Report of the Finance Committee: Economic Report[1]
Committee of the Whole
Mr. Harrington In speaking to the Economic
Report, I will say at the outset that I am by nature
somewhat of a pessimist.... However, I have
never descended to such depths of despair as
certain delegates of this Convention have in
recent days, notably the delegates from Bonavista. I'm sure too that there are a great
many people
in their districts who have much more hope for
tomorrow than their representatives here would
tend to suggest.
But enough of that. At last we have before us
the report on the economic position of Newfoundland. It is a good report, completed
in a
comparatively short time — two weeks — and it
is also a satisfying report, in the conclusions that
it draws and the evidence that it supplies to support these conclusions. As was to
be expected,
the Jeremiahs and the Doubting Thomases have
been having their say, searching its pages to find
loopholes through which to shoot the arrows of
their pessimism and scorn, which tend to discredit the reasonably favourable forecast
which
the compilers of the report have made.
I say "reasonably favourable", for that's what
it is. I think too it is a realistic canvas they have
painted, I don't think it is over-optimistic. I don't
think it deserves such sweeping denunciations as
came from one delegate, who went to the extreme
point of stating the report was not worth the paper
it was printed on. Iexpect by now, however, most
of the country realises that the delegate from
Bonavista Centre is merely keeping in character.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. I would like Mr.
Harrington to explain exactly what he means by
that, or withdraw the remark.
Mr. Harrington I mean that you have, since this
Convention started, been making what you
referred to the other day as a "poor mouth", and
you never failed in making a "poor mouth", and
you did not fail to do it on Tuesday. Does that
satisfy you?
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 673
Mr. Chairman No, I don't think it will do.
Personalities are not going to be permitted. it is
not right and proper for one person to engage in
debate by indulging in discriminations, and
members will please refrain hereafter.
Mr. Harrington There were a few remarks
made by the member from Bonavista Centre
which were very interesting. He said that past
governments had to borrow year after year to pay,
amongst other things, the operating losses of the
Railway. Later on he declared, again I think with
reference to the Railway, that it has cost the
people millions in taxes, and then, almost in the
next breath observed that the government never
did take in enough money in taxes to pay their
bills — the government's bills. Mr. Chairman,
perhaps unwittingly, that delegate struck at the
very root of Newfoundland's trouble in the past.
Governments are run, are financed from the taxes
that are collected from the people. If these taxes
are inadequate, the government must borrow.
That is what happened in Newfoundland. People
do not like to pay taxes in any country. It is said
that Newfoundlanders are traditionally opposed
to taxation, even in St. John's — which has had
local government for nearly 60 years. But especially outside St. John's, in the thousands
of
communities where nearly every man is independent, owns his own house, his own boat,
his
own bit of ground, and where, until recent times,
there was and still is no local government, and
where taxes of any kind, that is direct taxes, are
almost unknown.
Hence, these past governments, whose
finance ministers were mentioned by the delegate
from Bonavista Centre — the last thing they
dared think of was increased taxation. He knows
as well as I do that the manifestos of each party
that strived for election always promised reduced
taxation. That was the vote-getter in Newfoundland; it still gets a few votes in other
countries too. Cut down the taxes. But they
couldn't cut them all down. So they had to get as
much as they could in a way that the people
wouldn't feel too much. And that is one of the
main reasons why we have a customs tariff that
people say is too high. Local industries may have
caused some of it by excessive protection, but no
one will deny that the attempt by former governments to extract taxes the painless
way, the indirect way, had more to do with it than people
admit.
But there was a limit to what revenue could be
raised from the customs. And so there were
deficits and the government had to borrow. And
this happened time and again. And apart from the
few instances of local government now in existence, the same antipathy to taxation
of a direct
kind exists. I don't think I'm a bit off the subject
when I Speak in this strain. For we cannot keep
our heads in the sand forever. In this world the
people only get what they pay for, and that applies to governments, and the things
that governments nowadays are expected to provide —
social services, social security and so on.
Governments will give the people what they
demand; but they will charge them extra for each
extra benefit. In this respect, and while taxation
is the topic, I want to refer to the breakdown of
the Economic Report's statement of revenue —
that $30 million. We see that the customs returns
almost double the income tax figures — and that
is a far cry from the budget of 1923, when customs returns were about 15 times as
much. So we
can see the burden is being shifted, and I hope
there will be a gradual decrease in the indirect
figures and a gradual increase in the direct tax
figures.
But there again, how far can we go? That point
interested me so much that when we had a meeting with Commissioner for Finance Wild,
I asked
him a plain question on it. I asked Mr. Wild, in
view of the gradual shifting of the tax burden
from indirect to direct, if it was his opinion that
the great part of our revenue would or could soon
be raised from direct taxation. His reply was a
decided "No." And every man here knows why,
even if Mr. Wild hadn't outlined why. Direct
taxation can be successfully collected from
people with fixed incomes, week by week, month
by month. A large proportion of our people do
not have such incomes. The fishermen are
capitalists on a small scale. They are independent, individualistic. It is hard to
assess their
earnings. They know very little of direct taxation.
Newfoundland is synonymous with fish. That
shouldn't offend us. But knowing that it is, we
should be curious to note that of the $90 million
which the Committee estimates for our total earning power, only one-third is expected
to accrue
from the fishery. And that notwithstanding the
fact that there are almost twice as many people
674 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
engaged in the fishing as in the pulp and paper
industry, which page 32 gives as 25,000 people
with earning power of $50 million. There is
something wrong there; not in the report, but in
the circumstances which have produced these
figures. The answer is, I suppose, in the fact that
the countries buying our newsprint are wealthy
countries, and those buying our fish are poor and
from all accounts will get poorer. The answer is
obvious. We must get fish markets in rich
countries, and that can only mean the United
States, by some kind of reciprocity, a trade agreement which the Committee stresses
and to which
I will return later.
In connection with the use of the estimated
surplus for succeeding years, I find myself in
agreement with the delegate from Bonavista
Centre on one point only, namely the matter of
old age pensions. I don't think we should fall into
that state of thinking which suggests we must
have surpluses before we can increase the old age
pensions and lower the age qualification, and the
widows and orphans allowances too. We must
write that into our budgets as something we must
finance....
Like other speakers, I cannot subscribe to the
theory that our continually increasing revenues
are due to the war. Anyone who heard Mr.
Hollett's capable discussion on that point will
agree. And for that matter, even if they were
partly caused by that fact, isn't it oppositely true
that our expenditures are also high for the same
reason, and that a decrease in one will mean a
decrease in the other?
I don't think either that this report tries to
claim that all is right with the world. But it does
show, as well as it can be shown, that things look
pretty good for Newfoundland. I grant you that
there are genuine cases of hardship in the
country. There are lots of men unemployed in St.
John's today, besides fishermen in our bays who
may not have made a good season. But am I to
say Newfoundland is not financially sound and
has good prospects because of these facts? It is
the job of government to provide avenues of
employment for its people, and if there are more
hands in St. John's than work to go around, or if
the Labrador fishery is failing, then it is up to the
government to give the necessary leadership for
people affected by these conditions to turn to
other sources of industry, or other areas.
Perhaps in connection with the development
of the fisheries, some thought might again be
given to a scheme successfully tried in Trinity
Bay in the 1890s, the Dildo fish hatchery. Who
knows but that something along these lines on the
Labrador coast might inject new life in the
Labrador fishery.
I am no financier, and can offer very little
comment on such complicated matters as the
servicing of the public debt and sinking funds and
so on. But even a blind man can see the wisdom
of saving a million dollars, which appears can be
easily done by the conversion of the interest-free
loan from 3% to 2%. If that is so, and I can take
the Committee's word for it, with the evidence
given, then it is criminal if advantage is not taken
of such a move.
I should like now to refer to the conclusions
of the Committee. They state that Newfoundland
is a self-supporting country, based on sound
economic factors; and that all the evidence available to us indicates that this position
of self-support will continue in the foreseeable future. In my
opinion the Committee's second conclusion is of
far more importance than their first. As the Committee hinted in the winding-up section
of the
Economic Report, this was a foregone conclusion. Here is their evidence:
(a) The statement of the Secretary of State in
the House of Commons, 1945.
(b) The statement of Commissioner Wild to
this Convention, 1946.
(c) The statement of Lord Addison to the
London delegation, May 1947.
(d) The conclusions of the Finance Committee based on reports of this Convention.
To discuss this first conclusion of the report is
merely to labour the obvious. I think it safe to say
that the majority of delegates when they came to
this Convention had a closed mind on this subject. They believed, I know I did, that
the country
was then self-supporting, and I feel sure that a
great many of the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador believed it also. However, while I did
not exactly have doubts, I did have a lack of
understanding as to just how far this condition of
self-support was due to wartime conditions. I
confess I was eager for enlightenment on this
score, so that even the financial bugbear might be
removed from the minds of our people and enable
them to make up their minds on the wisdom and
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 675
desirability of resuming control of their own
country and its affairs. And while on the few
occasions when I spoke my piece I made it quite
clear as to what I stood for, self-government for
Newfoundlanders, I did so with a mental reservation that my stand in the final hours
of this unique
assembly would be governed by and was dependent on the final and unquestionable conclusions
of the Economic Report.
Which brings me to the second conclusion,
"that all the evidence available to us indicates that
this position of self-support will continue in the
foreseeable future". They have defined the
"foreseeable future" as a three-year period, from
now to 1950, and have thus gone far beyond the
ordinary requirements of any finance minister in
the presentation of a budget. But that is as it
should be, for our task is somewhat different, and
it is as much to instill courage and hope in the
many faint hearts in our midst, as to prove to the
country and the world in dollars and cents that
Newfoundland can afford democracy.
It is this insistence in our terms of reference
on the question of self-support that has pilloried
us in the eyes of the world as a nation of paupers
casting about on all sides for the inevitable handout. The figures listed on page
3 of this report
should certainly give the lie to that assertion
made so continuously by outsiders as well as the
Cassandras in our midst. A people with $80 million in savings, and $100 million worth
of life
insurance protection, can hardly be considered
paupers. And I don't believe for a moment that
the merchants own all those savings and life
insurance policies.
The Committee's opinion that the mercantile
marine branch of the Railway should be
separated from the Railway system generally,
seems to be a sound one. I am not enough of an
authority on shipping to go into this point at
length, and will expect to hear more on it from
someone like Captain Bailey. I have always felt
that Newfoundland should have a mercantile
marine. She did have one of the finest, and at one
time, I believe, one of the largest for a country of
her size and population in the world. There
wasn't a port in the civilised world where the
White sails and the house flags of Newfoundland
vessels did not flash against the blue, year-in and
year-out. It could be done again.
The section on Gander airport calls for com
ment. I agree with the Committee's observation
that, "It is the foreign airlines that profit through
the operation of Gander airport, and it is these
same airlines which should be made responsible
for any deficits that may accrue in operation."
Please let no one stand up and rave about the fact
that so many Newfoundlanders are getting work
at Gander. We are all aware of that. It is a good
thing. But the airport cannot run itself. And it
costs a lot less for the foreign airlines to run it
with Newfoundland help than by importing their
own, which would never be allowed anyway.
Incidentally, while speaking of Gander, I should
like to refer to a statement I made 12 months ago
— I can hardly believe it — when the Gander
airport section of Transportation Committee's
report was being debated. In stressing the point
now made again by the Economic Committee,
the use of Gander at the expense of Newfoundland, I said in the heat of debate that
Gander
should have been closed down, if that was the
best deal die government could make. That was
not to be taken literally, but the intention was to
convey my belief that a far better deal could have
been made out of which Newfoundlanders would
still have received employment, and that in addition, the country would not have to
stand the
expense of running the airport for the convenience of foreign airlines. The threat
of closing
down this vast airport would have brought the
airlines to our way of thinking soon enough. The
implication is, therefore, that no attempt was
made to strike a better bargain and the conclusion
reached by me is the same as that of the Economic
Committee, that the airport was used by the
British government for the furtherance of ends in
the international field.
The revenues of the country are now approaching the staggering sum of nearly $40 million.
Yet for purposes of planning the shape of
the foreseeable future, the Economic Committee
has chopped that figure ruthlessly down to $30
million. They have estimated that the expenditures can be kept within $25 million,
which is $2
million above the figure that Finance Commissioner Wild, who should know, gave this
Convention as the irreducible minimum — that is, the
figure below which expenditures cannot drop in
order to keep up the services now in existence.
The Committee estimates an annual surplus of $5
million, out of which various reconstruction and
676 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
other projects can be financed.
The Newfoundland of the foreseeable future
is far different from the Newfoundland of recent
memory, such as in the years before the sad
accident of war changed us from a relatively
obscure island to a country of immense strategic
importance to three friendly nations, and possibly
to a fourth unfriendly one. As the Committee
states, the war is over two years and our revenues
continue to rise. Some of this may be due to the
momentum of war expenditures, but allowing for
a gradual recession, it is safe to conclude that it
will be some time before the revenue sinks as low
as the $30 million provided in the Committee's
estimates. Military and air bases are held by the
richest and most powerful nation in the modern
world, the USA; great airports in Newfoundland
and Labrador are under our sovereignty; in
Labrador, there is revealed mineral wealth for
which the world is clamouring, so that the
imagination is staggered by the fabulous prospect
of industrial development that is in the offing for
our northern dependency.
This then is the Newfoundland that faces the
future, be it foreseeable or veiled. I have made no
mention of surpluses, or low per capita debts.
Neither haveI made any mention of the splendid
type of men and women who go to make up this
country of Newfoundlanders, or of the forbears
from whom they sprang. In 1855 this country was
a wilderness, and when those same forbears took
over the running of this primitive land, I don't
believe for a moment they bit off more than they
could chew. In fact, I think it was a great pity that
circumstances prevented them from taking a bigger bite, a bite which is in the capacity
of their
descendants to take, the bite that includes the
passing of the Statute of Westminster, by which
Newfoundland could for the first time in its history be really independent.
I make this point to underscore the observations made by the Committee on page 27
which
refer to the "importance of steps being taken as
soon as possible to negotiate with the authorities
of the USA, with a view to bringing about a trade
agreement which would solve for all time our
whole fishery situation". That is the best argument I know for the attainment of the
three square
meals a day that some delegates have been prone
to harp on, no doubt with the sincerest of motives.
We had a chance to make such a trade agreement
many years ago. It was blocked by outsiders, only
because Newfoundland was not completely independent, as she would be today if she
could pass
the Statute of Westminister. That is what the
Economic Committee means when it says, "We
are of the definite view that if proper representations were now made, by a properly
constituted Government of Newfoundland, that the
American government as well as the American
people whom we consider fair and just, would
certainly seriously consider giving Newfoundland some favourable tariff concessions
for
our fishery products"....
I cannot close without referring to the final
phrases of the report, in which they emphasise the
need for faith in ourselves and in our country.
Without this faith, this confidence in our ability
to work and produce and strive for ourselves and
our children, it will go hard with us under any
form of government, but hardest of all under a
form where the state becomes more and more
supreme, and the citizen is left to suffer at its
hands any and all the petty tyrannies and vicissitudes that popular representation,
no matter
how inadequate, can always endeavour to thwart
and to correct.
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, I wish to add my
word of praise and thanks to the gentlemen who
prepared this excellent Economic Report...
Briefly, they tell me that at present we owe for
loans approximately $60 million. Against this we
have our savings, a total of $74 million. Insurance
companies owe our policy holders $22 million,
in addition to this there are another $3-4 million
that people have in their homes, in the sock so to
speak, so that our total cash is about $100 million,
and then of course we have our other assets.... A
businessman who could present such a comparative showing would be considered very
well off
indeed.
We are asked to try and determine to what
extent the war has caused our prosperity. We
know that wars bring on scarcity and high prices,
and we have been affected like all countries, but
it would take an economist of the highest order
to go further than this. One expert will say that
wars bring prosperity, and another expert will say
that prosperity brings on wars, so which is the
cause, and which is the effect?
In the early 1930s we had a severe depression,
and I know that the depression was worldwide.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 677
In the USA conditions were very bad. In Canada
soup kitchens and bread lines (I know personally)
were a very common sight, so that we fared about
the same as other countries — and our depression
was brought about by economics rather than
politics.
The member from Bonavista Centre said a few
days ago that if Grand Falls did not start when it
did; if the first world war did not happen, and if
Buchans and Comer Brook did not start, we
would be in a more or less chronic depression.
This, by use of the word "if", attempts to
demolish all the prosperity that we may have
enjoyed in the last 40 years.... No complete solution has been yet found to the problem
of ups and
downs in business, and a man can be just as
hungry in other countries as in Newfoundland. A
few people think that our economic security can
be found by us ceasing to be Newfoundlanders,
but I am told that only once in all time was there
a place designed to satisfy man's need. That was
the Garden of Eden — and we all know what
happened to the Garden of Eden.
In reviewing our economic situation, there are
a few fundamentals that I think we should never
forget. First, I believe there is no Santa Claus;
second, I believe that since the Garden of Eden,
man has had to earn his bread by the sweat of his
brow; third, I believe you get nothing for nothing,
not even baby bonuses....
Mr. Smallwood Sir, I rise to a point of order.
This sounds to me perilously like an attack on
confederation, which has not come up for debate
yet. If we are going to debate it I am prepared, but
let's debate it, baby bonuses and all the rest.
Mr. Chairman I can't see the possible connection between baby bonuses and the debate here.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. I object
very strongly to interrupting a speaker when he
is speaking. I do think baby bonuses have a lot to
do with the economics of the householder, and
therefore of the country. If anyone wants to refer
to baby bonuses during his discussion I see no
reason why any member should be refused. It
certainly is an economic question.
Mr. Chairman He has no right to read into that
report anything that is not there. He is discussing
this report before the Chair, and I ask him to
confine his remarks to that, and none of us can go
wrong.
Mr. Reddy Fourth, I believe we have to work
out our own salvation.
Some gentlemen say that the solution to our
problems is in politics. I think our problems are
economic, not political; and our economic future
depends on our producing more, and finding
markets for what we produce. Last year Canada
sold us $37 million worth of goods, but bought
very little from us. If a businessman were faced
with a similar situation he would arrange to
change this. He would seek another source for his
purchases, and would patronise the man or firm
who bought from him. And if some of the
gentlemen in this House were as truly sincere to
try and improve the economic state of Newfoundland as they say they are, they might
during
the past six or seven months have directed some
of their speeches to this angle of our problems
rather than offering their own pet political
theories as a solution. That is fundamentally a
matter of buying and selling.
The USA is the greatest outlet actually and
potentially for our products. Last year I believe
she bought $19 million worth of our goods. She
is the market for our cod fillets, lobster, salmon,
herring, seal skins, cod oil, newsprint, berries,
and anything we mind to produce. Is it foolish for
me to think or say that our economic welfare lies
in the direction of reducing our buying from
Canada, who buys practically nothing from us,
and spending these dollars in the USA, who will
take more from us as we buy more from them?
As I said before, it is our economic relations that
have to be improved, and with the USA, and by
that I don't mean political relations. We are all
right as we are, and to me at least, what we want
is a closer economic union with the USA, and not
a political union with any other country.... What
we want is a trade agreement with the USA,
which a real patriot, Sir Robert Bond, almost
negotiated years ago — only to be blocked and
defeated because Canadian business interest suffered. Another truly great Newfoundlander
who
is in this house today, Hon. R. B. Job, has raised
his voice along similar lines only to be drowned
out by those who have the answers to all our
problems in their own pet political theories.
As I see it, we work or starve. Manna ceased
to fall from Heaven thousands of years ago. One
gentleman said we have a chronic need of being
subsidised, but I don't want or need to be subsidised, and I think the people resent
the insinua
678 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
tion that they are paupers. I know that any country
with rich soil is a rich country, and our soil is not
rich, and it is a handicap. But to compensate, we
have the rich seas at our doors, and there we have
to look for our needs. As I see it, we have to
produce more fish. We think we are a fish
country, but for each pound per capita we
produce, Iceland produces 30 pounds, so we are
not doing nearly as much as we should. Except
for the Bank fishery, our shore and Labrador
fisheries are carried on about four months in 12,
and people just cannot live for 12 months on what
they produce in four. Fishing time has to be
lengthened. Fishermen have to be equipped so
that winter fishing can be carried on, the way it
is down now in the Burgeo district. This has to
pioneered by great Newfoundlanders like Mr.
Job, Mr. Crosbie and Mr. Monroe, the latter
gentleman who is already with his fleet of draggers operating all year round on the
south coast,
and revolutionising the fishery there, making a
large area of the Burin Peninsula prosperous. I
suggest that in Placentia Bay alone,' the long
reach running from Flat Islands almost the whole
way down to Sound Island can be fished in the
winter by 500 boats of about 15 tons, like those
which are used in the winter fishery on the
western shore.
It may sound strange to some, but to my mind,
in order to make a proper beginning towards
making our people more industry conscious, we
have to begin in the schools. We need a course in
economies with particular regard to Newfoundland, to be taught in every school and
in
every grade. The course can tell the story and
point out the causes of our past reverses It can
suggest the remedies, or at least indicate the
course along which the solution lies. Scholarships can be set up to encourage the
study of this
subject, and everything should be done to make
our children economics conscious. Our schools
should have boys' and girls' brigades, such as
Boy Scouts and Girl Guides — even if the
government contributed something toward the
cost of the little uniforms for the children. I think
navigation should be compulsory in all CHE
exams, and that an increase in the educational
grant to carry this into effect should be made,
because it will be an investment that will pay
better dividends to Newfoundland than all the
rosy pictures that come from the pipedreams of
the would-be senators to Ottawa.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
If this House wants a debate on confederation I
am prepared at the drop ofa flag at any moment....
Mr. Chairman I am not prepared. Please take
your seats. I will remind members ... that Rule 30
provides "that no member may use offensive and
unbecoming words in reference to any member
of this Convention." I want to make it clear that
any words of this nature will be ruled out of order.
Mr. Reddy Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am not
referring to any member.... I believe the Commission of Government started a good
thing with the
town councils; the only thing wrong with them is
that they are far too few. We need more and more
of them, because from them will come the men
and women legislators of tomorrow.... Yes, more
education is essential, and from it will come a
consciousness and understanding for the need of
great individual effort, and I believe that we are
capable and worthy of such a programme, and if
we carry out this programme we will be able to
deal with our economic problems, so that we will
make Newfoundland not only better known to
Newfoundlanders but better known the world
over. No doubt these thoughts do not appeal to
our local Pied Piper who day-in and day-out plays
his luring tune. But we are not hypnotized, and
will not be lured into the waters of the Cabot
Strait because we are not mice, but men.
In viewing the report I think our economic
condition is both actually and comparatively very
fair, and I fully approve and endorse it. The old
saying says, "God helps those who help themselves", and may God help those foolish
enough to
think that, if we don't help ourselves, Canada or
any other country will do it for us.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point
of order. If you, sir, are willing to be defied in
your ruling by Mr. Reddy, I am afraid you will
have to be defied by me. If any other member
defies you I have the same right.
Mr. Chairman I don't intend to be defied. Mr.
Reddy has been brought to order twice, and he
persists in going out of order with his parting
shot. Political discnminations will not be indulged in at this time, or as long as
I am in the
Chair....
Mr. Hollett ....I would like to refer to the point
of order which was just raised. The member for
Burin East referred to Canada. He might just as
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 679
well have referred to New Zealand, or Australia,
or Great Britain, or any other place. Is it
verboten
to speak the name of Canada?
Mr. Hollett Surely he was talking on the
Economic Report, Mr. Chairman, in his concluding remarks.
Mr. Hollett Well, what I want to know is this:
are we not to be allowed to mention the name of
Canada?
Mr. Chairman Yes, you may mention any
country you like provided there is a necessary
connection between the country referred to and
the economy of this country.
Mr. Hollett May I ask what was the point of
order raised by the member from Bonavista
Centre?
Mr. Chairman The point of order, as I understood it, was that the member from Burin East
simply referred to Canada, and no more. There
was no connection whatever between Canada
and the economy of Newfoundland. If he had
done that I would have promptly overruled the
objection....
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman I would like to
have your ruling on the action of the junior member of Grand Falls district, Mr. Hollett.
When he
was addressing this House on the Economic
Report, he addressed himself on two or more
occasions to the ladies and gentlemen, to the
gallery. Would this procedure be correct, or
should he address himself to the Chair? In other
words, was he out of order?
Mr. Chairman It is rather late in the day... I
don't think at this stage I should be asked to make
a ruling on it.
Mr. Cashin I don't think that any member
would have any objection to Mr. Starkes addressing himself to the ladies in the house!
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen will confine themselves to addressing their remarks to me.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. Who has
the floor?
Mr. Hollett I must request Mr. Starkes to take
his seat. I must sometime or other have addressed
myself to the ladies and gentlemen of this House.
Is he not aware that there are ladies in this House?
If he would look here at the stenographer's desk
he would see one for sure. But if I did make that
error I do apologise to the Chair, sir.
Mr. Chairman I think we might dispose of a lot
of this, gentlemen. However hard I may be to look
at, I am afraid that's the price you have got to pay
for my being here, so you will kindly address
your remarks to me.
Mr. Starkes ....Mr. Chairman, I wonder how
some of our large mercantile firms on Water
Street look at the report. I ask members in their
own minds to pick out one of the largest firms on
Water Street today. Before the war that firm was
selling so many goods and making so much
profit. Suddenly the war comes along and that
firm's sales start to jump, and they keep on increasing. That firm sells more goods
and therefore becomes more prosperous. They pay their
clerks and other employees more wages; they do
twice as much business as they did before the
war, and are therefore two or three times as
prosperous. Now if you went to the principals of
that firm and asked them one simple question —
what has caused this great prosperity that they are
now enjoying? — would those principals say that
it had nothing to do with the war? Would they say
that it all came about from the normal growth of
the business? If you go to any of our large fish
firms, or to either of our paper mills or mining
companies and ask them the same question, what
would their answer be? Would any of them say
that their present prosperity is not due to the war?
Of course they wouldn't. Ask the people who
have extra money in the bank, or the people who
have taken out extra life insurance in the past few
years, won't they tell you right away that they
thank the war for it? The commonest saying you
hear in Newfoundland when people mention the
prosperity we have had, is that the man to thank
for it all is Hitler. But when we turn to this
Economic Report what do we find? Do we find
this report admitting frankly and honestly the
present improved conditions of the country are
due to the war? No, it does not.
If you turn to page 43, in the second paragraph
you will find: "It is yet an obvious fact that our
present revenues cannot be something dependent
on war boom."
Mr. Starkes
"There must be some other cause
680 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
— and on examining the matter further we
found that a great portion of our present
revenue is coming to us because of the
growth of our main industries. Now, these
industries are wholly peace industries and are
not dependent for their prosperity on war
conditions. It is clear therefore that we can
properly regard our present revenues as being
anything but a result of war boom."
Mr. Hollett I insist that he did not state the
paragraph at the first:
"Now, making every allowance for the
momentum of war expenditures carrying on
after the close of hostilities and allowing for
the gradual recession of this boom period, it
is yet an obvious fact that our present
revenues cannot be something dependent on
war boom."
Mr. Chairman I have no wish to impede the
progress of the House, but if you are going to
draw any inference, is it too much to ask that you
should quote correctly and
in extenso the paragraph to which you ultimately intend to infer?
Never mind paraphrasing, because any clause
may be capable of several interpretations.
Mr. Starkes On page 43 of the Economic
Report it reads thus:
"In this connection we have the following
observations to make. in the first place the
war has now been over for two years and we
find our revenues even greater than our
highest war time revenues. Now, making
every allowance for the momentum of war
expenditures carrying on after the close of
hostilities, and allowing for the gradual
recession of this boom period, it is yet an
obvious fact that our present revenues cannot
be something dependent on war boom. There
must be some other cause, and on examining
the matter further we found that a great portion of our present revenue is coming
to us
because of the growth of our main industries.
Now, these industries are wholly peace industries and are not dependent for their
prosperity on war conditions. It is clear therefore that we can properly regard our
present
revenues as being anything but a result of war
boom."
Mr. Chairman Now Mr. Starkes, you are perfectly at liberty to draw any conclusions you may
wish.
Mr. Starkes The Committee apparently looks
around for some other cause, and what is this
cause that they give? A normal growth of our
industries, they tell us, and I suppose they expect
us to believe that Newfoundland would be in the
same position as it is now if there had not been
any war at all. I for one do not believe that...
Mr. Cashin My point is that Mr. Starkes is
trying to convey that at the present time the
business that's going on in the country is due to
war boom, and I want to prove that it is not.
Mr. Smallwood A point of order. The gentleman has no point of order, he is only trying to get
in the debate. Wait until Mr. Starkes finishes.
Mr. Cashin I will sit down when the Chairman
tells me to do so, and not you. You cut it out.
Mr. Chairman However members may differ
in opinion from any conclusions drawn by Mr.
Starkes, I must remind them now that there is no
midway between yes and no. Therefore in reserving to Mr. Starkes the right to draw
his conclusions, however erroneous, or ridiculous or
foolish in the judgement of any of the members
they may be, members will please remember that
I am reserving to them the same right. I cannot
have that right breached at this time, or at any
time. Will you please go ahead, Mr. Starkes.
Mr. Starkes I for one do not believe that, and
the people of this country do not believe it, for
they know different. We might as well face the
truth that Newfoundland was in a very poor state
up to the day the war broke out. Tens of thousands
of our people were on the dole all the years from
1930 to 1940. Then the war came and prosperity
with it. Now the war is gradually passing away
and in another two or three years it might be that
its biggest effects will come to an end. Will the
government be raking in the millions of revenue
that it is taking in today? Where will the government get the $30 million a year that
this report
says it will get?.... Why should we be so anxious
to bluff ourselves, to build up a house of cards
that would collapse at the very first icy blast of
depression? For some of our people this first icy
breath of depression has already come.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure no member will
disagree when I say that our present prosperity
has been brought about by war. Therefore,
according to our terms of reference, we should be
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 681
very careful and govern ourselves accordingly.
Let us look at the revenue.... I would like to ask
every member, in their opinion do they think this
extremely high revenue was brought about by the
hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into this
country during the war period from America,
Canada and the United Kingdom, or was it
brought about by new industries started during
the same period? If it was brought about by the
influx of foreign money into the country on account of war, I think I feel justified
in estimating
our revenue under normal conditions, that would
be 1939-40, 1938-39 and farther back. The
highest revenue then was $12.5 million At the
present time we are receiving a revenue of around
$10 million coming into the Assessor's Department. I can well remember the time when
the
earning power of this country under normal conditions would not bring in near this
figure. In this
report, on page 33, this Committee estimates the
revenue as $9 million per year from the
Assessor's Department for the next three years.
In my opinion it might average half that amount,
and I say this because the people who are the
producers, the fishermen and the loggers, with
others, find their earning power reduced, and in
lots of cases to a minimum I can't agree with this
estimated revenue for the next three years. There
was a time during the war when fishermen, with
their representatives, could sit around a table with
the fish exporters, talk over and mutually agree
on a reasonable price of fish to be paid to the
fishermen, before the fishermen would think of
catching a quintal from the water. That privilege
we enjoyed during the war years. In my opinion
it has lately disappeared.... I am also given to
understand that there are considerable quantities
of fish to which nobody can give a correct estimate of value. There are quantities
of fish sent
in here to be stored pending prospects of selling
it sometime and at a price which nobody
knows.... It not only applies to codfish. Last year
lobster sold for as high as $58, and in some cases
$60 per case What do we find this year? Why, it
is being retailed right here in St. John's for less
than 60 cents per pound tin, while last year it was
retailed for as high as $1.20 per tin. In other words
the value is less than half.
I wonder, can the chairman tell this House the
amount of war savings certificates cashed in
during the past six months, the amount of money
drawn from savings in the banks during the past
six months? These are not mere estimates, they
are the facts, and let us be like men and face the
situation. This position, I am sure, can be better
judged by the fishermen who are at a loss to know
what their fish is going to realise, as well as by
the merchant who supplies them, and who is
taking in the fish as payment against their account.
The paper industry and the forest products.
The Committee has taken into account the assurance of increased value. I am at a loss
to see
how this can be done when we all feel sure that
there is very little hope. It is true that at the present
time a large programme of expansion involving
the expenditure of $10 million or more is being
pushed forward at Corner Brook, but we want to
remember the conditions and world affairs at the
present time, and that almost anything can happen overnight. Look at the lumber situation
today. Six months ago one could sell rough lumber for as high as $60, and in some
cases $70 per
thousand What is it today? Go along Water
Street, and they will tell you today's price, and in
some cases you can't even get a buyer at any
price.... We notice that the company at Grand
Falls had under serious consideration the further
expansion of their industry in the Exploits River
valley. However, this expansion has been
postponed. The fact that at least some evidence
of doubt exists in the minds of the AND Co.
should make us think. Last year there was a
shortage of wood. What caused that shortage to
some extent was the scarcity of men. The scarcity
of men for the woods was due to the fish last year
being a fair price, but this year there is a different
side to the picture, and I understand that practically all the camps are filled. But
very soon quite
a few of the camps will have their quota of wood
for the season, and the men will be returning to
their homes with very little work to do. In view
of the fact that last year we paid out over $1
million in relief, this year I am afraid there will
be considerably more needed to supply the
demand.
If the producers, the fishermen and the loggers, cannot get reasonable returns for
their work,
how can we expect this country to prosper? We
must admit that we have to export to live, and to
export we must produce, and if our men cannot
produce at a reasonable profit I cannot see for the
682 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
life of me how the people in this country, who are
not actual producers, can expect anywhere near
the returns which were coming in during the
prosperous years of war.
I think it was the member for Grand Falls, Mr.
Hollett, who made the remark that one person on
relief received $11 per month in St. John's, and
two persons received $20.80 per month. I am
repeating this to remind this House and the
country at large what is being paid as relief in St.
John's, so that they in turn who have to seek
relief, through no cause of their own, in the
outports, will have an idea of what to expect
themselves. I wonder, did the Committee get a
scale of relief that is to be paid out this winter?
Mr. Starkes How many good, hard-working
Newfoundlanders are on the dole already? Let us
not blind ourselves to the fact that thousands of
our people already feel the pinch of hard times.
How many more will have to go on the dole this
winter and next spring? It is all very well to build
up a bright optimistic picture, but what the people
want is a truthful picture. The people are not
going to thank us for trying to pretend that everything is all right without a shadow
on the road
ahead. There are some things in Newfoundland
today which give us cause for satisfaction, and
there are things which give us cause for worry.
Let us see the whole truth. If we play politics and
refuse to face the truth about our country, the
people themselves will know what to do when
they come to vote in the referendum. I have
listened to a very rosy picture that has been
painted of our economic future, which appears to
have very little in the way of a solid foundation.
I would remind you that the house that was built
on sand disappeared when the storm came.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, in connection with
the statement made by the last speaker, there are
one or two figures I would like to quote. The last
speaker was trying to insinuate that the economy
is a wartime economy. I refer you to the figures
in the Finance Report with regard to the exports
of iron ore, and the value thereof. I quote you the
figures:
*
....Here we have two after the war years where
the value of iron ore has doubled practically. Is
that a wartime boom? 1 refer you to the figures in
reference to the export of concentrates from
Buchans:
**
I refer you to the figures with regard to the
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 683
exports of newsprint:
*
Is that a wartime boom? I think not. Now I
refer you to the fisheries. Salt cod, the much
despised salt cod — I grant you that any man who
has to live by catching and selling salt cod is
bound to have a rough time going through this
life. We are Newfoundlanders, and most of us got
raised on salt cod but I do realise, especially
after hearing Mr. Vincent' remarks yesterday,
that the people of the northeast coast at this
particular time are going through a good bit of
hardship, a strenuous time — not because they
could not catch the fish. If they had gotten it they
would have got good money. The fish did not
come in. If there is no fish there, or it does not
come in, and there is no ore there, and no
newsprint there we will have to leave the
country.
**
Now how any man can get to his feet and try to
prove to you that the economy upon which the
Finance Committee based their report is a wartime boom, I fail to see how he arrived
at that
conclusion. These are facts, and I want to draw
them to the attention of this House. I am not
talking to the people outside.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, these facts that
Mr. Hollett has stated are indeed facts. The explanation of them is the war — that
and nothing
else. The position is this: base metals, all primary
products, including wheat and all cereals, fish
and all materials entering into industry, and par
ticularly into building and construction, have
shot Skyward in price and in demand. During the
war no constmction went on - all construction
stopped, I mean all dwelling houses and commercial structures stopped. In Britain
and Europe it
was true indeed very spectacularly... In addition
to that price ceilings kept all prices down
throughout North America — except Newfoundland, here we are the suckers, and prices
mount sky high here As Mr. Keough said, the
cost of living enquiry was $30 million and two
years too late. But on the North American continent they put ceilings on, in addition
to which
there were tremendous shortages of everything,
and all their activity went into war production.
The result was that millions of people saved up
money out of their wages that they could not
spend — nothing to spend it on, shortages of
everything. Even here in Newfoundland we felt
something of the shortages, but nothing like on
the continent. The result was that many billions
of dollars were accumulated in the pockets of the
people. And now there is a great backlog of
purchasing power, and as fast as industry can turn
out washing machines, vacuum cleaners, motor
cars, trucks, locomotives, steamships — everything that is based on steam, which is
based on
iron ore — it is bought. They can't turn it out fast
enough. Why? Because this great backlog of
earning created by the war is now being spent. So
therefore we sell our iron ore, and we sell our
684 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
newsprint. There is a world shortage of newsprint
that is going to last two or three years. Beyond
that no one can prophesy. There is a shortage of
everything, and a tremendous demand for it, and
the price has gone up, all due to the war, not due
to the normal growth of our industries. Let's face
the truth for once. This boom, which is still on in
Newfoundland, begins to have some holes appearing in it just now, but it is still
on... It will
last another two or three years. No one knows.
This boom is directly and entirely and exclusively the result of the war, and who
is foolish enough
not to believe it? Of course Bell Island is as
prosperous as she is today because of the war.
Our fisheries are commanding the price they do
because of the war.... Our paper is commanding
the price it does because of the war. Are we blind,
or are we trying to kid ourselves? Any fisherman
in Newfoundland, in Bonavista Bay knows it.
Any common, ordinary man in the island knows
it is all because of the war. The same thing applies
to the United States and to Canada. Europe can't
buy because she has not the money to buy.
Canada is paying it into Europe, and USA is
paying it into Europe, and Newfoundland is
paying it into Europe (or would be if they had the
dollars to pay for it). Europe has been levelled off
by the bombs, and the demand is there and is
insatiable, and will continue for the next two or
three years. That's why, and who is going to tell
me that is not the result of the war? What kind of
trash and nonsense is that?
Mr. Higgins I wonder if Mr. Smallwood will
agree that the present high revenue of Newfoundland will continue then for at least
three
more years?
Mr. Smallwood My answer to that is that it may
continue for six years, it may continue for one
year. Mr. Higgins did not know, Major Cashin
does not know, I don't know, when all the
economists of the world are wondering just this.
Let me tell you something. During the war installment buying came practically to an
end... Why?
So much cash. Already in the United States,
already in Canada installment buying is back
again... What does that mean? It means that great
backlog of money saved up during the war is
beginning to peter out, and what the economists
are wondering is, are we due for another 1929 in
the States? Every statesman in Great Britain is
worried about it. Prices are gone mad in the
States. All controls are off, no more ceilings on
prices. They are soaring to new heights every
day. How long can it last before the bottom drops
out of it? My answer to Mr. Higgins is: how can
we expect to make these swollen wartime
revenues, which are very high, give the government nearly $40 million? We are wondering
if we
are awake or asleep. $40 million! I remember
when the whole revenue of the Government of
Newfoundland was only $7 million for the whole
year, and $5 million of that was to pay the interest
of the debt. That left $2 million for everything.
How long ago was that? 1932. So this year it is
$40 million, and maybe next year it will be $100
million. Some miracle may happen. But on the
other hand next year it may be only $30 million,
and the next year $20 million.
Eight years ago Labrador fish was only worth
$3 a quintal. I don't say it will come down to $3
again — it is $10 or $11 now, but it may be
anywhere between $3 and $11. If that happens
where will you get your $8 or $9 million from the
Assessor's Depanment?.... Where will you get
your $30 million then?.... In reply to Mr. Hollett,
however we may differ in what we think and the
forms of government we desire, let us not, in this
hard-headed practical matter, fool ourselves into
trying to blink it out of sight that these revenues
we have today are not caused by the war boom.
Trash and nonsense.
Mr. Hollett Trash and nonsense. Does the member for Bonavista Centre think that he is giving
us some information with all that bawling that he
is getting on with there?
Mr. Hollett We still remember the same years
that he talks about. We are not so ancient that
some of the rest of us do not remember them too,
and we are not fools enough to think that the
economy of the country is not still benefitted by
the war. Sure, we know, and we don't want to
have anybody get up and bawl our ear-drums out
to tell us about it. We lived through it too.
Mr. Hollett You keep quiet while I'm talking...
Mr. Chairman, I fail to see why, when a man
makes a statement, somebody has to get up and
thunder and roar for 15 or 20 minutes to answer
a simple little question. I am not so stupid that I
don't want all that, you know, and I am sure the
people of this Convention are not so stupid that
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 685
they don't want all this bawling and roaring,
causing them a lot more pain and misery than the
honourable member from Bonavista Centre. I
hope that when he gets up again to answer a
simple question he will not think that we are all
fools, and that everything else except that which
the member from Bonavista says is all tommyrot.
I know all about the war; I was in one, and sent
1,000 men to this one. A lot of them did not come
back to this country which they loved. And they,
and those that came back, what would they say to
me if I got up here every five or ten minutes of
the day and damned this country which gave
them birth, for which they fought and for which
they died, and in which today their mothers and
fathers are weeping? What would they say if I got
up there today and damned their native land
simply to answer a question? Thank you, sir.
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I have no desire in the
world to play on words in an honest effort to find
out the truth of Newfoundland's position. One or
two things did arise out of the last speech but one,
to which I would like to refer. I entirely agree
with what the member from Bonavista Centre
said if he is basing everything on a monied
economy. There is, however, another side to the
picture; that we ought to look for real wealth in
the community as distinguished from mere
money wealth. We know that because of the war
a great deal of the real wealth of the neighbouring
continent has been torn up and destroyed, thereby
creating in other parts of the world real wealth
which was not real wealth until it was begun to
be exploited and used. For example the Labrador
iron. Just because the world has used its resources
in certain parts of the world, its iron ore, the value
of the Labrador increases because it represents
real wealth. Money is only a measure of real
wealth, and I have no doubt that after we get over
this crazy spending brought about by the backing
up of surpluses in private hands and government
hands, or whoever it may be, that we will come
back to a more normal position, but just because
America and Canada and other parts of the world
have turned up some of their real wealth in the
form of their natural resources, Newfoundland
has become that much richer if we exploit it. For
example, iron ore. Everything has been brought
out here to show that the United States' position
is entirely different from what it was some years
ago, and that makes the Labrador position and our
wealth in the future that much better. The same
is true in our timber resources. The same may or
may not be true in the distant future in our fish
resources, and of course, as far as agriculture is
concerned that depends entirely upon how we use
the land which God has given us.
I want to interject just one other word. When
we were discussing this war economy and our
peacetime industries we ought to draw a distinction which is drawn by every economist.
Whatever causes this prosperity, and I have no
doubt and I agree entirely with Mr. Smallwood
that it was caused by the war, that it was due to
the war, and after the war is over there is set up a
peace economy, and that peace economy depends
to a large extent upon what has happened because
of the war. Nevertheless, it is and cannot be
anything else but a peace economy. Now I have
no desire to bring other countries into this picture,
but I think that the Canadian industrial position
after the last war, because of the last war, got a
tremendous boom. Part of that industrial boom is
carried on to peacetime. That is the position I
think that Newfoundland is in at the present time.
So therefore there is not much point in seeing
what actually happened, whether we are now in
a wartime economy or not. The point is that
arising out of the war we have a much better
peacetime economy than we have ever had in the
past.
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I want to give
notice of motion, sir. I give notice that I will on
tomorrow move the following resolution:
Whereas a Royal Commission was appointed by His Majesty's warrant dated
February 7, 1933, to examine into the future
of Newfoundland;
And Whereas the said Royal Commission
made a report and in this report recommended that the existing form of government,
namely responsible government, be
suspended until such time as the Island became self-supporting, when responsible
government on request from the people of
Newfoundland would be restored;
And Whereas in 1934 the Legislative
Council and Assembly in a Joint Address to
His Majesty the King requested that the Letters Patent under the Great Seal at
Westminster, dated March 28, 1876, and the
686 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Letters Patent under the Great Seal at
Westminster, dated July 17, 1905, be
suspended and new Letters Patent be issued,
which would provide for the administration
of the Island until such time as it became
self-supporting again on the basis of the
recommendations in the report of the Royal
Commission;
And Whereas as a result of this Joint Address, new Letters Patent under the Great
Seal at Westminster were issued on January
30, 1934, by virtue of the provisions of an Act
of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland entitled
"The Newfoundland Act, 1933" which said
Act provided for the administration of Newfoundland during the period whilst the operation
of the former Letters Patent was
suspended;
And Whereas it is the opinion of this
Convention that Newfoundland is now self-
supporting;
Be It Therefore Resolved that this Convention recommend to the United Kingdom
government that the wishes of the people of
Newfoundland should be ascertained at the
earliest moment as to whether it is their desire
that Responsible Government be restored.
That, sir, is not going to be brought up as a motion
until the Report of the Economic Committee has
been fully discussed
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. Is it in order to
debate forms of government before the report of
the Ottawa delegation and the communication
received yesterday from the Government of
Canada are received and debated?
Mr. Chairman At the moment the position is
that this is merely a notice of motion, and I am
only going to deal with the order paper as is. The
motion which I will now call on Mr. Bradley to
move is that the communication from the government at Ottawa be received. I only propose
to deal
with that, and I propose to deal with first things
first.
Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, I think that earlier
in the afternoon I made quite an explanation of
my views upon how this question should be
treated, which makes it unnecessary for me to
deal with this matter at any length, so I don't
propose to enlarge upon it at all. I move the
resolution today.
Mr. Chairman The motion is that the communication from the Government of Canada be
received.
Mr. Bradley I thought that they would be taken
together, but if you wish to divide them I will
move that the communication be received
Mr. Chairman The motion before me now is
that the communication from the Government of
Canada be received, and that the Convention
resolve itself into a committee of the whole on
tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman That would mean that it would
be made tomorrow.
Mr. Bradley No, it would be made now. This is
a motion that the committee do resolve itself
tomorrow. It is a determination to deal with it by
committee.
Mr. Higgins That was not the ruling you gave
today, sir.
Mr. Chairman I would prefer it if you would
divide your motion into two parts, one that the
report be received, and then secondly you can
defer your motion to move the Convention into a
committee of the whole, or let your motion stand
over.
Mr. Bradley It does not make any difference to
me, sir.
Mr. Chairman It would save me considerable
embarrassment here, in view particularly of the
assurance I gave members already this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman The motion is that the Report of
the Ottawa Delegation be received.
Mr. Higgins I don't want to embarrass you, sir,
but that is not actually the motion we have. We
have a complete motion. If Mr. Bradley wants to
change it now he should do it by giving notice of
motion and bringing it up at the next session.
Mr. Chairman In fairness to the House and to
Mr. Bradley, my interpretation of this motion
when my attention was first drawn to it, rightly
or wrongly, was that the motion was of a double-
barrelled nature. That is to say that the House
would be asked to receive the report this afternoon, and then on the following session,
whether
it is tomorrow or on any subsequent day, that the
motion to resolve the House into a committee of
the whole would be made. What I understood, the
inference I drew, was that there would be two
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 687
motions, and that the second motion would be
subsequent in point of time to the motion that the
report be received, and it was upon that understanding, or misunderstanding as the
case may
be, that I was induced to give the opinions I did
earlier in the afternoon.
Mr. Bradley Well, Mr. Chairman, any procedure that you choose to select will be satisfactory
to me. My motion as it stands is in the nature of
a double motion. If it is adopted as it stands then
tomorrow afternoon my motion will be to defer
the other, because I don't propose to introduce
the question of that communication from Ottawa
until the Economic Report has been dealt with. I
don' t know why there should be so much difficulty in getting this thing straightened
out. Is there
any object, any adequate object, in dealing with
tiny meticulous technicalities on a question of
this kind? I can't see it. One would think we were
discussing an intricate point of law upon which
millions of dollars depended. All we want is to
get this matter before the Convention at the
proper time. Definitely we ought to receive it at
the earliest possible moment, and if the two motions are taken together, as the order
stands, it
simply means that tomorrow afternoon, when the
order is read, I shall move that it be deferred, and
the same thing on the next day, if the Economic
Report has not been finalised, and on the next
day, and until we have finished the Economic
Report. It does not make any difference as far as
I can see — any method of doing it so long as we
get there.
Mr. Chairman You are definitely going to do
that, so that I won't misunderstand you. The
motion in its present form is calculated merely to
have the report received at this time?
Mr. Bradley Yes, and it will be received and
will be on the order paper tomorrow. When it is
read tomorrow, instead of moving the House into
a committee of the whole I will move that the
order be deferred.
Mr. Higgins I still must object, and contend that
it has got to be two separate motions as far as I
am concerned. It has to be a motion to receive,
and a separate motion to resolve into a committee
of the whole.
Mr. Smallwood Would Mr. Higgins state his
reasons for doing that?
Mr. Hollett I don't want to be meticulous over
this matter at all, but there seems to be a difference of opinion about it. With Mr.
Bradley's
consent, he could delete all words after
"received" in this motion, and if Mr. Bradley
would consent, then tomorrow he would bring in
notice of motion covering the second part of that,
because undoubtedly the Economic Report will
not be finished tomorrow.
Mr. Bradley No sir, I will not, and my reason is
this, that it is apparent that there is room for
suspicion. There is an effort being made to
deprive that motion of priority, and I don't
propose to allow that to happen.
Mr. Higgins There was nothing in my mind like
that. I am not trying to oppose the motion from
any ulterior motive.
Mr. Chairman Why can't we arrive at a sensible solution whereby the motion of Mr.
Bradley's to resolve the House into a committee
of the whole will come next after the business that
is presently before the Chair, that is to say the
Economic Report. Now when I receive this
notice of motion this must go on in due course.
Mr. Higgins You made a ruling this afternoon
whereby the motion we were going to pass today
would be that the report be received.
Mr. Chairman No attempt to resolve the House
into a committee of the whole, I said that. All the
House would be asked to do would be to receive
the report. I did not say that notice of motion to
resolve the House into a committee of the whole
would not arrive at the order paper.
Mr. Higgins I think, to avoid all difficulty, if Mr.
Bradley would make two separate motions, there
would be no objections to that.
Mr. Bradley In view of what has happened I
will not. I will let the motion stand as it is.
Mr. Higgins Well, we might have an amendment in that case, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hollett I can assure you that nothing was
ever further from my mind tha anything as suggested by Mr. Higgins — to have any ulterior
motive whatsoever. I take it this way, that certainly, out of courtesy to His Excellency
the Governor, and out of courtesy to the Prime Minister of
a neighbouring country, the Dominion of
Canada, we ought to pass this afternoon a motion
to receive this document; but when it comes to
688 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
the other part, of putting it on the order paper, the
point that I had in mind was that there may be
some little discussion as to what particular time
it should come before the House. I am not speaking for myself. This matter, which
is a very
important one.... but in my mind there is a question as to whether or not the discussion
on that
document should come immediately after the
discussion on the Economic Report, or whether
it should come up when we go into the matter of
forms of government. Now that's the only
thought that I had in mind. There is absolutely no
question whatever of any ulterior motive whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman Thank you very much, but what
the House does on any of these motions is something, of course, I have yet to ascertain;
but in
fairness to Mr. Bradley I have to point out that if
the suggestion made by Mr. Higgins were taken
it obviously follows that his motion loses the
priority it now has. It was designed by him to
follow on the conclusion and termination of the
debate on the Economic Report. Now what you
do about it of course when it comes before you is
something I make no comment on. I am in the
position now where I cannot, at this time, permit
the motion which is presently on the order paper
to be side-tracked by some other business which
is not yet before the House. It is open to the
interpretation, Mr. Higgins, although I am quite
sure that that's the last thing you had in mind.
Mr. Higgins I can give you my assurance that I
will not insist on precedence over Mr. Bradley's
motion. He definitely can have precedence as far
as I am concerned in debating the motion.
Mr. Higgins No, sir. I will move an amendment
in that case.
Mr. Higgins I would like to move that the motion be amended. I would like to move that all
words following "be received" in the second line
be deleted, and the amendment is then that we
move that the communication from the Government of Canada be received.
Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, we will see just
where we are on this matter now. I have made a
motion which is double-barrelled in its nature. It
is a motion to receive this communication, and to
make provision for its discussion. The motion is
obviously one that is clearly in order.
Mr. Bradley I don't know whether there is a
suspicion in the minds of any of those gentlemen
who object to it in its present form that it is my
intention to attempt to slide the discussion of this
communication from the Canadian government
in the middle, as it were, of the discussion upon
the Economic Report. I have been accused of
dishonesty in this House before, and I am
prepared to contemplate the possibility of a
similar charge again. I gave a distinct understanding this afternoon that I had no
intention
whatever of trying to supersede the discussion fo
the Economic Report. My resolution was to
receive this communication and to move the
House into a committee of the whole on tomorrow. If that motion had carried, and maybe
it will,
I don't know, the position would be that we
would have received the communication, and
there would appear on tomorrow's order paper an
order to the effect that I would move the House
into a committee of the whole.... If that motion is
not carried in its present form, then I have to give
notice of another motion, which clearly will bring
my motion behind the motion of Mr. Higgins in
point of time. He immediately acquires
precedence.
Mr. Bradley These are the rules of the House,
and I cannot see any reason in the world why you
should take that position unless you have some
ulterior motive.
Mr. Higgins I rise to a point of order. I have no
ulterior motive.
Mr. Higgins Any suggestion made by you is
entirely out of order.
Mr. Bradley I have not made any suggestion at
all. I said I can see no reason. Maybe I am too
thick-headed to see it.
Mr. Higgins We should at least confine ourselves to this motion.
Mr. Chairman No, no. The amendment is
proposed by you, and it is Mr. Bradley's right to
speak to the amendment.
Mr. Bradley There has been no explanation
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 689
given this House, no adequate reason, why my
motion should be split in two and part of it
deducted. There is every reason why it should
stand as it is. In the ordinary course of events it
is now suggested that it should be split. For what
purpose? What valuable object can be obtained
by splitting it? If I can be shown that I will agree,
but not if there has been no effort to show that
there is adequate reason for it, and I do not
propose to allow it to be pushed aside in that
manner. If that sort of thing is going to be done,
and in view of happenings in this House and out
of it, and around it, during the past few days, we
are justified in suspecting pretty near anything. If
there is going to be anything of that sort done here
the cards are coming out on the table.
Mr. Higgins I rise to a point of order. If my
friend Mr. Bradley is making any happenings in
this House or out of it in the past few days into
the form of a motion he has put up, I would like
to know about it. I think it is entirely out of order.
Mr. Bradley I am not making any personal
reflections upon you or upon anyone else, but I
am saying there is no reason in the world why this
motion cannot come before this House, or why
that motion should be split. None. And yet we are
asked to split it. What for? Incidentally there is
another motion coming in here which, if it is split,
would give precedence over a portion of my
motion.
Mr. Chairman Except that in fairness to Mr.
Higgins he has undertaken to give your notice
precedence. I would take and give your notice of
motion priority to his. He has definitely stated
that he would not want to go ahead of you in this
matter.
Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, a majority of this
House can supersede this House or the Steering
Committee, and I don't know what a majority of
this House is going to do, but I am going to find
out now.
Mr. Chairman The original motion is: "To
move that the communication from the Government be received, and that the Convention
resolve itself into a committee of the whole on
tomorrow to consider the said communication."
To this an amendment has been moved and
seconded, that all the words following the word
"received" should be deleted. 50 that the amendment means to move that the communication
from the Government of Canada be received. Are
you ready for the amendment?.... Will all the
members in favour of the amendment please rise
— 21. Will all those against the amendment
please rise — 15. The amendment is carried on a
vote of 21 — 15.... Now I have to put the motion
in its amended form, so that if there is any other
member who desires to address himself on it he
can do it. The motion in its amended from now
is: "To move that the communication from the
Government be received." That is the motion as
amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion as amended? Are you ready for the
question? Carried.
Mr. Bradley Now Mr. Chairman, we shall see
what happens.
[The Convention adjourned]
