October 21, 1947[1]
Report of the Finance Committee:[2]
Committee of the Whole
Mr. Cashin In order to get along with this
report, I understand that there's several
gentlemen who desire to make some comment or
ask some questions, and as usual, I'm prepared to
help out in every respect and give them the best
answers I know how to.
624 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
Mr. Newell There are not very many comments
that I have to make, and not very many questions
that I want to ask. But I think it would be rather
discourteous if this report was hurriedly passed
over. There must have been a tremendous amount
of work drawn into the compilation of the report
and as far as I know, and I'm not speaking as an
authority on the financial matters at all, merely
as a layman, it is a very excellent report in most
respects. There are one or two points in connection with sections of the report that
I should like
to raise before we read it. I'm going to refer the
Convention first of all to the section in which a
matter of opinion is expressed by the Finance
Committee, pages 97-98. I'll read it so nobody
need bother to turn back. "It is the considered
opinion of the Finance Committee of this National Convention, that at no time during
the period
from 1940-41 to 1945-46 should the total expenditure of the country have exceeded
the sum of
$21 million annually. This would have meant an
additional $20 million in surplus account today."
Of course that's not offered as a fact. That is
offered as a matter of opinion concurred in I take
it by nine or ten people. There are 40 or 44 of us
here and possibly there are 20 or 25 different
opinions on a matter such as this. The thing that
I want to know is, does this refer to expenditures
on existing services? They say that the expenditure should have been kept down to
$21 million
annually. Now what I want to know is this:
whether this $21 million should have been meant
to cover the existing services that we have today,
or is it implied by the Committee that we have
services which are unnecessary, which should
have been dispensed with? That point is not
brought out clearly and perhaps it's a minor point.
Personally, I don't know what existing services
we could dispose of. As for the second part of that
opinion, that this would have meant an additional
$20 million in surplus account, that presupposes
that if the expenditures had been less, the same
revenue under any form of government would
have been collected. Let me say quite frankly that
I'm inclined to doubt that, because any form of
democratic government is naturally very sensitive to the wishes and to the demands
of the
people; and the demands that I have heard raised
by the public have been largely on the side of
decreasing taxation. I think we're all aware that
quite a demand was made some years ago by one
influential organisation
[1] right here in this town to
oppose measures to collect what was called
retroactive income tax. So it's a matter of some
doubt whether under any other than a dictatorial
government, that amount of revenue would actually have been collected. Possibly the
Finance
Committee feels entirely differently about it.
They offer an opinion. I'm offering one.
Again, going back to the first point raised, the
expenditures should not have exceeded $21 million annually. I'm wondering if the Committee
was thinking in terms of past standards of government expenditures, rather then the
ideals and
ideas that more modern governments have
towards, for instance, a matter like social
security. And I think that today if you look around
the British Commonwealth of Nations, you will
find that most of the governments that comprise
that Commonwealth are looking towards expenditure on social security. We have been
remiss in
that connection in this country. I don't think that
we have done a great deal for those who, having
contributed largely to the revenue of the country
as producers, find themselves through illness or
old age or something or other, put in a position
where they can no longer support themselves
And I feel that if we are to look forward to a
standard of living comparable to that of other
countries within the British Commonwealth, we
must envisage expenditures along social security
lines compatible with expenditures in some of
those other countries. Now we're all a bit touchy
here on comparisons with our neighbours, so in
making the comparison I'd like to go as far away
from home as possible. I find on referring to a
book written by Mr. Walter Nash that in 1944 the
New Zealand government was spending on social security alone £12,577,000 and at the
rate of
$366 US dollars for a New Zealand pound, that
translates into something like $45.5 million, for
a population of 1,641,000 which, if my division
is correct, works out at something like $27 per
capita. On that basis, we in Newfoundland would
need to spend $9 million annually approximately,
to provide our people with the social security
services that they enjoy in New Zealand. I not
only went as far away from home as possible, but
I picked the best one. If you're going to aim at
anything perhaps it's just as well to aim at the
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 625
best. Because it's my understanding that New
Zealand is ahead of other countries on social
security. I understand, from reference to the
Chadwick-Jones report,
[1] that excellent report
that was tabled here very early in the Convention
and then more or less discreetly forgotten by
agreement between all parties ever since, I find
that in 1943-44 we were spending in this country
on relief and welfare approximately $1 million.
I'm not here to advocate confederation with New
Zealand; I'm putting forward this comparison in
order to suggest that perhaps when the Finance
Committee offers this opinion that our expenditures should be kept down to $21 million
a year,
there may possibly be greener pastures for our
people that they're not quite taking into account.
There's another point which I think is on page
5 of the report ... in which the Committee is
discussing the period from 1920-21 to 1932-33,
the last 13 years of self-government. During this
period the government raised loans on the credit
of the country of $54 million, less approximately
$11 million which was used for refunding loans
maturing, thus leaving a net amount of loans
actually raised of approximately $43 million.
Again on reference to the Chadwick-Jones
report, they give for the fiscal years 1918 to 1940,
which covers that period — a few years on either
end are added — they tell us there that 7.5% of
our total revenue was raised from income tax,
whereas in 1945 28.8% was raised from income
tax. Now, there's no note taken of anything of that
sort in the Committee's report, because it works
out something like this. My figures, subject to
check, the total revenue for the period is
$119,197,000, which gives you an average
revenue of $9.1 million approximately; 7.5% of
the total revenue came from income tax, which
would give you approximately $690,000 average
income tax per year.... We're trying to search the
past, to see if the country could have done better,
and we're trying to make some estimate as to
what our financial position will be in the future.
I wonder if it's just possible that we might have
done a little more with raising money on our own
in those days. I don't want to startle you. But we
have here several old parliamentarians and possibly they could toss in an opinion
on a point like
that.
There's another point that I want to raise; I
think that it appears on page 111 and it's been
dealt with extensively already, so that you may
think that I'm just labouring it to death. If we take
into consideration the fact that during the past
five years over $20 million has been expended on
capital and loan account which ordinarily should
be deducted from the total expenditure, the final
result for the period of nearly half a century
should show approximately $15 million surplus.
Now we had that thrashed out and there was quite
a bit of debate and explanation given on it yesterday; but the chairman of the Finance
Committee
made reference to the fact that people outside the
Convention, perhaps people in it as well, have
been getting some wrong ideas. We all know how
easy it is for anyone of us to say one thing, and
have somebody else the next morning tell you
that you said something entirely different. I
haven't kept my ear to the ground unduly, but I
found a few people who seemed to have got the
idea that we of the Convention feel that expenditures on capital account don't matter,
that they're
just not expenditures at all. I think it would be
wise for us to correct that impression. My own
view is that capital expenditures have to be taken
into account. I believe it is the custom that most
commercial enterprises, if they invest say
$100,000 in the building of a warehouse, and they
figure that the warehouse will last them 20 years,
to write off as against that capital expenditure
each year, an amount say of $5,000 each year;
that is ordinary depreciation. The capital expenditure in that case is in no way to
be regarded as
an expense. Because the expense is spread over,
in this particular instance, 20 years. I enquired
privately from the chairman of the Committee
yesterday and he informs me, and actually he
confirms, the impression that I already had, that
governments do not do that. Our government
makes no provision out of its annual expenditure
for depreciation on any buildings. Is that right? I
see Mr. Hollett over there shaking his head. I
don't know if that's in agreement or in disagreement. But if that is so, that no depreciation
expenditures are taken care of annually, then it would
seem that if as a government, we spend $20,000-
$25,000 on a hospital, that is very definitely
expenditure, whether it's capital expenditure or
not, a necessary expenditure, and it's something
that we must take into account when we are
626 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
evaluating the ability of the country to support
itself. Because when that hospital is worn out we
shall have to build another one, and these capital
expenditures go on year after year. And I'm also
told by people who claim to know something
about these things that as a general rule, if you
take your capital expenditures over a period like
20 or 25 years, and average your expenditure for
that period, you're likely to find that what you
have is the average of your capital expenditure
required for the next 20 or 25 years.
I've been unable to find from perusing this
report that the Committee takes seriously into
account section three of the act which sets forth
that we are to bear in mind the extent to which
our high revenues have been due to wartime
posterity. I don't find that there's very much
mention of that in the Financial Report. It more
or less gives the figures and lets us place our own
interpretation on them. On page 107, coming to
the year 1940-41, we find our budget balance for
the first time in 11 years, and a small surplus was
shown. Now, that certainly might lead one to
jump to the conclusion that wartime increased
expenditures had something to do with our
balancing our budget. But I think we must at all
times bear in mind the extra labour and high
prices that we've received for our products
during this period. The report doesn't go into any
fundamental changes that have taken place in our
economy. But I imagine that would be left more
for the economic section of the report than for the
financial, and we accept it as such. But I would
ask us all to bear in mind, that in all good
capitalist economies, due note and very serious
note is always taken of what is called the business
cycle; in fact the whole world is very responsive
to this business cycle, almost as to an act of God.
I refer of course to the boom that you get from
times of prosperity followed by a recession followed by a bust, followed by a slow
recovery, and
finally a boom again. If you read economic history you'll find that that's gone on
and on, and
it's taken for granted. And such things as social
security schemes, family allowances and what
not, that we have referred to already, are in my
opinion guy wires or props to keep up an
economic system and keep it going, which takes
note of these things and accepts them as part of
the system. I think it's very necessary that in the
future we should keep that kind of thing ahead of
us; and the point is not to say that we are worse
off than other countries or better off than other
countries. That's not enough. What we want to
know is where we stand objectively, where we
stand financially. Beyond this I have no desire to
go at the moment in commenting on or committing myself to the conclusions reached
by the
Finance Committee, and set forth by them in the
concluding pages of their report. The work they
undertook was considerable and the result as far
as it goes is commendable. It seems to me however that we can all too glibly separate
the financial from the economic. We've been saying this
can come up in the Economic Report, and that'll
come up in the Economic Report, this is merely
a Financial Report. But are not high or low
revenues the outward visible and financial signs
of a thriving or a depressed economic condition?
You cannot entirely separate the two. Well,
we've had a Financial Report, and in the main
I'm satisfied with it. It's been excellent in its
factual contents. We are also to have an
Economic Report equally as good 1 trust. I feel
though, and I must say this in all fairness to
myself and to the Committee, that the conclusions set forth in the summary of the
Financial
Report might more properly have been drawn
from a consideration of both reports together,
rather then from the Financial Report alone.
Mr. Smallwood If there's no one to take advantage of the opportunity, there's a question I'd
like to direct to Mr. Cashin. It arises from a
statement on page 52. It says:
The Finance Committee also deplores the
action of the Commission of Government
with respect to a restriction by the Commission of the rates of pay to be given our
Newfoundland workmen in return for their
services in the construction of the American
bases, inasmuch as it is asserted that the
Commission of Government gave direct or
indirect instmctions to the American and
Canadian contractors not to pay Newfoundlanders the same rates of pay as the
American workmen for performing similar
work, on the grounds that it would upset the
general economy of the country.
Then it goes on to say that the first contingent of
American military forces arrived here in January
1941, and began the construction work and goes
on to tell of the Canadian military authorities
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 627
coming here and also beginning construction.
And this whole paragraph deals with a matter
which aroused intense and bitter interest amongst
the people of Newfoundland during those wartime base construction years. First, I
want merely
to ask the chairman of the Finance Committee if
he would tell us what he knows, or what the
Committee knows, about that situation. Most of
the people in this country today believe that the
Commission of Government directly or indirectly, legally or illegally, morally or
immorally,
somehow caused wages on the bases to be kept
down lower then the Canadian and American
governments and contractors were willing to pay:
that our government kept them down and lost
many millions of dollars. On page 98 you say,
"We are also of the opinion, that if the Commission of Government had not restricted
the rates
of wages to be paid our people engaged in the
construction of military naval and air bases, the
earnings of those people would have been supplemented by an additional $15 to $20
million."
I'd like the chairman of the Finance Committee to tell us and tell the country, what
he knows
in addition to what has been put in this part of
their report and then, secondly, without any
desire to prolong the debate, I propose to tell a
little that I happen to know about the same matter.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in reply to Mr.
Smallwood, when this matter was brought up in
the Finance Committee we had considerable discussion on it. Some of us felt that we
shouldn't
inject it into the report at all. But we had businessmen, mind you, associated with
this Committee. We discovered that in many instances our
own businessmen right here in the city of St.
John's were paying more money for labour than
was being paid to similar labour on the various
military bases. We were also in touch with some
labour leaders and we had one gentleman on our
Committee familiar with the situation, who told
us definitely that direct or indirect instructions
had been given the Americans when they started
work, particularly at Argentia, that the rate of pay
wasn't to be above 30 or 35 cents an hour; and
that afterwards, these various labour organisations got together and approached the
government and they got the rate of pay jacked up to
another 5 or 10 cents an hour. I think that's what
my memory tells me. Now it is generally known
all over the country that at that time there were
Canadians and Americans brought down here
and put on jobs, and paid much more money for
similar work than Newfoundlanders. I have
talked with men repeatedly who told me that they
were working for the Americans in Argentia and
could have got more money, but the bosses on the
jobs told them, "Your own government tells us
not to pay you any more than this for doing such
a job." That was quite prevelant. It was general
knowledge throughout the country that that was
the case. We didn't bring in the Commissioner of
Public Utilities for instance, and ask him about it
because we knew the first thing he'd tell us, after
our experience with him in the connection with
the Gander airport, that he wasn't here when this
was done. And that would end that. It was in the
days of Sir Wilfred Woods that all this thing was
done by the Department of Public Utilities. And
there's labour men in this House today more
familiar with what happened in this respect than
I am. I have repeatedly stated and broadcast over
the air, and it hasn't been contradicted yet by the
government or by anyone else, that this was done
to keep down the cost for the Americans and for
the Canadians at the expense of the labouring
man in Newfoundland. And I'm still of the same
opinion that it was done for that purpose. Some
say that it was done in order to protect certain
business interests in the country. Now all these
points are ones that should not be brought up here
at the present time or we're going to be fighting
about businessmen getting preference from the
government, but the facts are that the Commission government did actually do that.
They gave
the instructions and unfortunately many of these
contractors are gone out of the country now and
we couldn't corroborate it by their personal
proof. The rates of pay paid the Americans and
the Canadians, if they had been paid to the Newfoundlanders, we figured that another
25% in
earning power would have accrued to our people
which they were deprived of because of this
action. With regard to the economy of the
country, I can't see how it would hurt it for this
reason, that it would have given these men
another $10 — 15 million which they would be
able to spend, which would create profits for
those who were in business, and revenue for the
country. I'd like Mr. Smallwood to explain what
he knows about it, and I think that Mr. Fudge and
other gentlemen here know more about it than I
628 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
did.
Mr. Hannon In order to satisfy the chairman of
the Finance Committee and my friend from
Bonavista Centre, I say here now without fear of
contradiction, that the Commission government
did issue that order, that certain rates of wages be
paid in Newfoundland when the war was on,
when the military boys were running it here. I was
in a position to know, as I happened to be employment agent at Gander, and had all
to do with the
rates of wages, rising demand and all the rest. I
received orders from the President of the Atlas
Construction Company, no less a person than
Sydney Dawes, and before he gave the order he
said, "What kind of rum have you got there?"
"Well," I said, "not much rum." He says, "I didn't
think so." "Harmon," he said, "you're to pay
labourers only 30 cents." I said, "Well, Mr.
Dawes," I said, "we can't get labourers." An
order from the government, and to settle it the
only way we could to get the labourers there to
re-engage, thousands and thousands of men, was
to offer them 10% in savings securities, and we
were never allowed to pay them any more then
30 cents cash. As a matter of fact I saw the official
order, and I have a copy of it at home. Anybody
can doubt of course, but I'm prepared to produce
it.
Mr. Chairman Would you mind Mr. Harmon,
before you resume your seat, whose signature
was on it?
Mr. Hannon Well now Mr. Chairman, I would
much rather not say under whose signature it was,
but I'm sincere about it, and...
Mr. Hannon If I'm forced to give their signature, I certainly shall.
Mr. Chairman Well then, your position on the
question is that not alone were you informed by
this Atlas representative at the time that you and
he first adverted to this question, that the amount
of wages to be paid labourers would be at the rate
of 30 cents per hour, but in addition to that, you
saw an official order.
Mr. Hillier It has been asserted that the Commission government issued an order in connection
with rates of pay. I would like to ask whether
the government actually did that on their own, or
whether they were prompted to do so by pressure
of business or some local industries or something
like that?
Mr. Cashin You can put it, yes, but it doesn't
excuse the government one way or the other for
doing it.... I don't know, and I don't believe that
business did that. They might for what I know, I
don't know. We didn't go into that matter as to
whether business asked them or not. It didn't
matter materially. The important thing was that
this order was issued directly or indirectly, and
we've had proof now this evening that it was
done. I don't know whether any businessmen
asked them to do that. I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Smallwood If my raising the point did nothing more than to bring Mr. Harmon to his feet, it
was well worth doing. Now perhaps I have more
information on this than any man in this house or
any man in this country. I was editor of a
newspaper in this city called
The Express
. One of
the owners of that paper was Mr. Higgins who
sits opposite there now. As editor of that paper I
made it my business to get to the bottom of it. I
knew, and everyone knew the story that was
going around that the Americans and the
Canadians were willing to pay more money, but
that the Commission of Government had influenced them in some way or other to keep
the
wages down and not to pay the wages that they
were willing to pay. Everyone knew that rumour.
And I decided to get to the bottom of it. My first
step was to go to Colonel Bmton, who was in
charge of the United States engineering forces,
the first man to come here. He had offices in the
Reid building on Duckworth Street. From him I
could get only enough to make me feel that I was
on the right track. Naturally he was an American
officer representing the American government.
They were dealing with the Newfoundland
government and he didn't like to say too much.
But he said enough to show me that I was on the
right track. So what I did was this; and if I'm not
mistaken I think Mr. Butt can corroborate some
of what I'm going to say. At that time Mr. Butt
was confidential secretary or assistant secretary
for Public Utilities, working with Sir Wilfred
Woods. I had an interview with Sir Wilfred
Woods on this question. Was the Government of
Newfoundland responsible for keeping the
wages down? That's all I went to see him about.
I told him that at the start. And I said to him, "Sir
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 629
Wilfred, every word that you say to me is going
down in this interview." And it did, every word.
I said, "It is believed in this country that the
Commission of Government were the means of
keeping the wages down, is that true?" He said,
"I know nothing about it." I said, "It is believed
that you personally, as Commissioner for Public
Utilities, are particularly and personally responsible for having done it." He said,
"I know nothing about it." And so I pressed him, one question
after the other, until finally the interview was
published, and it was approved by him. Because
before I left he said, "I see you're not making any
notes." I said, "Why should I?" "Well," he said,
"you're going to write this up and you're not
writing shorthand." I said, "I have shorthand in
my mind. I remember, I photograph on my mind
every word you're saying. I don't need to take
any notes." And neither did I. "Well," he said, "in
that case, before you print it in the paper, I think
you should bring it to me and let me read it." I
said, "I'll be glad to do that, but not on condition
that you'll change anything." So I went back to
the office immediately and wrote it, and came
back to him, and I said, "Here's my story." He
read it. He didn't change a word. He remarked
afterwards that it was one of the most remarkable
memories and so on and so on that he'd ever come
across. All right! What did he say in the interview? He said this, not freely and
openly and
without hesitation, it was squeezed out of him,
every question I put and every answer he gave,
trying to dodge it, trying to evade it, all the
answers are down in the interview in print. But I
finally squeezed this out of him. I said, "Did you
write for example to Argentia, to the commanding officer and tell them to pay only
certain rates
of pay that are paid in the Highroads Department?" He said, "I did not." "Did you
write to the
assistant commanding office to that effect?" "I
did not." "Did you write to any officer of the
American army or navy in Argentia to that effect?" "I did not." "Did you write to
the American contractors in Argentia to mat effect?" "I did
not." I said, "Well maybe I'm on the wrong
track." "Did you write to the President of the
United States?" "No." "Did you write to the
Secretary of State?" "No." "Did you write to the
Secretary of War?" "No." "Did you write to
anyone in the American government?" He said,
"No." I said, "Did you write to anyone?
American, Canadian, Newfoundland or anyone
else?" Now it's a matter of fact, I admit it frankly
here today, I bluffed him. I made him think I
knew something that I did not know. And he
admitted that he had written to the magistrate at
Placentia. Who was the magistrate then? Mr.
Miller can tell us...
Mr. Smallwood He had written to Magistrate
Linegar. He admitted it. It's in the printed interview, passed by Sir Wilfred himself
before it was
printed. He had written to Magistrate Linegar in
Placentia, giving him a list of the rates of pay
which the Highroads Commission were paying to
their employees, blacksmiths and carpenters and
electricians and plumbers and truck drivers and
bulldozer drivers and tractor drivers and
labourers, all the different classifications. He had
sent this list to Magistrate Linegar requesting him
to take it to the authorities in Argentia, to draw it
to their attention and let them know that these
were the scales of pay that the Newfoundland
government was paying. Now, if Mr. Harmon
were in a position to do it, I think that possibly he
would tell you that's how it happened in Gander.
I know that's how it happened in Gander. They
did not go to Sydney Dawes directly.... They
didn't go to McNamara Construction. They went
to them through a government official with a list
of the wages that they were paying in the Highroads Department to their own employees.
And
they told them, if you pay more than this, you're
going to upset our economy because if you pay
more then we'll have to pay more to our highroad
employees. And if the trade unions had not been
formed in those places, if the trade union movement of Newfoundland had not got busy
and
driven the wages up this very day the rates that
would be paid would be the rates that were paid
in the early stages of the game. It's no thanks to
the Commission of Government.
The report said, on page 98, that if the government hadn't done that, the earnings
of those
Newfoundlanders on those bases would have
been supplemented by an additional $15-20 million. I tell you now, not 15 to 20, $30-40
million
was lost to the workers of Newfoundland by the
action of the Commission government in keeping
wages down on those bases. I don't know to what
extent businessmen, merchants and employers,
helped to keep the wages down by influence on
630 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
the government. I have my suspicions and
they're dirty enough. But I do know that
whatever the reasons, the Commission of Government did keep the wages dowu and lost
this
country, the people of this country, from $30-40
million.
Mr. Chairman It doesn't follow that the Commission of Government may or may not have
influenced employers of labour in this country
into keeping wages down below what they otherwise would have been, as a result of
pressure
exerted by any particular class in the community
including the merchant class. I have no brief for
the merchant class or any other class here, but I
do think that if questions which are calculated to
produce class warfare, if you will, are going to be
introduced, then their foundation must be statements of fact, not merely conjecture
or opinion
or speculation or anything else.
Mr. Jackman I feel that it is right to rise here
this evening, to talk on this matter because I feel
we are dealing more or less with the Financial
Report... I hold no brief for the Commission of
Government, never did nor never will. But at the
same time I believe in giving credit where credit
is due. I have had a number of occasions in the
past to have interviews with the Commission of
Government regarding the condition of labour on
Bell Island.
Mr. Jackman Yes, and during our conversations the question of wages at the bases were
brought up. And I wish to say here and now that
whilst the Commission of Government was the
instrument in pegging the wages, they had to do
so through outside pressures. Vested interests
demanded of the Commission government that...
Mr. Jackman Dominion Steel Company,
Bowaters, AND and the rest of them.
Mr. Jackman Well, that's it. That is exactly the
situation. At that time, when the Americans first
came in here, we were ourselves trying to get a
little extra money in the pockets of our workers.
I haven't any doubt whatever now that if it wasn't
for the advent 'of the Americans in here, we
wouldn't have been as successful as we were. Sir,
we did get an award from an arbitration board
which was chaired by a good Newfoundlander,
in my opinion anyway, Judge Dunfield, who gave
us an award, 18 cents above the wages paid at
Argentia and other American bases, and also an
award above the amount paid by the Highroads
Commission. Now last year right here I asked a
question regarding the rates paid by the Commission of Government to their employees.
When I
asked the question I knew at the time what they
were paying. They were paying insofar as organised labour was concerned, 18 cents
below
the rates; and they stepped it up 10 cents more
after my question was posed here in the House. I
have since been informed, I haven't checked on
it, but I have since been informed they have
dropped back to the old rate of 40 cents. Now it's
not my point here this afternoon to attack Commission of Government or any form of
government. I realise the time will come for that later
when we get to forms of government. But since
the labour question was brought up, I can verify
this much and produce evidence if necessary, that
the Commission of Government was not wholly
responsible, yet in my opinion they were because
a govemment is supposed to look after the needs
of the people first. But the Commission of
Govemment in regard to pegging wages for Newfoundlanders on the bases was directed
by outside influences, that is the big corporations in
Newfoundland. That is the situation. If the Commission of Government, I say again
this in their
favour, were not pressed to keep these wages
down, I have no doubt whatever that the very rate
which the Americans wanted to pay would have
been paid. But it was by the vested interests in
this country that the wages of labour were kept
down and not the Commission of Government.
They were only the agent.
Mr. Fudge I think Mr. Smallwood said that he
knew all about it. That may be correct. But I think
there's a few things that Mr. Smallwood has not
been acquainted with just yet. However, I shall
not take time to explain it because the thing is
past. But I would like to say that when the
Americans and Canadians came here, the rate of
wages was set at 30 cents. Along with the Federation of Labour, the President of the
FPU and the
Lumbermen's president, there might be another,
we had several meetings with the officials of the
Americans, Canadians and the government. We
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 631
did succeed in getting the rates up from 30 to 40
cents. Now I might say in fairness to the
Americans over at Stephenville or Harmon Field
as they call it, the increase in wages is gone above
that this year. It's true there's no organisation
here (as I pointed to over in England), that our
hands were tied in that deal, the 99-year lease,
wherein we were not permitted to organise in
what is known as Uncle Sam's or Mr. Truman's
land. However, the point I want to get at is that
while we try to ridicule the Commission of
Government, I don't think the time is right. I've
had to deal with a lot of people who were not
connected with the Commission of Government.
And I also have an order, a letter written by the
late Sir Wilfred Woods who did say that he was
prepared, his department was prepared, to pay the
prevailing rate in any particular area in which
they operated. Mr. Chairman, I put it straight that
there are places in Newfoundland today paying
from 28 to 35 cents per hour while the government is paying 40. Who is to be blamed?
That I
think is fair. Let's give every man his just due.
There are people in this country today who are
not connected with Commission of Government
but they are paying from 28 to 35 cents while the
government is paying 40. That doesn't sound like
the Commission of Government's fault. It's
about time that some of those people awoke. I've
heard a lot of crying about the poor people, the
poor fisherman, the poor labourer, yet if you want
to do anything for them, give them a fair day's
pay, which you can surely pay out of the price of
fish and all the rest of it, this last four or five years.
I'm not going to keep us any longer because I
feel, as I've said before, the time has not come to
criticise this form of government or the other. But
I would remind those of you who are likely to take
the tar brush, remember home first. Set the example at your own door and then the
Commission
of Government may come up a little bit higher.
Mr. Miller This matter has come home so much
that I feel I too have to offer an opinion. When
the base contractors came to Argentia there was
something more than a question of pay. A base
was to be built. They wanted labourers, carpenters, electricians, every classification
of
labour. We have had sizeable jobs in Newfoundland before: the Humber deal, Corner
Brook and Deer Lake construction. They had
certain standards of rate and certain standards of
housing...
[1] We had hopes as Newfoundlanders
down there on that southern coast that similar
standards would be employed. Did that come into
effect? And who was responsible for it? Now that
is the big question. And it would well be to lay
the blame in the right place. Is Commission of
Government really to blame for that situation or
was the American authority in Newfoundland? If
Commission of Government is to blame, blame
them and thereby we get the correction. But if the
American authorities in Newfoundland are to
blame, let's not go on blindfolding ourselves by
blaming Commission of Government and getting
farther away from the issue. That seems to me to
be just what is happening. I spoke of the housing
conditions. When the first cookhouses were
opened up at Argentia, I had personal knowledge
of what took place. The purpose of that contractor
at that date was to bring contractors, who were
used to catering the lumber woods camps, into
Argentia to cater and serve the meals to all our
different classifications of labour. Now, there
were among the workmen there men who wanted
meals for 50 cents a day, and men who were
content, according to their classification of work,
to pay more. But you are all a bunch of Newfoundlanders, and here you are gentlemen,
take
it or leave it. That's the situation right from the
actual scene of operations. I say it because I saw
it. I believe that we can lay more blame on the
American authorities for all that has gone on than
on Commission of Government. And I don't
believe in bluffing about it either. Now about this
letter. I too have heard about that letter, it really
did exist. The American authorities were well
established and had many a pay-day over in Argentia on low scale wages and, by the
way, I'm
informed that the hiring rate of labourers over
there is still only 39.5 cents per hour. But they
had probably a year or two in over there before
Commission of Government forwarded any
thing. That is my opinion on the matter. But I
believe that if we're to find a remedy, we must
first find who's to blame.
Mr. Jackman The Commission of Government
are to blame, but not directly. They acted as
agents for the vested interests in Newfoundland,
but nevertheless they acted. They're just as much
to blame in one way but, my point is this, that they
632 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
are not all to blame. I've heard it said on the
streets and in many places that the Commission
of Government were the real cause of pegging
our wages. That is only partly true. The Commission of Government worked under pressure
from
the Dominion Steel Company, from Bowaters,
AND and the Commission of Government acted
through the Dominion Office. And I got it from
a Commissioner who's not a Newfoundlander,
either. He told me that down in his office. They
had to do so.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, if the Commission of Government did it, what does it matter
why they did it? If they did it because the big
corporations got them to do it, that doesn't take
the blame from the Commission. The Commission did it, whatever the reason was. And
replying just briefly to Mr. Miller, the Americans were
not paying those low wages in Argentia very
long. I had that interview with Sir Wilfred Woods
just a few months after the Americans went into
Argentia, and that letter he wrote to the
magistrate in Placentia was written some time
before I saw him. In other words that letter was
written to Magistrate Linegar or whoever was the
magistrate, just after or just around the time that
the Americans went into Argentia. When I went
to Argentia first, they were just barely beginning.
I'll never forget the second time I went there,
watching a great army of trucks removing a hill
and dumping it out in the water to build an
embankment. And, as I watched, one of the truck
drivers pulling up to be loaded gave me a nod to
come aboard and I got up and sat in the cab with
him. And I made the circle five or six times. He
was an American, we chatted. He said, "Are you
a Newfie?" I said, "I'm a Newfie, yes." He said,
"It's a darn scandal, it's a darn shame the way you
people are being treated here." I said, "Why?" He
said, "I'm getting $1.80 an hour for driving that
truck. You see the truck right behind me?" I said,
"Yes." "It's a Newfoundlander, a Newfie driving
it. You see the truck in front of me?" I said,
"Yes." "It's a Newfie driving that. Here we are,
three of us, two Newfies, one American, driving
the same trucks, doing the same work, one behind, one in front and one in the middle.
I'm
getting $1.80 an hour and they're getting 80 cents
an hour and from all I can hear your own government is the cause of it." "Well", I
said, "you heard
right because I got it right straight from the
horse's mouth — right from Sir Wilfred Woods
himself."
Mr. Hollett That just shows us what these
Americans and Canadians will do for Newfies.
They will allow one truck driver to get a dollar
and something and the Newfoundlanders will get
much less. But as for the rambling around the
woods a little bit, making all sorts of assertions,
no proof of anything at all — hearsay. I'm going
back to the chairman of the Finance Committee.
The Finance Committee also deplores the action
of the Commission of Government with respect
to restriction of the rates of pay and so forth. They
deplore the action and make a positive statement
that it was the action of the Commission of
Government. I would like to ask Major Cashin,
have you any proof for that?
Mr. Cashin The proof has been provided in the
House the proof, if I never had any before, came
out here this afternoon.
Mr. Cashin The proof was that Mr. Harmon said
he had seen a communication from the Commission of Government or some official...
Mr. Cashin An official, that's what I said an
official of government. There was only one kind
of government in the country and that was Commission government... The whole thing
was
going wild all over the country. It was going
through your ears all the time. You were bound
to hear it. And who were responsible? My friend
across here, Mr. Jackman, blames the corporations and so on for influencing Commission
government. But the government is the government and they shouldn't be influenced
by
anyone. It's their responsibility. If a government
is being influenced by corporations they're not fit
to govern.
Mr. Chairman I think, gentlemen, you're getting a little far afield. The fact that the Commission
of Government may or may not have brought
a condition of things about, and a mere speculation, conjecture or opinion as to why
that was
done are two entirely different things. The statement has been made here that the
Commission of
Government did bring it about. Whether or not
there has been any evidence produced in support
of that statement is a matter of choice, but I feel
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 633
it has not been. But whether or not there has been
any evidence produced to support the conclusion
that the Commission of Government did bring
this about, there has been no evidence at all
produced to support the conclusions as to how or
why or in what circumstances they brought it
about.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, that is the point that
I'm trying to get home. I don't like to see people
endeavouring to make certain capital, I won't say
of what kinda.... Will somebody tell me this. why
aren't the American people and the Canadian
people in the country today paying wages similar
to such as are being paid by the Anglo-Newfoundland Development Company and the
Buchans Mining Company, which I know to be
pretty good wages? They may not be enough, but
I think every working man in the area from which
I come will tell you, or tell me, that they are
getting much more then the men who are working
on the American bases. Now is the Commission
of Government still keeping the Americans from
paying these men their wages? If they are, it's
time to get the Americans out of it, I would say.
I say this in all fairness to the companies, vested
interests if you like, in the area from which I
come. While I know they're going to try to get
labour for the least amount that they can pay,
from what I found they only had to be approached
by the representatives of the various unions and
their cases got good consideration, and nine times
out of ten they got what they asked for. So I
cannot sit here and allow any man to say that that
which happened in 1941-42 or whenever,
definitely was brought about by such vested interests, unless proof positive is brought
here for
me to see. I think I would be unjust not only to
the vested interests, but also to the employee who
works with them if I didn't take some notice of
that. Now what one member has said here may
be perfectly right, but I want to see the proof
before I allow it to go unchallenged.
Mr. Jackman Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of
information and I don't know whether it's a question of privilege as well. But I'll
put it to you
straight. Last year in this House I asked a question
regarding government wages on Bell Island for
labour. I received an answer back saying that the
wages on Bell Island, that is government wages,
were the prevailing rate of labour, We never
received them first nor last. They did come up to
50 cents. My question of privilege, sir, I don't
know if I'm in order to put it here at this hour, but
I have been questioned on Bell Island by certain
people inasmuch as to say that I was derelict in
my duty to see that labour outside of our organisation was getting a square deal.
Of course, that
hasn't anything to do with us but nevertheless I
was blamed for it.
Mr. Jackman I am sir, yes, pardon me. I maintain that the answer we received last fall here was
that the Commission of Government was paying
highroad workers the prevailing rate of pay on
Bell Island, which was 58 cents an hour for the
lowest man. The prevailing rate I found out afterwards, I'm not sure yet, that's why
I rise to a
question of information, was 50 cents at the end
of last year. Possibly they never thought this thing
was going to carry on as long as it is: I didn't
either. But possibly they thought that wouldn't
carry on, and as far as I understand now it's back
to 40 cents.
Mr. Chairman I'm sorry Mr. Jackman, but the
tenor of your remarks is such that I'm unfortunately compelled to rule you out of
order.
Mr. Chairman The section, if I may Mr. Jackman, under discussion is the third paragraph on
page 52 in which the statement is made that the
Finance Committee also deplores the action of
the Commission of Government with respect to
restriction by the rates of pay to be given our
Newfoundland workmen in the construction of
the American bases, inasmuch that the Commission gave direct or indirect instructions
to the
American and Canadian contractors not to pay
Newfoundlanders the same rates of pay as the
American workmen performing similar work, on
the grounds that it would upset the general
economy of the country. On this point I feel duty
bound to sustain Mr. Hollett on the position taken
by him. I think it is decidedly unwise, in fact I
think it's a decidedly dangerous thing to make
allegations or imputations unless and until you're
able to prove that they are true in substance and
in fact.
I make no ruling at all on that portion of the
report which states that wages paid on the bases
were lower than they otherwise would have been
had it not been for government intervention; on
that point obviously I can make no ruling. I'm not
634 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
familiar with the circumstances or the facts. But
I do say that the reasons assigned by members
here this afternoon for the government causing
wages to be reduced are mere speculation, conjecture or opinion and I want to remind
members
that opinion is merely a matter of judgement upon
which men might reasonably differ...
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, this observation
was made by the Finance Committee purely as an
observation. Sir, I'd like to know in what way this
whole discussion is pertinent to our terms of
reference. I feel its entirely out of order...
Mr. Chairman The point I want to make is that
in making this statement, the Finance Committee
are not to be saddled with theresponsibility flowing from any conclusions, wild opinions
or conjectures which may be drawn by any members
from this section of the report which has been
under discussion for the past hour. I want to make
that clean.... The statement is made by the Finance
Committee. You accept it or you don't. But I
want this discussion to be conducted in such a
way that the inferences drawn by certain members from this section of the report ought
not
to be made in such circumstances where the
Finance Committee is saddled with the conclusions or inferences which may possibly
or
properly be drawn from this section of the report.
Mr. Jackman I understand then, sir, that this
matter of wages could be dealt with under the
Economic Report.
Mr. Chairman Let me rule if I may, gentlemen.
The decision of this Convention is of a threefold
nature. Let me try and reduce it to its simplest
position. The act itself says that you shall consider the financial and economic situation
of the
country since 1934 with particular reference to
the impact which war prosperity might have had
upon our economy, and that in the light of that
you will go on to recommend the future possible
forms of government. I reduce the second section
simply to a three-fold position. The Convention
shall consider, one, is the island self-supporting?
That is the work of the Finance Report. Secondly,
the Convention shall consider whether or not the
island will continue self-supporting, and if the
answer to that question is in the affirmative
how long will it continue self-supporting? And
then in the light of the decisions arrived at the two
previous questions, to then recommend the possible fixture forms of government which
could be
safely recommended to the Dominions Office to
be included in the referendum, and which could
be safely superimposed upon the productive
economy of the country. That reduced to its
simplest position is the effect of the section that
I see.
Mr. Hollett I don't know whether you agreed
with Mr. Higgins or not as to whether this thing
was outside our terms of reference.
Mr. Hollett I would like to say a word about
that. For instance let's read that paragraph:
The Finance Committee also deplores the
action of the Commission of Government
with respect to restriction by the Commission
of the rates of pay to be given our Newfoundland workmen in return for their services
in the construction of the American
bases inasmuch as it is asserted that the Commission of Government gave direct or
indirect instruction to the American and
Canadian contractors not to pay Newfoundlanders the same rates of pay as the
American workmen for performing similar
work on the grounds that it would upset the
general economy of the country.
Now I hold that this is relevant and comes
under the terms of reference. As you have very
excellently put it, our third duty is to recommend
to the Dominions Office a form or forms of
government. I would say right here now, and I
think every man here will agree with me, that if
any government would stoop to do that which the
Finance Committee have asserted they did, then
that is one form of government which I could not
safely recommend when it comes time. Therefore
I say, it is very relevant and certainly within the
terms of reference.
Mr. Chairman I have to sustain you on that
point. I must hope that this section of the Finance
Report which is tabled for discussion at the moment is under review by members, and
anything
confined to this section of this report is relevant.
Mr. Hollett Now then, getting back to the question which Major Cashin has not answered to my
satisfaction wherein they say that the Finance
Committee deplores the action of die Commission of Government in doing these things
I'm
glad Mr. Smallwood brought this matter up I
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 635
think he's sorry now that he did really....
Mr. Hollett I want to say this, that unless the
Finance Committee can bring positive proof that
the Commission of Government by direct or indirect order, instructed the Canadian
or American
authorities not to pay higher wages, then that
paragraph should be deleted from the report.
Mr. Hollett Unless they bring it in, Mr. Chairman. And I would like first before I make a
motion to have that deleted from the report, to ask
Major Cashin again if he has any further proof.
Mr. Vardy The very fact that all workmen did
not receive the same wages is proof positive that
they allowed the Americans, it was their responsibility...
Mr. Chairman You're making the conclusion
again, Mr. Vardy, that that is...
Mr. Vardy It's the same conclusion we all came
to.
Mr. Vardy It was the responsibility of the
government of that time. If the government found
out that I was only paying 20 cents per hour for
packing fish down in Hickman's Harbour they
would arrest me and summon me to Clarenville
before the magistrate. It was their duty at that
time, and the very fact that our men did not
receive the same wages makes them liable and
responsible. It was their responsibility and they
can't escape it.
Mr. Butt Obviously, I would have certain information as suggested by my friend across the
way,
but just as obviously I could not reveal that for
two reasons. One, I would be in danger of getting
myself in jail under the Official Secrets Act. But
more important than that, I held at that time a
position of trust, and that I would not break.
However, I've been thinking what I could usefully say which may be helpful, and I
would suggest
it's just possible that faced with a very difficult
problem of policy that the Commission of
Government may have taken certain steps to do
what would be considered fair, reasonable and
right in the circumstances. It may be that the
Americans, the Canadians, both on the military
side, and on the civil or construction side, and the
Commission of Government and certain other
bodies, may have sat down together and said,
"Now what should we do in the circumstances?"
It just may be that that happened. And, one party
may have argued that they were not going to pay
higher than certain wages current at the time in
the country. The other party may have argued that
higher wages should be paid and it should be wide
open. Now any further than that I can't go, but I
would say, in all fairness to people with whom I
dealt at the time, that it caused more than one
headache, and I think I ought to say out of fairness
to Sir Wilfred Woods that whether he did rightly
or wrongly at the time, he sweated plenty as to
what should be done in the circumstances. I think
I really ought to say that, regardless of what one
may think of Commission of Government.
Whilst I'm on my feet, I would like to refer to
a question raised yesterday by one of the members, and by another member this afternoon,
the
question of how far a government should go in
raising or increasing its expenditure from time to
time. That too is a very difficult question which
involves a long history of government and taxation throughout, shall I say, the western
world.
But first, when government had to deal with
nothing but the defence and maintenance of justice and a few other matters such as
education,
the expenditure would naturally be very small. As
the world progressed, in this country, as in every
other country, it was felt that more expenditure
should be spent on social services.
[1] ....[The only
way] in which you can get money to spend is to
take it from the people. But when you take money
in taxation from the people, you pass it back to
them in the form of services. So that it does not
matter a row of pins where you fix the point at
what you're going to spend from time to time, as
long as the people of any country are satisfied that
they want certain things. I entirely agree with Mr.
Newell on the point that he made about increasing social welfare. I also want to say
that there
has been left, in dealing with financial matters,
the impression that if one form of a government,
I'm not mentioning any names, should be accepted it is necessary for us to go back
to certain
conditions. As one person with definite opinions
on the form of the government we should have at
the moment and in the future, I would like to
disassociate myself with that theory and say that,
636 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
as for me, no form of government will be satisfactory for Newfoundland that does not
progress
in accordance with modern standards. But I
would point out without trespassing, sir, on the
Economic Report, that the whole thing boils
down to the size of the cake from which you can
get that piece which goes toward looking after
government expenditure.
Mr. Fowler I feel I ought to avail of the opportunity to compliment the Finance Committee on
its excellent report, and in particular do I compliment the chairman of the Committee,
Major
Cashin, because I know that if it were not for his
great knowledge of and experience in the finances of this country, this voluminous
and factual
document which we have before us today would
not be what it is. I contend, gentlemen, that this
is the finest piece of work of its kind ever
produced in this country especially when we
realise that no experts were made available to the
Committee, and that they had but limited access
to facts relating to the government's finance. It
would be well for the members of this Convention and the country in general to study
it carefully, covering as it does in detail the history of our
finances and matters relative thereto over a
period of nearly 40 years, divided and subdivided into periods affected by the various
economic changes which occurred, and which of
necessity affected the finance picture. It is my
opinion that if any one of the reports of this
Convention is to materially assist us in reaching
a decision, this Report of the Finance Committee
is of paramount importance, in conjunction of
course with the economic side of the picture. Mr.
Chairman, it is mere folly to waste time in
criticising the report; rather should we spend
more time in trying to learn something from it by
asking questions and discussing them in an intelligent manner in the light of the
facts presented
therein. Major Cashin, in his review on Thursday,
cemented on the high revenue of the present
fiscal year to date, and remarked that by the end
of the year it may exceed $40 million. This is well
in excess of the $37.5 million in the budget
estimates, which incidentally was by far die
greatest ever anticipated in this country. 70% of
this estimate has been realised in six months, and
this has been achieved in spite of certain duty
reductions made in the past year. The chief
source of revenue is still customs and excise,
revealing much heavier importations. This in turn
reveals that there must be adequate purchasing
power in the country. If the government could
keep within its already extravagant budget, we
may well realise a surplus of some $34 million
by the end of the year. In view of these simple
facts, one may consider this country self-supporting. And it has been self-supporting
for the past
six years. The immediate future is not too gloomy
but whether we will be self-supporting in five or
ten years from now, I do not know, and I defy any
man in this Convention to state definitely
whether we will or will not be, regardless of what
form of government we adopt. Twice in our time
we have seen the world wage intemecine war that
all men may be free and possess the right of
self-determination. We may have this now for the
asking. What are we going to do about it? Lie idly
by while outsiders exploit us, or go forward to
meet our destiny like honourable men? We are in
a far better position today than we were at any
time in our long history. Our finances are sound,
our economy is more diversified and our strategic
position at the crossroads of the world is recognised by all. Let us meet the challenge
unafraid
and prove that we are adequate to the task of
self-determination.
Mr. Newell A little while ago I asked a simple
question and when I finished somebody else
started to talk about something else, and I think
the point may have been overlooked. Before we
close I'd like a simple answer. The question is
this, in reference to a statement that it is the
considered opinion of the Finance Committee
that at no time during the period from 40-41 to
45-46 should the total expenditures of the country
have exceeded the sum of $21 million, what I
want to know is this. In making that statement,
was the Committee considering that the present
services which our government is providing
could have been provided on $21 million, or were
they looking at it from the point of view that we
could have done with fewer services, which
would have reduced the expenditures to $21 million? I'm not arguing the point one
way or
another, I just want that cleared up.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in reply to Mr.
Newell, I've been waiting until such time as all
the gentlemen who wanted to talk on this Finance
Report are finished, then I intended to cover these
answers as best I knew how.... Well sir, I will
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 637
answer it now unless there's someone else wants
to speak in the meantime, or to direct another
question to me.
You'll remember, Mr. Chairman, that in 1940-
41 our expenditures were roughly $16.25 million
a year. And they gradually kept going up. year
after year, year after year, and in including that
$21 million we had taken into consideration
what might have happened under another form of
government, if at that time that such a form of
government had control of the affairs of Newfoundland. We certainly would not have
driven
our expenditure up from $16 million to what it
was at that time, around $30 million, but we
would have tried to level off that expenditure, and
once we realised that the cost of living had gone
up we felt that that expenditure should properly
have tapered off, and should not have gone above
$21 million. I'll go a little further now and say
$22 million a year. We would have tried to keep
her down because in good times its always good
government to put away something for a rainy
day.... Consequently, we would have tried to save
some money. Our taxation on the ordinary necessaries of life is not particularly high,
and whilst
the cost of living is high, the taxation per capita
in the country is not as much as some people
would imagine it is. And our idea of having
expenditures of $21-22 million would have left
us considerably more money in our treasury. It
looked to me, and it looked to all of us, that as
more money came in it gave an incentive to the
government to start doling it out in all directions.
You must remember that there were millions of
dollars spent for which we got no value whatever.
True we built roads, but how many dollars, how
many cents in dollar value did we get from building roads? True, we built the vessels,
vessels that
cost nearly $3 million and should have cost, and
were estimated to cost just $1 million dollars.
These are things, if we go into details, which
show that it shouldn't have gone over $21-22
million, and will prove what I've asserted. Ordinary common sense and good, sound,
economic
government would have held that expenditure
down to $22 million, and if we had held it down
to $22 million the statement I made the other day
about having around $60 million in the treasury
would have been a reality. But they didn't do it,
and now we're in a position where the expendi
tures are driven up. We arrived at a stage one time
before in our history, and I was unfortunately in
an official capacity at that time, when expenditures were up for ordinary government
and we
found we had to try and cut down our expenditures to try and square our accounts.
We couldn't
do it. Therefore I hold that in good times, good
government will try and be economical and
saving and thrifty, because there are cycles in the
world where you have good times for five or six
years, then it turns over to bad times. Well, a good
government will make provision in the good time
to carry us over in the bad time. And when bad
times arrive you're able to weather the storm.
That might have been in the past one reason why
we were unable to carry on, not so much because
we had incurred liabilities that we shouldn't have.
I don't want to repeat those things again this
afternoon, but I still hold that at no time during
the past five or six years should the ordinary
expenditures of Newfoundland have gone above
$21-22 million a year. And I'm rather generous
then, because one of the Commissioners for
Finance, a little over a year ago, told us that to
ordinarily operate Newfoundland, it shouldn't
cost any more than $23 million, when they were
slapping money in all directions. I don't want to
go into details this afternoon of where it went,
because it would occupy this house, and I'd have
to bring all these Auditor General's reports back
and find out where many millions of dollars have
gone. But if sound government, government of
our own, people who were interested in our own
affairs, who wanted to provide for the future, had
taken the necessary care, I feel that our ordinary
annual expenditures should never have risen
above $22 million and not $21 million. I'm
prepared to change it to $22 million.
Mr. Newell I take it that what Mr. Cashin is
really saying is this, that on the basis of providing
the services that this country has
[1] ... he thinks the
revenue of a cautious government could have
been kept down to that figure. That's what I'm
really getting at.
Mr. Newell Well, that's all I want. It's my own
personal opinion which is different in some
respects, perhaps. There are some services which
our government is not providing, which possibly
638 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
governments in other countries are aiming at
providing.... I just wanted to know what was
behind that statement, if the Committee was
thinking in terms of excess services that should
have been cut off to reduce the expenditures, or
if more frugal spending within these services
could have done it. And I take it was the latter is
the case from Mr. Cashin's explanation.
Mr. Cashin And in order to get those expenditures down now from where they are, it's going
to be some job.
Mr. Chairman Would any of the members care
to discuss further the Finance Report?....
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Higgins If there is to be any further discussion on the Report of the Finance Committee,
I
suggest it be postponed until the Economic
Report has been presented.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, I move that resolution too.
Mr. Chairman It's been moved and seconded
that further discussion on the Finance Report be
deferred until the Economic Report has been
tabled. I'd like to make it clear that this is not a
closure motion. It is merely to the effect that
further discussion on the Finance Report should
be deferred....
[The motion carried]
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in moving the adjournment of the House this afternoon until the
call of the Chair, I'd like to point out that the
Finance Committee is now in session to prepare
the Economic Report. It will probably be ready,
in a week. As every member who has had anything to do with committees and compiling
reports knows, a report like this, which is the
summary of all the reports practically, is going to
take some time. And whilst we may be able to
compile it in two or three days, it's got to be
mimeographed and collected and so forth, and
that that's going to take a few days. And consequently, Mr. Chairman, I now move that
this
House adjourn until the call of the Chair.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I wondered if
Mr. Asbbourne, who yesterday, on another motion, desired to raise a point, could do
so. I think
it's fairly customary in parliamentary circles for
a member wishing to bring up a matter which
doesn't quite properly fall under other motions or
orders of business, to do so on the motion to
adjourn.... I caught enough of it yesterday to
realise that the matter he was attempting to raise
was rather important, and while possibly we can
do nothing whatever about it, possibly he wants
to ventilate the matter and use the Convention as
a medium through which to raise a matter of
grave public concern.
Mr. Chairman Well, with the indulgence of the
House, the motion made by Major Cashin has
not...
Mr. Ashbourne I'll second the motion, and in
seconding the motion I'll take advantage of this
opportunity which I trust is in order although I
asked permission yesterday in the committee of
the whole to bring up the matter, which I understood I had to rescind. However, one
of the members rose to a point of order, and I regret very
much having been out of order at that time. The
matter, sir, refers to the convertibility of the
amount which is being received as proceeds from
the exports of our fish in Canadian dollars...
Mr. Chairman You'll pardon me Mr. Ashbourne, I'm going to rule that you have the right
to address yourself, because while I can't anticipate your remarks, I do think that
your
remarks might have a bearing upon the deliberations of the Economic Committee which
is now
in the midst of its work. Therefore, I will welcome anything that you have to say.
Mr. Ashbourne Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman. As I was beginning to say yesterday,
I wasn't here at the time that this announcement
was made by the government around September
20, governing certain shipments of fish, and by
the way, I understand that it is not for the whole
catch that this provision has been made. I speak
subject to correction upon this matter. But the
important point in my mind is the rate at which
the sterling proceeds of this fish is to be converted
into Newfoundland and Canadian funds. I think
myself that it's only right and proper for the trade
to expect some announcement to be made by the
government as to the rate at which this exchange
will be converted. I understand at the present time
the rate is something over $4 to the pound; and at
that rate exporters would be in a position to make
a price for shore and Labrador fish. But should
there be a pound sterling decline, to say $3 to the
pound, we can readily understand that it would
mean a cut of 25% in the value received for our
fish. And it was this point, sir, that I had in mind
yesterday. I don't want to stress the fact now, but
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 639
it was just to bring it to the attention of the
Convention, because I understand that there is a
difficulty in the minds of some people as to what
we can afford to pay, particularly for Labrador
fish, and probably other fish as well, until this
decision has been made by the government as
regards to the rate at which the proceeds is to be
converted into the Canadian currency.
Mr. Chairman Before you resume your seat,
Mr. Ashbourne, I presume it is a fair inference
that the situation to which you refer is of a recurring nature since our ability to
carry it into effect
would naturally depend upon whatever surpluses
we have. I take it that it is your opinion that this
might have a bearing upon the deliberations of
the Committee in determining our future
economic potentialities, or in other words our
ability to remain self-supporting in the future.
Mr. Ashbourne Quite so, sir, because as I understand it, the monies that we receive from the
exports of our products will reflect our ability to
pay taxes and to provide the revenue that's necessary for the carrying on of government
as required in this day and generation.
Mr. MacDonald May I ask a question of you,
Mr. Chairman? Some time ago, around Easter I
believe it was, there were some committees appointed to work during the recess, to
consolidate
the different committee reports. These committees were appointed in very unofficial
gatherings.
private sessions; it never came before the Convention officially; they were appointed
officially
butnot in the Convention. Might I ask, Mr. Chairman, in View of this Committee that's
now taking
up the economic question, if they are aware of
that fact? Are they in possession of these documents, which were supposedly condensed
from
the full reports that came in? Were they consolidated or not, and just what became
of these
reports?....
Mr. Chairman I think I ought to answer this
way, to the best of my ability, belief and
knowledge. That is, the work of the Committee
will be to co-ordinate and collate any reports that
have thus far been tabled, and have a bearing
upon the economic question. It was felt by the
Steering Committee that the Finance Committee,
by virtue of their experience and excursions into
finance, would perhaps be best qualified to deal
with the broader question of economics.... I'm
quite satisfied, I'm quite satisfied that they've
taken everything into account, and will take
everything into account, and I feel that we can
reasonably expect that a pretty thorough job will
be done by them. Does that satisfy you Mr. MacDonald?
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Chairman, I think you've
taken me wrongly on this matter. I had no desire
whatever to take the Economic Report out of the
hands of the Finance Committee...
Mr. MacDonald I don't want to be understood
wrongly on this matter. But there were committees formed to do certain work which
would help
out this committee.
Mr. MacDonald Their duty was to take these
volumes of reports on transportation, forestry,
education and so on, and condense these reports
so that they will be more understandable to the
Convention. I think the word used was consolidate. Well, to consolidate them you'd
have to
get all the reports together and put them all into
one. For Mr. Cashin's information as chairman
for the Finance Committee, I wanted to remind
him in case he forgot this, because those papers
will undoubtedly be of great use to him in bringing in his Economic Report....
Mr. Chairman The documents to which you
refer, I'm reminded, are already in Captain
Warren's office and you can rest assured that
your fears are unjustified and that your views will
be taken into account.
Mr. Penney Mr. MacDonald has something
there about the reports. If I remember correctly,
when the delegation went to England we were
given the choice to go to our homes at our own
expense, or work here in this building recapitulating the reports. I took advantage
of the offer to
go home at my own expense. But I think most of
the delegates stayed here in St. John's and
worked on the reports. I never have heard if they
had the reports recapitulated or not. But it would
be very useful if there was a report in that way for
the Finance Committee.
Mr. Vardy These committees functioned, the
reports were condensed, and they're in the hands
of the Secretary of the Convention, or in the
hands of the chairmen of the sub-committees.
The whole of these committees did their work
and the reports are ready, and if they can be of
640 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
any use to the Finance Committee, of course they
will be available.
Mr. Chairman I ought to remind members that
under rule 50, this Committee has the right to
invite any person or persons before it to assist
them in the preparation of the report under consideration. I think you can safely
assume, that the
Committee has taken due cognisance of all the
matters referred to by members this afternoon,
and that they will be dealt with. The manner of
course in which they will be dealt with will be
known to us all when the report is introduced and
tabled for discussion.
[The Convention adjourned]
