Mr. Smallwood I move that the Convention
resolve itself into a committee of the whole to
further consider and discuss the proposals
received on November 6th from the Right Hon.
the Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, we have come to the
famous "diaper bonus" and I was surprised at the
complacent attitude of Mr. Smallwood that Mr.
Job would pay. As a layman, I was wondering
how Mr. Job would pay, since when I am finished
with this job I intend to go fishing, and to land
and sell at Bonavista Cold Storage, of which, I
am informed, Mr. Job and associates are the
owners. Now, I am perplexed. Will Mr. Job forget he has a "diaper bonus" to pay and
give me
the full value for the fish I'll land, or go in a dory
and fish for the bonus himself, or will he, with
that bonus in mind, take it out of me? I'm afraid
he will. I have dragged up my family, and it looks
like I've got to help bring up others. You have
always got to pay it, even a young man today,
when he gets up to the age of 40, with kids up to
16; you go on paying the "diaper bonus" until you
are 70, when you get the "whisker bonus".
Another vicious circle.
I have been doing a little delving this past
10-30 years into matters of taxation and I have
some figures before me which I think should be
brought before our people, for if this farce goes
through and our people ever get tax-conscious,
they will be in virtual revolt. Let us examine the
happy Zion to which our confederate apostle is
leading us. The leader of this movement is painting a picture that cannot but cheer
the heart of
every toiler in this island home of ours. I wish I
could subscribe to it, but I must have used up all
my optimism on the Economic Report. Why the
pessimism? It's simply this: ever since I came
into this Convention I have heard nothing but the
hardships of our system of taxation, and I had
really hoped that in the leap towards Zion that
tough road would be smoothed over; but I am
disappointed! First fixings first. I don't want to go
meandering around from Quirpon to Grand Falls,
so here it is. We heard a royal address about
taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I'll
say more about that later, for that's up my alley,
but this before us unfortunately is not so, for I'm
going to lump the two big social sums together,
the "diaper bonus" and the "whisker bonus".
They cost, together, $342 million.
Now in that grand Dominion they have a sales
tax and I'll quote:
[2]
The sales tax hitherto has always been considered as one of the most vicious forms
of
regional taxation. It hits every man, woman,
child and babe in arms, totally regardless of
income; but the federal government plans to
collect $325 million in sales tax this year,
against $298 million collected last year, for
the major taxpayers in Canada are the poor
people of Canada, not only in the income tax
as the figures readily prove, but in the fact
that 12 million people in Canada are sharing
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 815
equally the burden of $1,045,000,000 of indirect taxes this year.
....I have no way to tell the people of this
country what this will cost them, no way to find
out what the sales tax will cost this country, as I
don't think there is any way to find out the
volume of business; but I believe the federal sales
tax is 8%. Let us see how this tax works out with
regard to Mr. Smallwood's assertion that the rich
would pay for this family allowance.
This most vicious tax hits every man, woman,
child and babe in arms after they collect from
those citizens, old and young. First we have a
sales tax income of $325 million which will pay
for the family bonus of $260 million and the old
age pension of $82 million within $17 million of
both expenses. Now in heaven's name, how can
Mr. Smallwood say that this is soaking the rich;
it even soaks the family allowance itself, for if a
woman with one child buys $5 worth of essentials
per month, she chips back into the family allowance ante 40 cents. Is that soaking
the rich? I
think this should clear up this matter of who soaks
who. The unassailable fact is that the cents are
taken from everybody. The man who has his
family dragged up, and wants to go a little easier,
every time his wife goes to the shop to spend a
buck, she chips in eight cents towards the raising
of somebody else's kids; even if he is 60 and finds
it hard to do a day's work. It's simple for us to
have a baby bonus that way. So, to me at least,
Mr. Smallwood's plan is not so good. He has
made a wonderful table of all the places by districts. Let us take the shops in those
districts and
find out the volume of business they do. Put on
the sales tax and see what they will send out to
Ottawa. Remember it will be taken from the
earnings of the berries, the rabbits, the spuds you
sell, also the few dozen eggs. Everything goes in
the ante, as I see it. Just figure to yourself. Just
count the number of dollars you spend in a year
and take eight cents out of each of them, and
you'll find out what the baby bonus and the old
age pension will cost you. Remember this bonus
doesn't come from the federal government of
Canada. It comes from the people.... Sorry this is
so long, but I want the people to know....
They have also in Canada what is known as
excise taxes which bear heavily on the common
man. It amounts to $290 million. Time forbids me
to handle it here, only to point out that added to
the sales tax of $325 million it brings in $615
million, enough to pay for the family allowance
and the old age pension and leave a balance of
$273 million. This excise tax is a superduper
sales tax of which I will have more to say later.
The reason for referring to it now is to show that
it is not the rich who are paying for those services,
but the very poor as well. It is a case of passing it
from one pocket to another.
I think in all honesty, the next time we send a
delegation to Canada, in light of this, we should
get a financial expert, for had I been there I would
have pushed it down their throats that this was
anything but a bargain. They may be able to fool
all their people, and we may be too green to burn,
but they can't fool a green Newfoundlander.
Some people take umbrage at the word "baby
bonus" but to my mind I can call it nothing else
— an inducement for people to have children, but
it's not financially sound and tends not to the
betterment of a people. If the money could be
raised by another way but by a sales tax, then I
could see the good of it, but this way it's a
detriment to a man who is trying to get ahead,
while it subsidises those who look on life as a
period of procreative activity. I don't give much
credit for the financial brains of this Dominion if
they can't devise a better way to produce the
funds to pay for those great services. Let us have
them. I know it can be done, and of that I will
speak later. I think this is a good argument against
our turning our country over again to remote
control. It seems we have been pikers in the past
in the art of tax collection. See how easy it is.
Anybody who has a shop is a tax collector. I can
now see a reason for all the stores in Newfoundland. They can now take the place of
the
civil service.
[1]
I will now read the list of goods exempted
from sales tax in Canada, as you will find in the
Black Book....
[2] These are your exemptions from
the sales tax. If for instance, take my friend Mr.
Northcott across the way, if he was to hang his
hand — as I have seen in the small stores in the
United States — over the cash register, and you
drop in your 8% on every dollar you spend, I
wouldn't be surprised at the end of the year that
816 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Mr. Northcott would be able to pay a pretty good
baby bonus in the district of Lewisporte. Now I
think I've come to the end of what I've got to say.
And I believe that we should not pass these terms.
There's been a lot of talk about them, and I think
the time has come for our people to know just
what they are. And I believe that we should
debate them in every way, bit by bit, even if we're
here till Tib's Eve,
[1] and thrash it out so that our
people can understand what it's all about. I know
that our people today are looking for a promised
land. It's something they've heard so much
about, a land of lower taxes; but, what is it going
to gain us tomorrow if we take off the customs
tax, put on a sales tax and a superduper excise
tax? We can easily have a family allowance in
this country and old age pensions if we wish to
take 8% out of every dollar that goes around, no
odds how many times it goes around in this
country. I'm afraid when you come to weigh up
the 117,000 children and weigh up what money
they're taking, we have no way to find out. One
record we couldn't find in this country as we've
been going through our work, is the amount of
business that's done in the country. Because you
can't gauge the money in a country by looking at
what it sends out and brings in. You have to have
a bird's-eye view of how many times that dollar
goes around, when you're paying taxes on the
dollar that's moving around. So Mr. Chairman
and gentlemen, I believe that we're going to learn
a lot from this Ottawa vacation. So let's have
some more of it from Mr. Smallwood....
Mr. Chairman Mr. Bailey, I don't think you're
justified in referring to it as a vacation. I've
already ruled Mr. Smallwood out of order on that
point and I'm entitled to assume that however
erroneous or mistaken the members of that
delegation may have been in the proper evaluation of their duties, I'm not prepared
to allow the
remark to stand that they were on a vacation.
Mr. Bailey I apologise, Mr. Chairman. I only
meant it as a joke.
Mr. Chairman I've already ruled that Mr.
Smallwood couldn't make that remark and I....
You made the remark, you directed the remark to
Mr. Higgins and I had to ask you to withdraw it
the other day.
Mr. Smallwood Sir, I was only referring to the
remark that he had made....
Mr. Bailey So let us have some more. "Avant",
as they would say in Quebec.
Mr. Cranford It seems to me if I am correct, the
list Mr. Bailey read out is all exempt from 8%
sales tax. We have to pay no sales tax at all. I
don't know if I'm correct on that or not. But the
list that he read out, it makes it all clear of
everything
Mr. Fogwill On page 139,
[2] foodstuffs, exemptions under foodstuffs — salt. I was wondering is
fisheries salt exempted from sales tax?
Mr. Smallwood I don't know if it's the intention
of the gentlemen in the Convention to discuss
taxation in Canada and Newfoundland at every
point where a clause comes up for debate. Saturday, we debated family allowances.
The next
item is old age pensions and pensions for the
blind. The item after that is unemployment insurance and then sick mariners' benefits
for merchant seamen and fishermen, and after that
assistance for housing. If we're going to have a
discussion of taxation on each one of these items,
I would be optimistic and say that we should
finish this Convention sometime in 1953.
Mr. Chairman At the same time, if you don't
mind Mr. Smallwood, the impact of taxation
upon the people of this country has to be taken
into account, and side by side with any benefits
which are proposed to be conferred. Because let
us remember that benefits and liabilities are codependent.... I think it perfectly
relevant....
Mr. Bailey This arose out of you being asked
point-blank to state who was going to pay this
bonus, if I remember rightly. And you referred to
the rich. I just tried to tell the people in my
estimation, now I may be wrong....
Mr. Chairman You are making a point of
course.... You must not assume that interjection
is going to be permitted in its most literal sense
under the thin guise of point of order. You can
only interrupt the Speaker if you rise to either a
point of privilege or a point of order and you have
to state which it is, and I'll have to rule on it
before I can allow any further interruption.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, bearing on your
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 817
ruling, I'm not for one moment questioning the
right of the Convention to raise the question of
taxation as and when it likes all through this
debate on these terms. But if that is to be done,
where will we be when we arrive at the point in
our debate where taxation is to be discussed?
There is a point in this document where taxation
will be gone into. But if all we're going to hear
when family allowances, old age pensions, pensions for the blind, unemployment insurance,
sick mariners' benefits for merchant seamen and
fishermen, and every point that's raised here, is
taxation, while it may be perfectly legal and
perfectly parliamentary, I do suggest it is going
to cover a vast range of ground and take a tremendous amount of time.
Mr. Chairman I accept that position Mr.
Smallwood, butI'll remind you that I'm absolutely helpless on the matter. If in connection
with
this proposed arrangement, the question of taxation is raised, that is touching the
ability of persons to pay, then obviously I think out of
necessity I must rule that the remarks are in
order....
Mr. Smallwood I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the gentlemen of the Convention it might
help us to get along a bit quicker if they reserve
discussion of taxation till the time when the matter comes up. They will not find
me slow or
unwilling to discuss taxation in Canada, and the
Canadian taxation that would apply to Newfoundland and I don't think they will find
me
entirely ignorant of the subject. I think on the
contrary they may discover that I've given the
matter some study. I didn't spend three months in
Ottawa exactly doing nothing. So with your permission sir....
Mr. Chairman I quite agree that a considerable
time may be saved if members could note the
various questions that they want to make on
various items, then ask them when we've got
through this document. Instead of making a series
of speeches, perhaps they could cover all the
points they had in mind by perhaps one speech or
two speeches as the case may be. Otherwise it
may very well be, as I previously said, that instead of completing the business of
this Convention and getting through by Christmas, we may
be here till Judgement morning.
Mr. Smallwood Now sir, on section 4, clause 4
of the document, sub-section 2: old age pensions
and pensions for the blind.
Mr. Butt Excuse me one second. It's not my
intention to interrupt you Mr. Smallwood, but I
think that it might be relevant to point out that
$250 million annually spent on baby bonuses or
family allowances, represents a 60% increase
over the normal expenditure of the Government
of Canada in 1939. I don't think that's a question
of taxation, but it might be relevant to point that
out. It represents for Canada in ordinary expenditure on government account an increase
of
60%.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, on Friday Mr. Smallwood stated that the population of Canada is
around 12,500,000. They get $250 million in
baby bonuses, we'll call them for the time being,
that works out around $20 per head. So on the
same basis I presume that Newfoundland would
have about the same proportion of children under
16 years of age as they would have in Canada.
It's not a matter of being critical at all, it's just to
keep the record straight because our people were
listening in, and I've been asked already on the
street how we arrived at these figures. We say our
population is around 320,000, approximately.
Therefore we would get around $6,400,000. Now
the chairman of the Ottawa committee reported
it to be in the vicinity of $8,200,000 and in
another statement he said around $750,000 a
month, which would work out around $9 million,
which is one-third over the approximate amount
I take it we would get, admitting that we have
117,000 children.... Of course, I don't know what
the Chairman feels about that, I find it difficult to
see how we can evade talking forms of government when we're debating a form of government
in itself. I'm wondering what position our Chairman is going to be in when we touch
a rather
delicate point.
Mr. Chairman I'd like to put you straight on
that question now. The procedure under which
this report was to be debated was not a matter for
the Chairman at all. It was a question of procedure which was decided by the Convention
itself
when the motion to resolve the Convention into
a committee of the whole was adopted. As far as
I'm concerned the manner in which any document coming before the Chair is to be discussed,
or the procedure to be employed in the discussion
of any document, is one for the Convention. I
would like to point out, Mr. Vardy, I quite realise
818 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
the difficulties, but at the same time I would ask
members to remember that we're discussing the
financial terms, and I would like members to
confine themselves, insofar as practically possible, to confine themselves to the
financial
aspects rather than the purely political aspects to
which we'll come in due course after and when
we terminate the present debate.
Mr. Vardy That is exactly the view I've taken
Mr. Chairman, and so far as we've gone I believe
that most of the members have agreed fairly well
in that respect. But I was a bit puzzled at the
beginning, wondering if we wouldn't in a very
short time reach a deadlock. But I feel that I
would appeal to Mr. Smallwood — rather than
get sore at him — to try to cut short the various
explanations. I have no wish in the world to cut
short this debate. I voted, as you all know, to send
a delegation to Canada on each occasion the
resolution came up. I have no regrets along these
lines except that there were certain disappointments in the length of time it took.
But we're into
this thing now and I believe we should let the
public know the facts to the best of our ability, so
that eventually they will be able to arrive at the
proper conclusions and digest the various bits of
information as we hand it out to them. I feel that
...everyone of us should go all out to make a very
special effort to wind up the work of this Convention before the end of the year.
I really think we
have wasted some time. So I think we should be
very conscious over this fact and when we rise to
our feet, try to be as constructive as possible and
let the people know the truth as we see it. In that
way only will we be able to do justice to the
districts we represent and the country as a whole.
Now I believe we're moving on to old age pensions.
Mr. Chairman To be fair to you, Mr. Vardy, I
must identify myself unqualifiedly with everything that you said.
Mr. Fogwill I'm satisfied, sir, to take up the
question of taxation when we come to it, that's if
we do. But while Captain Bailey did raise the
question of general sales tax, I was curious to
know whether the sales tax was applied to or
imposed on fishery salt. I'd like to have an answer
to that. Where do we find the exemption in these
books?
Mr. Smallwood If it's not in the book, I'll
produce documentary evidence officially to that
effect.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Vardy seemed a little
doubtful about the actual amount of money that
would be paid out in Newfoundland, to children
under 16, in family allowances each year. We had
in 1945, 117,000 children under sixteen. That is
official from the census of 1945. Because our
population is increasing at the rate of 1.1% per
year, that would make today a little over 1 17,000
children under the age of 16. The average taken
based on actual experience is $6 a child each
month. The amount varies according to the
child's age. It's $5 a month up to the age of six;
$6 over the age of six and under ten; $7 over ten
and under 13; $8 over 13 and under 16. When I
say under 16, I mean, up to the last day before the
sixteenth birthday is counted as 15 years of age.
Now, there are little reductions. When you pass
the fourth child in a family, that child gets a dollar
less per month and the fifth child I think the same.
The sixth child is cut by $2. But the average is
taken universally in all government records,
based on their experience, at being $6 a month.
Well, 117,000 children in Newfoundland in 1945
at $6 is $702,000 a month or $8,424,000 a year.
And the actual amount will increase accordingly,
as our population is increasing at the rate of 1.1%.
So it's a fair anticipation that in three or four
years, instead of 117,000 children under 16, it'll
be well over 120,000; in another three, four or
five years it'll be up around 125,000; and as that
number grows, so will the amount of money paid
out. That's just in reply to Mr. Vardy. I am not
going, at this time, to reply to his point about
where the money comes from to pay the family
allowances. We all know it comes from the
Government of Canada.
Mr. Chairman In fairness to Mr. Vardy and
other members, it is your intention, is it, to welcome at least these other questions?
Mr. Smallwood Of course, sir, of course. We
can't discuss this business without knowing exactly what the taxation system is in
Canada,
because if we were to become a province, that
system of taxation would be our system of taxation. Now I pass on to section 2 of
clause 4.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 819
Mr. Chairman Are there any further comments
on section 4, sub-section 1 before we move on to
the next sub-section? In that case Mr.
Smallwood, if you'll be good enough to go into
sub-section 2.
Mr. Smallwood
Sub-section 2 of clause 4: "Old age pensions and
pensions for the blind as provided by the Old Age
Pensions Act, 1927 and amendments subject to
agreement with the government of the province." Sir,
here is an official memorandum prepared
for the delegation by the Government of Canada:
Old age pensions and pensions for blind
persons are non-contributary pensions subject to a means test and paid under a
Dominion-provincial plan. The provinces are
responsible for the administration, and the
Dominion pays 75% of the cost of the pensions paid in accordance with the terms of
the
agreements made under the authority of the
Dominion's Old Age Pensions Act. Before
entering into an agreement with the
Dominion, the province must have legislation authorising the provincial government
to
pay pensions and to make an agreement with
the Dominion for reimbursement by the
Dominion of its share of the cost of pensions.
Before an agreement can come into force the
plan for the administration of pensions
proposed to be adopted by the province must
be approved by the Governor in Council.
(That is of course the governor in council of
the Government of Canada.) An agreement
continues in force so long as the provincial
statute remains in operation, or until after the
expiration of ten years from the date the
Dominion notifies the province of its intention to terminate the agreement. Under
the
provisions of the Dominion Act, the province
is free to fix in its agreement both the maximum pension payable and the maximum income
allowed within the limits specified in
the act. The Dominion's contribution, however, can not exceed 75% of $30 a month in
any case, and is payable only where the pensioners fulfill the requirements set forth
in the
Dominion Act and the regulations made there
under.
The principal requirements are age, residence and income. For an old age pensioner,
the age at which pension may be granted is
70 years and for a blind pensioner 21 years.
The act requires that an applicant must have
resided in Canada for the 20 years immediately preceding the date of the proposed
commencement of the pension. Both the act and
the regulations, however, make special
provision for pensioners who have been absent during the 20 year period. The maximum
income, including the pension allowed in the
case of an unmarried old age pensioner, is
$600 a year; and in the case of a married old
age pensioner, $1,080 a year. Higher
amounts are allowed for blind pensioners and
for married old age pensioners with spouses
who are blind. The transfer of property by an
applicant or his spouse may delay the granting of a pension. The provincial pension
authority must decide whether or not an assignment or transfer of property was made
for the purpose of qualifying the applicant for
pension, or for a higher pension then he
would otherwise receive. After pension is
granted, a provincial pension authority may,
if authorised by provincial legislation, encumber any real property owned by the pensioner.
No province requires an applicant to
turn over his property to the provincial
government either before or after granting
pension. In its agreement with the Dominion,
a province agrees to deal with an application
in manner prescribed by regulation, and to
grant pension to any person residing in the
province if satisfied that he is eligible to
receive pension. Each province also agrees to
pay the pension of any pensioner who transfers his permanent residence to such
province, and to reimburse any other
province to the extent of 25% of $30 monthly
or the amount of pension granted, whichever
is the lesser, where the pensioner during the
last 1,095 days that he was present in Canada
prior to reaching pensionable age, or prior to
making application whichever is the later,
was present in such province for a greater
number of days than in any other province.
The details of administration are contained in
the Dominion Old Age Pension Regulations.
The act authorises the Governor in Council
to make the regulation setting up an inter-
provincial board to interpret and recommend
alterations in the Dominion Act and in the
820 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Dominion regulations. While the old age
pensions regulations are regulations made by
the Governor in Council under the authority
of the Dominion Act, they are made on the
recommendation of the Dominion and
provincial members of the inter-provincial
board and can become operative in a
province only with the approval of the
Lieutenant-governor in Council of the
province. The nine provinces have made
agreements providing for a maximum pension of $360 a year, with the maximum allowable
income specified in the Dominion
Act.
Now, I don't know to what extent that
memorandum will be intelligible to the members
without having it before them to read, and possibly the Secretary of the Convention
might be
prepared to mimeograph it and lay it on the desk
of each member. But in brief the story is this:
[1] it
is not the Government of Canada which pays the
old age pension to the people of Canada. It is the
provinces — each one of the nine provinces pays
the pension, and it pays it according to its own
provincial law.... The province can pay $1,000 a
month if it likes, but if the provincial pensions
authority enters into an agreement with the
federal government, the federal government
says, "We will hand over to you 75% every
month of $30 ($22.50) a month." But if the
federal government hands over $22.50 to be paid
out in old age pension, the provincial government
must put $7.50 with it, making it up to $30 per
month for people who have reached the age of 70
years. It is not paid to everyone as the family
allowance is. There is a means test. You can get
$30 a month old age pension if you need it. You
can get it and still have a private income of your
own from any source whatever of $240 a year,
$600 altogether.... If you earn over that much,
here is what happens. If you get $250 a year, $10
will be taken off the pension. If I should have a
private income of $300 a year, then my old age
pension is not $360 a year, it is cut down to $310.
If I have a wife, the same thing applies. If she is
70 she gets $30 in just the same way. That is $60
a month from old age pensions between the two.
The only difference is that when the man and wife
get a pension of $720 a year, they are not allowed
more than $1,080 total income.... Take a man
living in an outport; owns his own home; not
earning any money at all; maybe he is sick;
maybe he cannot work; maybe he cannot get a
job. He does not get $240 a year; maybe he does
not get 240 cents. But he has a house; if he did
not have a house, he would have to pay rent. So
the provincial pensions authority has the right to
say this, ... "If you did not own that house you
would have to pay rent, that is worth $96 a year
income because you own and occupy that house."
If it is worth $10 a month, that is $120 a year. He
is still under the $240 — $20 a month is counted
as income. How many homes in the outports that
are worth up to $20 a month rent and occupied
by persons of 70 and over, I do not know.... If
they are, that is $240 a year income. If the rental
value be $260, then that is $20 taken off the old
age pension. It is not taken off his wife's pension
— it is taken off the person who owns the house.
One other point: the pension is paid starting at the
age of 70 only to those who need it; 75% comes
from the Government of Canada and 25% from
the provincial government. $750,000 a year
would be our share of the old age pensions. We
now pay $260 a year for old age pensions, because we do not pay until a man is 75
and then
only $30 a quarter for two — man and wife —
$10 a month, that is what we pay....
But this must be made very clear. If a person
reaches the age of 70 and gets the old age pension,
until he dies his property is his own. No one else
owns it but himself. When he dies it is his
widow's; nobody gets it but her. When she dies,
if no one has contributed to their support, the
government steps in, and out of the estate, if it is
worth $2,000 or more, the government takes back
the pension it paid. The idea is this: the old age
pension is only paid to those who need it. It was
not got up for rich men, wealthy men, men fairly
well off, or for people who have sons and
daughters who can help them out. It was gotten
up for people who need the help. There is a means
test....
Mr. Hillier I would like to ask Mr. Smallwood
a question. We all want to be fully informed on
these matters and we want to be sure things are
as they are. In the case of old age pensions, will
any claim be made by pension authorities on
property of a pensioner after his death? Or will a
son, to whom said property may be willed, be
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 821
liable for payment of the amount of pensions paid
his father during a period of say from one to ten
years? People ask me questions ... and I ask
questions in return.... We all hope to get through
this business before the New Year. It seems to me
it is not necessary to make any long comments or
to prolong the issue or to make interruptions. We
are here to find facts. Let us find them to the best
of our ability....
Mr. Smallwood One point I did not mention
was the blind. If a blind person of 21 years or
older, who has satisfied the same residence
qualifications and who is not an Indian.... "To be
eligible for such a pension a blind pensioner must
be so blind as to be unable to perform any work
for which eyesight is essential...."
[Short recess]
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, we are dealing now
with aged people, up around 70 years of age, and
I think that the one thing above all others we
should not do is, we should not try to kid the
children. Let's try to give them a fair, true angle
as it stands. Now I believe the facts are, and I am
sure Mr. Smallwood will correct me if I go
wrong, that we have around 12,000 persons in
Newfoundland around 70 years of age. I take it
that not more than 5% of these would be living in
rented homes. The first qualification on the application, or the means test, that
is given to these
men, would be that they could not at any time
during the period when they would be receiving
old age pensions assign or transfer their property
to their heirs or successors, in order to evade
having the state come in eventually and take their
property for the amount of pension they have
received. Now in my time I have filled out,
without exaggeration, anwhere from 40 to 50 old
age pension forms for people, and while Mr.
Smallwood was explaining this clause my
thoughts were going back to thees people. I can
think of them at this moment almost by name, in
the past 30 years or around there, and I have been
at various time in various communities, and I can
say without fear of contradiction that I have never
signed an old age pension form without having it
go through. Now if any of these men had to
submit to the means test, as I understand it ...
think of one individual who would today be
receiving his old age pension. For the simple fact
is that if they knew, or his sons, married or single
knew, that when poor old dad reaches 72 or 75
and passes on to his great reward the state steps
in and takes the property to pay for the old age
pension he received, to begin with they would not
allow him to accept his old age pension. If these
old age pensioners knew that that was going to
happen they would not apply for that old age
pension — in a great many cases, there are isolated cases of course.
Mr. Smallwood Up to $2,000 or more. The estate must be valued at around $2,000 or more.
Mr. Vardy Of course it depends also on the
value that would be put on the property in the
outports. For instance a humble little home of two
stories 20 x30 and so on, in the city of St. John's
would be valued at around $3-4,000 probably,
whereas the same home in the outports would be
valued at $3-400....A $2,000 home in an outport
in Newfoundland, on a forced sale, has to be quite
a good property. And I take it also that the
auditors would give the applicant for the old age
pension the benefit of the doubt. No one would
be incline to over-estimate the value of any
property, but...
Mr. Smallwood Could I interrupt? The assessing of the value of the property is done by the
local, the Newfoundland pensions authority. It is
they who fix the value of the property, not the
Government of Canada, but the Government of
Newfoundland, and they base it on the general
value of the property in and around the same
locality.
Mr. Chairman Maybe, Mr. Vardy, you could
clear up something for me. Maybe while you are
on the subject you might care to address Mr.
Smallwood on whether or not I am correct in
assuming that the assessment does not take place
unless and until the property is taken over.
Mr. Vardy ... I honestly feel that there would be
a very limited number under these conditions in
Newfoundland qualified for, or even applying for
the old age pension. The feeling exists in Newfoundland, rightly or wrongly, among
the old,
aged fishermen, that when they reach the age of
75 years, even though they have a few dollars in
the sock as it is often referred to, and they have a
humble property around them, the boys take over
the fishing gear and go about their way to make
their living, that they should get the old age
pension, and I believe that if the means test was
very severe, that there would be a number at this
very moment eliminated from the list. I would not
822 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
agree with it. Personally I feel that we cannot do
too much for these people who toiled and supported a family, all of them raised large
families,
and contributed so much towards the general
revenue of this country, that we should go on, as
far as possible, increasing the amounts paid the
old age pensioners. We know we have not
reached the stage yet where we have done anything like full justice to these people.
But they
are, Mr. Smallwood, they are as I see it very
stringent qualifications. You can get the pension,
yes sure, providing your property is not valued at
over $2,000, but...
Mr. Smallwood No, no. You can get the pension if your income each year is not over $600.
Your yearly income must be $600 before you are
barred from getting the old age pension. If it is
$500 a year then you get $100 pension. If your
income is $400 a year then you get $200 pension
a year. You have got to have an income of $600
a year all your own before you are barred from
the old age pension.
Mr. Chairman Now then, the other point Mr.
Vardy wants to know is whether or not the question of your property enters into it
at all. Is there
any question of assessment where the property
occupied by the pensioner does not exceed
$2,000?
Mr. Smallwood No sir, it does not matter what
the property of a man is, once he reaches the age
of 70, providing his income from that property
does not go over $600 a year. It does not matter
if it is worth $10,000.
Mr. Hickman Could Mr. Smallwood tell us
what part of the act that $2,000 refers to?
Mr. Smallwood I am glad Mr. Hickman raised
that. If Mr. Vardy does not mind there, the position is this: there is an Old Age
Pensions Act.
Here it is. There was an amendment passed to it
by the Parliament while we were in Ottawa. Here
is is, July 1947, and then here are the statutory
orders and regulations made under the Old Age
Pensions Act, and it is the regulations that govern
the conditions under which the whole thing is
carried out. Now these regulations are made by
the interprovincial Old Age Pensions Authority.
Every province has its own old age pensions
authority, say three men appointed to administer
old age pensions. Every province has that. Now
on top of all of them there is an interprovincial
Old Age Pension Authority, made up of provin
cial authorities. They meet once or twice a year,
and every province is represented in it. They meet
once or twice a year to decide all questions under
the act, but the actual carrying out of it is done in
the province itself by the provincial authority,
and the figure that has been fixed throughout the
entire Dominion by the interprovincial authority,
made up of all the nine provinces (ten if we were
in) is $2,000 per house. Not house only, but
house, land, boats and any property a man has,
must be worth $2,000 or more, before that part of
it comes in at all.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Hickman's question is
when and how was that arbitrary figure of $2,000
arrived at.
Mr. Smallwood No; the act cannot cover everything, so they set up regulations under the act, like
all acts of Parliament the very act itself gives the
authority, who are going to administer the act,
power to make regulations under the act. These
regulations must not be different from the act
itself. Well, to make these regulations there is this
interprovincial authority, made up of all the old
age pensions authorities of all the provinces.
They make the regulations and they meet once or
twice a year for that purpose, and all the provinces are represented in it. Here's
the actual
memo....
Mr. Smallwood Yes, because all the provinces
are represented in the Interprovincial Pensions
Authority. If Newfoundland were a province it
would be represented in it too, and it is binding
on all provinces.
Mr. Vardy I take it, Mr. Smallwood, that the
federal government subscribes 75%, and the
provincial government 25%?
Mr. Smallwood Yes. If you will allow me - the provincial government can subscribe as much
as it likes. For instance in the province of Ontario
today the old age pension is $40 a month, but the
federal government only contributes $22.50 a
month, and the rest is paid by the province. The
province could make it $50 a month, but the
federal government only gives $22.50. You see?
Is that clear?
Mr. Vardy Let's get down to realities now, Mr.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 823
Smallwood, because I am not anxious at all to
paint a gloomy or pessimistic picture, but the
position is really this: that in order to qualify the
first thing you have to do is literally rent your own
home from yourself. You place a value on it of
say $20 a month, say $240 a year. That is considered as part of your yearly income.
You stated
that yourself. Let's accept that as a fact. Now then
the pension is valued next — $30 a month, $360
a year—so that gives us the $600. In other words
a pensioner can't really have any income outside
the home he is living in, and the pension he hopes
to receive. That is really the position isn't it? If
he has any other income he can't qualify for a
pension on that income or be assisted in some
way or another. Is there such a thing as a part
pension, say $100 a year, or $200 a year?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, of course. If an old age
pensioner has a house in Joe Batt's Arm, and it is
valued at $240 a year, that is $240 a year income
he has — if it is valued at $20 a month, which is
pretty high; $20 a month in most outports would
be very, very high. It is nearer $5, or $6 or $8 or
$10 a month. But if it is valued at $240 a year,
$20 a month straight, then he can still make $100
ayear, but that cuts his pension by $100 a year,
and instead of getting $360 a year then he gets
$260.
Mr. Vardy In other words you may be getting
$240 a year from the government towards your
pension, and I may be getting $360. Is that it?
Mr. Vardy I never heard it explained that way.
I did not know that such a scheme existed. I
thought you had to qualify or disqualify for your
pension. Let us assume that is the position. There
is one undeniable fact, isn't there Mr. Smallwood, in fairness to these people that
we owe the
whole truth to, it is a fact that they must hold their
property while they are drawing the old age pension from the state, and in the end
finally the state
would take the position that if the sons or
daughters refused to assist in any way towards
their support, that it would be the state's right, if
they accepted the old age pension under these
conditions, to step in and take over sufficient of
the property to repay the state for the amount they
had paid out in old age pension? I take it that's
the true position isn't it? Give the people the
facts, that's my idea.
Mr. Smallwood That's right. I thought I had
said that. Now bearing on that, as I said before
the old age pension is only given to people who
need it. It is not meant for people who don't need
it. But if a person is qualified for the old age
pension by age, in other words he is 70 years of
age, then they come to figure the income of that
person, mother's allowances will not be included
as income. You can get mother's allowance of
course, but you would be pretty old at 70 to get
mother's allowance, but there may be cases of it.
Family Allowances again, at 70 if you were a
woman you would be pretty old at 70 to have
children under 16, but that is not counted as
income, cost of living allowances are not counted
as income.... If a man gets a military allotment
from a son or daughter in active service in time
of war that is not counted as income. Direct relief
... is not counted as income. Casual gifts of small
value all not counted as income....
Now further, when for the purpose of assessing the value of a man's house, what the
yearly
value would be in that locality the Pension
Auditor says this house in Joe Batt's Arm is worth
$9 a month (the same house in St. John's might
be worth a lot more), but it's taken $3 a month to
keep it up. It gets a coat of paint every four years,
or a coat of tar every year or second year.
Whatever the average cost of maintaining the
house is, that's taken off from the annual rental
value. I don't know if there is any other point
here. This is the act itself that I am quoting
from....
If I may, on this old age pension, I don't want
to delay the matter, I am finished now when I
make this observation. Here Mr. Starkes could be
of a great deal of help if he would be so kind. The
question is: "What is the value of the average
home in the outports?" Now I know there are
places in Newfoundland besides the outports, St.
John's is not an outport, but thinking for a minute
of the outports. What is the average home worth?
Mr. Vardy puts it at $5-800, or $1,200-1,500. He
did not get up as far as $2,000. In Admiral's Cove
in Mr. Starkes's district there are four persons of
70 and over. No, I have got the wrong district, I
mean Mr. Goodridge's district. In Aquaforte,
there are four persons. In Bay Bulls 46, in Bear
Cove one, Big Pond two, Biscay Bay five, Brigus
South one, Calvert five, Cape Broyle 15, Cape
Pine 27, Cape Race one, Cappahayden none,
Collier's Cove six, Stanleys Point three, Drook
824 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Point one, Ferryland l6, Goulds 14, Island Cove
one, Kingman's Cove 13, La Manche one, Long
Beach one, Mobile nine, Northside two, Portugal
Cove nine, River Head four, St. Michaels four,
St. Shotts five, etc. That's the old district of
Ferryland-St. Mary's as it was in the last general
election. That is the way they take it in the census.
The census district is the same as the House of
Assembly district. In those groups where the
average house occupied by these people of 70 and
over if they died, would these properties run, or
would many of them run, up to $2,000 or over?
Mr. Smallwood I think we may take it that both
Mr. Vardy and Mr. Goodridge are right, and all
of us with our knowledge of Newfoundland, I
think that in the average outport it is a rare home
that will be worth $2,000 at the death of the
pensioner.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, I feel I should clarify
that a little, and qualify my statement there to
some extent, in fairness to everyone. I did not say
that the average home in the outports would not
be worth more than $400.
Mr. Chairman No, I did not understand you to
say that. What I understood you to say was that a
house that might fetch $3,000 in St. John's would
be worth $3-400 in an outport.
Mr. Vardy To give the true position, it is exactly
this: I have never yet seen an application for old
age pension where they valued their property at
more than $2,000. Now the question arises of
course, and the question we should ask ourselves
in fairness to these people is this: Will the pension
authorities under a provincial government place
a different value on an applicant's property in the
outports or in St. John's from the value placed by
the applicant himself? You see we must look at
both sides of it. Here is the applicant. Here is the
authority. I have many times seen application
forms for various kinds of assistance questioned
on the grounds that the means test may be perhaps
coloured a little. An old age pensioner goes to a
clergyman and gets his form filled out and then
he goes to a J P and two or three others and gets
them to sign it, and someone has to pull a few
strings or do a little scratching down in the
department in the course of the next six months
to get his name on the list. Now I honestly feel
that while on a forced sale the average old age
pensioner in the outports would not value his
property at more than $500 to $1,500, at the same
time I fear that under any new set-up the amounts
are going to be increased, and the burden would
be perhaps increased to such a position that they
would have to move cautiously in accepting the
various applications, the means test would be
more severe. We must be fair to these people and
tell them the whole truth, and in doing that we
have to show both sides of the picture. The
average outport home, as we know the property
around them is worth such more than the amount
I have stated for the average person who would
be applying for an old age pension and submitting
to a means test. His property would not be worth
more than around $500 to $1,500. That is the real
true picture. Let's give the people the facts so that
they will understand it right. There's two sides to
it. The auditors may value that property at $2,000
or $2,500, and these people would be up against
a stone wall in getting the old age pensions. That
is the position.
Mr. Northcott Does Mr. Smallwood include in
the property, the land, the wharves, stages, outhouses, etc.?
Mr. Chairman No, a motor boat does not mean
real property. Real property includes things upon
land and things erected upon land, or that may be
attached to the farming part of it.
Mr. Northcott The majority of people applying
for an old age pension, especially the fishermen,
their property is well worth more than $2,000
including their nets, traps, boats, etc.
Mr. Chairman Nets, traps, boats, etc., would
not really come in under that.
Mr. Hickman Does the act say "property" or
"real property"?
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood is using the
term "real property". I think your point is well
taken because Mr. Smallwood has been using the
term "real property", and I find that the term
employed is "estate", in which event it would
mean whatever he was possessed of.
Mr. Bailey I have taken up this subject very
thoroughly in the rural parts of Nova Scotia, and
in the province of New Brunswick, and the
people tell me that the Crown — now I don't
know who the "Crown" is, I presume that is the
government, but whether it is the government of
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 825
the province, or whether it is the federal government of Canada, I don't know — has
a lien on all
old age pensioners' property. With regard to
property being valued at $2,000, a great bulk of
the property in my locality could not be replaced
at less than $5,000. Whatever value the government would put on it, I do not know.
Take this
lien. You have to remember we are in the
Dominion of Newfoundland, not the Dominion
of Canada. Take young boys, six or eight years
old; they start carrying rocks off the ground and
they work on the land right up to the time they
are young men. Sometimes they are on it 40 years
before the old man passes out; the property
belongs to them just as much as it does to their
father. When father married he took over virgin
territory; as the sons grew up they helped clear
the land, now my sons are on it. I know of some
people today who are getting old age pensions
and whose sons are absolutely helpless to assist
them. One is in hospital and there is no way for
that son to help his father out. I have here some
findings by legal authorities and in this weekly,
The Prairie Farmer, of 1 1/2 million readers, it
says that in every question asked those legal
authorities, the answer was, "No, you have no
right to make over your property on the grounds
that the government has a lien on your property."
Mr. Bailey The Prairie Farmer, a weekly published in Canada.
Mr. Chairman The opinion of that article is
simply the author's conception of what the law
is; from a lawyer's point of view there is no
authority for anything except a previously
decided case.
Mr. Bailey We are told we get increased
benefits; we cannot hope to get increased benefits
without increased responsibilities. One goes
hand in hand with the other. I for one would not
like us to go into confederation and for someone
to turn around and say to me afterwards, "You
did not explain this." I want the people to know.
All I know is the means test is there....
Mr. Smallwood They cannot take it if it is worth
$2,000. If the widow lives, she gets it. If the
widow dies, someone in the family or a stranger
who has contributed to the support of that person
gets it. But in any case, the state can only get back
what it gave where the estate is worth over $2,000
net. Then it can only get it back if no one has
helped out the old couple. About this lien. There
is just a little in what Mr. Bailey says. It's the first
time Mr. Bailey and I partially agreed in public
since the Convention began. Here is the answer.
"No province requires an applicant [for old age
pensions] to turn over his property to the provincial government either before or
after granting a
pension. After a pension is granted a provincial
pensions authority may, if authorised by provincial legislation, encumber any real
property
owned by the pensioner." That means if a
province has its own provincial law requiring its
pension authority to encumber any real property
of the old age pensioner, then that authority can
do so. There may be provinces where there is
such a provincial law, that is their business. If we
became a province, and if the legislature passed
a law giving authority to the pensions authority
to encumber and take a lien, then it can do so, but
there has to be a Newfoundland law to authorise
them to do it.... There is no such Newfoundland
law now. We are not compelled to pass any such
law. If we have a legislature they will be our
elected representatives. I doubt very much if an
elected House of Assembly in Newfoundland
would pass a law to give power to the old age
pension authority to encumber the property....
Mr. Chairman Your point is, the lien to which
Captain Bailey refers arises under legislation
passed by the provincial government, which
makes it a purely statutory lien?
Mr. Hickman Mr. Smallwood's explanation
may point out that the government cannot take
the lien. Mr. Bailey is correct, for the simple
reason, as I understand the act, you cannot transfer the property while or after you
are receiving
the pension, can you?
Mr. Hickman Read section 3, page 6 of the
Pensions Act.... He cannot transfer his property,
therefore he must retain it in his own name. The
government authority has the first lien. In effect
they take back what they gave him. Going on
further, you said anybody, whether related or not,
who supported the old age pensioner would then
be entitled to receive the property.
Mr. Hickman You will find that anybody who
has contributed to the support of the pensioner by
826 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
a payment of money or otherwise, must have
done so for a period. I think, of three years during
which the pension was paid and that contribution
must have been a reasonable one within his income.... I do not think you went far
enough in
explaining it.
Mr. Smallwood Page 9 of the regulations, section 20.... Suppose I am 64 1/2 years old. I know
at the age of 70 I am going to get the old age
pension of $30 per month; I have my wife too. I
am allowed $240 a year private income. I know
that they may come and assess my house as being
worth $10 a month or $120 a year. Then I would
be allowed to earn only $120 a year. So I transfer
my house over to my son within five years. or say
four years and nine months before I am 70, so that
when I apply for the old age pension at 70 I have
no income; I do not own the house. To prevent
that from happening, if it is worth $500 or more,
the government can say — you transferred your
house within the last five years. Was that done
for the purpose of qualifying for the pension, so
that you could meet the means test? In that case
they can remedy it. Remember always the old age
pension is only for those who need it. They have
a scheme coming up in the next two or three years
for universal old age pensions for everyone alive
in Canada at the age of 65. That is a horse of a
different colour.... That is a contributory scheme.
Mr. Hickman You interrupted me to give an
answer on the three years' support. You went off
on something else. Now that you have got on it,
it means that if the old age pensioner wishes to
apply for and obtain a pension at the age of 70,
he then has to make over his property to his
children before he is 65 and has to go on for six
years before he receives a pension, with no
property in his own name. He would have to
make over his property six years before he became pensionable, otherwise he cannot
make a
transfer under that section of the act?
Mr. Bailey Mr. Smallwood spoke about the different provinces. I do not know how many of
them have the same act; I have seen nothing to
the contrary in the greater bulk of them. I imagine, if we went into confederation
with
Canada, our laws governing this province have
to be along the same lines of the other nine
provinces. Pressure would be brought to bear on
us if we are getting increased benefits. I cannot
see how Mr. Smallwood can justify it — if
anyone comes into this House they will have to
fall in line with the general charters of the provinces. This is the sore spot in
this. Mr. Hickman has
put his finger on it. No odds how much we care
for our sons and want to help them, I do not think
we want to transfer our property until we have
finished with it. There are cases where people
who transferred their property over, even to their
own sons, have had a pretty tough time afterwards. The whole thing does not look good
to me.
I do not know which way to take it. We have
worked hard and done the best we can, and if the
country gives us a pension, it should be given
with no strings to it....
Mr. Smallwood It is entirely wrong to assume
as Mr. Bailey has done that the laws the Province
of Newfoundland may pass are the laws other
provinces pass. The laws the provinces pass will
depend on the kind of legislature and House of
Assembly each has. In British Columbia there is
a coalition, a House of Assembly made up of
Liberals and Tories; there is the Alberta government made up of the Social Credit
party; in
Saskatchewan they have a CCF legislature;
Manitoba has a Liberal legislature; Ontario is
Conservative or Tory; the Province of Quebec is
nationalistic — Union Nationale; Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick have
Liberal legislatures. The kind of laws that the
legislature for each province will pass, and the
kind of laws the Newfoundland House of Assembly will pass, will depend on the kind
of
government it has.... Let any other province have
any other law it likes, that has nothing to do with
us. We make our own laws. Take for instance
education, you have not the same laws in all the
provinces. Education is an entirely provincial
matter; so it is in a hundred other things. Where
the province rules it rules. They are not told how
to rule by anyone else.
Mr. Bailey I am not interested in the kinds of
government in Canada; my point is, whoever is
in the government in this country will have to find
the money to run it. Those nine provinces have
had nearly 100 years of confederation and they
ought to know something about it. We are coming into a field we have not been in before.
We
have to follow some precedent. Whether we are
Conservatives or Union Nationale, we have to
find the money to do this. I have no doubt that in
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 827
the Province of Manitoba the legislature is not
enamoured with the idea of taking the property
from the son, but circumstances force them to do
it. That is what you have to keep in mind. If it is
going to be done, how is it going to be done?....
The only precedent we have to follow is the
precedent of the nine provinces.
Mr. Butt Mr. Bailey's point is that no matter
what form of government there is in the nine
provinces, you must find the money for whatever
services you have, and I agree with him. What I
would like to know is this, if not
after but
before
a debate on those acts and regulations, would it
be not possible to have copies for members so that
I, at least, could follow the debate intelligently?
Mr. Chairman The position is that all the documents on the application of the member for Grand
Falls have been requested and we are expecting
they will be forthcoming shortly. The request was
made more than a week ago. We must assume
they will be forthcoming before the debate is
terminated. I can have another check made to find
out if we can get any definite idea when the
documents will be made available.
Mr. Butt You will appreciate the difficulty of
trying to follow a debate on acts and regulations
— it is rather unfair. You cannot take an intelligent part in the debate, unless you
have read
them....
Mr. Jackman I wonder if it would be possible
to find out the number of homes in the Province
of Nova Scotia in the past five years on which the
government has this lien?
Mr. Hillier Until we receive the necessary
literature to enable us to more intelligently follow
the debate on this section, would it not be better
to defer this part of the debate?
Mr. Chairman We are in a tentative stage at the
moment, much like the second reading of a bill.
I know that members are at a disadvantage when
references are made to acts and regulations, by
not having copies before them; but since a request
for this information has been forwarded it may
be just as well to go along as best we can. Every
member has the right to revert back to any clause
which has been dealt with.... If you were going to
be deprived of the opportunity of studying these
acts before we terminated, I would consider your
point well taken. In view of the fact that the
information will be forthcoming, if it meets with
your approval, we could go along....
Mr. Crosbie We should have copies before or
at the time Mr. Smallwood reads them.
Mr. Smallwood Speaking from memory, I do
not know that I have any or many further documents that are not already in the Black
Books. I
doubt if I have.
Mr. Crosbie If they are in the Black Books, why
not read from the Black Books?
Mr. Smallwood I am not allowed to, except
under certain conditions.
Mr. Chairman In conformity with the rules of
procedure, I had to rule that Mr. Smallwood was
not to revert to the Black Books unless his interpretation of any question was challenged,
and it
became necessary for him to revert to the Black
Books in order to get independent corroboration
of the statement.
Mr. Crosbie What is the difference in reading a
memorandum that he took out of the Black
Books, and reading from the Black Books?
Mr. Smallwood It appears I am the only member of the National Convention who is not permitted to
read the Black Books aloud, except
upon conditions laid down; any other member
may read it aloud except the one piloting the
report through and he can do it only if somebody
questions him.
Mr. Smallwood I have never been lacking in
ingenuity. I can always find a way to read what
is in the Black Books if there is any point in it.
Mr. Miller Was not that procedure suggested by
Mr. Smallwood himself?
Mr. Chairman That was my understanding....
Before we went into committee of the whole the
point was raised by Mr. Higgins as to what mode
of procedure was going to be employed. To
reduce the matter to the simplest framework, it
was ultimately agreed that Mr. Smallwood would
read the section, and give the interpretation of the
section, but that he was not to revert to the Black
Books unless any statement that he made was
questioned or challenged and the answer was to
be found in the Black Books. That may be unfair
to Mr. Smallwood; it may be cramping his style;
it may be coming between him and the people
outside, but I am like Pontius Pilate, I say the
responsibility is the Convention's and not
mine.... Mr. Smallwood now finds himself in the
comparatively unfair position where he cannot,
unlike all the rest of the members, revert to the
828 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
Black Books unless his interpretation is questioned. On the next point, I feel that
the question
raised by Mr. Crosbie is tenable and proper.
Insofar as the legislation of the Canadian government or governments is to be referred
to by you,
Mr. Smallwood, I think some endeavour, some
agreement ought to be arrived at between Captain
Warren and yourself so that we can list them and
know whether the requests for these documents
have all gone out, making sure that members will
have access to any legislation to which you have
already referred or to which in the course of
debate you may refer. In that way all concerned
are treated alike. Insofar as it is your future intention to refer to any memoranda
or any memoranda you have already referred to, then I think and
I make the direction now, the memoranda should
be mimeographed and copies placed in members'
hands.
Mr. Smallwood The decision that I should not
read from the Black Books unless my statement
on the clause has been challenged, is not my
agreement. I remember vividly what I said and I
have had the subsequent advantage of listening
to the recording and heard it. I said I would read
the clause, make a brief explanation and consult
the Black Books by way of explanation. When
we went into committee of the whole, it was on
Mr. Higgins' memory of what I said that you
made your ruling....
Mr. Chairman If I unfairly left you with any
misapprehensions, I will have the transcript
prepared and will go over it.... We went into
committee of the whole, and unless I am doing
Mr. Higgins some injury, I understood him to say,
and I understood members to concur with his
suggestion that we were not, in his words, "to
wade through these Black Books". There was a
compromise position reached between Mr.
Smallwood on the one hand and the views of
some other members on the other hand, whereby
it was agreed that the section should be read, Mr.
Smallwood's interpretation would be given, and
in conformity with the suggestion made by Mr.
Higgins that we should not wade through the
Black Books, that Mr. Smallwood would only
refer to the Black Books if and when he were
required, perhaps under challenge, to supply independent corroboration of what he
had stated....
However fair or unfair it may be to Mr.
Smallwood or to anyone else, that is the mode of
procedure that the Convention decided to adopt.
[After some further debate, the Chairman agreed
that Mr. Smallwood could after all refer to the
Black Books, but asked him to be as brief as
possible. The committee then recessed until 8
pm]
Mr. Hickman Referring to this afternoon's discussion in connection with the property of pensioners
after they die. I am not quite satisfied on
that $2,000 value of the estate of the deceased
pensioner. I cannot find anything here in the act
about it....
Mr. Smallwood ....The position is this: ....these
provincial old age pensions authorities meet once
or twice a year, and at this interprovincial conference they make regulations insofar
as they are
allowed to under the act itself. They have to be
guided by the act. Within the power conferred
upon them they make these regulations in such
matters of practice as this point — does the
government step in and recover the old age pension that was paid to the pensioner
after the
pensioner dies? Yes and no. That is what they
have to decide. Will we get it back no matter what
estate is left by the pensioner who dies, or will we
fix an amount? ....So they set the amount at
$2,000. When the pensioner dies, if his estate is
worth less than $2,000 then the government does
not bother. If he has an estate valued over $2,000,
then under certain conditions the government
will get back the pension that it had paid.
Mr. Chairman Do you know whether or not the
$2,000 figure is universally accepted by the nine
provinces?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, that is a ruling made by
the provinces themselves in this interprovincial
conference.... I do not know if that is the answer
to Mr. Hickman's question.
Mr. Hickman I forget the wording but that is a
different interpretation than I saw in it this afternoon. I was under the impression
that it was only
in cases where the estate or property was over
$2,000 that they could take action. Why I ask is,
it says here, "the pension authorities would be
required to make a claim against an estate where
the net value was in excess of $2,000". They
would not have any choice. It does not say they
cannot make one under $2,000. There is nothing
here to say they would not. If it is over $2,000 it
is not the choice of the pension authorities, they
would be compelled to do it. They have no alter
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 829
native.
Mr. Chairman Your point is where it is over
$2,000, then they have no discretion in the matter
at all. Where it is under $2,000, if we had a
provincial legislature, it would depend upon what
comparable legislation had been in the past?
Mr. Hickman I understood the pension authorities had the choice. From reading this, I would
say they would be compelled to make a claim
against the estate where the estate is in excess of
$2,000 and also in the case of less than $2,000
they could make a claim to recover the pension if
they so desired. Their optional right is there.
Mr. Chairman I do not want to get into the
intricacies of constitutional law, but I want to
express a legal opinion. In my judgement the
position taken by Mr. Hickman is perfectly justified.... Theoretically it is within
the competence
of the provincial legislature to deal with estates
under $2,000, should that legislature be so
minded. Over $2,000 it has no discretion at all.
Mr. Smallwood I was not questioning that....
However, we can easily clean up the matter in this
way. I will give notice before the sitting ends of
a question to ask the Government of Canada to
give us a memorandum showing clearly what the
practice is in connection with old age pensions,
and it will be beyond all doubt. I can assure you
now, pending the receipt of an official reply, that
where the value of an estate left by an old age
pensioner is under $2,000 nothing is taken out;
over $2,000 something is taken out only after the
widow who is herself a pensioner has died and
only if none of his children or anyone else has
contributed regularly to the support of the pensioner....
There is just one point I want to make before
I pass on to unemployment insurance.... A man
or woman, whose father or mother being 70 years
of age, gets the old age pension, who wishes to
fall in for his father's or his mother's property,
has only one thing to do, that is to help to support
the old people and ... contribute regularly for
three years. If no person does it and the government has to do it, then the government
can get the
money back out of the pensioner's estate when
he or she dies, if the estate is worth more than
$2,000 net.
Mr. Miller Before we move on, when we were
dealing with family allowances, we had a known
number, 117,000 children in the country, we also
had a known amount; when we move into the old
age pensions, we move into a field of conjecture.
Some suggested we have 12,000 people in Newfoundland over the age of 70; they assume
10,000
of that 12,000 would apply for and receive the old
age pension. If that 10,000 did receive it we know
it is a known figure; we would have to contribute
$7.50 a month for each person and the grand total
is given as $750,000. Now that is not even correct; it should be $900,000. That is
a matter of
only $150,000. I would refer you to Black Book
Vol. 2, page 60 — there is an amount there of
$510,000— that is what the province would have
to pay. That is why the $7.50 is given. There is a
difference of $400,000 from our method of calculation....
Mr. Smallwood Bearing on that, Mr. Miller is
pointing out that the $510,000 shown is incorrect,
and the amount will be corrected when we get
around to it further on in the debate.
Mr. Miller It will have the effect of driving up
the expenditures, and driving up the amount we
will have to collect by $400,000.
Mr. Smallwood That is so. I give notice that I
will on tomorrow ask His Excellency the Governor in Commission to lay on the table
a statement
showing clearly what the practice is in connection with old age pensions in the recovery
of the
pension paid to a pensioner leaving an estate at
death.
Mr. Smallwood Clause 4, subsection 3: "Unemployment insurance, as provided by the Unemployment
Insurance Act, l940 and
amendments".... I may say that the committee of
the Ottawa delegation that had to deal with
unemployment insurance conferred for some
long time with the members of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I think the members
of that committee were Mr. Crummey, Mr.
Burry and myself....
Mr. Hollett Could Mr. Smallwood please
describe what he means by a "worker" under this
plan?
Mr. Smallwood I have read out the classes not
insured under this act. The others are workers
under this act. Page 99, "Cost of administration
830 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
of unemployment insurance is paid by the
government. The amount of the Unemployment
Insurance fund as of July 31, 1947 was
$390,014,908.92...." Turn over the page, and I
would direct your attention to July. In that month
the fund received from the employer and
employee, the whole lot together, $6.5 million,
the government itself paid into the fund $1.25
million, making a grand total for that month
received into unemployment insurance fund of
$8.5 million. They have now approximately $400
million accumulated in the fund, if ever they have
any large or small scale unemployment in
Canada.
Mr. Hollett I am still a little bit worried. What I
want to find out is if a fisherman would be a
"worker" under the act?
Mr. Chairman ....Fishermen are not presently
eligible for unemployment insurance. They are
not "workers" for the purposes of that act...
Mr. Bailey What about mariners' rights? Is
there any marine insurance?
Mr. Smallwood I do not think seamen are included as yet, but men working on fish plants will
of course get unemployment insurance if they are
insured.
Mr. Butt Was this section produced for you by
the Government of Canada?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, this is official from the
Government of Canada, furthermore, it was
prepared by the Unemployment Insurance
Commission's Chief Commissioner — they
produced it at our request.
Mr. Miller That table ends at $30 per week. I
was surprised to note that it started at $7 per
week, and to note that people in Canada work for
as low as $5.40 a week. Does it go beyond $30 a
week? Does it take in incomes higher than that?
Mr. Smallwood I think it reads as follows: "In
addition persons earning more than $2,400 on a
monthly basis, or $3,120 or more on a weekly
basis are not insured, but workers paid by the
hour or day, at piece rates or mileage rates are
covered regardless of the amount of their annual
earnings."
Mr. Harrington One question only I would like
to ask Mr. Smallwood in connection with unemployment insurance. He referred to a figure
of
$400 million. Has he any figures to show whether
at the present time there are any large amounts
being paid out of that in any part of Canada?
Mr. Smallwood The payments out are utterly
insignificant. I do not know if I have the table or
not — the benefit payments in July were $2
million. The total amount paid out 1942-47 inclusive to the end of July was $43 million
out of
a total received in of $400 million....
Mr. Bailey It seems obvious that there were a
lot of people in the Maritimes not in on that
insurance scheme according to the amount of
unemployment insurance paid out.
Mr. Harrington These payments were made
during war years, when there was very little
unemployment either here or abroad.
Mr. Chairman As a matter of fact if you can
look at the schedule, there were payments out
consistently from 1942-47 both inclusive, during
the war years, as you say.
Mr. Smallwood The explanation is this: Canada is a country of 12.5 million people; there are
vast numbers of industries; a certain amount of
ups and downs, comings and goings, men getting
work and men losing work; you would naturally
expect a tremendous shift of population in 12.5
million people. At the present time, the latest
figures I read in the
Financial Post gave the
figure of unemployed in Canada as 80,000 and
the Unemployment Insurance Service are seeking 85,000 workers. There are 5,000 jobs
more
than workers to fill them, although there were
80,000 unemployed...
Mr. Hollett I wonder if Mr. Smallwood could
tell me exactly why fishermen are not included
in this unemployment scheme?
Mr. Smallwood I cannot tell you exactly why
they are not included in that unemployment
scheme, in general I would say it is due to the
nature of their employment. Many fishermen, not
all, are not working for wages and so far they
have not been included. They tell us it is their
intention to have all workers insured under the
act. While we were in Ottawa they were busy
getting plans ready to bring in all loggers and
longshoremen under the act. The next step will
be to bring all workers under the act and have
them insured.
Mr. Smallwood The Chief Commissioner of the
Unemployment Insurance Commission.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 831
Mr. Chairman It is their intention to bring in all
workers, including stevedores and loggers within
the next few months, they say. Beyond that there
is nothing official.
Mr. Chairman The Black Book is official from
the Government of Canada.
Mr. Hollett The Black Book is not from the
Government of Canada. A lot of it is from Mr.
J.R. Smallwood, one of the members of the National Convention. I believe there are
some statements made by that delegation who went to
Canada, relative to the public buildings in this
country. I believe they made an estimate or value
of public buildings in this country. I just happened to run down through the list.
I know there
is a public building in Springdale, which cost this
country $16,000, not listed there; a public building in Grand Falls not listed, a
public building in
Burin not listed there. So if the Black Book is
official, then I want to know who is responsible
for making these errors. In my opinion this is not
more official than Joseph R. Smallwood. If I can
point out just briefly errors in that Black Book,
am I going to ask the people of this country to
accept that as official? I put that before you, sir,
and I say these Black Books are not official and
I shall not regard them as official. I shall regard
this Grey Book as official from the Government
of Canada, nothing else.
Mr. Chairman My position is, these Black
Books are to be employed by members, that was
settled once and for all this afternoon. It appears,
Mr. Hollett, the opinion I had taken on the matter
was not universally shared, and it was decided by
this House that these Black Books are to be
referred to, and whether they are quasi-official or
otherwise, it is a matter of indifference to me. If
there are misstatements, it will be the right of
members to draw the attention of the Chairman
to them, and if you do not mind, Mr. Hollett, take
your seat, please!.... My ruling is that these Black
Books may be referred to. If there is anything in
the Black Books that is incorrect for any reason,
it is perfectly within the competence of any member to say it is, and to express his
reasons.
Mr. Hollett I am sorry, I was not here this afternoon when you made that ruling.
Mr. Hollett Is it the decision of the Chair that
these Black Books are to be regarded as official?
Mr. Chairman I do not know that you want to
use that term. It was decided by the Convention
that they should be reverted to freely by members, including Mr. Smallwood...
Mr. Chairman Unanimous wish, if I may.... I
have concluded and I think quite correctly, that
members have tacitly if not expressly consented
to the free use of these books. Therefore I am not
called upon to rule whether they are official or
not...
Mr. Hollett You have not given any decision as
to whether or not these books are to be regarded
as official?
Mr. Hollett Thank you. In this connection I
would say there are glaring instances of falsifying...
Mr. Hollett Inaccuracies. Look at these books
with a certain amount of care. Mr. Smallwood
will get up now and say they are official. I tell
you if they are official then they lie. Therefore I
am asking you to make no decision whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman I am relieved of the responsibility of making the decision. The House has
taken the matter out of my hands, therefore I am
not compelled to make a pronouncement....
[Short recess]
Mr. Job I was going to ask Mr. Smallwood if he
would make it perfectly clear as to whether there
is any prospect of including fishermen under the
unemployment insurance scheme. It would seem
our fishermen are practically all employers themselves, they are not employees. I
can see it would
be difficult to include fishermen working for
themselves, and I can understand that men in a
boat under wages could be included, but it would
not apply even to sharemen, who we are mainly
interested in here.
Mr. Smallwood I feel like Mr. Job. Fishermen,
like farmers, will probably be the last, if ever, to
be brought under the scheme. They are not working for annual wages, fixed amounts
of pay. They
are working as small businessmen on their own,
and it would be extremely difficult to bring them
in, except fishermen definitely working for
wages at any time.... Frankly I think it would be
many a day yet, if ever, when the average fisher
832 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947man in Newfoundland or in Canada will be
brought under the unemployment insurance
scheme.
Mr. Fogwill I understand this Unemployment
Act is compulsory for all those eligible and the
maximum benefit is limited to one year, no matter how long they pay into the fund?
Mr. Smallwood It is compulsory, on the first
point, for those classes of workers designated by
the Unemployment Insurance Commission who,
incidentally, have the power to recommend it to
cabinet, who in turn have the power to include
any new class of workers without amending the
act. As to the maximum period during which
employees may receive benefits, frankly, I do not
know. I do not know if it is limited to a year or if
it is not. I will undertake to find it out.
Mr. Fogwill I think it is in one of the books, but
I cannot find it at the moment. From the paragraph here, he is allowed one-fifth of
his total
payment — if he paid in five years he would be
allowed benefits for one year, but if a person paid
in for 20 years, his maximum benefits would still
be confined to one year. If he was out of employment for two years, he would have
to start all over
again.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Fogwill may be right or he
may be wrong. I will certainly check on it and
bring in the authority for the statement.
Mr. Hickman I was wondering if Mr. Smallwood had any figures or estimates of what Newfoundlanders
would benefit under this scheme?
If it excludes "agriculture and horticulture, fishing, hunting, and trapping, lumbering
and logging, stevedoring, private domestic service,
employment in hospitals and charitable institutions not carried on for gain, teachers,
members
of the police forces and permanent federal,
provincial and municipal employees," etc. etc.,
how many would be left in the country who
would be able to come in under this scheme?
Mr. Smallwood To begin with, loggers and
longshoremen before this year is over will be
under this scheme. If you take in Newfoundland
all the loggers, longshoremen, mill workers, all
factory workers in and out of St. John's, all
miners and railroaders, office workers, labourers
— you would have possibly 50,000 men brought
under unemployment insurance, more brought in
than left out. You would have teachers, domestic
servants, civil servants, whether provincial or
federal. Still you have fishermen left out, and that
would account for 25,000 or 30,000 right off.
Possibly it would be half and half; we are only
guessing, I have not got the figures.
Mr. Fogwill Page 89, Book 1
[1] reads, "The
amount of benefits which may be paid to an
unemployed person depends upon the number of
contributions which he has made to the fund, but
under no circumstances can an unbroken period
of benefit exceed one year."
Mr. Fogwill The point I want to make clear is,
"One of the conditions of unemployment daily
contributions for two years prior to his claim." In
the case of a person who is paying into this
unemployment fund for 20 years and then becomes unemployed, he would get one year's
benefit. If unemployed for another year, he would
have to start all over again after paying in for 20
years.
Mr. Smallwood It is a great pity that when the
war broke out in Newfoundland they did not
introduce unemployment insurance; they could
have $5-8 million in Newfoundland today.
Mr. Hollett I would like to have the point raised
by Mr. Fogwill clarified properly.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood accepts, I think,
Mr. Fogwill's interpretation....
Mr. Fogwill You would not have to work for
two years, you would have to work for a short
period. Assuming a man uses up his year's unemployment benefits after that period,
he must be
employed for a further period; then he would
have to start as a new member into the fund.
Mr. Smallwood I do not know whether Mr.
Fogwill's interpretation is correct. I will look into
the matter and get some confirmation of it.
Mr. Hollett It is not a question of Mr. Smallwood looking into the matter. We want an official
statement about that. I would like to raise that
issue through you as Chairman of the Convention.
Mr. Chairman I cannot do anything about it
unless requested from a member of the Convention; I can then forward the request to
a department of government....
Mr. Jackman I would like to ask Mr. Smallwood, is that really correct, sir, is the weekly
wage in Canada $5.40 or $7.50 a week?
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 833
Mr. Smallwood I think not. That is not supposed scales of pay which are in fact paid. That
is a list; if anyone gets such and such a scale, he
pays such and such an amount — nowhere does
it say these are rates payable in Canada. I am sure
Mr. Jackman does not think those are the rates
being paid.
Mr. Jackman It is quite possible that the
Canadian government would not allow workers
to be paid $5.40 a week; but it must be possible,
or it would not be here. Would you say there is a
possibility employers pay $5.40 a week?
Mr. Smallwood If on the dial of a new motor car
— the speed limit is 90 miles — it does not say
it goes to 120 because that is on the dial. And for
the same reason they must be paid $5.40 because
it is in the books. Could we go on?
Mr. Hollett I do not think Mr. Smallwood is
going on until we get this properly clarified. Mr.
Jackman, being a labour man, has raised this
point and Mr. Smallwood wants to evade the
whole issue. If somebody is earning such and
such he will be taxed this or this. Where did Mr.
Smallwood get these figures from? Are they
figures for Canada?....
Mr. Chairman He has promised that the information will be sought from official quarters.
Mr. Jackman Mr. Smallwood has no comment
to make — apparently he is not quite sure if they
will get this amount.
Mr. Jackman I say it. If the Canadian government is satisfied to allow an employer to pay out
$5.40 to a human being, I would not consider that
under the heading of "wages". I would consider
it under the heading of "slaves". That is the slave
wages that I object to.
Mr. Hollett I would like to draw your attention
to the fact that these books are brought to us, and
we are supposed to base our opinion as to whether
or not we should like confederation on these
books....
Mr. Smallwood Sub-clause (4), "Sick mariners' benefits for merchant seamen and fishermen,
as provided under the Canada Shipping Act,
1934, and amendments".... If the members will
turn to Volume 2, page 28,
[1] they will find further
information about the sick mariners' scheme.
Mr. Hollett May I ask who are the officials
concerned in this particular division?
Mr. Smallwood They would be the officials in
the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Mr. Hollett Are the conclusions of these officials to be accepted by this assembly?....
Mr. Job May I ask whether these levies apply to
every ship that enters, whether foreign or otherwise?
Mr. Job Are you quite sure of that?
Mr. Smallwood Quite sure. It would apply to
our ships and boats only if we were a province.
The scheme very briefly is the skipper of any
fishing boat or schooner, by paying at least $2 a
year or 6 cents a ton of his registered tonnage,
brings himself and his whole crew for a whole
year under the scheme. He and his crew are
entitled to free hospitalisation and treatment. I am
sorry Mr. Higgins is not here at the moment. He
was present when we were informed in Ottawa
by the Department of Health.... They told us, in
connection with fishermen's hospitalisation
scheme, that they planned to erect in Newfoundland two or three small TB sanatoria
along
the coast, because quite a proportion of the sickness that would occur under the scheme
would be
TB, and treatment would require not an ordinary
hospital but rather a sanatorium...
Mr. Smallwood That is for any person coming
under this scheme, free hospitalisation, or an
almost free scheme for mariners and fishermen.
Mr. Bailey This last section seems to be all up
in the air. "The ship to which he belongs." It is
customary all my lifetime, if you get a sick man
on the Banks, you send the man in, in another
vessel. Apparently in this case you would have to
come to land yourself to get him hospitalised.
Mr. Smallwood In the case of a fishing vessel it
has not left the country at all. She is in coastal
waters.
Mr. Hollett I would like to draw to your attention the fact we in this country have a scheme
whereby people who contact TB are properly
taken care of. It not only applies to fishermen, it
applies to the country as a whole. I wonder would
Mr. Smallwood tell us about that. Do not tell us
834 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1947
what they have — tell us about our fund costing
$7 million. I would like Mr. Smallwood to tell the
country about that.
Mr. Chairman No. If you want to address yourself on the comparable benefits, that is your right.
The point is, Mr. Smallwood is endeavouring to
explain those terms. Obviously he is explaining
how the standpoint would be as it would apply to
Newfoundland were it to come into effect. If any
member cares to draw comparisons, that is his
right.
Mr. Hollett May I ask Mr. Smallwood what
happens to a sick mariner who comes into any
port, be he a Newfoundlander, in Newfoundland?
If he has broken his arm or done anything else,
would Mr. Smallwood explain what happens to
that man?
Mr. Chairman Can you tell us what the position
is, Mr. Smallwood?
Mr. Smallwood If the skipper of the boat has
paid $2, that covers the crew.
Mr. Hollett That is in Canada. I am talking
about Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman I must uphold him. We are not
engaged in the interpretation of the situation
covering Newfoundland mariners. We are at the
moment engaged in the study of this Grey
Book.... We are not considering the actual position of Newfoundland....
Mr. Hollett Am I not right in asking Mr.
Smallwood to explain the situation as it exists in
the country today?
Mr. Jackman Mr. Smallwood spoke of the
Canadians erecting sanatoria along the coast. I
wonder, do they know the condition of personnel
in the sanatoria, do they know the shortage of
nurses in this country? I happen to know something about it, I am connected with the
TB Association. We do not want to put things over the
air and paint a rosy picture to persuade people. If
they are going to erect sanatoria, they will also
have to be responsible for the personnel because
there is not sufficient personnel in Newfoundland
to look after the sanatoria. That is the reason why
so many people suffering from TB cannot be
hospitalised. If the Canadians are going to erect
sanatoria, you will have to tell them to bring their
personnel with them.
[Short recess]
Mr. Chairman When recess was taken, Mr.
Jackman had addressed a question to you, Mr.
Smallwood, asking how it is proposed to overcome the difficulty of staffing the sanatoria...
Mr. Smallwood It is not my responsibility, as
Mr. Jackman will appreciate. It will be the problem of the Canadian government, if
they erect
sanatoria in Newfoundland for sick mariners, to
find the help and to maintain them. I would
remind Mr. Jackman we will not be a province of
Canada for a year yet; and it will be a year or two
after that before the sanatoria are erected.
Mr. Hollett Point of order. Are we going to be
a province of Canada a year hence?
Mr. Chairman I must sustain you on that point.
The question as to whether or not we are at any
time to be a province of Canada is one for the
sovereign people of this country to determine. I
do not think any predictions or prophecies are in
order at this time.
Mr. Smallwood I would not dare prophesy. I
think it is a fairly safe statement to make that if
we become a province, we could not be a
province for about a year and it will take a year
or two after that to build the sanatoria.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. He just said
"if we become a province it will not be for a year
at least". I want him to withdraw that in relationship to a statement he made on his
return trip.
Mr. Chairman I am not interested in what Mr.
Smallwood said on his return trip. Kindly take
your seat. Mr. Smallwood, you are not entitled to
make prognostications as to what our political
institutions are to be.
Mr. Miller No mention of sanatoria in the Grey
Book, so we might pass on.
Mr. Harrington One point I would like to get
cleared up — this sick mariners' benefit comes
under public services provided by Canada.
Volume 2, page 30-32.
[1] The following table
shows revenue and expenditure of sick mariners'
dues by province for fiscal year 1946-47. Then it
gives a table of revenue and expenditure and
amount. I cannot reconcile that table of provincial figures with this other public
service supposedly collected by the federal government.
November 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 835
Mr. Chairman He wants to know what is the
exact relation of the figures set forth on page 30
under the caption or heading "Sick Mariners'
Dues by Province" and giving a list of provinces.
This is supposed to be a public service provided
by Canada. Mr. Harrington directs our attention
to the fact that on page 30, immediately opposite
the various provinces listed, there are various
figures; he wants to know in what way these
figures relate to or are tied up with the providing
of public services by the Government of Canada.
Mr. Smallwood That is easily explained.... That
is revenue received by the federal government in
these provinces by that scheme; and expenditure
made by the federal government in those provinces.
Mr. Jackman Just before recess I put a question
to Mr. Smallwood regarding the personnel of
sanatoria. I did that for a certain reason. I do not
want Mr. Smallwood to put false hopes in the
hearts of those suffering from TB, because there
is a real problem we are up against regarding
personnel.
Mr. Chairman To which he has already replied.
He does realise it, but that will be a matter for the
Canadian government to worry about.
Mr. Vardy I think Mr. Smallwood will confirm
that that statement was nothing more than conjecture on his part. There may or may
not be
sanatoria erected. I think we must stick to this
document as nearly as possible — to the written
word we have before us.
Mr. Chairman I quite agree. If we concern ourselves with the contents of this document instead
of wandering, it would be better.
Mr. Butt This is not my previous conception of
what the sick mariners' service was intended to
be. I thought the service was intended to take care
of people who should become sick while, say, out
on the Banks ... but not to take care of long-term
illnesses such as TB. That would be open to
tremendous abuse. Suppose I was unfortunate
enough to believe I had some serious illness
while at home. There is no earthly reason, if I
could stand on my feet, why I could not get
myself signed on as a cookee, and in that way get
myself into a hospital free, although I could jolly
well afford to pay for hospitalisation. I would like
to think about this and get something more
precise on the matter.
Mr. Butt I think it is rather late in the evening
to start a new section like assistance in housing.
I therefore move that the committee rise, report
progress and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.
[The committee rose and reported progress.
Various items on the order paper were deferred,
and the Convention adjourned.]
