Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, before I move this
House into a committee of the whole to further
consider this Finance Report,
[1] there is a matter
which I would like to draw to your attention, and
to the attention of the delegates; that is with
reference to the remarks made in connection with
the compilation of the Finance Report on Friday
afternoon by the delegate from Bonavista Centre,
Mr. Smallwood. In commenting on this report,
Mr. Smallwood, consciously or unconsciously,
would lead one to believe that myself and those
associated with me practically cooked up the
figures and, whilst he might not have meant it, at
the same time it was conveyed to the outside
public that such was the case. Consequently, Mr.
Chairman, I asked you on Saturday, after hearing
these things from outside, to call a special meeting of the Steering Committee this
morning, and
614 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
you know what happened at our meeting this
morning in connection with these figures, that is
in reference to the revenues and expenditures on
pages 112-113, from 1897 up to Dec.31, 1946. I
think that we produced sufficient evidence this
morning to show that no such thing took place,
and that the Finance Committee has been upheld.
Under such circumstances Mr. Chairman, I
would ask you to make an official ruling on this
matter before we proceed to go into committee of
the whole to discuss this report.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, as Major
Cashin has raised this matter, and as it refers to
my remarks on Friday past, I would like to say
that at no time since the report was tabled have I
had anything but admiration for the fine piece of
work which that report shows.... It is one of the
finest reports laid before this Convention, and
one of the most important. At no time have I
thought that the Finance Committee has misrepresented any figures or statistics, and
secondly, to the best of my knowledge and memory, on
Friday I said nothing which would give any member of the public or of this Convention
any...
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I don't want to interrupt Mr. Smallwood, but I think Major Cashin
asked for a ruling. I think we should have this
ruling.
Mr. Smallwood I would like to know what
ruling Major Cashin desires. He has referred to
me, and I am now making an explanation. Possibly, sir, if you have a ruling you might
defer it
until I make my explanation.
Mr. Chairman The position, Mr. Smallwood, is
that the matter was discussed by the Steering
Committee this morning, of which body you are
a member. At the instance and request of the
Steering Committee I am obligated to make a
ruling.... Major Cashin's motion, in effect, is that
I should briefly recapitulate to members what
took place, the reason for convening the meeting
and the ruling I am expected to make. I therefore
propose to make my ruling at this time.
Before doing so I must direct the attention of
members to the important distinction to be drawn
between motive and effect. I am quite satisfied
that Mr. Smallwood, in the course of his remarks,
was prompted by the best of motives... I must
rule that, quite irrespective of his remarks, Mr.
Smallwood was prompted by the best of motives,
and in particular to discharge his duties As I
before said, however, the motive which prompts
a remark, and the effect of that remark upon the
mind of a third person are two entirely different
things.... I am forced to remind members that, in
my opinion, this is not a parliamentary body. This
is simply a fact-finding body.... I will hold that
members have not the rights and privileges
belonging to members of Parliament.
It has been reported to the Steering Committee
that some of the remarks made by the member for
Bonavista Centre Friday afternoon last created in
the minds of the public some opinions which
unquestionably affected the integrity and honesty
of the Finance Committee, who are responsible
for that report.... The position briefly is this.
Members will recall that approximately some six
months ago a Finance Report was tabled, and on
pages 112 and 113 certain figures had been compiled and set forth. In the course of
the debate
which occurred on Friday last, Mr. Smallwood
questioned the correctness of the figures I want
to draw a distinction here. The question with
which I have to concern myself is whether or not
the figures had been independently corroborated
to the satisfaction of the Steering Committee as
being correct and unimpeachable.... In Steering
Committee the figures for the years 1897-98 to
1918-19, both inclusive, were accepted by both
parties to the controversy as being correct. From
the period 1919-20 to 1934-35 these were shown
to be correctly copied from the Auditor General's
reports.... I therefore rule that for the period 1919-
20 to 1934-35 the independent corroboration to
be found in the Auditor General's reports leaves
me no alternative than to conclude that these
figures were correctly copied and taken from the
Auditor General's reports. With regard to the
remaining period, that is to say from 1935-36 to
Dec. 31, 1946, no evidence one way or the other
was submitted to us this morning, perhaps for the
excellent reason that it is not available; but I am
forced to the conclusion that these figures are
correct for two reasons: in the first place all
figures prior to the year 1935-36 were found
correct.... If, therefore, it is found that two-thirds
of a report is correct, then I am driven to the
conclusion that the remaining one-third must be
likewise correct, unless there has been evidence
adduced to warrant my reaching a contrary conclusion.... It becomes my duty to hold
that the
figures were correctly copied, and they should
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 615
not be misconstrued by any person as being
cooked, or in any way reflecting upon the integrity and honesty or character of the
individuals
responsible for this report. On the contrary, I
think it was a job extremely well done....
Now one further word. It may well be that
members may feel that the manner in which the
debit side and the credit side of balance sheets
have been prepared by present administrations
may have been incorrectly or improperly done.
Upon that I make no continent. My only duty is,
or was, to make sure that these figures were listed
as taken from such government figures or statistics as may be available to members.
On that
point I have satisfied myself, and I therefore rule
at this time that I find that the figures are correctly
represented....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I think I am
entitled in reply to Major Cashin's request to you
to make a ruling, and in continent upon your
ruling to say...
Mr. Chairman Just a minute, Mr. Smallwood,
please. If it is your intention to appeal my ruling
to the House that is your right but I remind you
that you are not permitted to debate and appeal
from my ruling to the house. I want to make it
clear that when I met the Steering Committee
after I had been sworn in there was handed over
to me rules of procedure.... I have sworn that I
will impartially and fairly preside over the
deliberations of this room while I am here....
Unless and until any of the rules of procedure
handed to me by the Steering Committee are
repealed, varied, altered or amended by two-
thirds of this House, it becomes my sworn duty
to enforce your rules. I did not make these rules,
they were made for me. I shall preside here to
insure that the rules of debate shall be conducted
with propriety, and in accordance with the rules
of procedure....
Any ruling that I make I shall expect to be
respected and observed. Unless and until my
ruling is appealed to and reversed by the House
as a whole, I propose to act on my rulings as if
they were judgements of this House. It is the
constitutional right of any member to appeal my
ruling, but he must do one of two things: he must
either abide by my ruling, or else he must appeal
from it to the House.... I will promptly put any
appeal from any decisions I may make to this
House, and of course I must naturally abide by
any decision reached by the House as a whole.
Therefore I must say two things: one, while a
member is addressing the Chair he has no right
to come between the speaker and the Chair. It is
in the interest of all you gentlemen that I should
reserve to you the dignity and respect to which
you are fairly entitled. That I can only do if by
and with your sympathy I am permitted to enforce the rules, that no member shall rise
or
interrupt a speaker who is addressing the Chair,
unless and until he rises to a point of order, at
which time he will be asked to state his point of
order. A ruling will, if possible, be immediately
given on that point of order, and then, if he is
dissatisfied with the decision his remedy is to
appeal to the House as a whole. With that in mind,
Mr. Smallwood, I want to reserve to you the right
to correct, by way of appeal to the House if you
like, any misapprehensions I was unfortunate
enough to convey, or any decisions thatI wrongfully arrived at....
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, there was nothing further from my mind than to appeal against
your ruling.... It was my intention merely to say
that not for a moment had I any thought that in
the writing and compilation of this Finance
Report did the Finance Committee or any member of it have any desire to change or
twist or
distort or falsify any figures whatsoever.... At no
time did I have in my mind, nor have I now, any
doubt about the integrity of that Committee or
their honesty. I have no doubt that, in copying
those figures, they copied them correctly and
accurately, with the exception of one item which
I will refer to at some other time; that they just
took the figures from the Auditor General's
report and copied them, and that is what they put
in this table.
Mr. Chairman You do accept that? That their
bona fides in honesty in copying the figures is not
in question at all?
Mr. Smallwood I never doubted it at all, except
for one short period on one side of the ledger, and
that is purely a technical matter which I hope to
have the pleasure to explain. My entire point is
that the very reports which the Finance Committee took their figures from are themselves
wrong....
Mr. Higgins I rise to a point of order. You have
ruled these figures correct, and I don't think Mr.
Smallwood is at all within his rights in discussing
616 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
these matters.
Mr. Chairman I was about to say that you either
appeal against my ruling or subscribe to it, and I
don't think that you should say any more at this
time because the order paper requires us to
resolve the House into a committee of the whole
at this time. If you want to again address yourself
on the Financial Report it will be your right to do so.
Mr. Smallwood I intended to do that when the
House goes into committee of the whole. At this
moment I am concerned only with exercising my
rights as a member of this Convention to put
myself correctly before the House.
Mr. Smallwood That is what I am trying to do,
and I will do it in these words: at no time have I
doubted the
bona fides, the integrity and the
honesty of the Finance Committee in copying
these figures into the report. Now I want further
by way of explanation to say this, that the quarrel
I have is not at all with the Finance Committee,
but with the source from which they got their
figures and in committee of the whole I propose
to show why I quarrel with the source.
Mr. Chairman That is very fair and very
reasonable I assure you that I reserve to you
every right to make any further comments which
you desire in committee of the whole.
Mr. Cashin My understanding is that in dealing
with all these reports, it is a matter of questions
and answers.... All this fuss would be overcome
if questions were put properly to me; I want to
tell every member, as far as I am capable, any
questions they want to put to me about expenditures, or revenues or capital expenditures,
as far
as I know, I shall be only too delighted to enlighten them.
Mr. Smallwood I do not know that I have any
questions to put to the chairman of the Finance
Committee but since this Convention began, ... it
has been the practice when the House goes into
committee of the whole, to do two things in
connection with reports which were before us: to
direct questions to the chairman of the committee
whose report was being debated, and to have
members make their interpretations and deductions from the facts stated. I do not
want to direct
any questions at the chairman of the committee
but I do wish to make one or two interpretations
on the facts that are contained in that report.... Sir,
the Finance Committee was perfectly right in
beginning their survey of the country's finances,
not at 1934 but rather back early in the century,
because it is quite impossible to understand the
story of Newfoundland since 1934 unless we
understand her story for some years before
1934.... I propose to take the period 1920 down
to the present time, because that period is within
the conscious recollection of most people in this
Convention this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman In fairness to you and to myself,
your position is that the prescribed period is
incapable of being properly understood unless
and until you take the period anterior to that
period which is necessary to the understanding of
this prescribed period?
Mr. Smallwood That is exactly the position I
take. We have been doing that in all the reports....
The practice of the government in its accounting
since 1934 has been this: on the one side, under
the heading of "Revenue" they place everything
they received, and on the other side under the
heading of "Expenditures" they place everything
they spent. Whether public money is spent on
ordinary account or current account, capital or
reconstruction or special account, it is all expended.... There is no more point in
the practice
of showing the total expenditures as capital or
ordinary than there is to call what was spent in
October different from what was spent in
November.... The table showing the expenditures
of the government for that year should show
every dollar and every cent they spent. Similarly,
on the revenue side every dollar that the government receives goes into what is called
the Consolidated Revenue Fund — abbreviated CRF....
So when a table is compiled showing what money
the government has received in a year, every cent
they received should be in that table, and every
cent which they have spent. The Commission of
Government has done exactly that since 1934....
Unfortunately, in taking the reports of the
Auditor General from 1920 to 1934 that cannot
be done, because it was the practice up to 1934
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 617
... to split it up into all kinds of headings, and not
to give one figure showing the grand total
received and the grand total amount spent in the
one table.
Between 1920 and 1934 the practice of all
governments, as I so well know, having sat in
here from before 1920 as a newspaper reporter
right down to when the last speech was made, day
after day, ... the practice in Newfoundland on the
part of all governments was that they took in
so much in revenue from the people of Newfoundland, but it was not enough money. They
had to cover their expenses and what did they do?
They went out and they borrowed money; every
year they borrowed.... In all, $60 million. That is
what the various governments borrowed from
1920 to 1933. Now, it may be held that the reason
they borrowed was because they were not taking
in enough revenue to pay their expenses. They
took so much from the people in taxes, the rest
they borrowed. It may be said that $60 million
was well spent. It was spent on capital account to
put the country in a better condition, to provide
facilities and conveniences for the people; it was
well spent, it may be argued. Let us take a look
at it. 1921 — $6 million, what was it spent on?
First of all, half a million was spent to pay off
temporary loans for the railway; $1 million was
spent on other railway purposes; half a million on
public works — spent on a per capita basis
throughout the country; half a million on special
public works, guaranteeing fishery supply, half a
million on railway operating deficit. $5.5 million
out of $6 million. You could not say it was spent
on capital account; it was spent on account of the
ordinary purposes of the government, to carry on
the government. In 1922 they borrowed another
$6 million. Did they spend that on capital account? They spent $1.75 million on the
railway;
Hall's Bay road (special district grant), $665,000;
relief for unemployed, $128,500; roads and
bridges, $1.5 million; relief work, $1 million;
able-bodied pauper relief, $60,000. $5.5 out of $6
million for ordinary purposes of the country. No
capital account. Next year they borrowed $3.5
million. $800,000 was spent to pay the deficit on
1921 and 1922; $300,000 was spent on railway
operating purposes; $170,000 on roads and
bridges and special relief work; $1 million on pit
props. So it goes on.... In 20 years they borrowed
$60 million, an average of $3 million a year, and
most of it was spent not on capital account at all,
but to carry on the ordinary purposes of government.... And who can say that $60 million
was
used in a capital sense to put the country in a
better and sounder condition? It was the contention of many a man who stood in this
chamber in
the days of responsible government, whenever
the estimates were brought down, ... that they
were cooked; that the figures were falsified, a
bluff, a camouflage, and did not tell the true story
of this country's financial condition. Then when
the other side got the floor, it was their turn to say
the same thing. They said the Railway was a
government department and they ran it at a loss
every year. What do we know about operating
losses on the Railway under the heading 'Ordinary Expenditure'? That was the burden
of their
song.... Major Cashin always contended the Railway deficits ought to be shown in the
ordinary
expenditure. They were not shown... We all
know it was wrong on the part of the various
governments and Auditors General — it was
wrong not to show all the expenditure on ordinary
account. The Committee just took the figures
straight out of the Auditor General's reports; but
at least one member of that Committee must have
known; in fact I say he knew when he copied the
figures very correctly...
Mr. Chairman ...Do I understand you are citing
a statement of a former Minister of Finance as
authority for the proposition you are about to
state?
Mr. Smallwood That is exactly what I am
doing. One member, in copying the figures from
the Auditor General's reports from 1920-34
showing the ordinary expenditure each year,
knew the figures were incomplete; they did not
show the whole story. He knew they did not
include what was paid out to cover the operating
losses of the Newfoundland Railway.
Mr. Chairman ...Whether or not these figures
were properly compiled by the government or
whether or not the opinion of a member of that
Committee should have prevailed over the
government report seems to be immaterial...
Mr. Cashin I gather from Mr. Smallwood's
statement that he is trying to tell the House that
when we compiled this report we left out the
deficits on the Railway?
Mr. Cashin ....We are not trying to hide any
618 NATIONAL CONVENTION OCTOBER 1947
thing. When we were compiling the figures we
kept the Railway revenues clear of this. We
brought the Railway out as a separate entity. We
showed the Railway had a total deficit of $4
million and that it had to be paid from some
source. All the deficits from 1923-33 are also
shown. What are we talking about, then? We said
that deficits were paid for out of loans. We did
not try to cover them up in any way. I object to
this trying to convey that we left out something...
There is another point that I want to clear up
in connection with these revenues referred to by
Mr. Smallwood, that the revenues collected are
not revenues brought in by taxation. True, during
these periods amounts of money were brought in
and piled into the same accounts. Now what used
to happen in die old days, was when we raised a
loan, that loan was borrowed for specific purposes, and no Executive Council could
change it
without it being referred to the House. We established a new account in the bank for
the 1928
loan. The Auditor General had charge of that
loan, and he knew what specific purposes that
loan was to be used for... Today what happens is
that it is all piled in together and it makes it most
difficult to follow. We consider that the budgets
compiled by the present Commissioner for
Finance are not clear. They do not show what the
actual cost to the country is.... If I were making
that budget speech I would point out that here is
what it takes to operate the country, and here is
how we spent it.... And the capital expenditure
has to be explained; when the budget is explained
95% of the people don't realise that the cost of
operating the country is much less than is actually
shown in the budget. Mr. Chairman, in comment
about how much the people know about this,
when I started to go into these figures I had to buy
one of these Auditor General's reports, and the
bookstore told me they only sold seven Auditor
General's reports in 12 months, which shows
how much people could know about it. I realise
that the government accounts in every country
are tangled up, but there is nothing in this report
that is left out as far as I know; if there is anything
left out, and if we did not pile in all the expenditure we should have, we have accounted
for it by
capital expenditure...
Mr. Chairman ....It would be a decidedly
dangerous thing for any member to take any
excerpt from this report and comment on it
without reference to the report as a whole. You
are not justified in considering any part of this
report without reference to the rest...
Mr. Smallwood I accept the point made by Mr.
Cashin. I know that the point I am making is
covered at one place and another throughout the
report... But the point I am making, and I am sure
Major Cashin will agree with me, is this: that the
figures from 1920 to 1934, on the expenditure
side, the figures that are in the Auditor General's
reports, are not complete because they do not
include all ordinary expenditure. They include
some of it, but not all of it. But nevertheless the
Committee took the figures as they were, and
here they are. There is another point. Since Commission came here in l934 what we
find is this:
that the government, in the Auditor General's
report for every year, has given a figure showing
every dollar and cent they spent.... That's OK, but
now turn over to 1934 up to now in revenue, and
what do you find? You find left out money which
the government had received and which they
spent, and which is shown in the expenditure... I
am referring to the advances made from year to
year by the Colonial Development Fund. True
that most of these were paid as loans from year
to year, but when it got around 1940, or 1941 I
think it was, the British government said, "Since
your Commission has been out there we have
advanced you every year so much money from
the Colonial Development Fund. It now runs up
to $8-10 million. We are going to give you that.
It is an outright gift." That Colonial Development
Fund money is included in the expenditure side
here. My point is that these receipts of the government from the Colonial Development
Fund ought
to be included on the revenue side.
Mr. Cashin No. That's where the quarrel started
before.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, and it's a matter of interpretation, or opinion. The facts are clear, and we
have given our opinions on it. We differ in our
opinions on it.... My opinion is that the Government of Newfoundland should show on
the
revenue side every dollar, every cent, that they
have received, and on the expenditure side every
dollar and every cent they spent. How else are we
going to know where we stand as a country?
Mr. Chairman, I am about to take my seat, but
before doing so I would like to say this: that I
happen to have been born in Newfoundland. My
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 619
ancestors in Newfoundland run back to the year
1707. That's a long time ago, and I am a Newfoundlander, yet I find on the part of
some people,
in and out of the Convention, this tendency: that
if I am not prepared to stand up in this Convention
and out of it, in speaking and writing, to paint the
rosy picture, if I am not prepared to say that
everything is rosy...
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of
order. We are supposed to be discussing the
Financial Report. I think Mr. Smallwood should
be asked to confine his remarks to the Financial
Report.
Mr. Chairman I think the point is well taken...
The discussion must be confined to the Finance
Report...
Mr. Penney Mr. Chairman, may I rise to a point
of order also? I understand that Mr. Smallwood
asked for 15 or 20 minutes this afternoon. Well,
he is long past that time, and to me it seems awful
funny to have to sit back here and have your ear
drums almost blown out by the same person
occupying the better part of the time of each
session of the Convention.
Mr. Chairman On that point I am entirely
powerless. There is nothing in the rules which
would justify my imposing a time limit on any
member. One of the reasons for resolving into a
committee of the whole is to relax the rules of
debate...
Mr. Smallwood I feel it my duty as a member
of this Convention and as a Newfoundlander, to
face the facts of the country's financial position
fairly and squarely. Not to be optimistic or pessimistic, but to be realistic; to
face the hard, brutal
facts. One of the facts we must face is this: that
between 1920 and 1940, the Government of
Newfoundland ... failed to take in enough
revenue to meet their expenses. They failed by
$60 million to do it for 20 years.... There is a fact,
and it is a fact I suggest to you in trying to
anticipate to what extent the next 20 years will
duplicate the 20 years from 1920 to 1940. We
have got to face these facts.... Whatever form of
government we have in the future we know that
from 1920 to 1940 this country went broke $60
million in its expenses and had to go out and
borrow the $60 million to make good.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr.
Smallwood would be good enough to tell this
House the amount of money for instance loaned
by the federal government of Canada to Saskatchewan during these years?
Mr. Chairman What is the point of your question, Mr. Hollett?
Mr. Hollett The point is this: that there are a
good many countries in this world. We all know
that scarcely a country in this world during these
years could pay its debts. They had to borrow
money, and I refer chiefly to the Province of
Saskatchewan simply because my friend Mr.
Smallwood is an ardent confederate. He is trying
to convince the people, through these
microphones, that because we had to borrow $60
million during these years that we have no chance
whatsoever for a future existence I want him to
tell this country the exact position of certain
provinces in Canada during these particular
years, and particularly Saskatchewan....
Mr. Smallwood The answer is this: at the very
time that Newfoundland went on the rocks the
Province of Saskatchewan also went broke, just
about as badly as this country did. Newfoundland, as we all know, lost self-government
because we went broke. Great Britain stepped in
and took our government from us. In Saskatchewan the Government of Canada loaned the
Government of Saskatchewan I think $90 million. That was in the depression days of
1929-31.
This year, in 1947, the federal government made
a deal with Saskatchewan.... They signed a deal
giving them some 20-odd years to pay half of it,
and the other half the federal government has
forgiven altogether.... Saskatchewan came out of
it very well, and they did not lose their government as we did.
Mr. Chairman That is not the point. The point
is that Saskatchewan did have to obtain $90 million from the federal government in
order to carry
on the provincial government at the same time
that Newfoundland had to borrow outside, in
order to carry on the cost of government....
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, our friend is trying
to make a wonderful point. We borrowed $60
million to pay our debts since 1920-21. Absolutely incorrect. Let us look at the whole
story.... The
object of this report was to get an overall picture
of the country from 1934 down to now, but we
went back a number of years, and here is the
situation. Before we go any further, my friend
opposite is trying to make a wonderful point that
620 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
in our revenues for the last few years we had not
been showing the monies that we received as
grants-in-aid from the Colonial Development
Fund; in other words that these revenues are not
correct. I contend that loans of money or advances are not revenues, but they are
covered because on the other side of the fence we showed
the expenditures out of that money, but we take
good care to point out that in the text. If we take
into account the fact that over $20 million has
been spent on the capital or long account, which
ordinarily should be deducted from our own expenditure, the final result for a period
of half a
century should show approximately $15 million.
That shows that we did not try to cook this
thing... Now if we took that $20 million from
$469 million that leaves $449 million, consequently our revenue should be $469 million,
which would leave us a surplus of $15 million.
Now let's go a little further. We are not like
Saskatchewan at all, we are away ahead of them.
Why? Up to September 30 1947, we collected in
revenues $499 million. That leaves us a deficit
mind you, including these capital expenditures, a
deficit of $3.4 million-odd. Now today our national debt is approximately $70 million.
Against
this we have $35 million in cash. That means if
we paid it off tomorrow we would have a debt of
$35 million. Now what have we got for that debt?
To begin with we are lending money today free
of interest, probably the only country in the world
that is doing it, but what have we got for the $35
million? Take that report brought back by the
Ottawa delegation, which shows we have a railway which is valuable to someone. I don't
think
the Railway is worth $72 million, but that's down
in black and white. in addition we have all our
public buildings today in the country, say $10
million.
Mr. Cashin That statement is approximately
correct.... Therefore our total assets are approximately, and I say approximately,
$107 million. Now if we deduct that $35 million which we
owe, we have a definite surplus left (on paper,
mind you) of $70 million in round figures. That
is the position as far as the Government of Newfoundland is concerned today. Now if
we take,
on top of that, the other hundred-odd million
dollars in the bank, and we add our life insurance,
our securities and all else, I hold today that this
country is in an outstanding financial position —
unequalled by any country in the world. True we
have gloomy days coming before us. So has
every other country. Why, the mother country
that is supposed to be backing our note, so to say,
what financial position is Great Britain in? What
financial position is Canada in? Today in Canada
they are having great difficulty in making some
arrangement to offset the dollar trade with the
United States of America.
When we say $60 million, we have to say,
"What have we got left on our shelves?" We have
to take stock at the end of the year like any firm
on Water Street. A businessman may not have
any money in the bank; he sometimes has to pay
profits tax and he has to go to the bank to borrow
it. He has a big stock on hand. That stock represents his surplus. That is the position
as I see it
with Newfoundland. We were in financial difficulties, we have gone through hard times,
but
today no one will deny that this country is in as
sound a financial position as any other country in
the world.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, we have come to the
report so long awaited with bated breath, for it is
from our findings and our interpretation of what
the Finance Committee has prepared that we base
our conclusions for our final recommendations to
the people of Newfoundland. In view of the very
unsettled conditions as the result of a long and
bloody conflict, we cannot hope to escape the
inevitable share of a general world depression. In
some respects we will suffer more than our
proportionate share, and in others we will experience less...
Mr. Chairman That is where you start to
prophesy and it is absolutely irrelevant and out of
order. I would ask the members to confine their
remarks to the Finance Report....
Mr. Vardy I have based my remarks solely on
the result of the findings of the various committees, particularly the Financial Report.
If I
wander, I apologise. It must be generally admitted that for the past seven years Newfoundland
has been on the favourable side of the
balance sheet. This was more artificial than real
in the sense that it was wartime prosperity
brought about through our strategic position as
the Gibraltar of the West Atlantic, and what
might prove our doom and disaster in 1960 was
our blessing in 1940, for just as sure as we reaped
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 621
a measure of financial benefits from our
geographical position in the last war, we will
suffer being the front line battleground of the
next, and we will pay both in manpower and cash.
All this we are only too conscious of, and it would
be folly on our part to ignore these unpleasant
facts. I presume this Convention will, in due
course, bring in an Economic Report based on the
substance of the findings of the various committees.... Regardless of how critical
we may be over
the construction or interpretation of certain actions by the powers ruling us, we
do agree on the
main basic principles. As far as the cost of
government goes, this has increased in every
country out of all proportion to what the people
should be called upon to pay. Newfoundland is
not the exception and the public are only too
conscious of this unpleasant fact; but it is the duty
of the next government to cut not only the number
but the cost to a minimum, more in harmony with
the requirements and earnings of our people. We
have studied the figures for over a year, and
believe it or not our people are interested in
hearing our conclusions and have expected this
whole business to wind up long ago. Nine out of
every ten of our listening public are well informed on the cost of all governments
and none
of the whole 100% would do much better if they
were there. Newfoundlanders generally are
wondering, "Where do we go from here?" If I
were given the privilege of moulding a plan for
this country, I would first restore to Newfoundland full dominion status....
Mr. Chairman We are not discussing forms of
government at this time.... Let me again please
remind members that the primary duty of the
Convention, and you are now engaged upon it, is
to consider the financial and economic position
of the island as and from 1934. Then after that
you will go on to consider the question of future
forms of political institutions. I must ask members at this time if they would confine
themselves
strictly to the Financial Report....
Mr. Vardy I respect your ruling and I will drop
a paragraph. I have heard other members discuss
forms of government and you did not interfere.
Mr. Chairman If the inference is that I have
discriminated in favour of certain men, I can only
apologise, I am merely attending for the fourth
time. It will take time to get a working grasp of
what goes on.
Mr. Vardy I understand that. You will agree
with me it is also difficult for us; after all, we are
only laymen. It is difficult in discussing the
Finance Report to avoid touching on the political
side. However, I will drop out a paragraph. Now
it would be monotonous to the public for every
member to get up to repeat these figures we have
heard the past few days, and I propose to give a
brief resume of the present position as I see it after
giving the whole matter exhaustive study and
consideration.
Mr. Chairman, if our cash balances were applied to our liabilities, our per capita debt would
be in the vicinity of something like $115 per head
— a very healthy position indeed. Two of our
staple industries, paper and mining, never were
in a healthier condition. Our fishing industry has
received an unexpected setback, as it was
generally felt the past spring that prices would be
as good as last year, but in reality, apart from the
matter of exchange, the average price received by
the fishermen is really about $2 less, $1 directly
on the price and at least $1 on the cull. I fear the
price of fish will gradually come down; but I am
optimistic enough to believe that great strides
will be made in the matter of modern curing,
handling and marketing, and the millions from
the fish-eating countries who have migrated to
the central and western states will be reached
with our fish products packed and cured under the
most modern and sanitary conditions. The Marshall Plan will, if accepted, leave many
millions
of American dollars in Newfoundland for herring
and other sea products to be shipped to Europe in
a similar manner to the UNRRA pack, and replacing it in perhaps a bigger way. Our
lumber industry has taken a temporary slump, but we have
no surplus of lumber to cause any real anxiety in
this respect. New industries are cropping up in
many of the larger outports as well as St. John's.
absorbing many of the men who have been left
idle through most of the base works being
finished.
The general overall picture is as bright for us
as for any other country we know. Yet I would
not say that Newfoundland will always run as a
separate entity in the British Commonwealth —
it may even in the very near future unite with her
neighbours on the continent — but looking back
at the manner in which our counuy's pride, wealth
and territory have been needlessly sacrificed
622 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1947
during the past 14 years, we cannot afford to risk
the handling of such a serious and delicate matter
as confederation to a group of irresponsible trustees who have proved beyond a shadow
of doubt
they are incapable of protecting the best...
Mr. Chairman Please, Mr. Vardy, I want you
to understand there is no attempt on my part to
discriminate against you in any shape or form.
Prognostications as to our economic potentialities or future forms of political institutions
are, I rule, entirely irrelevant. I must ask members
now to confine themselves to a direct discussion
of the Financial Report.
Mr. Vardy I have never been brought to order
by the Chair. I shall never stoop to personal abuse
of any member here. If the Chairman finds in the
heat of debate he must call me to order, if he is
right I shall bow to his better judgement, if he is
wrong, I shall defend myself in a manner appropriate to the occasion. Sir, your task
is a
difficult one I do not envy you. When our feelings run deep, so will our language.
I feel, Mr.
Chairman, after most carefully examining the
balance sheet we can assume full responsibility
for our future destiny unafraid. With hard work,
determination and endurance, the pride of Newfoundland will again be restored to her
proper
place in the new world order.
Mr. Higgins I should like to move that we
decide now to terminate the debate and that we
adopt the report without further discussion. I do
not know if I can move it at this time.
Mr. Chairman I will accept the motion. I will
ask the House if it is ready to receive the motion,
but if the House decides to debate the motion,
then I obviously cannot accept it. If you have a
seconder I will ask the House if they are prepared
to accept the motion.
Mr. Job I will second that. My feeling is that this
report will get lots of attention when we come to
the discussion of the economic side. It is merely
a short postponement of further discussion; and
as a matter of fact people have been speaking to
the economic section. I do not think we have been
discussing the Financial Report. I think we
should wait until we have the economic section.
Mr. Chairman The motion before the Chair is
calculated to determine further debate on the
Financial Report. Before putting the motion, I
shall ask if the House is ready to receive the
motion. If the House decides, or feels that further
debate is desirable, of course the motion will be
voted down. In the event of the motion's being
accepted, it will mean, of course, that further
debate has been terminated. Moved by Mr. Higgins and seconded by Mr. Job that the
report of
the Finance Committee be received and adopted,
is that it, Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Smallwood I rise to a point of order. Can
you adopt a report in committee of the whole?
Mr. Chairman You can receive it.
Mr. Higgins I meant to renew the motion when
you took the Chair.
Mr. Chairman Moved and seconded that the
Report of the Finance Committee be received. Is
it the wish of the house to receive the motion?
Mr. Ashbourne I just wish to bring up a matter
which may not particularly have any bearing on
the Financial Report but which I believe has a
considerable bearing on the financial position of
some of our fishermen which seems to be rather
in doubt. I refer to the matter of the conversion of
the sterling received for shipments of fish, into
Newfoundland or Canadian currency....
Mr. Job Point of order. I do not think the
speaker is speaking to the point we are discussing. I do not want to stop Mr. Ashbourne,
but I
thought it would be better for him to bring up the
subject when the adjournment is moved.
Mr. Chairman The motion is that the Report of
the Finance Committee be received.
[After considerable procedural debate, the Chairman ruled the motion out of order.
The committee then rose and reported progress]
[Mr. Hollett asked when the Economic Report would be submitted]
Mr. Cashin We discussed a certain programme,
but we did not get to any final decision as to what
programme we are going to carry out. I think we
can make our final decision tomorrow as to what
form, or forms, we will adopt to bring our
Economic Report to the House.
Mr. Hollett Not quite. I have been giving some
thought to this report. We have to decide whether
or not this country is self-supporting, which I
think is a very silly thing to have to do, because
I don't think any individual, country, or town or
anything else is self-supporting; but we have to
decide this, and consequently we have to have
October 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 623
this Economic Report, but the reason I raised the
point is that I am doubtful as to whether or not the
Finance Committee is the correct committee to
make this report, or if they are, should not they
be aided by at least the chairmen of the various
natural resource reports which we have had, such
as Fisheries, Mining, and the others. I think it
would be wise if some men from these other
committees were added to the Finance Committee. I think they should be assisted by
some
members of the other committees that worked on
the real natural resources of this country.
Mr. Cashin When we meet tomorrow in the
Finance Committee we will discuss that point and
will be able to give a report as to what we feel
should happen, or think should happen in the
future in connection with this Economic
Report....
Mr. Chairman ....The Economic Committee
has the right to invite members of other committees, and particularly of committees
which have
already tabled reports, or even to go outside of
that altogether.... The Committee is empowered
to call before them all such persons and obtain
everything which they may consider necessary
for the proper framing of the report.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, that's the very point
I was getting at...
Mr. Higgins I feel we can leave it to the Committee to decide that. Now, with respect to this
notice of motion, I did propose to give it in this
form:
I give notice that I will on tomorrow move
that further discussion of the Report of the
Finance Committee be postponed until the
Economic Report of the Finance Committee
has been presented.
But in view of the fact that this would be the only
business tomorrow in the event of its being
passed, I would like the indulgence of the House
to have a vote on it now, because it seems rather
useless to come back, if this motion is brought up
tomorrow, and meeting for ten minutes and then
adjourning. I think we could see what the views
of the members are on this matter.
Mr. Chairman The House has the right in any
circumstances where notice of motion is ordinarily required, to dispense with notice
which would
ordinarily otherwise be required... The motion is
to the effect that notice of motion which would
ordinarily otherwise be required to be dispensed
with.
Mr. Smallwood Speaking to that motion, and
speaking purely for myself...
Mr. Smallwood Well, to enable it to be voted
on, I second it. I have no desire to continue or
discontinue the debate on the Finance Report,
none whatever. If it goes on I am satisfied, or if
it stops I am satisfied, but I wonder if. there is
anyone in the House who feels that he would like
to contribute to the debate and is perhaps a little
diffident at this moment to say so for fear he
would be blamed for holding up the work of the
Convention...
Mr. Higgins I say that does not prevent them
when the Economic Report is presented, but
tomorrow, if the House does not receive it unanimously today, I am giving notice and
it may be
carried tomorrow, and we are wasting the whole
day for nothing.
Mr. Chairman A motion may be made without
previous notice by unanimous consent of the
Convention....
[After some debate, Mr. Higgins' motion was deferred. The Convention adjourned]
