know, and as has
been pointed out here, that the world's iron ore
supplies are almost exhausted in certain areas,
and that the companies concerned would certainly be looking for other deposits. Another
point
which has not been brought out a great deal in
this debate is the amount of land in the concession
area which has been given this company. In
Quebec it is something like 4,000 square miles,
but in Newfoundland it is something like 20,000
square miles. which is almost one-fifth of the
entire area, and we have no idea what other
mineral resources may be tucked away in that
great parcel of land. I don't see why it should be
so sweeping. Surely an area proportionate with
the Quebec area would have been in order. Then
April 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 525
again, their concession seems to have been given
for an indefinite period, and it brings to my mind
the bases agreement — a 99 year lease. when it
should have been for the duration and probably
six months afterwards. The concessions seem to
have been too sweeping. They always are, and
this is no exception.
There is one other point I want to make, and
that's in the Labrador report of the Mining Committee, page 12. It was referred to
by Mr. Fudge
the other day, and it says: "Negotiations over the
Newfoundland-Canada boundary between
Labrador and Quebec have begun between the
Canadian and Newfoundland governments and it
is possible that the actual delimiting of the boundary on the ground may begin in
1947." I always
had the impression that the boundary was set. Of
course, it was pointed out the other day that the
exact lines might not be known, it was the watershed generally, but I am suspicious,
Mr. Chairman, and I think we all have a right to be, and we
might wake up to find we don't own as much of
Labrador as we thought we did. Mr. Crosbie
made a motion here last fall in connection with
our assets, and it is that I had in mind. I hope that
the Newfoundland government, when it goes into
that matter, will see that Newfoundland keeps
what she has, and does not end up with less than
she thought she had.
Mr. Bailey I am not going to say much about
this. I was struck by this clause, and I think this
is where the government failed more than anything else.... It seems like other countries
are wide
awake to those things, while we always come out
on the end in this country.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I think I was the
one who brought out the fact here that the rate of
tax paid in the Province of Quebec on waterpower is $1 per horsepower. Since then
there has
been quite a bit of discussion in the Convention
about that question of the l5 cents per horsepower that the government has agreed
to accept,
as against the dollar that we think they ought to
get, in line with the rate that the Quebec government gets. I think also I am the
one who brought
out that there is some doubt as to where the town
will be built, whether in the Newfoundland or the
Quebec part of Labrador. These are the two
points dealt with in the resolution. I could not
possibly do anything other than agree with a
resolution that seeks to point to the two observa
tions I was instrumental in bringing to the attention of the Convention.
There is only one point left, but I am a little in
doubt at the moment. The committee of the whole
has risen chiefly for the purpose of moving this
resolution. If we adopt the resolution, we have
not completed the report of the Mining Committee — there is still the final section
to be read and
debated. It is true these two pages concern only
the general conclusions and observations, but
they are important. Tomorrow is St. George's
Day and then you, Mr. Chairman, and the other
delegates are leaving for London; that would
leave only tonight for the purpose of concluding
the debate on the Mining Report. It seems
desirable to complete the debate. There is one
other point, in addition to the two in the resolution, and that is the question of
precious metals
in there.... The question occurs to me, what would
be the position with regard to the company if it
should discover valuable mines of some charan
ter other than iron — if they should discover
gold? For all we know they may at this very
moment know of the presence of much more
valuable minerals than iron ore. Suppose they do,
or suppose they get to know of gold or some other
valuable mineral, are they to be taxed only the
same 5% of the net profits. or would that call for
a separate act, giving some future government a
chance, of making a better deal?
I strongly support the resolution. I wish the
chairman of the Mining Committee would indicate what he proposes doing in regard to
the
concluding of this repon.
Mr. Higgins First of all I want to say, naturally,
that I support the resolution. The resolution
speaks the feelings of the Mining Committee in
this respect. I want to point out to you, however,
thatl have been informed by Mr. Howse since the
resolution was introduced that the main known
deposits in the area — Quebec area and Newfoundland-Labrador — are 30 miles apart,
and
the greatest distance between all deposits, up to
now, is 100 miles. Mr. Howse is of the opinion
that there will not be one main town, but several
small towns. As far as the Mining Committee is
concerned, we are prepared to sit at any time the
Convention desires.
Mr. Higgins The gold is included, as I see it, in
the 5%....
526 NATIONAL CONVENTION
April 1947
Mr. Hollett Would the chairman of the Mining
Committee read the mining law relative to this?
Mr. Harrington I thought we had left the committee of the whole. I move the resolution be now
put.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Starkes I move we adjourn to the call of the
Chair.
Mr. Job On the eve of your departure for
England, I am going to express the hope once
more that that very important matter of our relations with the United States of America
be not
forgotten. I may be a little persistent with this, but
I feel if it is forgotten it would be a rather serious
matter. The Commission of Government seem to
be inclined to discard what I think is a very vital
question, and I fear we are already being faced
with the results of that inaction.
When we met the Commission of Government
as a delegation, one of the things we discussed
with them was the question of trade and tariffs.
They pushed it aside. I think they were wrong in
the stand they took. I hope when this delegation
gets to England they will bear that question in
mind and will not allow it to be pushed aside. It
is a vital question for Newfoundland I feel if they
press the point it will be discussed. I am of the
opinion, as l have always been, that there should
be a conference to talk this matter over, between
representatives of Newfoundland, Canada,
England and the United States. I believe at a
round table conference something could come
out of it. It will be the duty of this delegation to
try and impress upon the British government the
very strong desirability of assisting us in getting
that meeting. There is a rather extraordinary
situation today in connection with fresh fish fillets. They have purchased from our
competitors
quite a large quantity of fillets and we, her ward,
have been neglected. The reason is exchange
rates. They pay for the Norwegian fillets in
pounds, shillings, and pence, but would have to
pay us in dollars. They have purchased a large
quantity from our competitors, we are still
without orders from them, and we are unable to
sell at the present time in the United States at a
price which will enable us to give the fishermen
of this country a fair price. I hope that this vital
question will not be forgotten on the trip to
England. I hope the delegation will have a very
pleasant trip, and I wish them the best of luck.
Mr. Hollett I think the motion was to adjourn to
the call of the Chair.
[The motion carried. and the Convention adjourned]
