Mr. Fudge ....I do not know of any
human document, including the Bible
itself, that has not been criticised, and
consequently I was not at all surprised when certain
delegates set themselves up as being greater
authorities than the compilers of the Economic
Report. We have witnessed this in the case of every
report which has come before us. I regret this,
because whilst I consider a certain amount
of honest criticism healthy, at the same time a
policy of opposition in an assembly such as this
cannot be a good thing, either for ourselves or for
the country at large. Constructive suggestion and
bitter opposition are worlds apart. On Tuesday past
we had an exhibition of the sort of thing I have in
mind — a verbal storm was raised when one delegate
spent hours saying that we are not
self-supporting....
I listened attentively to those criticising this
report, hoping I might hear something that would
throw a new light on the facts presented. I heard
the member for Bonavista Centre put his personal
construction on many items but in no case was he
able to change these facts. I heard a great deal of
hair splitting, for instance, the report states that
our Railway is valued at $72 million, and the
member for Bonavista Centre says no one would
pay this amount for it. No one suggested that our
railroad should be put up for sale or that anyone
should be asked to buy it. The report simply states
that the Railway is valued at $72 million, a figure
which Mr. Smallwood endorses himself in the
report furnished by the Ottawa delegation. I give
this as an example of the extremes to which critics
will go to get something to say. Again he bewails
the fact that our highroads do not earn any
revenue. If this is an argument against highroads,
then it would appear to be Mr. Smallwood's
argument that North America has made a grave
mistake in building roads.
Again he is not satisfied with the limited nature of the scope of the report. He says
we should
know what the condition of this country is going
to be beyond three years from now. I suggest he
discuss this matter with the governments of the
United States or Canada, or any government. I
imagine he would be surprised at what they
would say to him. He says that we should not plan
to build a local merchant marine. If he honestly
thinks this, then it simply means one of two
things, either we should continue to pay hundreds
of thousands of dollars annually to foreign shipping companies, to pay the wages of
hundreds of
foreign sailors, or we should stop bringing goods
to the country. Mr. Smallwood said many other
things, but as they amount to nothing more than
carping criticism, I honestly do not think that I
am justified in taking up the time of this House
in dealing with them. Since he has dismally failed
to show that this country is not self-supporting,
has been unable to prove that Newfoundland will
not be self-supporting in the foreseeable future, I
contend he has failed in everything, except to
show how easy it is to attempt to tear down the
things which other men build up.
Coming back to the report itself, the most
interesting thing I found was the fact that it officially shows the things which I
had always felt to
be so, but which I was not in a position to prove.
The first was my belief that Newfoundland could
always look after itself if given a square chance
to do so.... If Newfoundland had been allowed to
do what she should have done in l933, declare a
moratorium on her debts, we would never have
known a depression such as we had. The report
states that we are self-supporting, and this fact is
so self-evident that a dozen critics cannot change
it. The second fact it shows is that we are in a
position where we can look to our future with
confidence. The report limits its view to three
years. Mr. Chairman, my own view goes far
beyond this. When I review the stable nature of
our industries, I say that our future is assured not
for ten years, but for the next 50 years, until the
last ton of ore is dug from the limitless iron beds
of Bell Island; the last ton of paper comes from
our mills, and the last cod's tail comes out of the
ocean. No man in this chamber will live to see the
exhaustion of our main industries, and to
prophesy the failure of these sources of wealth is
a blasphemy against a bountiful Providence.
I am leaving out of the picture altogether that
great possession of ours on the Labrador —
110,000 square miles of potential mineral, timber
and water-power riches. Was there ever any
country on God's green earth that could look to
the future with such hope and confidence? The
716 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
very air of this country is breathing with the
expectancy of the great things which are to come.
And that knowledge of our happy position seems
to have reached the notice of those far from our
shores, who are already casting their covetous
eyes on our little country. Mr. Smallwood, with
others, would make much of the fact that we owe
our present prosperity to war conditions. I submit
that we are looking at the picture upside down. If
they said our prosperity began with the war, they
would be more correct. The question is not what
caused our prosperity, but will it continue? Is it
stable? What we have to deal with here are not
causes, but effects. If the discovery of oil in a
territory makes that place rich, are we going to
say that she is not really rich because she owes
her prosperity to the lucky discovery? If America
based her start to greatness on a war of independence, are we going to charge her
with having
obtained a false independence and prosperity? If
something like a war happens in this country,
which gives a new life to our industries, are we
going to concern ourselves with the cause, does
not the fact remain that we are prosperous and
promise to remain so? Is not that the whole question? If things were bad in the past,
is that to be
a proof that they must also be bad in the future?
Anyone who has given any intelligent survey
of Newfoundland conditions knows that we cannot base our present ideas on the past
economic
history of this country. Because the clear fact
remains that our primary industries, fishing and
pulp and paper, are in a vastly different position
than before the war....
The annual payrolls of the pulp and paper
industry in 1939 were approximately $6,500,000.
In 1949 they will be about $25 million. The total
value of the exports of the industry in 1939 was
$14 million. In 1949 the value of the exports of
pulp and paper will probably be between $45-50
million. The whole trouble with our paper industries a few years ago was not the price
but
rather the market, and the market is assured for
ten years for our total output of paper. To satisfy
those who are doubting, let me suggest you get
the total exports of our paper from 1909 to 1946.
You will find that it averaged $60 per ton. The
figures covering our cod fisheries show similar
increases, and it must be remembered that in
connection with our paper industries that full
time operations are assured for the next ten years.
In Mr. Starkes' remarks the other day with
reference to the marketing of our salt codfish, he
drew to our attention that in some sections of the
country a substantial quantity of salt codfish
could not be disposed of. This is not the failure
of the markets to absorb the fish, but is actually
and unfortunately the responsibility of those
people who did not carry out the instructions of
the Fishery Board, who, at the beginning of the
season gave definite instructions to the effect that
shore fish caught in any section of the country
should not be cured as heavy Labrador cure. This
is the type of fish that goes pink, and therefore
the article is spoiled before arriving in the
markets. Surely, Mr. Chairman, the people who
buy our fishery products are entitled to receive
the actual product for which they bargain, and not
some other substitute. This, therefore, is sufficient proof that central curing stations
should be
established in selected centres to enable our
fishermen to spend a longer period in the catching
of fish.
Is Mr. Smallwood going to tell us that we are
sending our rolls of paper to fight a war? Is the
ore from Bell Island going out to make shells? Is
our fish going out to feed an army? Is he going to
try and tie in all the dollars we are to receive in
the future with some war that is going on somewhere that none of the rest of us knows
anything
about? I do not think I have ever listened to such
a silly argument since I came to this chamber as
that used by Mr. Starkes in trying to back up a
weak cause, for he himself looks to the bright
economic future for Lewisporte. To prove my
statement, Mr. Starkes is at this very moment
building one of the largest buildings ever to be
erected in our outports, costing in the neighbourhood of $40,000. If codfish, lobsters,
wood etc.,
fail, where are the dimes coming from to buy
tickets to see the movies at Lewisporte? Who
does he think he is bluffing?
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman is that
strictly in order? Is that parliamentary practice?
That is just a bit low there, isn't it?
Mr. Chairman Members must refrain
from using any language which may be regarded as
offensive, and if members would confine themselves to addressing the report rather
than comments which other members have
made, I am sure we would not go very far astray.
Mr. Starkes I would like Mr.
Smallwood to
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 717
understand that words do not
affect me like that.
Mr. Fudge With reference to the market for our salt
codfish, he was trying to fool or bluff the Canadian
government.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. I
demand that Mr. Fudge withdraw that remark.
Mr. Chairman I do not think that is a
fair inference, Mr. Fudge, but I must
sustain you on the point that Mr. Smallwood did
leave the impression that he was
representing the optimistic, and therefore perhaps
not the realistic view of the Newfoundland Railway.
Beyond that you are not entitled to go.
Mr. Higgins Might I suggest that the
quotation from Mr. Smallwood's speech be read?
[A recess was called to obtain the transcript. The
Chairman read an extract from Mr. Smallwood's
speech delivered on November 4, 1947]
Mr. Chairman The inference that I
draw from the remarks I have just read is this: that
the member for Bonavista Centre stated that the
valuation of $72 million was obtained from the
Newfoundland Railway management and that he
personally did not believe the Railway to be worth
$72 million; so that when the figure of $72 million
was handed over to the Ottawa delegation he was of
the opinion that it was an inflated figure.
Mr. Higgins The inference I got from
what Mr. Smallwood said was that Mr. Smallwood,
myself and the other members of the delegation did
give incorrect figures to the Canadian government.
It is not true as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Smallwood What Mr. Higgins said
was I had used the words "fooling the Canadian
government". I asked him to withdraw that and he
withdrew it. Now Mr. Fudge has repeated the
statement and I ask him now to withdraw it. Mr.
Chairman I must sustain you on that. But in fairness
to Mr. Higgins and to Mr. Fudge, I have to hold to
my interpretation that you personally
believed the figure of $72 million, handed to the
Canadian government, to be an inflated figure.
Mr. Smallwood That is correct. The
Railway management was asked for an estimate of the
value of the Railway and from that moment to
this moment, I have never changed my mind. I did not
think and I do not think the Railway to be worth $72
million.... But the Ottawa delegation received it,
passed it over to the Canadian govern
ment, along with other figures about the Railway
without a word of comment whatever.... At no
time have I ever said we were trying to fool the
Canadian government....
Mr. Chairman You have not made the
statement here, and it is not a
fair inference to draw that you were trying to fool
the Canadian government.
Mr. Hoilett I distinctly remember the
speech made by our friend.
Mr. Hollett You read
an extract. Mr.
Smallwood spoke from two to three
hours, and that matter came up more than once.
Mr. Chairman If you wish I shall
adjourn the house until we get the full transcript.
Mr. Hollett I do not wish that. I do
remember his saying, "We are not going to fool
ourselves." However I am not concerned with what was
said — I would like to ask if the information
gathered from the Railway is in the possession of
that delegation, in writing from the Railway
management? Did Mr. Russell or Mr.
Ryan submit the figure of $72 million in writing, or
how was it obtained?
Mr. Smallwood It was obtained by
submitting to the Railway a typewritten list of
questions. The Railway answered with typewritten
replies, and these replies were handed to the
secretariat of this Convention to be mimeographed
and the mimeographed copies were supplied to the
Government of Canada. I am 99.99% certain I
now have in my possession the original replies given
to the Ottawa delegation. They were given to me as
secretary of the delegation — they all came to me.
Mr. Chairman By whom in the Railway
was this information passed over?
Mr. Smallwood The procedure was this:
there were seven members of the delegation; we broke
down under various headings the information we
wanted. Each member of the delegation was given so
many kinds of information to get; he had to go to
the various government departments and get certain
information. Speaking from memory, I believe I am
the one who collected the information on
the Railway, as I did also on a number of other
departments. Mr. Higgins had to do with everything
pertaining to law courts; Mr. Ashbourne
gathered the information on fishery and marine
matters, and so on. At all events, I have
718 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
the information now
and if the Convention desires it, we will be only
too happy to produce the original documents handed
us by the Railway management and containing the
Railway management's own estimate of $72 million as
being the value of the Railway.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Smallwood did say
that one of the questions we would be asked was what
was the value of the Railway. The value was ascertained. Now he says, "Do not let
us
fool ourselves as to the value." Whom were we
fooling then, was it ourselves or Canada?
Mr. Chairman I am not interested in
that. I am asked to pronounce upon whether or not
Mr. Smallwood has said he had fooled the Canadian
government. He has not made that statement, he
did say the figure of $72 millions was obtained from
the Railway and that he personally believed it to be
an inflated figure. That is as far as I am prepared
to go.
Mr. Chairman I am not concerned with
inferences. The point of order
raised was whether or not he had stated he had
fooled the Canadian government.
Mr. Hollett You have seen only one
small excerpt of a two hour speech.
Mr. Smallwood I do not suggest we
adjourn, but I would ask that the transcript be
produced — not today, but in a couple of days' time.
Mr. Cashin I would suggest that since
this information has been gotten from
someone in their official capacity at the Railway,
the original copies of these valuations with the
official signature be tabled here for the
information of the Convention.
Mr. Chairman These documents are
Convention property and if they are
in your hands, Mr. Smallwood, or in the possession
of anyone, I must ask you to deliver them to the
Secretary with all possible speed.
Mr. Fudge I am sorry to have caused
so much confusion. I have not much left to say, but
I would like to make this comment. Mr. Smallwood did
say he was trying to convince the Canadian
government that Newfoundland was sitting on top of
the world. I put it to you, how many times
has Mr. Smallwood said in this chamber that we
were down and out, that we were serfs?
Mr. Fudge You did. You also said we
were a hundred years behind the times. If he told
the Canadian government what he did not believe to
be correct, how can we accept other things he
might tell us?
Mr. Chairman He delivered over
official figures which he personally believed to be
inflated.
Mr. Fudge If these reports are
incorrect in that respect, cannot they be incorrect
in other respects? I am inclined to use the words of
Mr. Smallwood himself regarding another report,
"These Canadian reports are not worth the paper
they are written on."
Mr. MacDonald After listening to the
eloquent and sometimes somewhat lengthy speeches
from the gentlemen who preceded me, it is with some
hesitation I rise to speak on the report which
generally speaking reflects great credit on the
chairman of the Committee.... I may say it shows a
certain amount of optimism which I cannot wholly
share. Take as a precedent what happened after World
War I — it may not happen again, I hope it will not,
but affairs in the world at present do not tend to
foster a wholly optimistic view. I hope you do not
think I am not an optimist. They say the difference
between an optimist and a pessimist is that the
former sees the doughnut and the latter sees the
hole. But there is always the little word "caution".
I do not know what Mr. Smallwood would mean by
realism, but I know it is a hard word to utilise in
foretelling the future.
There are a few questions I would like to ask
and a few points I would like to mention. Page 2,
"Today therefore, we can definitely state that
Newfoundland's capital account shows a surplus
in cash of $35 million." In fairness to the Committee I want to call their attention
to a statement
made in one of the local papers asserting that for
the year 1947-48 the accumulated surplus was
$28,789,000. These are the figures according to
the budget speech. May I ask Major Cashin to
explain how the difference has arisen?
Page 6. With the establishment of a mercantile
marine I am in full agreement. As far as I can
ascertain millions of dollars are being sent out of
this country in this connection. There must be
some hitch somewhere or our shipping firms
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 719
would surely be in this business before now. I
cannot agree that the government should go into
the shipping business themselves, as from what I
have seen our government has never been successful in handling business affairs showing
profit. Nevertheless the government could encourage industry by loaning money to some
who
had capital to put into the business. I have no
reason to suppose it would be a paying venture.
Page 11. Might I ask Major Cashin where is
his authority for saying that the world market is
such that there is a possibility of a rise in price of
newsprint from $90 to $100 per ton? I heartily
agree with what has been said about the export of
raw pulpwood. Immediate steps should be taken
to put a stop to such a practice.
Page 24. We are told the products of the soil
in this country should approach an estimated
value of $20 million within the next three or four
years. I hope sincerely so. But we must consider
this as being 50% over the Agricultural
Committee's report for 1946.
Page 25:
Records have proven that in ordinary normal times prices for our products of the sea
have been based on the unwritten law of
supply and demand. And so it was that in the
year 1915 when the first World War was
raging, when the German submarines were
making efforts to starve the European
countries, that the prices of our salt codfish
soared to unprecedented figures. Never in
our history have prices for our principal
product been so high. And then once hostilities ceased and the world generally started
its journey on the road back to normal, prices
obtained for our primary products began to
drop sharply, resulting in many cases in the
bringing about of financial disaster to our
fishing industry. And so we find it once again
when normal conditions had been restored to
the world generally in 1923 that the prices for
our salt codfish product became more
stabilised.
That is to say they dropped.
I am afraid I cannot agree with the assertions
made on page 43: "... our present revenues cannot
be something dependent on war boom," and, "...
a great proportion of our present revenues is
coming to us because of the growth of our main
industries. No one can regard our present
revenues as a result of war boom." I wonder if the
Committee wants us to believe that if there had
been no war from 1939-45 we would have had
revenues as high as the present? Do they seriously believe that if there had been
no war, paper
would be worth $90 per ton; fish $10 or $11 per
quintal; iron, copper and zinc at as high prices?
Would the herring industry have attained such
high proportions as it did? Do not the members
of the Committee and the people of this country
believe that as soon as these ravaged countries
who manufacture paper and pulp get into full
production again, it will have a tendency to lower
prices on these commodities? They know the
fishing industry in all its aspects will be affected.
These are facts we have to face. In conclusion,
with the exception of the observations I have
made, I am prepared to accept the report....
Mr. Cashin I take it, as chairman of the Committee, it is my privilege to reply to Mr. MacDonald.
I am glad the matter has been
brought up. I take it everyone here has a copy of the
Finance Report. Though we are dealing with the
Economic Report, one relates to the other. I
would ask you to turn to page 104.
From information received from the Department of Finance we find that as at December
31, 1946, the actual cash to the credit of
Newfoundland was distributed as follows:
*
Now, this man in the editorial highchair...
Mr. Cashin He is my most cherished friend.... I wonder if
the editor of the Telegram is aware of the fact that
during that period we borrowed $8 million in cash.
What happened to it? Was it not put into the bank?
Did it not go into the consolidated fund?
Add that on and you have $35 million. But they are
trying to put out the idea that myself and the
Finance Committee faked these figures.
720 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Mr. Cashin My friend across the way there in a two-hour
tirade said it was not an honest report.
Mr. Chairman He said it was optimistic and therefore not
realistic.
Mr. Cashin If it was not honest, then
it was dishonest; then those connected with it would
be dishonest. We are going to have a show-down on
this now. We have been accused of national
treachery and everything else. I am not going to
tolerate it anymore. Will anyone in this House take
the signatures to this Economic Report - the first,
Mr. Crosbie, who is not here this afternoon — will anyone say he is dishonest? Will
anyone tell me that Mr. Crosbie, a big fish merchant, takes fish from the men and
does
not pay them for it?
Mr. Chairman I cannot allow you to go
on in that strain. I refute any suggestion that you
or any member of the Committee are dishonest. People
have no right, because they find themselves in
disagreement, to impute improper motives or
dishonesty.
Mr. Cashin It has been imputed, I am
not particularly stupid and I know that
people went around this city and said they were
coming up here for that purpose. In reply to Mr.
MacDonald, that is how that $35 million was made up.
Now that statement in the
Telegram, in that
they said there were $7,800,000 to the credit of our
interest-free loans over on the
other side. If they would turn to the report brought
back by the London delegation in April or May (it
did not take us three months either) you will find
that report says $9,300,000 to our credit. What
happened since? I have not got charge of the
treasury. I realise, and I will prove it, that the
treasury has been plundered during the past two,
three or four years.
Mr. Cashin I am going to prove it. I say it has been
plundered and I make that statement before the House,
before the country and before my God. The other day
in connection with the sinking fund, I was
asked about this $750,000. I am sorry I have not a
blackboard here to work it out. If anyone doubts my
veracity, I ask him to take it down. I am going to
recite it. In 1937 Newfoundland paid
£177,950 in sinking funds; at the end of 1937 we were
due 3% by buying in our original stock. Consequently
it was £183,288 that year; in 1938 we sent over
£177,950 — add that
£361,238; next year 3% on that — £10,837 and
so on right down. If there is any gentleman in this
House who doubts the veracity of this Committee, I am going to move a vote of lack
of confidence and clean the thing up once and
for all.
What do we find? We find the total sinking
fund should amount to $10,189,391. We go to
Ottawa to find out what it is — we find it is
$8,342,000. A discrepancy as the editor calls it
of $1,750,000 lost to the treasury of Newfoundland. I will say the treasury was plundered
of that amount.
Mr. Cashin That is the only amplification I can make. Now
the interest-free loans. We gave Britain $12.3
million interest free during the war period; we
borrowed $8 or $9 million and paid interest on it.
Why should we borrow money and give money away free?
We did not have to borrow the money, to
begin with. We lost $1,395,000 in interest. We paid
interest on the money we borrowed, $700,000. That was
about $2 million more we lost. About $4 million the
treasury has been plundered of since 1941, and I
say that advisedly and indisputably and no one
will ever make me take it back either inside this
house or outside.
The editor said we had $28.5 million surplus.
We recite the figures for him. Turn to your
revenues and expenditures, page 112. I realise
that is the way some people would like it to be.
These figures were proven before. I will call out
the figures, you can check me.
Mr. Chairman I do not see why you
feel you have to go into these things. They have
been investigated by a committee.
Mr. Chairman I do not see that the
House has any other alternative.
Mr. MacDonald As far as my question
is concerned, I am perfectly satisfied
with the explanation.
Mr. Hollett Before Major Cashin puts
that motion, turn to page 104. If you read
the last three lines there, is it necessary to put
any motion?
Mr. Chairman It has been accepted. I would remind members,
in fairness to Major Cashin, these figures were
investigated. An investigating committee was called
by the Steering Committee and these figures were
called over in my
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 721
presence, with three scrutineers
present and to the best of my ability, belief and
knowledge these figures are critically correct. I
have already ruled, after investigation, that these
figures are critically correct.
Mr. Cashin I accept your position,
but the words "critically correct" brings up another
matter. In a budget speech of mine
in 1931, I forecast a deficit of $1.3 million and it
turned out to be $4 million; that was put forward as
an argument, "Here is an individual who in 1931 made
a budget that did not turn out. Can you believe him
now?" We will tell them what happened in 1931. This
is the place to clean our cloth. I was Minister of
Finance. Our loan for $8 million was turned
down. Myself and the Prime Minister
[1] went to Montreal to discuss the
position with the Bank of Montreal. Now I am going
to tread on dangerous ground. The first thing I was
told in the head office of the General Manager at
the time was, "Cashin, you should have boosted up
that budget speech and made it balance." My reply
was, "Is that the way you run the Bank of Montreal?"
I knew there was going to be a deficit and I
budgeted for it. We were turned down by the Bank of
Montreal. Eventually we made a deal; we were
advanced $2 million to meet the interest. We came
back to Newfoundland. We tore the civil service,
everything abroad trying to cut down expenses,
railway, schoolteachers, everything. We
did everything. Most of us took our political lives
in our hands. Revenues were still falling. The world
was upside down. Newfoundland did not
cause the world to turn upside down. Finally it was
agreed that a delegation, another delegation should
go to Canada. We went to see if we could get any
money on the Labrador. Thanks be to God we did not
get it. We were turned down. Canada was bankrupt
herself; her banking institutions were on the verge
of collapse. One of the banks was being
run on while we were in Ottawa. We came back to
Newfoundland and hardly had we set
foot inside the House of Assembly when four managers
of the banks were in to see us. For what? They came
to us to save themselves; to go off the gold
standard. They had an arrangement under the Banking
Act whereby Newfoundland or Newfoundlanders,
who had $24-25 million on deposit, could withdraw
the money in gold. The Canadians did
not have the gold to pay if called upon. They have
$50 million between the four of them — 25 here
and the other 25 would have to go against the
deposits in Canada. Then what happened? The Bank of
Canada was brought into existence. They came to us
on their hands and knees, we discussed it for nearly
two months. What was happening? Merchants here in
this country who had money were buying goods in the
United States and the Canadian dollar was at a
discount of 20%; the pound sterling was $3.50 to
$3.80. Some of the merchants said, "We are not going
to pay this premium of 20%; pay out the gold and we
will ship it to the United States and pay for the
goods." They came like a crowd of children bawling
and crying to the Newfoundland government to save
them from bankruptcy. That is what happened.
So on December 31 at midnight, 1931, Newfoundland went off the gold standard. The
whole
commercial structure of this country would have been
down. The banks would have had to close their doors.
The merchants owed the banks a lot of money. There
was nothing else left but to go off the gold
standard. That was the position in 1931. Now, 16
years later, I am accused indirectly of
cooking up this report on the grounds that in 1931 I
forecast a false budget. That is the position and I
am not taking it. I think I have shown to the
satisfaction of this house how that $35 million was
made up. I make this comparison; the
difference in my figures, one way or another, on the
short or on the long side, would not be sufficient
to stage a good cocktail party in St. John's East or
a beer-guzzling party in St. John's West. Here is
the statement given by the Finance Department. I
think this Convention as it is today is not of the
opinion that this Economic Report, compiled in four
days, was deliberately cooked up or is false or
dishonest; or that any gentlemen on that Committee
is dishonest.
Mr. Chairman Nobody within or without this House is
justified in saying it.
Mr. Cashin No one will be allowed to say it. I was the one
who gathered the information and I owe it to the
other seven members to make that statement this
evening. I am glad Mr. MacDonald brought it up,
although I intended to, and probably will
deal with it at further length on Monday.
We were told this debate was going to last four
days, we were going to be closed by Christmas.
722 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
We are prolonging the whole Convention,
deliberately prolonging it. It is about time we got
down and did some work. When we started, we
made mistakes. I am here today steering this
through the committee; we should not be doing
it, it is a report, not a piece of legislation. It is a
waste of time, right from the beginning. When
reports are made in this assembly, I take it these
reports are solid. One report came in here, there
were discrepancies in it and we have not heard
anything about it since; hundreds of thousands
lost to the government, dishonesty in some
department. We were given a document to say
"keep it mum" that is what it amounts to. There
was supposed to be an inquiry. They are experts
with the lime brush, covering up someone. I do
not need to be covered up. Now as far as I am
concerned, I think I have made it clear to Mr.
MacDonald the situation with regard to the $35
million. I think I made it clear to the Convention.
Is there any gentleman not clear on it?
Mr. Chairman I want to repeat, these
figures have been investigated by the Steering
Committee.
Mr. Chairman The investigation
revealed the figures to be correct; I ruled on it
and I stand behind it.
Mr. Cashin If there is going to be
any skullduggery started here...
Mr. Smallwood The chairman of the
Finance Committee is explaining to Mr. MacDonald why
there is a difference of $6 or 7 million in the
figure in the Economic Report showing what our
surplus is supposed to be, and another figure which
he has just read from the
Evening Telegram showing what the
surplus is supposed to be. In explaining the
difference in our surplus, he says, towards the end,
he hopes everyone clearly understands it.
Mr. Cashin I rise to a point of
order. I pointed out that the local surplus was $28
million, approximately. During that period
we borrowed $7 or $8 million which has to be added
on to the cash surplus. That makes $35 million. Now
I am going to get you some more money. The Auditor
General's Report, 1945-46 — Savings Bank
surplus not included — $800,000; if we add
statement of the Liquor Department, another half
million; statement from Great Britain on Gander, add
half million. You will find from the Department of Public Health and Welfare that
Great
Britain owes us, on account of pensions we have been
paying on her behalf, probably $500,000. Add all
that, that is $38 million or $39 million. Take from
that $3.2 million to redeem stocks coming due in
1950 or 1952, and which we were told yesterday the
Canadian government is going to take by cutting out
the word "not". Take that off, and the difference
either on one side or the other would be very small.
And the excuse given, Mr. Chairman, was that they
were being sent over to England. They were not being
sent over to England. They were taken from our
surplus every year and this money was thrown in the
heap, and the Finance Department gave us the figures
of $34 million on December 31 1946, and we have
had a surplus of $3.5 million ever since.
Mr. Smallwood That's a rather long
point of order. I still don't know what the point of
order is. The comment I want to make is this: the
Economic Report makes a very simple and a very
plain statement, namely, that our surplus is $35
million. There is no other explanation given. We'll
forget for the moment what the
Evening
Telegram said on Saturday last. As a citizen
of Newfoundland, and as a member of this Convention, I made it my business to walk
into the Department of Finance, suspecting, as I
did, that $35 million was not a correct statement of
the surplus. I asked them if they would tell me
what, in their belief,
in their belief, is the surplus of the
Government of Newfoundland. They said yes, they
would tell me. I don't mind saying I saw Mr.
Marshall, the Secretary for Finance, and here's what
they told me: that as at March 31 last, March 31,
1947....
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of
order. We have here an official document as to the
surplus, given to the Finance Committee by the
Finance Department. First hand
information. Are we going to have to sit here and
listen to third rate information?
Mr. Chairman I am glad you raised the
point.... As far as I am concerned, I am not
remotely impressed by any conversations which take
place between any members outside this Convention,
with people who don't belong to the Convention
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 723
at all. I am not concerned with
the expressions of opinion by newspapers, or any
other individuals, beyond the members of the
Convention, or me.... It is of absolutely no concern
whatsoever what goes on outside of this Convention,
and a lot of time would simply be saved if members
would confine their remarks to the report itself.
Whether members disagree or agree with the report in
toto or in part is their God-given right, but in
view of the fact that a motion to adopt this report
will be placed before me, at which time you can
register your approval or disapproval, aren't we
wasting a lot of time in discussing this time and
time again? We had better get on with the business of the House.
Mr. Smallwood When Mr. Hollett made
his point of order I was discussing the accuracy of
the figure given in the Economic Report of our
accumulated surplus. I tell you now, sir, that the
Secretary for Finance told me officially on Saturday past that our surplus is
approximately $28 million.... Would it be in order
for me to move that this Convention desires to
ascertain officially from the Commissioner for
Finance, or His Excellency the Governor,
what is our surplus. Would that be in order?
Mr. Chairman ....If you direct to me
any request for information to be obtained
from the Governor, or any department of the
government, it is my duty, Mr. Smallwood, to make
that request. But you are putting the cart
before the horse.... I have to sustain Mr. Hollett
on this point, and say, Mr. Smallwood, that unless
and until you obtain from the Finance Department,
figures calculated, fully calculated to
support any inference that you wish to draw from
that Economic Report, I am afraid I can't allow you
to go on.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, this does not come as any great
surprise to me. This is not an attack on me; not an
attack on the Finance Committee; it is an attack on
the country, and I resent the whole thing. There has
been a brazen, brutal attack on the economy of
Newfoundland, and on Newfoundland itself. As only one
Newfoundlander I say right here now
that in 1941-42 and right up to 1945 when German
submarines were lurking outside this harbour, that
she was in no greater danger than she is at the
present time. I may say that I am not prepared to
tolerate it any more — there is a Quisling in this
country today, and I call upon our returned men who
are in this
House tonight, and I am one of them, if they are
going to tolerate that kind of stuff right in here.
There's men here, Mr. Chairman, who nearly
died for this country, and we are going to be told
by one or two Quislings, because that's what I must
call them....
Mr. Higgins I beg to move the
adjournment of the House.
Mr. Smallwood I beg to give notice of
a question, Mr. Chairman. I give notice
that I will on tomorrow ask His Excellency the
Governor in Commission to inform the National
Convention of the amount of the government's
accumulated cash surplus, together with the details
in the most recent date.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, is there
any debate on that tomorrow?
Mr. Hollett In that case I would like
to ask what in God's earthly world has the Governor
got to do with it?
Mr. Chairman Give me rule 36, please: "Questions
may be put through the Chairman of the Convention to
any Department of Government, public body, or to any
person, on any matter connected with the Convention.
Save by permission of the Chairman, no
questions may be asked without notice of at least one
day...."
Mr. Hollett ...."Most recent date,"
that's the point I want to get. That Economic Report
is bearing on that Financial Report, and the figures
are dated December 31, 1946. I insist if we want
to make any comparisons these are the figures we
want.
Mr. Chairman On that question you had
better address yourself tomorrow. I require 24 hours
notice of the question, which I am entitled to
724 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
have, and I want to
consider it too, Mr. Hollett, if you don't mind. You
moved the adjournment, Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Job I would like to ask whether
we are likely to be here for the next six months, or
for how long? And whether we are going to still
continue to meet for 2¼ hours a day, and if we
are, how long will we be here? I would suggest very
strongly that some steps be taken to either meet in
the morning for a couple of hours, or in the
evening. I don't know what the views of the members
are with regard to that, but I am convinced that we are getting through very little,
and
achieving very little, and the sooner we make up
our minds to try and find a winding-up date the
better....
Mr. Higgins I thoroughly agree with
Mr. Job in every way that we will have to step up
our discussions here. I think it might be
better for all of us if, instead of having morning
sessions, we decided we would have night sessions
every day that the Convention is in session. I make
the motion that, beginning Monday, we have night
sessions on every day that we have a day session.
Mr. Chairman Does the House agree to eliminate the
necessity for notice?
Mr. Chairman In that case, with a
single dissenting voice, you will have to
give me notice.
Mr. Higgins If you will give me about three minutes I will
deliver the motion, if that's satisfactory. I don't see why Mr. Smallwood must object.
Mr. Smallwood What I was thinking of
is the
fact that confederation has to be debated yet, and
I want the people of Newfoundland to hear the
debate, and if we have sessions every night...
Mr. Higgins I rise to a point of order. If we have this
member objecting all the time, it's time we stopped
sitting altogether.
Mr. Chairman Members will please
remain silent. As far as I am concerned I am getting
notice of motion. I can only waive notice by and
with the universal consent of the House. That I
have not got, together we will have to deal with
Mr. Higgins' motion when it goes on the order
paper, and when it comes before me.
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I agree with
Mr. Higgins and Mr. Job that we are trying
to get on with the job, but at the same time I feel
that it is very unfortunate that two of the members
disagreed. If that had not happened this debate
might not have been as long as it has been....
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Smallwood I move that that be
deferred sir, and also number four.
Mr. Chairman The motions are that
items two, three and four on the order paper will be
deferred.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Higgins I would like to give
notice of motion. I will on tomorrow move
that this Convention hold night sessions
on every day that a day's session of the Convention
is held.
[The Convention adjourned]
