Mr. Cashin I give notice that I will on tomorrow
ask His Excellency the Governor to obtain from
the Canadian government the following information:
(1) The annual revenues and expenditures of
the Dominion of Canada each year from the
year 1931-32 to the year 1946-47, both years
inclusive.
(2) The total amount of loans raised each
year from 1931-32 to 1946-47, showing
where such loans were raised and what interest is being paid.
(3) The annual revenues and expenditures of
the Canadian National Railways and its subsidiaries from 193l-32 to 1946-47.
(4) The total advances made each year from
1931-32 to 1946-47 by the Canadian treasury
to the Canadian National Railways on account of deficits incurred, or in the way of
loans.
(5) The amounts of money paid by the
Canadian government for each of the railway
systems: the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk
Pacific, and the Canadian Northern, all three
of which are now included in the Canadian
National Railway System. What was the total
amount in dispute and defaulted on by the
Canadian government in respect of the Grand
Trunk bonds held by English financial institutions?
(6) Did the Canadian treasury guarantee any
loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway prior to
1940, and if so what was the amount?
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask the
916 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
Honourable the Commissioner for Justice,
whether, in the event of Newfoundland becoming
a Canadian province, it will void and annul section 45 of the Labrador Mining and
Exploration
Act of 1938, which states, "Except where it is
necessary for the Company to employ technical
experts, the Company shall at all times employ
Newfoundland workmen, provided same shall be
available"?
I also ask the Commissioner for Justice what
effect, if any, the entry of Newfoundland into
union with Canada will have upon article 11 of the
agreement made between Canada and Newfoundland on air transport dated 29 July 1946,
which article provides that wherever possible
priority shall be given to citizens of Newfoundland in the employment of labour at
the
airfield at Goose Bay.
Mr. Hollett I give notice that I will on tomorrow
ask His Excellency the Governor to seek
clarification from the Government of the United
Kingdom on the following point: under the
Leased Bases Agreement, 1941, it was stipulated
that upon the resumption by Newfoundland of the
constitutional status held prior to the 16 February
1934, the contracting parties would be the
Government of the USA and the Government of
Newfoundland. What would be the position
should Newfoundland enter into confederation
with Canada? Would the contracting parties
under said agreement be the Government of the
USA and the provincial government of Newfoundland, or otherwise? And if otherwise,
to
inform this Convention as to the real position
which will exist.
Mr. Smallwood In connection with one of the
questions of Major Cashin, when he asked how
much money was paid for the Grand Trunk Railway etc., that now make up the CNR — I
wonder
if he meant the purchase price? I think it would
make it clearer if he said that.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, while we are on this
point of questions, I think there are many questions which I put on the order paper
that the
delegation has answers to, and we have not got
them. They are not contained in the Grey Book
or Black Books, or any other book. I wonder if
we are just wasting time in asking them, or if we
are going to get copies of meetings, etc. that the
delegation had with the Canadian government
when they were in Ottawa. It would certainly
expedite the business if we had this information,
such as the information as to the per capita debt
of Canada, the national debt of Canada. I take it
that when they were discussing affairs with the
Canadian government they talked about what the
Canadian debt was, and what the provincial debt
was; I have asked questions on that and it does
not appear in the books, and I was wondering if
that information is not in the possession of the
delegates to Ottawa.
Mr. Cashin If that is so, why has it not been
tabled for the information of this Convention?
Mr. Chairman I quite agree, Mr. Cashin. I have
to sustain you on that point.
Mr. Cashin When we came back from England
the House went wild because we were told to
keep our records confidential, and we passed a
motion here asking the British government to
release them, and they did release them, and
every delegate here was given a copy of the three
meetings we had in London, a transcript of the
actual discussion, and we have not had anything
in that connection from the Ottawa delegation. I
hold that we are entitled to it, if there is any such
thing in existence. There is nothing secret, so far
as this Convention is concerned, regarding the
discussion in Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman With one possible qualification,
Mr. Cashin, I must sustain you on that point....
Unless and until I am shown some good and
sufficient reason as to how and why any information coming into the possession of
the Ottawa
delegation should be withheld from this Convention, then I am definitely going to
sustain Major
Cashin by holding that it is the property of the
Convention. That is all I can do about it. That is
what I propose to do.
Mr. Smallwood I just remarked to Major
Cashin that we have a memorandum on the public
debt of Canada.... We have that, and certainly
there is nothing secret about the public debt of
Canada, and there is no reason, now that we
remember that we have it, why it should not be
mimeographed for all members of the Convention, and in the meanwhile Major Cashin
or any
member could make use of it for all I can see.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in connection with
all these documents that might be in the possession of the delegation from Ottawa,
I hold that
any documents are the property of this Conven
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 917
tion, which sent them to Ottawa to do a certain
job, and any information they got up there, or any
talks they had with the Canadian government, or
representatives of the Canadian government, I
say that such records belong to this Convention,
and not to those who went to Ottawa, just the
same as the talks we had over in London were the
property of this Convention... and if there was
any secret stuff going on in Ottawa — I don't say
there was — then we should have it.
Mr. Chairman As I said before, unless I am
satisfied by clear and unmistakable evidence that
is the right of the Ottawa delegation to withhold
information from this Convention ... I hold that it
is the property of the Convention, and it should
not be withheld. If there are documents in the
possession of the members of the delegation
which reached them in a confidential capacity, on
the express condition that their contents should
not be disclosed, and they gave that undertaking,
I will have to go further into the question and find
out the circumstances.... I make a direction now
that all other documents and memoranda in the
possession of any such members should be
mimeographed immediately and distributed to
the Convention.
Mr. Job May I point out that in the case of the
English delegation the same question arose, and
it was withheld for some little time, but was
finally released by the British government and
delivered to each member on condition that it did
not go any further. Now surely the same procedure can be followed here. It does not
seem to be
reasonable. I find it very difficult to understand.
Mr. Chairman ....I will have to be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt that any information in
the possession of the Ottawa delegation is not the
property of this Convention before I am prepared
to hold that that is so.
Mr. Higgins I state again, as far as my position
is concerned in the matter, everything was to be
regarded as secret until our report to the Convention, and then everything was to
be released by
the delegation. Now apparently some members
of the delegation hold a contrary view, and, as it
may be a matter of conscience for them, it might
be better to ask the question directly to the
Government of Canada. As far as I am concerned,
I am willing to release it immediately....
Mr. Chairman There are three schools of
thought on the question raised by Major Cashin.
In the one case, I think you took the position that
nothing was to be regarded as secret as far as the
Convention was concerned at all. On the other
hand some members went to the other extreme,
and said they regarded it as all confidential; and
then in between, some members thought that it
was secret for some purposes and not for others.
I said the other day that I did not want to come
between any man and his conscience, but I think
your suggestion is the proper one. If Major
Cashin's point is well taken, and I think it is, then
to relieve any members who may feel that I am
coming between them and their conscience, I
think that you, Mr. Higgins, or someone this
afternoon should table another question to the
Government of Canada, and let's have it disposed
of once and for all: whether all or any of the
information in possession of all or any members
of the Ottawa delegation is to be treated as secret,
in the sense that it can be withheld from the
members of this Convention.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman. that is not what I was
going to say. If the members of the Ottawa
delegation are willing, I believe we could table a
motion the same as we did with the London
delegation. We had the very same trouble there,
and after a while it came through. One man looks
at it from one angle, and another from another,
but to be fair to the Ottawa delegation, and also
to be fair to the Convention and the people, I
believe that the Canadian government should be
asked to release everything so that we can get
down to thejob. If I may liken it to something, it
is like coming in with the official log book. You
lay it on the owner's table. What does he know
about it? But if you bring in a scratch log he can
see the whole thing in a nutshell, and it seems to
me that is just like it. We havejust got the official
log, and the scratch log is something secret. The
members of this delegation have something that
we are not allowed to have. I believe the right way
to get at it is to table a motion and ask the
Canadian government if those people are bound
by that.
Mr. Smallwood I think perhaps the Convention
would like to save a little time. You are going to
table a motion to the Government of Canada
through the regular channels, asking them if the
Ottawa delegation may release certain documents, and by the time that government gets
that
request and makes its reply to us, the Convention
918 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
might be over. So if there is another way of doing
it, possibly that would be the better thing to do.
Let's get the thing straight. There is a lot of talk
about the mysterious secret documents, and the
members of the Convention may have a feeling
that we have been living in an atmosphere of
conspiracy and plots now for 14 months. A lot of
members may feel that there are some dark and
mysterious documents closely guarded under
lock and key by the members of the Ottawa
delegation. There is no such thing. The fact of the
matter is these Black Books contain 99.99% of
what was given us in Ottawa. There is one document only, to my knowledge, speaking
from
memory ... which has not been put in the Black
Books, and that is the one to which I have just
made reference in reply to Major Cashin. One
only. All other documents appear in the Black
Book in their final, official form.... Please let us
have done with any further suggestions of secret,
dark, mysterious documents under lock and key,
that we are trying to keep back from the Convention. That is a completely wrong impression.
All
trash and nonsense....
Mr. Cashin I don't know if it is in the Black
Book. The point I make is this: it is a very
important document, and even if it is the only one
that is left out, the point is it should have been
tabled here the first day, because it relates to the
public debt of Canada, and a comparison has to
be made between the public debt of Canada and
the public debt of Newfoundland. I tabled a question on this ten days ago, and I find
now that my
questions have gone off to Ottawa when the
actual information is here in the city.
Mr. Chairman The fact that any memorandum
or document in the possession of members may
overlap the so-called Black Books is no reason
for withholding it from the members of the Convention. On the contrary, in certain
circles it
might be regarded as very foolish, because in a
sense it provides independent corroboration for
what is in the Black Books. Therefore, there is
every reason why it should be made the property
of the Convention. But in that respect has any
member of the Ottawa delegation anything to say
on whether or not the document referred to
should not be made the property of the Convention? Is there any reason why it should
not be?
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry
that the chairman of the Ottawa delegation is not
here, Mr. Bradley, because I think that he might
have some views on this matter, As far as I am
concerned myself I want to see my position clear,
to satisfy my own conscience, and to know that I
am doing right. If I accepted, when I was a
member of the delegation to Ottawa, certain
documents which, in the compilation of the Black
Books and the Grey Book, were used, and these
documents came to me marked "Confidential".
and in a folder marked "Secret", the question I
must ask myself is whether or not I am permitted
to divulge that information without permission
from the people who supplied it. I might say I
accepted that information as it was handed to me,
as confidential and secret ... but I understood that
these reports which had been prepared by subcommittees, etc., and supplied to the
members,
were superseded by these Black Books, and that
these were to be the final word, so to speak.
Mr. Chairman ... Mr. Smallwood has made the
statement that 99.99% of the information contained in the documents, or memoranda
to which
you refer, is already set forth in the Black Books.
Do you agree to that statement?
Mr. Ashbourne Well, I would not like to make
any statement, but in the main, I don't know
mind, but I am afraid that I could not say whether
there is very much left out of these Black
Books.... Of course, I don't want to withhold
anything from the Convention, and if the
Canadian government is satisfied to release it,
that's up to them.... I understand Mr. Bradley is
still ill, but I am sorry he is not here, because, as
I said before, I consider that these things were
given to us and marked "Secret", and whether or
not I am entitled to read from these documents,
that is a point that I want to be satisfied on.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Burry, would you mind, as
a member of the Ottawa delegation, addressing
yourself on this very important question, because
it is the second time that it has come before the
Chair in the past four days and I would like to
have it disposed of once and for all, if I could.
Mr. Burry Well, Mr. Chairman, I stated my
position in this case once. I don't know if I made
myself clear or not, but I do not recall giving any
undertaking that I would keep any of the documents that I brought back from Ottawa
from the
Convention. I did not give any undertaking to
keep anything secret. While we were there we
were given documents that were marked "Con
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 919
fidential" and "Secret", we held them as such,
and during our stay in Ottawa I was under secrecy
as far as these documents were concerned; but I
cannot recollect that the Canadian government
asked me to keep anything that I brought back
from Ottawa from this National Convention.
Mr. Chairman In your judgement, Mr. Burry,
would there be anything unusual or immoral in
my directing a request to any members of the
delegation who feel that they are not in conscience bound to keep from the Convention
any
of the information they received?
Mr. Burry As far as I am concerned, I have a
folder in my bag with the information in it, and I
have no scruples in letting any member see what
is in it.
Mr. Chairman Supposing I were to ask you,
would you please have mimeographed this document which is in your bag — would you
consider
that an improper or unconscionable ruling?
Mr. Burry No, because I was not asked to do
such.
Mr. Ashbourne I would advise you to ask
Mr. Bradley about that; I asked Mr. Bradley
myself, and his answer was that it was secret and
confidential.
Mr. Chairman With all due respect to
Mr. Bradley, this is a matter of conscience.... But
the opinion has been expressed by Mr. Higgins,
Rev. Burry and Mr. Smallwood that they can see
no reason why this information would be withheld from the Convention. Therefore I
am now
requesting these three gentlemen, if according to
their own consciences they are free to do so,
would they please be good enough to pass over
any document or documents they may have to the
Secretary to be mimeographed and distributed to
the members. That does not obligate you,
Mr. Ashbourne, or Mr. Bradley, or anyone else
who thinks he is in conscience bound to withhold
it from the Convention. At the same time it allows
other members to exercise, or at least to govern
their actions by the dictates of their conscience.
Mr. Crummey Does that include minutes of
plenary sessions?
Mr. Chairman That includes, as far as I am
concerned, everything that came into the possession of the delegation. You were sent
down there
by the Convention and as far as I am concerned,
unless it is a matter of morals or scruples or
conscience or something of that sort, I can see no
reason in the world why your report back to this
Convention should not be completed by passing
over any ancillary or supplementary documents
you may have in your possession.... My ruling is
that Rev. Burry, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Smallwood, who apparently feel they are not in
conscience bound to withhold the information, and
are willing to make available the information,
should pass over to the Secretary to be
mimeographed and distributed, any documents in
their possession, to be made available to members of the Convention.
Mr. Ballam All these dark secrets which we are
talking about are merely reports of committees,
talks across the table, minutes. The minutes we
were asked to keep confidential. You understand
in committees of that kind how embarrassing it
would be for these things to get in the press, just
at committee stage. We were at the committee
stage — these Black Books are the ultimate findings of all committees. Anything not
included in
the Black Books, I take it, the Canadian government did not want to include. If I
understand it
correctly, anything we had in our minor reports
or minutes, we were actually asked to destroy
before we left, except the official report of the
delegation; and as Mr. Smallwood has said, the
Black Books do contain in the main, I would say,
the greater percentage of all the discussions and
all talks. There are no secrets as far as I am
concerned, but we all agreed that the across the
table discussions would be kept to ourselves.
Mr. Chairman If the discussions between the
Newfoundland delegation and the Canadian
government are literally or substantially contained in the Black Books, does not that
of itself
put beyond question any suggestion that the
Canadian government ever intended them to
remain secret? If they were to be secret and
withheld from members of the Convention, why
would they be incorporated in books which were
sent for distribution to members of this Convention?
Mr. Butt If we want any of these documents we
ought to ask the appropriate department of
government, presumably the Department of External Affairs, whether they can or cannot
be
released....
Mr. Chairman That was my original suggestion, but Mr. Smallwood thought it was a waste
of time, in the sense we have to wait to receive
920 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
information from Ottawa; whilst in his opinion,
it was now here to be made available and he saw
no reason why we should go to Ottawa to seek
information which, according to him, is available
and can be made available.
Mr. Smallwood ....You ruled we table it. We
have nothing to table except one solitary document; Mr. Crummey has a copy...
Mr. Higgins I believe we all have copies of the
public debt. I am prepared right now to give it to
the Secretary.
Mr. Chairman In that case, I ask you,
Mr. Burry and Mr. Smallwood, to give it to the
Secretary and he will see that it is mimeographed,
and copies of the document to which you have
directed our attention will be distributed.
Mr. Smallwood Why not everything and be
done with it? We have nothing to hide.
Mr. Chairman I made the point very clear if
there is a slight difference between the semi-official and the official; the official
is what is in the
Black Book. There is only one case of that which
Mr. Higgins referred to. The point is, it may be
found redundant and unnecessary, in the sense
that the Black Book contains information which
might overlap. Against that, by making this information available, it eliminates or
dissipates
any suggestion that the information is being improperly withheld. Therefore I ask
the three
gentlemen named to make all documents in their
possession available to members.
Mr. Bailey Have they got everything in their
possession, the same as we got back from London?
Mr. Job May I just read the reply to a question
I asked regarding the rumour that Commission of
Government would not be placed on the referendum paper. It was important and we did
not want
to waste time if there was to be any question
about it. "In reply to the question submitted by
the Hon. R.B. Job, forwarded November 28, I
write to inform you that the Right Honourable the
Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations
knows of no basis for this rumour." That, I hope
finishes that rumour.
Mr. Smallwood The only remaining main
clause, sir, of the terms that we have discussed as
yet is to be found in clause 5, sub-section 7;
At the union, or as soon as practicable thereafter, the following services will be
taken
over by Canada and become subject to the
jurisdiction of Parliament, Newfoundland to
be relieved of the public costs incurred in
respect of each service after it is taken over...
(7) Pensions and rehabilitation of war
veterans and merchant seamen on the basis
set forth in Annex I hereto.
That is the clause. I will confess to you frankly
that as I am not a war veteran myself, and although I did attend the meetings of the
committee
on veterans' affairs of the Ottawa delegation
which conferred with the Canadian committee ...
I made an honest attempt to understand it, but it
is highly complicated — there was the Veterans'
Charter all outlined, rehabilitation and pensions
scheme, all highly complicated.... The thing I was
most interested in was the Veterans' Land Act,
that would apply very much here in Newfoundland and might prove very beneficial. I
tried to understand that above everything else.
Between Mr. Ashbourne, Mr. Ballam and Mr.
Higgins, I have the feeling the House will be
answered on any particular point it cares to raise
in connection with this clause of the terms.
Mr. Northcott In connection with pensions, say
you get 100% disability, how much would that
be in dollars?
Mr. Smallwood I hope Mr. Northcott is not
directing that question at me.
Mr. Northcott I understand 100% disability in
Newfoundland is $75 a month. What would it be
in Canada?
Mr. Ashbourne I understand it would be $900
a year, same as Newfoundland — $75 a month.
Mr. Ballam The answer will be found in
Volume 2, pages 72 to 77. You will see there a
comparison of pensions given ex-service person
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 921
nel in Canada and Newfoundland. There is a note
which says some of the benefits listed might have
expired. I do not know if it is necessary to run
over the differences between the Newfoundland
and Canadian allowances.
Mr. Hollett On the first note which says, "Some
of the Canadian benefits listed might have expired before union and others would require
adjustment for Newfoundland ex-servicemen",
could your delegation tell me how many have
expired up to date? Have you a record of that?
Mr. Ashbourne As to the difference between
the Canadian and Newfoundland pension, in
several cases they are similar. The point raised by
Mr. Northcott as regards pensions of $900 a year
for 100% disability, I think it is the same, with
the exception that under the Pensions Act of
1935, I do not think an ex-serviceman in Newfoundland can receive anything for children
born
after the last of May, 1934; whereas, under the
Canadian act he is permitted a pension or some
allowance, I believe, up to l944. There is that
difference.
Mr. Hollett Is there any great difference between the benefits veterans in Canada get and
veterans in Newfoundland? We could get at the
difference and find out where we would benefit
if we went into confederation. Could you tell me
that?
Mr. Ashbourne There were veterans' allowances and service benefits under the Veterans Lands
Act — they are different. I think members will
find these and also the re-establishment credits if
they refer to the Black Books.
Mr. Northcott We get some concessions here,
and as I see it, a little better.
Canada: A grant equal to the "basic gratuity"
payable to those eligible to receive the
gratuity. May be used for specific purposes
listed below, any time within ten years of
discharge provided the veteran resides in
Canada and uses it for his own re-establishment in Canada. Persons not resident in
Canada may use the credit to pay the
premiums for insurance purchased under a
Dominion government plan.
The "purposes" as I understand it were available
to members who enlisted in the Canadian forces
from Newfoundland, but on account of not enlisting in Canada, they could not benefit
under them.
Purposes:
(a) Purchase of a home — to provide up to
two-thirds the required equity.
(b) Repair or modernisation of a home already owned by the veteran.
(c) To reduce indebtedness upon the home
of the veteran.
(d) To purchase household furniture and
domestic equipment — up to 90% of the cost.
(e) For working capital for a business.
(f) To purchase tools, instruments or equipment for a trade, business or profession.
(g) To purchase a business — up to two
thirds of the required equity.
(h) To pay premiums for insurance under a
Dominion government scheme.
(i) To purchase special training equipment.
(j) For any other purpose authorised by the
Governor-in-Council. This benefit is alternative with land settlement.
Mr. Hollett You will get it on page 76 of the
Black Book if you will look for it.
Mr. Ashbourne Well if you have it there you
could give it to us. If you have the amount there.
Mr. Hollett You are telling us. I am asking you
a question, and you don't seem to know.
Mr. Hickman In connection with those re-establishment credits, they are only available, or
would be available, to those who served in the
Canadian services. Consequently anyone not in
the Canadian forces would not be eligible to the
benefits under that act.
Mr. Hollett And as I understand it, according to
Page 76, a grant equal to the "basic gratuity" ...
is equal to $15 per month outside the western
hemisphere. You might check with somebody if
that is not correct. I am only trying to let our
veterans in this country know the true position in
Canada, and the point which Mr. Hickman just
raised is, and it is a point very well taken, that that
particular section would not apply to any of our
922 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
Newfoundland veterans if we went into confederation tomorrow. That is all I wanted,
the
truth.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, that is what I am
trying to get at, the truth. I am not here to give
anything except the truth as I find it here. I see
here that Newfoundland veterans who served in
World War II will be eligible for these benefits
as specified in the terms.
Mr. Ashbourne "Under Canadian law Newfoundland veterans who served in His Majesty's
Canadian forces in World War II would, by
reason of their new standing as Canadian
citizens, be eligible for use of re-establishment
credits."
Mr. Hollett I was saying, these veterans who
served in British or Newfoundland forces, as the
case may be. When they were serving with the
Canadian forces they were Canadians.
Mr. Hickman They won't come in under it. It
is only those who served in the Canadian army or
the Canadian navy. Those who served in our two
regiments overseas or the Home Defence, are not
eligible for the benefits under the re-establishment plan.
Mr. Hollett That is all I want. If the delegation
would satisfy us and the country on that.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I think in general,
I have been talking to some veterans who have
gone into this, there does not seem to be, in their
opinion, there does not seem to be very much
difference between the Canadian act and our
own. There might have been a greater discharge
or demobilisation pay from Canada, but that has
been already availed of, and they would not get
any extra or back pay. That is settled and done
with. You have a period, I don't know how long
it is, 18 months or something, to avail of your
transition, or to take any vocational training. In
Canada that is somewhat longer. On the other
hand where the Canadian taking a course, attending university is allowed, I don't
know whether
it is $60 or $80 a month while they are there, the
Newfoundland act here allows either $10 or $20
a month more, but there is not a great difference
in the whole thing. As I understand it it is pretty
well identical, and those pensions that Mr.
Northcott was asking about, that is the same thing
as he quoted for Newfoundland, it is the same
thing in Canada.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, we have here
the public accounts of the Government of Canada
for last year, and I have opened at the page which
shows the Department of Veterans' Affairs,
which shows the expenditures made. The expenditure last year $401,707,964.26 or roughly
$402
million. Now there are some sub-headings of
that, for example....
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, it is not a point of
order, and I don't want to interrupt Mr.
Smallwood, but I fail to see how these huge
figures of payments in Canada are going to give
any benefit to us here. It seems to me it is just a
waste of time.
Mr. Smallwood Someone just asked how much
was being spent, and I was hoping as I read these
that whoever asked it would come across the
items for which he asked. And so it goes on for
30 or 40 pages. I would not dream of reading
them all. One million for this and three million
for that, 30 or 40 million for something else, and
the total expenditure is $400 million odd, spent
by the Government of Canada for the year.
Mr. Chairman The point is whether or not the
re-establishment credits on page 76 are not excluded from Newfoundlanders who served
during the war in branches of the services other
than the Canadian services under the note or
exceptions to section 2. I read section 2 as applying to Newfoundland veterans, but
in addition,
under Canadian law, Newfoundland veterans
who served with them in World War II, will, by
reason of their new status as Canadian citizens,
be eligible for use of re-establishment credits on
the same basis as other Canadian veterans. But
the point raised by Mr. Hollett and Mr. Hickman
is that these re-establishment credits set forth on
page 76, volume 2 of the Black Book, would not
apply to Newfoundland veterans who did not
serve in the Canadian forces during World War II.
Mr. Smallwood All that would be entitled to
that would be Newfoundlanders who served in
the Canadian forces.
Mr. Higgins These clauses on pages 72 to 94,
we don't have to actually read them, you merely
say "Do they apply or don't they?" I think it
might be clearer then.
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 923
Mr. Chairman In order to facilitate the House
generally, Mr. Higgins, would you mind assisting?
Mr. Higgins I don't mind, but Mr. Ashbourne is
the one to do that.
Mr. Chairman I see. Mr. Higgins requested
whether or not the specific allowances set forth
on pages 78 — 94, both inclusive, of volume 2 of
the Black Book...
Mr. Chairman Yes, 72 to 94 both inclusive,
thank you, as to whether or not, Mr. Ashbourne,
you would look at these, and state whether or not,
in your opinion, all or any of these allowances
would apply to Newfoundland veterans who
served in World War II.
Mr. Ashbourne I will do the best I can. I think
in answering the question before us I might say
that I have here now the data about the rates and
scales of Newfoundland and Canadian pensioners, which are the same except that there
is
no pension payable in respect of a child born in
Newfoundland after 30 June 1934, while in
Canada this has been extended up to May 30,
1944; and there is one item that I would like to
bring to the attention of the House — the matter
of war pensioners' allowances in Canada:
Allowances for veterans 60 years of age
or, if younger, incapable of self-maintenance. A veteran who served in a theatre of
war; or served in two wars, but not necessarily in a theatre of war; and who is over
60
years of age, or if under 60 unemployable due
to physical or economic reasons (female age
55 applies), may receive an allowance. This
allowance is up to $365 per annum for single
person, or $730 per annum for married person, dependent upon financial means. A
veteran may have other income up to $125
per annum if single or $250 per annum if
married and still receive full allowance; any
income in excess of these amounts is
deducted. In addition, veterans may have up
to $125 casual earnings per year without
allowances being reduced and an interest of
up to $4,000 in the house in which he resides.
Also up to $25 per year unearned income.
Maximum payable to childless widow is
$265 per annum or to widow with children
$730. Same earnings allowed as for single or
married veterans respectively.
Orphans of a veteran may receive $360 for
one child, $648 for two children and $730 for
more than two children, less the amount of
any income of the orphan or orphans.
Mr. Smallwood Is this what they refer to as
"burned-out veterans"? Is that the name of it?
Mr. Ashbourne Yes, I think that's the idea. Men
that are no longer capable of employment.
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? May I ask that Mr. Ashbourne begin at
page 72 and go right through to page 94?
Mr. Hollett Let him finish this one now, because he picked out this first.
Mr. Hollett You say there is no known parallel
in Newfoundland? Who gave the Canadians that
information that there is no known parallel?
Mr. Smallwood They got that from the reports
that we took up there and delivered to them, and
from the reports on our veterans affairs which
they had in their possession before we ever saw
them.
Mr. Smallwood From Newfoundland. What do
you suppose they have a High Commissioner in
Newfoundland for? What does any country have
an ambassador in another country for, except to
get information?
Mr. Smallwood Right, and so what? I don't
intend even to try and get it.
Mr. Watton I suggest, as a war veteran that Mr.
Ashbourne begin at page 72 and take each thing
as it comes.
Mr. Chairman That request has already been
made, Mr. Watton. It is only a request, I can't tell
him to. Mr. Ashbourne, would you mind beginning at page 72?
Mr. Hollett Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I
answer that discrepancy on page 83?
Mr. Hollett Under war veterans' allowances,
they have the information that there is no known
parallel. The Newfoundland equivalent to that is
a special permanent grant under the GWVA and
the NPA fund to veterans incapable of self-maintenance. Usually these cases are represented
by
the Great War Veterans Association, and when
924 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
proof is received grants are allowed by the
Department of Public Health and Welfare. That
is the parallel. It is surprising that you did not
know there was one.
Mr. Ballam We knew that, but it is not an act.
If they have a case like this in Newfoundland they
go with the sick case to the government and get
some allowance from the pensions board for
them, but we have no known parallel in this
country for that section.
Mr. Chairman Your point, Mr. Ballam, is that
they are fixed by statute.
Mr. Ballam They are fixed by some authority
when occasion arises.
Mr. Hollett We have no parallel because it is not
under an enactment. This is under a particular act.
We have that same duty performed by the Great
War Veterans' Association, and the NPA, in conjunction with the government and the
Department of Public Health and Welfare, and I tell you
every man of that age, 60 years or over, if he has
some disability and is unable to work, his case is
taken up by the Great War Veterans' Association,
and handled by that organisation in conjunction
with the NPA and the Department of Public
Health and Welfare.
Mr. Ballam It is much the same as the Canadian
as far as results are concerned.
Mr. Smallwood Would Mr. Hollett seriously
suggest that if in Canada there is a law that makes
it mandatory, not permissive but mandatory, and
that in Newfoundland in a similar case what is
necessary is that the GWVA or the NPA, or some
voluntary body shall take up his case, go to the
government and haggle with them, and try to get
a grant for that individual, that that makes it
parallel in Newfoundland?
Mr. Hollett Yes, because the GWVA and the
NPA are not purely voluntary bodies.
Mr. Hollett It is not purely a voluntary body, it
is incorporated in some way surely.
Mr. Hollett What about the Department of
Public Health and Welfare, whose duty it is to
look after such cases?
Mr. Smallwood But in Canada it is a matter of
statutory law. That's the difference. Yes, in
Canada. I suppose we are allowed to mention
Canada. That is the very point we are discussing.
Is the case in Canada, in such cases as that,
paralleled in Newfoundland? Mr. Hollett says it
is paralleled in Newfoundland, and has tried to
prove that by saying that a burned-out war
veteran, if he goes to the GWVA or the NPA and
gets them to take up his case and go to the
government and fight it out with them, may or
may not get him a grant, and that's parallelling
the mandatory statutory legislation of Canada.
There is no parallel at all.
Mr. Hollett I put it to you, sir, that such a case
has not got to fight it out with the GWVA or the
NPA: they fight it out for him with the government. They are the agent, like the veterans'
association in Canada.
Mr. Chairman Except this, under Canadian law
he gets it as a matter of right, and here he gets it
as a matter of case.
Mr. Hollett In this country it is a matter of right
if it can be proved that his case warrants it. I am
not trying to prove that our veterans are getting
more than they should. That is the parallel to this
war veterans' allowance here.
Mr. Chairman No. This bill is being piloted if
you will, this measure, by Mr. Smallwood. If you
want to address to Mr. Smallwood, and Mr. Hollett feels like answering the question,
that's all
right, but you can't do it otherwise.
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Smallwood, have you to be a
member of the GWVA to get into a hospital just
like the Merchant Navy Hospital here in St.
John's?
Mr. Smallwood I don't think so. The GWVA is
one of the finest bodies in the whole country,
doing a magnificent voluntary work, taking up
every case that it can possibly take up amongst
veterans, and doing the best it can do in their
behalf with the government of the country. They
succeed in many cases, and fail in many other
cases. They never fail through any fault of their
own, it is through the fault of the government,
because here is a case in point that we are now
discussing, the case of the burned-out veterans. I
did not invent that word "burned-out", it seems
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 925
to be current, it seems to be used in Canada, and
it means war veterans who, because of their war
service, because of what they went through, are
just burned out now. You can't put a scientific
name on it maybe, but they are burned-out
veterans.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. I thought
Mr. Ashbourne was doing this thing.
Mr. Chairman There was a question directed to
Mr. Smallwood by the member for Harbour
Main, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy A point of order. I don't like that
word "burned-out".
Mr. Smallwood Well I don't like it very much
either, but it is a word used.
Mr. Chairman The point of order is not well
taken at all. You are disagreeing with the terminology. I must say I hear the expression
for the
first time, and I am beginning to wonder what it
is all about.
Mr. Smallwood Well that's one on me. As I
understand it a "woroner", or a "burned-out
veteran", using both terms, is a man who, because
of his service, not because he lost a limb, but in
some way it renders a man incapable of doing the
work that he would have been able to do, if he
had not gone through the hell that he did.
Mr. Butt It is not in the Grey Book or in the
Black Book.
Mr. Smallwood Well, it is in the dictionary, Mr.
Chairman. Am I only allowed the right to use the
words in the Black Book?
Mr. Chairman The phraseology of this House
is not going to be confined to the Black Book.
Mr. Smallwood The dictionary has over a million words, and I think I am entitled to use any
one.
Mr. Hickman Could we include the members of
this Convention in the burned-out veterans?
Mr. Smallwood If we are here much longer
some of us will be burned out!
Mr. Smallwood Anyway, that sort of relieved
the tension, sir. According to the Black Book, in
Canada there is a law, a statute which provides
for them, and it is theirs by right, by law. In
Newfoundland I have no doubt that such cases in
some instances have received some kind of compensation, but it is not theirs by right
or by law.
Some of them get it, and some don't. I know men
myself, and I have no doubt that other men know
war veterans in this country, of World War I, who
are "woroners" or "burned-out".
Mr. Smallwood Well, worn out or burned-out,
we all know men like that. You can't put your
finger on it, you can only say that man is like he
is because of the hell he went through in the war.
Mr. Smallwood Of course. But that man is not
now covered by law. In Canada he is, and if we
became a province he would be covered by law.
That is all that clause says.
Mr. Chairman Now to get back to where we
were. Mr. Ashbourne, would you have any objection, for the proper treatment of the
business now
before the Chair, to begin at page 72, and go over
to page 93? Would you mind taking pages 72 to
93, both inclusive, and just look at the various
headings given on these pages, and express the
opinion whether or not the allowances set forth
in these pages would apply to Newfoundland
veterans if and when we went into confederation?
Mr. Ashbourne If members would look at the
end, I believe there is a time limit there.
Mr. Ashbourne Would there be any objection
to my reading the Canadian and Newfoundland?
Mr. Chairman You can only treat it as best you
can. I don't wish to hamper you in any way, shape
or form, but try to do it in the most effective and
brief way you possibly can. That's all I can say.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I have studied this
very carefully, and if I could go through it myself
and you can check me I would be satisfied with
that.
Mr. Ashbourne It has been suggested that I do
it. If you want to do it, I am satisfied.
926 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
Canada: For honourably discharged
veterans, an allowance of $100. Veteran is
allowed to keep one uniform and his personal
necessaries.
Newfoundland: For honourably discharged
veterans, a clothing outfit from the UK
government or, if this is not available, an
outfit from the Newfoundland government.
In an address on 14 March, 1945, Hon. A.J.
Walsh, K.C., mentioned a proposed allowance of $50 to $60 to supplement the UK
benefit. This was only applicable if needed
to provide a full clothing outfit.
Mr. Higgins We should look at the ones that
apply and forget that ones that do not apply.
Mr. Watton That second paragraph — that $50
to $60 clothing allowance. I think — I am not
quite sure — but I think that should be $100.
Mr. Smallwood It may be a good idea to make
a note as Mr. Ashbourne goes through and come
back later and review the notes.
Mr. Watton In my case, I was discharged here
in St. John's and I was paid $100 allowance.
Mr. Ballam That was for a suit of clothes in
England.
Mr. Chairman It is water over the dam now.
There is no point in wasting time.
Unemployment Benefits:
Canada: Except for the period covered by
the rehabilitation grant and the first nine days
of unemployment, any honourably discharged veteran unemployed though willing
and capable of working, may draw an allowance up to 52 weeks, but not longer than
the period of service, within 18 months of
discharge. Monthly rates are, single $50;
married $70.... Veteran may earn up to $20
per month; any earnings in excess of this
amount is deductible from the allowance.
When a veteran completes 15 weeks of insurable employment the contributions to the
National Unemployment Insurance Fund are
paid by the government on behalf of the
veteran in respect of all time spent in the
service subsequent to June 30, 1941.
Newfoundland: Except for eight weeks im
mediately past discharge (furlough period)
an allowance may be paid to an unemployed
veteran who is willing and capable of work
but unable to obtain unemployment for a
period of one year. Allowance will not cover
first nine days of unemployment and may not
be paid for a period exceeding length of
service. Rates are, monthly: single $50; married $70.... Veterans may earn up to $20
per
month — any earnings in excess of this
amount are deductible from the allowance. A
pensioner with 20% or more disability who
becomes eligible for the allowance receives
a sum sufficient to bring pension to 100% for
self and dependents.
Mr. Hollett It is exactly the same in Canada as
in Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood All but the last paragraph; that
is premium payments.
Mr. Chairman Is not that partly, if not altogether, a thing of the past?
Mr. Smallwood No. They are eligible if they
complete 15 weeks in insurable employment.
Mr. Smallwood And in Newfoundland. Under
clause 2(b) Newfoundland veterans who served
in World War II will be eligible for contributions
to the National Unemployment Insurance
Funds....
Mr. Smallwood That is a distinct advantage
which we have not got at all in this country. The
contributions made for them by Canada for all the
weeks the men were in uniform, throughout the
war.... When working 15 weeks, the government
pays the premiums into the insurance fund in
their name. If they become unemployed, what
they have to draw on is the unemployment benefit
on the years of payments made for them by the
government into the fund and that is an important
point.
Mr. Hollett Does that apply if they make application within 15 months or not?
Mr. Smallwood There is no time limit in clause
2 of the Grey Book.
Mr. Higgins Page 94, book 2, the time limit is
stated. "Unemployment benefits: 52 weeks
within 18 months of discharge." Does that cover
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 927
the whole unemployment benefit?
Mr. Smallwood That is something entirely different. All war veterans in Newfoundland and
Canada were entitled to unemployment benefits,
but this clause in the terms refers to unemployment insurance payments, contributions
to be
made into the Unemployment Insurance Fund.
There is no time limit on that.
Mr. Hollett According to the Veterans Insurance Act passed in 1944...
Mr. Hollett It is the Veterans Insurance Act.
This is not unemployment insurance.
Mr. Smallwood That is what it is — unemployment insurance. Clause 2 of the Grey Book is
unemployment insurance, not life insurance.
Canada: For honourably discharged
veterans who, in the opinion of the Dept., will
benefit by training in effecting rehabilitation.
Training is carried out in school and on-the-
job. Length of training normally does not
exceed 52 weeks but may be extended. The
trainee may not receive allowances for a
period longer than his period of service unless a pensioner. Allowance rates per month
are: single $60; married $80....
Mr. Hollett Is there any benefit to be derived by
going into confederation? Are the veterans given
any benefits from the point of vocational training?
Mr. Ballam It could be extended from year to
year; some servicemen are not out of the army.
Newfoundland: For honourably discharged
veterans provision has been made for training
in certain limited technical subjects. Allowances to be paid at following monthly
rates:
|
At Home Away |
From Home |
| Single |
$70 |
$ 70 |
| Married |
90 |
100 |
Mr. Hollett The payments for children, is that
better or worse than in Canada?
Mr. Hollett Men "away from home" in Newfoundland receive $100.
Mr. Ballam It is exactly the same: in Canada
they get $80 plus $20 allowance if living away
from home.
Mr. Hollett The married man living at home, in
Canada, gets $80 and in Newfoundland he gets
$90.
Mr. Ashbourne The next thing is "Educational
(University) Training". That was, they must commence training within 15 months of
discharge. I
do not think it is necessary to read that. That is
over now.
Mr. Hollett Would you say that educational
training under the Canadian scheme is better or
worse than the Newfoundland scheme?
Mr. Ashbourne I am not in a position to say
whether it is better or worse.
Mr. Hollett I put it to you, having studied it, it
is equally as good.
Mr. Smallwood Would it be as good in the
actual carrying out? Two countries can pass a
law, they can be identical, but one country may
carry it out generously. I am not saying which
carries it out. There is no doubt but that Canada
has treated war veterans more generously than
any other country on the face of the earth, with
one possible exception — Australia. Next to
Australia, Canada has treated war veterans more
generously than any other country in the world
—every one of the war veterans. Ask Mr. Vardy.
He is not here. He made a notation of it.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Ashbourne has the floor. Do
not turn it into a Donnybrook....
Canada: Pensions are awarded for disability
resulting from injury or disease attributable
to or incurred during service (insurance principle).
The rate for 100% disability for all ranks
below that of Captain (army) or equivalent is
$900 per annum. Disabilities are assessed in
multiples of 5% and the amounts vary accordingly. For disabilities less than 5% a
final
payment not exceeding $100 may be
awarded. The rates are higher for Captain and
above.
Additional pension for dependents is payable also and varies with the degree of disability.
The married 100% pensioner
receives $200 per annum for his wife, $180
for the first child, $144 for the second and
928 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
$120 for each subsequent child. For orphan
children the amounts may be doubled. Dependent parents are also pensionable.
An additional allowance for helplessness
may be paid to a totally disabled disability
pensioner, ranging from $250 to $750 per
annum. An allowance for wear and tear of
clothing is provided for disability pensioners
who require to wear an appliance.
Canadian rates are paid to all pensioners
of the Canadian forces, and for Canadians
domiciled in Canada at the time of enlistment, allied or imperial forces, the pension
paid by the country in whose forces the
veteran served is supplemented to the
Canadian scale.
Newfoundland: Pensions are primarily paid
by the British government and are based on
British rulings — the disability must have
arisen out of or been aggravated by service.
Pensions are paid under rates in the Pensions
Act 1935, and the scales of payment are
equivalent to the Canadian scales. The
British government pays an amount
equivalent to the British pension and this is
supplemented by the Newfoundland government.
Mr. Ashbourne Yes, I think it is 50% or a little
over 50% the Newfoundland government supplements and brings it up to the Canadian
scale.
Mr. Ballam The only thing is the Dependents'
Allowance.
Mr. Higgins I think that is why there is an
allowance for free legal assistance.
Canada: The pension for a widow of all
ranks below that of Captain (army) or
equivalent is $720 per annum. For Captain
and above higher rates are payable.
Additional pension is payable for
children, first child $180 per annum, second
$144 and third and subsequent $120 per
annum. For orphan children these rates may
be doubled.
Dependent parents may also be pensioned. Where a widow or children are pen
sionable the amount cannot exceed $60 per
annum for each parent. Where no pensionable widow or children the maximum for
two dependent parents may be $900 per
annum.
Newfoundland: Pensions are paid on scales
similar to Canadian scales. The British pension is supplemented in case of World War
II
veterans to maintain this scale.
The next is War Veterans' Allowance, and I
think we went over that. There is an allowance
for veterans 60 years of age or, if younger, incapable of self-maintenance.
Mr. Starkes The point I would like to make is
this. In my district we have several returned
soldiers. It appears they did not apply for assistance within the alloted time of
18 months. They
are down there now with wives and families,
without employment and cannot get any assistance — that is, assistance from the government
in connection with war benefits. Does that apply
here now? In Canada they get benefits up to 60
years of age; in Newfoundland they get nothing?
Mr. Ashbourne This is for men when they become the age of 60; if they are not able to work.
it is applicable at the age of 55.
Mr. Starkes If they are unemployable, under
60, for economic reasons?
Mr. Higgins These cases are taken care of by the
GWVA and/or the NPA.
Mr. Starkes I was trying to intercede for the
men in question and I was told by Mr. Max
Chambers of the Civil Re-establishment that the
government could do nothing for them.
Mr. Butt The word "mandatory" was used a
short while ago. Look at the ninth line — "
may
receive an allowance".
Mr. Northcott Getting back to widows' pensions again. A widow gets $720 a year. in the
event she marries again, does she still retain it or
does she forfeit it? Supposing her husband was
killed overseas.
Mr. Ashbourne As far as Newfoundland is concerned, they are given I believe (I am subject to
correction), an allowance of $100 in lieu of any
further pension. I cannot say exactly the amount
or what the plan is in that regard in Canada. I will
see if I can find out. If Mr. Northcott is satisfied,
I will take note of it and give him an answer later
on.
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 929
Mr. Higgins That point of Mr. Butt's is rather
important, I think. All the allowances are "may",
not compulsory.
Mr. Ashbourne As far as I understand the idea,
the allowances are there for men who meet the
required conditions.
Mr. Ashbourne What is the idea of having it
there at all if it is not available for the men? If
there is no war veterans' allowances, what is the
good of putting it there?
Mr. Butt They have tied it up in Canada by
writing it down in a nice neat act. Here the net
result is practically the same.
Mr. Smallwood What kind of nonsense is that?
What kind of trash and nonsense is it in fact? Here
is a law in Canada which, as I pointed out before,
may be interpreted generously, or in a mean and
niggardly spirit. Canada is not noted for treating
her veterans in a mean and niggardly spirit, she
is noted for treating them generously. Because
the act says "may" and not "shall", shall we
interpret it as being in a mean and niggardly spirit
that that will be carried out?
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I assume no such thing,
and I would not dream of doing any such thing. I
think Canada is a great nation, and anything I say
is not anti-Canada. I admit quite freely that they
have done great things for their veterans, and for
their citizens for that matter. I admit that, but I do
want to find out the truth of it. Here we have a
known parallel, but it is not put down in an act.
Mr. Ashbourne Well, that's questioned as to
whether or not we have that parallel. Of course
the GWVA and the NPA as has been pointed out,
has certain provisions for men who apply for
them, but in this veterans' charter, sir, which is a
book of 300 and some pages, the members can
readily see the very same words as has already
been read here, or printed here. I will just reiterate them for members to check against
them.
"In Canada may receive an allowance." Well,
then he may receive the allowance. That is for the
veterans' allowance, and that is the law in
Canada.
Mr. Butt And the word is "may", and that's the
right word.
Mr. Chairman The point is that in statutory law
"may" is permissible, and "shall" is mandatory.
Therefore Mr. Butt takes the position that there
is nothing mandatory in there. Therefore the point
for which he contends is that the act from which
you have quoted is not mandatory at all, and in
its operations it is purely discretionary.
Mr. Butt They had to use the word "may" in
order to protect themselves against cases which
may be an abuse. They have to use the word.
Mr. Ashbourne If that's the word they had to
use, and it is there, I presume it is right.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Butt's point is simply this:
that it must not be assumed that that action shall
be applied. Quite obviously the word "may" is
used to permit investigation, and if, upon investigation it is found that there is
no fraud employed
then the matter I presume will, as a matter of fact.
be granted.
Mr. Butt I really don't like to have an opinion I
give called trash and nonsense. In this particular
case, according to what you just mentioned now.
I even knew what I was talking about.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, before you leave
that point may I also point out that in the case of
a veteran who has reached the age of 60 years, or
a veteran of any age who, because of his disabilities is not...
Mr. Hollett From the War Veterans' Allowance
Act, 1930, clauses 1 and 2. The point I want to
make is that in this country it is not necessary that
he must have served in a theatre of war, or that
he has been wounded, but if he makes application
to the GWVA they must take up his case in
conjunction with the NPA with the Department
of Public Health and Welfare, which treats the
case on its merits. That is why I objected to there
being no parallel.
Mr. Chairman Your point is that there are certain conditions precedent in Canada which have
to be got over, which do not apply in Newfoundland at all?
Mr. Chairman For example, you make the
point that he must have served 15 months overseas, or must have been wounded, before
he
could qualify?
Mr. Chairman But here, without reference to
the fact of whether he served overseas or not,
whether he lost a limb or not, pensions may and
have been granted where his case has been sponsored by the GWVA and the NPA, as the
case
may be.
930 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Hollett has any
statistics from the GWVA or the NPA or the
government showing what number have received
it and what number have not?
Mr. Smallwood Well, it makes a great deal of
difference if there is no legislation whatever in
Newfoundland on the matter, and men get it or
do not get it depending on the efforts made in
their behalf by the GWVA or the NPA; and if it
should be the case that 1% get it and 99% don't,
or 99% get it and 1% don't, there would be a good
deal of difference in the situation.
Mr. Chairman If you take the stand that the
percentage of applications actually sponsored
and put through by the government, that might
have some bearing upon it, but as far as bringing
actual figures into it, the number of people who
have received pensions through the good offices
of the war veterans or the NPA would mean
absolutely nothing at all.
Mr. Starkes Except, Mr. Chairman, in my district there are some who have not received one
cent except the dole, $5 a month.
Mr. Starkes Yes, they made application 18
months after they came back.
Mr. Hollett But they would not be 60 years of
age, would they?
Mr. Cashin I think I may be permitted, as a
burned-out soldier of some standing...
Mr. Chairman I would say that you are anything but burned out, Major!
Mr. Cashin Well, that is what we are termed
here this afternoon — a burned-out soldier. We
have gone through this Veterans' Act of Canada,
and we have tried to make some comparisons
between that and Newfoundland, and we are
squabbling over it whether Newfoundland is better or Canada is better. It is immaterial
to me as
far as I am concerned because I am not personally
affected, but Mr. Starkes says that there are
people down in his district on the dole, and I am
telling you they are on the dole in Montreal.
Mr. Cashin And not getting any pension in
Montreal either, and I know what I am talking
about. And when you talk about this thing you
are talking to one of these burned-out soldiers
who knows something about it, and if you had
been a burned-out soldier you might have known
as well. We have gone through it this afternoon,
and I think we have a fairly good idea what the
Canadian act is, and what the Newfoundland act
is, and we are wasting a lot of time when we
should be getting on to something more constructive. I think we should consider that
part of the
Veterans' Act as read.
Mr. Chairman Except for the fact that Mr. Higgins proposed, and he was backed by Mr. Watton
as a war veteran, and Mr. Watton was particularly
anxious to have a comparison made of both situations, and therefore, to facilitate
both Mr. Watton
and Mr. Higgins I suggested to Mr. Ashbourne
that he might go along in the way in which he is
going; but if the House feels it is a waste of time
it is perfectly all right with me.
Mr. Cashin It is wasting time anyhow, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Higgins It was not my intention that all
should be read, but that Mr. Ashbourne might tell
us if page 84 applied, and so forth.
Mr. Chairman Yes, that was your proposal.
Could we get a compromise between the two?
Would it be too much to ask you Mr. Ashbourne
if you could perhaps speed things up by not
reading all the comments on both sides of the
page? Could you perhaps paraphrase a little?
Mr. Ashbourne That is not an easy thing to do,
but I will try. I might leave out something that
some war veterans were trying to get at. There
are a few other items here. Medical care and
treatment is next. I don't know if members wish
me to go over that or not.
Mr. Hollett It is about the same I think, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Ashbourne "All veterans may receive
treatment for any disability arising within one
year of discharge." Now the next is about the
same. The next is land settlement. It is rather a
little different in the land settlement,
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I enquired about our
land settlement scheme, and I am willing to admit
that the Canadian one is a good bit better than
ours, because Canada is of course an agricultural
country. I am thinking now of the operations
going on up on the west coast. I am prepared to
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 931
admit that it looks to me that the land settlement
in Canada is slightly better, but to what extent I
am not prepared to go. You know the government
granted an amount up to $4,500 up on the west
coast. They will clear in the first instance ten
acres of land, and they will clear that gratis, and
by the time the whole scheme is through the
veterans will own 50 acres of cleared land and
will have a house. The government provides a
house and barn partially built and he finishes it,
and he will have certain equipment and certain
live stock. It is not so bad even for poor little
Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood I would like to point out that
under that Veterans' Land Act it is not only
farmers who receive benefits, but fishermen also,
on equal terms with farmers. A veteran who is a
fisherman may receive under the act grants and
loans and assistance for acquiring a home, a boat,
an engine, fishery gear, etc.
Mr. Higgins It is a loan under the Farm Loan
Act. For fishermen it is also a loan isn't it?
Mr. Smallwood No, no. Under the Veterans'
Land Act veterans who are fishing and not farming may receive on equal terms with
veterans
who are farmers, benefits under the act, the only
difference being that the equipment and material
that they acquire under the act are for fishing
purposes and not for farming purposes.
Mr. Smallwood No, no. There are loans also,
but there are outright grants.
Mr. Chairman Your question, Mr. Watton, is
whether or not there is something of a comparable nature in Newfoundland?
Mr. Watton I think that a veteran gets ... well,
it is up to $700 in Newfoundland for a veteran
who wants to go fishing.
Mr. Ashbourne It is $700 in Newfoundland. "A
qualified veteran settling on provincial land ...
may receive a grant ... for building material ...
etc." As he said, the fishermen might figure in
under that as well.
Mr. Smallwood Well, I will read the clause. I
just found it this minute. It is the Veterans' Land
Act. That is in the case of lending war veterans
up to $6,000 for fishery purposes.
Mr. Butt Just to keep the records clear, I think
that Mr. Hollett said $4,500 a minute ago. I would
point out that their estimated figure for the Corner
Brook area was $1.8 million for 300 full-time
settlers. That means $6,000 that the government
is to spend for a person in Newfoundland, as I
understand it.
Mr. Hollett That is right, but the government
will still clear the other 40 acres for them, and that
takes up the balance. In connection with that
point of fishing, under the Veterans' Land Act:
"Those who have had practical experience in
commercial fishing, whose normal occupation is
in that industry, and who wish to ... officially
certified"; I have the list who applied. I do admit
that the Land Settlement Act in Canada is better
than we have here.
[Mr. Ashbourne then read the time limits applying to various benefits in Canada and
Newfoundland.]
Mr. Chairman In view of the fact that I presume
that the debate from this time on will be on the
financial aspects of the business before us, and it
is pretty well a quarter to six, I propose to rise the
committee until 8 o'clock: or if members want to
open the debate on the financial aspects, they may
do so.
Mr. Job Might I ask one question about the last
clause: "General Benefits: Newfoundland merchant seamen, like other Canadian merchant
seamen, will be eligible for Unemployment Insurance, and Merchant Seamen's Compensation."
That, I understand, is contributory. The
unemployment insurance, I know, is contributory. As regards merchant seamen, I am
not
sure. I was wondering if Mr. Smallwood could
give us any information as to whether that is
contributory. I know our ships will be taxed for
that purpose in dealing with that fund; to what
extent, I do not know.
Mr. Smallwood I am afraid Mr. Job has missed
the point of that clause with respect to unemployment insurance for merchant seamen.
That means
this: merchant seamen are defined as men who
served in the war zone or the danger zone.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, that is the term. Merchant
seamen who served in dangerous waters are
treated, as far as unemployment insurance is concerned, exactly as though they had
been soldiers
or sailors or airmen. That is to say, for the period
they served since June 30, 1941, they are treated
as though they had been working in an insurable
932 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
occupation and the premiums that would have
been paid in by them and by their employer and
by the government are now all paid by the
government; so they have been fully insured
against unemployment for that whole period. If
they become unemployed, once they had been
working 15 weeks after the war is over ... they are
entitled to unemployment insurance benefits
based ont he length of time the premium payments were made while serving in the war.
I think
Mr. Job is dealing with a different matter.
Mr. Chairman He is speaking of the merchant
seamen's compensation. He has advanced the
opinion that these insurance funds are contributory in nature and he asks the respective
proportions in which contributions are made, by
the government, by the shipowner and by the
crew member.
Mr. Smallwood My answer is, none. The whole
amount is paid by the government in respect of
the period after June 30, 1941, during which the
merchant seamen was occupied in dangerous
waters.... There is a Merchant Seamen's Act. I
have not read it; I do not know what it means; I
do not know what is in it.
Mr. Job That is a satisfactory explanation. I did
not realize it applied only to war veterans. I
thought it was rather misleading. As regards the
Merchant Seamen's Act, that will come up in
another form.
Mr. Higgins I have the act here. I may be able
to tell you when we come back later.
[The committee rose until 8 pm.]
Mr. Smallwood I believe the Convention has
now come to the point where we are ready to
begin to discuss and debate the financial side of
the confederation terms or basis of union — the
financial side and taxation, generally. In view of
our discussion last night, we might agree to confine ourselves, to start with, to
the question of
what revenue the Government of Canada would
probably collect from Newfoundland if we became a province and also what money the
Government of Canada would spend in Newfoundland. So I would ask the members to turn
to
the Grey Book, page 15, Annex IV. The headline
says, "Probable Federal Revenues And Expenditures With Respect To Newfoundland."
Mr. Cashin Before we move on, I would like to
ask how these bogus federal revenues were arrived at.
Mr. Smallwood I appreciate the importance of
Major Cashin's question; but we could read it and
then, if he likes, we could deal with them one by
one.
Mr. Cashin These "probable expenditures" are
somewhat misleading: but go on and read the
expenditures.
Estimates have been obtained from federal
departments of the cost of extending existing
services to Newfoundland in a typical year.
The totals of the estimates so obtained are set
out below, separate figures being given
where fairly firm estimates based on legislative commitments, eg. family allowances,
can be made. Attention is drawn to the items
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 933
not included, listed below:
*
The forgoing total does not include:
(1) Payment under the transitional grant to
the provincial government of Newfoundland
of $3,500,000 annually for the first 3 years of
union, reducing gradually thereafter according to the terms of the grant;
(2) Costs of servicing that part of the Newfoundland debt assumed by Canada;
(3) Any costs in respect of the Newfoundland Railway or its auxiliary steamship
services, taken over by Canada;
(4) Any capital expenditures.
It should be made clear that the expenditures estimate relates to the additional expenditures arising from inclusion of
Newfoundland and therefore does not include any of the costs of servicing the present
Canadian debt or any other costs now being
borne by Canadians.
That is the reading of it. If I could be permitted, perhaps I might be able to make
a few
remarks. What we have here is an estimate made
by the Government of Canada of how much it
would collect from the people of Newfoundland
in taxes and how much money they would spend
in Newfoundland under one heading or another.
What we are going to deal with is their estimate
of how much money they would collect from
Newfoundland. This estimate was made not by
government members. It was made by financial
authorities, experts, employed by the Government of Canada in the Department of Finance
and
the Bank of Canada.... We met some of them —
Mr. M.W. Sharp, who sat in with us, a man with
a mind which you would rarely meet with in this
life, with a wealth of information at the tips of his
fingers. We met also, from the Bank of Canada,
Mr. J. Coyne and Mr. A.D. Skelton; and
Mr. Watts, who has visited Newfoundland and
who is the author of some of the economic data
appearing in the book of Dr. MacKay; also
Dr. Weeks. These estimates were made by those
men — top-notch economists depended upon by
the Government of Canada in its own financial
and economic affairs.... They made estimates
based on two kinds of information — one, the
information which the Ottawa delegation furnished, and two, the information they had
gathered throughout the years from the Department of Finance and the Auditor General.
They
had made a study of Newfoundland conditions
and public affairs, and Newfoundland trade and
commerce. One of the most important sources of
information was the Canadian Department of
Trade and Commerce which is represented here
by Mr. Britton, Trade Commissioner.... They
have a most intimate knowledge of our trade and
commerce.... They have an exactitude of
knowledge about our trade that I imagine no one
in Newfoundland possesses today. Of course, it
is their job. They have that same type of information about other countries with whom
they do
business. On the basis of all this information, the
experts have made these estimates of what
revenue the government of Canada would get
from the people of Newfoundland if we became
a province. I want to draw your attention particularly to the first couple of lines
of the third
paragraph, their calculations of what they would
collect from the Newfoundland people.
Revenue calculations for example, are
based on a continuation of present levels of
economic activity in Newfoundland and of
934 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
present rates of federal taxation. Neither assumption is realistic yet there is no
way of
allowing for or measuring future changes.
Now, in simple language, that means this: if
things continue as they are now in Newfoundland; and if the rates of taxation charged
by
the Government of Canada stay as they are now;
then they estimate they would collect
$20,185,000 a year from Newfoundland. But
they go on to say that neither assumption is
realistic. It is not realistic to go on the assumption
that the present level of economic activity in
Newfoundland will continue. It is not realistic to
take it for granted that the rates of taxation in
Canada will stay as they are now. There is a very
good reason for that. Three different times since
the war came to an end the Government of
Canada has reduced its rates of taxation. And it
is not realistic to say that their present rates of
taxation will stay as high as they are now. The
realistic assumption is they will fall, and also our
present level of economic activities will fall
somewhere below where they are now. If they do
not ... they estimate they will collect from Newfoundland $20 million per year in
Canadian
government taxation. I think that is all I want to
say at this moment. I am sure my friend Major
Cashin and others will want to make their contribution to this particular part of
the debate.
Mr. Cashin I suppose it is all right, after hearing
Mr. Smallwood tell us about those famous
people who compiled these estimates, to venture
an opinion that they are 20% out. The total income taxes, death duties, etc., collected
last year
was $10.5 million. According to these estimates
the federal government is going to get approximately $11 million. Under our income
tax
laws, a single man is exempt up to $l,000. He
does not pay on less than $ 1,000. Under Canadian
law he pays if he earns $750. A man with $1,000
income in Newfoundland pays income tax on
$250. How many people will be found in Newfoundland not paying income tax today, who
will
be paying under federal legislation? The same
thing applies to married persons. In Newfoundland a married man is exempt up to $2,000.
If I may be allowed to express a view — I take it,
with so many experts, you have to have permission to express a view — the amount the
Canadian government will collect on income tax,
corporation tax and death duties will be $14
million. Consequently our experts were out $2
million. I am rather nervous in saying it — we
have so many doctors and so forth associated
with this thing here — but some of them were
guessing. I note that the Ottawa delegation puts
it higher than that.
Mr. Cashin No compliment to them, and I know
something about Newfoundland expenditures
and revenues. Customs and import duties; they
say $2 million. The delegation says $3 million.
They are again higher. With all their information,
they do not check properly. I have taken the
trouble to get some information on the basis of
actual imports l946-47.... On liquor and tobacco
alone, the customs duty would be twice the
Canadian estimate.... I would say that the federal
government customs will go to $9 million. They
can send down their experts, and let them go over
it with our experts, and see where they fit. I say
they guessed it. Then again, sales tax, 8%.
Mr. Smallwood I think Major Cashin has not
noticed the sales tax — one is provincial and the
other is federal. The federal sales tax is collected
by them at the source, from the manufacturer. It
is not a retail sales tax. Major Cashin knows why
that is.
Mr. Cashin We are importing goods from the
United States that cost $20 million. They arrive
here and we pay 10% duty. We pay freight 8%.
Is it on $20 million in the United States or on the
landed cost in Newfoundland?
Mr. Smallwood The figure he is putting is a
hypothetical one. If we have free trade with
Canada we are not going to pay duty from the
United States. If we can get the goods from
Canada free of duty we will get them there. If we
import $20 million, pay Canadian customs duties
on it, the federal sales tax is on the landed cost,
landed in Newfoundland.
Mr. Cashin We are paying 10% and the freight.
I would not attempt to forecast what the sales tax
would be....
Mr. Smallwood You are putting sales tax on
everything. You are forgetting the exemptions.
Mr. Cashin They told us what the exemptions
would be, but they did not put in the Black Book
what we have to pay the 8% on. Another thing,
of particular importance to outport men, we buy
beef from the United States. On beef coming into
Canada from the United States. there is $6 a
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 935
barrel duty. We consume 100,000 barrels of pork
and beef in Newfoundland, on which we would
pay $6 a barrel; $600,000 for one item alone in
duty. That is to protect the Canadian packers in
Canada. They have local industries in Canada
and they protect them. They protect them by
putting 3 cents a pound on pork and beef.
We are a bit ahead of our job. I feel, and I think
we discussed it at a private meeting, that in order
to get down to brass tacks we have to have before
us an idea of how the Province of Newfoundland
would operate — what the revenue and what the
expenditure will be. We are not interested so
much in how much the federal government is
going to collect, as how we are going to run the
province when she goes into confederation. Ottawa should prepare a proper report.
This report
is incomplete. It does not point out the sources of
revenue we are going to collect taxes from. It
does not point out the expenditures we are going
to have as a province. And until such time as we
know from a provincial standpoint where we are
going, we cannot intelligently discuss the whole
situation. We ought to defer discussion on these
figures. They had experts in Canada; who are the
experts in Newfoundland? Were they consulted
to corroborate this? It is out at least 20%. I think
before we go any further we should have a conference with the Finance Department and
the
Assessor and the Customs Department as to
whether these figures are accurate. This is from
Canada. We have to know from Newfoundland....
Mr. Smallwood Does Mr. Cashin think that the
experts employed by the Government of Newfoundland are better equipped, more competent
to make a financial report than are the financial
experts of Canada? I disagree with him.
Mr. Cashin I would be prepared to accept
Mr. Allen's word down in the Assessor's Department — if he should make up a report
for us,
based on the Canadian income tax law, the total
revenue based on last year that would accrue to
the federal government under the present rates of
taxation — I am prepared to accept Mr. Allen's
word in preference to the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Smallwood I agree when it comes to the
question of income tax and Mr. Allen's ability. I
may tell Major Cashin that Mr. Allen has visited
Ottawa officially and there has been exchange of
information back and forth — ordinary inter-customs departmental procedure. But when
it comes
to the question of estimating the nature and
volume of commercial transactions, I would say
that, admirable as are some and many of our
officials, they have not got the data. The department is not big enough. We have no
economic
research. We have no Department of Trade and
Commerce. In our Department of Customs and
Finance, we have a small staff. It is not fair to
expect that they should be as competent to assess
these matters and estimate on them as the
Economic Research Department of the Bank of
Canada and the Department of Finance of the
Government of Canada.
If we become a province of Canada, our trade
is going to be different from what it is now and
from what it has been in the past, as regards the
source of our goods. We have imported in the past
from the United Kingdom, from Canada, from
the United States and roughly speaking, take the
years 1900-l938 ... on the average this country
imported roughly one-third of its goods from
each of them. That is in normal times and under
normal conditions, Newfoundland having her
own customs tariffs and running her own affairs.
Newfoundland as a province becomes an entirely
different country from the standpoint of tariffs
and consequently from the standpoint of where
she buys her goods. With free trade between the
mainland and Newfoundland, we will naturally
buy from Canada duty free all that we need that
she has to spare. If she has not got them to spare,
any businessman will import from wherever he
can get them. When he does. he will pay taxation
at the Canadian rate of duty — if there is a
Canadian rate of duty. According to Chadwick
and Jones, ....25% is the average rate of duty on
everything coming into this island. It is higher if
you take only goods paying 40% and 50%
average duty. Take the same things in Canada and
take all the imports into the Dominion, ... and
what does it run to? 10% as against 25% in
Newfoundland. Approximately half of all the
imports that come into Canada, come in duty
free.... If Newfoundland were a province and any
importer bought goods from the United
Kingdom or the United States, he would pay the
current rate of duty on them, if there was a
Canadian rate of duty. if there was no duty, they
936 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
would come into Newfoundland free of duty.
Mr. Cashin Point of order. We are not discussing the Canadian tariff; we are trying to discuss
this federal estimate of the revenue which the
federal government would get. I held, and I think
I am in order, that these figures are not correct.
They should be corrected by the Assessor of
Taxes, and also by the Secretary of Customs who
is also a competent gentleman. Let us see if these
Canadian officials made a proper survey of our
situation.... Maybe they are guessing here. I have
just as much right to guess.
Mr. Chairman The only point is this: we would
have to go a step further and see the way these
figures have to be checked. These figures are
predicated on the assumption that the BNA Act
is superimposed upon this country. It is an estimate as to the probable revenue which
would be
collected under section 91. I have to hold that the
system of excise and customs duty as presently
obtaining in Canada has to be taken into account
when determining whether or not these figures
are correct....
Mr. Hollett Did I understand you to say that
duty on dutiable goods was 10%?
Mr. Smallwood If you take the total value of all
imports into Canada, dutiable and non-dutiable,
and divide that value by the total amount of
customs duty the government collects, it is 10%
as against 25% in Newfoundland. It varies —
some years 9%, some years 10%, some 11%,
depending on the total imports and the proportionate cost in the same year.... We
have here an
estimate by the Government of Canada — $20
million that they would collect from the people
of Newfoundland. Of that $20 million, $2 million
consists of customs and import taxes. Mr. Cashin
makes the point, if you take our trade last year at
$30 million from the United States...
Mr. Smallwood ....Before the war, in normal
times, we did import a lot of goods from countries
other than Canada. As a province of Canada we
would import from countries other than Canada
only such goods as Canada could not sell us, or
which she could sell, but which we could buy in
other countries, pay the Canadian duty and still
land it cheaper than we could buy in Canada,
which we would be free to do.
[Short recess]
Mr. Smallwood Something just occurred to me
in connection with this little discussion. In this
total $20 million which the Government of
Canada estimates it would collect, there is an
amount of $2 million, customs duty and import
taxes — 10%.... Here are the latest public accounts of Canada. Percentage distribution
of the
revenue, 4.28% of the total ordinary revenue. In
the case of Newfoundland, 10% of the revenue
they would raise here.... If our imports as a
province were of the general order of the imports
into the nine provinces, then they would be collecting 4.28%; and whatever 4.28% is,
it is less
than $2 million....
Mr. Butt In the case of the 10%. Black Book,
volume 1, page 123:
In comparing Canadian duties with those
levied by Newfoundland, differences in the
composition of imports must also be kept in
mind. In 1945, the ratio of import duties
collected to total imports into Canada was
only 10.6%, and in 1944 it was still lower at
l0.l% However, it must be recognised that
these figures were greatly affected by heavy
imports of duty-free raw materials of little
interest to Newfoundland.
I judge from that the figure taken is 10%. It does
not make sense to me.
Mr. Smallwood There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between what I am talking about
and what Mr. Butt is talking about, except the
purely accidental coincidence of 10% in each
case....
Mr. Crosbie Where is the $20 million you are
talking about?
Mr. Smallwood Grey Book, page 15. I am not
putting 10% on anything. They collect $20 million. Of that $2 million is customs and
import
duties — that is, 10% of the revenue they would
collect from the people of Newfoundland in
taxes.... But the average of all Canada, for all the
revenue they collect from all the people of the
nine provinces, they estimate customs duties accounts for 4.28%.
Mr. Crosbie I cannot accept Mr. Smallwood's
explanation. I do not know if these experts ever
sat down and figured it out; how are they going
to collect 10% of the total revenue in customs
duties? It does not make sense.... There is no
expert born who would figure customs duties
10% of the total revenue. There is income tax,
death duties, tobacco tax, sales tax, etc. The thing
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 937
is fantastic.
Mr. Smallwood I do not follow Mr. Crosbie.
The one who introduced the 10% happens to be
me. The Canadian experts did not say, "We will
collect 10% in customs duty". That is based on
the estimate of how much goods would be imported into Newfoundland, not from Canada,
but
from other countries, and collecting the rates of
tariff on that, the figure they arrive at is $2 million. I pointed out that two million
happens to be
10% of the $20 million. That is much higher than
the average rate in Canada. In Canada, from all
the revenue they collect from the people of
Canada, 4.28% is in customs duty. If they collected 10% of the total revenue, in customs
duties, that they collect from the people of Newfoundland, they would be collecting
a higher
proportion of general revenue from Newfoundlanders in the form of customs duty than
they do
in fact from the people of Canada. I say it is a
reasonable assumption. Instead of collecting
more than $2 million in customs duties, if it
works out as it does generally in Canada, it will
be very much less.
Mr. Crosbie I want to go back to page 123 of
the Black Book. We are told this Black Book is
official; it is the Canadian government's estimate
of what confederation is going to mean to Newfoundland. Now you tell us it is going
to be
4.28%.
Mr. Smallwood No. The Government of
Canada collects taxes from the people of Canada
— the total amount, whatever it is, is made up
under the various headings — income tax, corporation tax, sales tax, etc. 4.28% is
made up in
customs duties.
Mr. Crosbie OK. That is what you say. But
page 123 of the Black Book says in comparing
Canadian duties with those levied by Newfoundland, differences in the composition
of imports must also be kept in mind. In 1945, the ratio
of import duties collected "to total imports into
Canada was only 10.6 %, and in 1944 it was still
lower at 10.1 %". Right here it says 10.6% and
Mr. Smallwood says 4.28%. Those Canadian experts are crazy.
Mr. Smallwood There is no connection whatsoever in the wide world or even in the world
hereafter between this figure which Mr. Crosbie
has just quoted and the figure I quoted from the
public accounts of Canada. No connection at all.
This 10% here is a figure I quoted to Mr. Hollett.
I said that if you take all the imports brought into
Canada for a year, the total value, divide that by
the total amount, it works out at 9%, 10% and
11%. This figure in the public accounts is referring to something altogether different.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, they both refer to duties.
In one case this percentage refers to one thing and
in the other case it refers to something altogether
different.
Mr. Job I think I understand him perfectly. He
says this 10% is equal to 4%. Have you taken the
same imports in each case?
Mr. Job You have to have the same departments
of revenue in every case.
Mr. Job Are there no other taxes in Canada?
Mr. Smallwood In Canada the government collects taxes from all of the nine provinces and it
collects them in various ways. Regardless of the
ways, it collects a certain total amount for a year.
Of that total amount, whatever that amount may
be, 4.28% they get in the form of customs duty.
We come to Newfoundland, apply the same taxation, and you get a total of $20 million....
They estimate $2 million in customs duty, and
that would be 10% of all the revenue they would
get from Newfoundland. What they get from the
people of Canada is only 4.28%. That is the point
I make. That is the comparison.
Mr. Job They make it up in other ways.
Mr. Job The officials who make up the accounts. It may be correct what you say, that 4%
is in customs duties; but they get taxes in other
ways.
Mr. Crosbie If you are correct that if 4.28% in
customs duty is what they collect in Canada on
the average, according to the Black Book they
will collect 10.6% off us. I am up in the air.
Mr. Smallwood That is what it happens to work
out at, which seems to me to be excessively high.
Mr. Crosbie I agree with you. The Canadian
officials agree with you. Instead of $20 million it
should be that much less. Who are we going to
believe? Your 4.28% or the 10.6%?
Mr. Smallwood You are not believing me. That
938 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
is not my figure. This is the public accounts of
Canada; their public accounts.
Mr. Smallwood These are also provided by the
Government of Canada. There is no contradiction
between them and the 10%.
Mr. Crosbie I can be just as pigheaded and will
labour the point as long as you can. They figured
the duty at $2 million. What is the exact amount
of goods they expect to be imported into this
country outside of Canada?
Mr. Newell On page 123 it says, "However, it
must be recognised that these figures were greatly affected by heavy imports of duty-free
raw
materials of little interest to Newfoundland."
Would not that support the contention that the
proportion of our revenue would be higher than
that raised from Canada in duties?
Mr. Ashbourne As I view it, the 10% we are
talking about here happens to be 10% of $20
million which the federal government expects to
get. Now, if the amount of the ratio of total
imports happens to be 10%, then they would
expect it to be that, if the average was $20 million. I think it would be a logical
basis to figure
on. If the average customs duty collected was
10% and they estimated the amount of $2 million
which they think they are going to get in customs
duty, would it not be a fair assumption to assume
the amount would be $20 million? There are two
different things. The 4.28% is the percentage of
the total revenue as compared with import duties;
not the total amount of goods imported at dutiable
figures. Two different things altogether....
Mr. Chairman It still does not explain the
theoretical conflict between the public accounts
from which Mr. Smallwood quoted and the statement on page 123 referred to by Mr. Crosbie;
the
ratio of import duties collected and the total imports into Newfoundland which was
10.6% and
in 1944 still lower, 10.1%. What, if any, connection is there between the 4.28% referred
to by
Mr. Smallwood and the 10%?
Mr. Smallwood I can put that very shortly. This
year, we are told, Newfoundland collected $40
million revenue. Let us say $20 million was
gotten in customs duty. That would make it, if it
happened, 50% of all the revenue the Newfoundland government got. In Canada 4.28%
of
the total amount of revenue was collected in
customs duties. Mr. Newell put his finger on it....
Newfoundland would not be importing large
quantities of raw materials and this goes a long
way in accounting for duty-free imports — half
the imports into Canada are duty-free, mostly raw
materials, steel, iron, coal, oil and so on. Newfoundland would import a smaller proportion
of
raw materials coming in duty-free than the rest of
Canada. A larger share of our imports would be
dutiable than is the average throughout Canada;
for that reason therefore, instead of the average
10% duty, we might, on all imports, pay l2% or
14% and that accounts for this $2 million in the
Grey Book.
Mr. Bailey We are taking all this trouble on this
point. I think you will find that income in the
Canadian bracket is broken down into two very
easily handled taxes — direct and indirect
taxes.... The direct taxes are $1,155,000,000
which works out roughly at $96 per capita. But
on the other tax, Newfoundland is going to have
to pay...
Mr. Bailey Customs tax, excise tax, sales tax and
other taxes — indirect taxes is $1,045,000,000 or
$89.26 per capita.... Anyone here can put two and
two together. In Newfoundland we collected $40
million. Divide that by 320,000 people and we
will get $122.36. That is the tax Newfoundland
is paying. If she goes into confederation tomorrow, her indirect taxes will be $89
a head. We are
going to eat as Canadians, have as many bath
tubs. We must pay the same amount of taxes. I
know we are going to pay it; every man, from the
cradle to the grave will pay. I imagine every man
and boy will be paying the works. Whether it is
customs tax, excise tax, sales tax or other tax, I
will bet my last dollar I am right — $89 per
capita. Your tax under responsible government
and Commission government, the highest I think
was $122.36. There is the whole thing in a nutshell. Whether it is 4% of the total
or 6% or 3%
I do not know. But there it is.
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Bailey would
give us the total amounts.
Mr. Bailey $1,155,000,000 (direct)
$1,045,000,000 (indirect)
$2,200,000,000
Mr. Smallwood That is the total amount of the
revenue of the government of Canada. Mr. Bailey
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 939
has broken that down into per capita taxation at
so much a head. Let us deal with that for a moment.
The revenue of the Government of Canada —
$2,200,000,000 — is from all the people of
Canada; but in fact the Province of Ontario alone
contributed half the revenue.... It has a population
of four million people. It is a very high per capita
tax, is it not? But the other billion dollars is to be
divided among 8 1/2 million people. From the
other 8 1/2 million people, take the 3 1/2 million of
Quebec. What have you? The per capita tax for
the other provinces is very small. The Government of Canada, the Minister of Finance
does not
say at the beginning of the year, "We are going
to spend that, that and that. A total of $2 billion.
We have to get $2 billion. There are nine provinces. Nine divided into $2 billion,
therefore we
must get that much from each province." Neither
does he do this: "Our population is 12.5 million
souls; divide that into $2 billion, that is so much
per head; every head has to pay that much." He
does not do this. He says ... "Let those who can
pay it, pay it." There is an exception and that is
indirect taxes. Indirect taxation is the most
cursed, the most wicked thing ever invented.
Direct taxation is fair. You know what you pay.
Indirectly, you can be looted and fleeced. You
never know how much is looted out of you. They
have it in Canada. I wish they did not. In Newfoundland, the bulk of taxes has come
from indirect taxation. It is a wicked and cursed burden
on our people, a much heavier burden than in the
case of Canada. In Canada, the bulk of taxation
is raised by direct taxation, falling on the
shoulders of those who can best afford to pay it.
In Newfoundland, the very diapers on the baby
born tomorrow morning will be taxed; the coffin
in which you are buried will be taxed — a cursed,
wicked imposition on the people of Newfoundland. If we could abolish this wicked imposition;
if we could do that; if some genius could
do it; I think I would throw confederation and all
out the window — if we could find a fair system
of taxation, those who could afford to pay, and
those who could not afford it would not have to
pay.
Mr. Bailey I said I was not interested in direct
taxation; all I was interested in was indirect. What
is the difference in the indirect taxation of Canada
and our taxes? I think you will find it is $43.36.
Indirect taxation goes on the diapers; it is on the
diapers in Canada and will be on the diapers if we
enter confederation. How much tax has Newfoundland paid to Ottawa on the $39 million
we
imported? If we send $30 million to Ottawa, we
help pay their taxes. Not only are we helping to
pay their taxes, we are helping the men who
worked in the factories. I say this without fear of
contradiction: every person in Canada is paying
proportionate parts of Ottawa taxes; 82% of all
industrial dollars is put in by two provinces and
7% by British Columbia.
Mr. Bailey If for every dollar of industrial
money in Canada, 82% is invested in Ontario and
Quebec and 7% in British Columbia — 82 and 7
is 89; and 89 from 100 is 11%; 11% of the industrial dollars is invested by the other
six provinces. Consequently, Ontario pays and Quebec
pays and the other provinces pay.
Mr. Bailey I would like to know the proportion
of taxes we paid into the treasury last year out of
this $30 million, into Ottawa. You are cursing the
taxation of this country. I was fortunate in getting
the figures and working them down. There is the
percentage of indirect taxes — sales tax and other
excise taxes and they will go on from the cradle
to the grave. You are trying to tell us that by going
in with Canada we will be getting clear of indirect
taxation. Look at the direct taxes — $96 per
capita. I know I am not paying as much as
Mr. Crosbie or Mr. Hickman or Mr. Job in the
long run; but if I catch 50 quintals of fish and sell
it to Mr. Crosbie, I paid a couple of dollars of his
tax. We have wasted a lot of time on this
hyphenated heifer dust.
Mr. Hollett I think we are getting away from the
subject — this $2 million import tax and customs
duty. I am anxious to know how it is raised. I note
on page 7, volume I of the Black Books, a "Subcommittee on Finance composed of Mr.
J.E.
Coyne, Dr. R.A. MacKay, Mr. M.W. Sharp and
Mr. G.S. Watts of the Public Service of Canada,
and Rev. Lester Burry, Mr. P.W. Crummey and
Mr. J.R. Smallwood of the Newfoundland
delegation, to examine the financial implications
of union...." We have three delegates — Mr.
Burry, Mr. Crummey and Mr. Smallwood who
sat in on that. I take it that at these sessions they
940 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
worked out how they arrived at that particular
figure of $2 million. I would ask Mr. Smallwood
just how they worked it out and how they got it.
Mr. Smallwood The reply is, we did not work
it out. The table was worked out by the financial
and fiscal and trade experts of the Government of
Canada — the very men upon whom the Government of Canada depends for its fiscal and
financial policy; it is these very men who advise the
Minister of Finance in his budget; the very men
who derived this table. It was precious little
contribution that Mr. Burry, Mr. Crummey or I
made to these financial experts — that is, in
compiling that table — precious little. I thank Mr.
Hollett for the compliment to our ability; but
compared with these financial men, we are just
clod hoppers.
Mr. Hollett I know that. We sent you up there
as a delegation to go into the implications of
union with the Dominion of Canada and to bring
us back those so-called terms. You bring us back
a table saying the federal government will collect
$2 million from us in customs and import duties
in the event of confederation and you or
Mr. Burry or Mr. Crummey should be able to tell
us how you arrive at that figure; if not, some
people from the Finance or Customs should
know.
Mr. Smallwood We asked the Government of
Newfoundland to furnish us, as a delegation going
to Ottawa, with men from the Customs Department, from the Assessor's department, from
the
Railway and Post Office. We did indeed. The
reply of the government was, in their opinion we
did not need those men; that any information we
wanted we could get before we went; after we got
up there, if there was still information we needed,
or the Government of Canada needed, the
Government would be very happy to furnish that.
All we had to do was write or cable. In common
fairness, I would say that any information we
sought before we went was given us. Any information we sought after we went, was given
us.
Mr. Hollett You took up there certain facts and
figures; you passed them over to the men on these
various committees; you had nothing whatever to
do in making up these tables, submitted to us, at
all. You were up there 100 days and you know
nothing whatsoever as to how these figures were
arrived at.
Mr. Smallwood That is, approximately, the
situation — shameful and disgraceful as it is.
[Short recess]
Mr. Hickman I am not quite sure where we are
getting. I have been somewhat confused myself
this evening. I do not know if the people listening
in feel any better. I think we ought to get down
to some basis of clarifying the procedure on a
particular question or questions. I think it involves two questions. We have been
discussing
federal revenue. Now, are we straight on that? As
Major Cashin said earlier this evening, these
figures here may have been guesses or not. He
does not agree with them. I agree with him. He
made a suggestion with regard to page 15 of the
Grey Book. I think we ought to get those figures
straightened out; get as near as possible a more
accurate corroboration either from Mr. Allen of
the Assessor's Department or from Mr. Howell
of the Customs, if it is possible to do so. We have
been kind of wandering around from taxes to
taxes. That is just the federal end. We have to get
into the provincial end. On income tax we seem
to have skipped over a lot. I note in Canada in
1945 — I daresay it was higher in 1946 and 1947
— the total income tax collected was $650 million. Out of that, people earning under
$1,000
paid $18 million; between $1,000 and $2,000,
$139 million and $140 million. That is not the
high income tax people. The high income tax for
1945 is on page 232 of the book you have. These
things have to be brought out a little better. In
addition there is sales tax of 8%. We read the list
of goods that are exempt, but the list it is on are
not in the Black Book. There is a whole lot of
taxes goes on before the sales tax of 8%. I am not
going to read them. Mr. Smallwood just mentioned the indirect taxation which he does
not
like. In Canada they have a lot of that too. For
example, on a pair of shoes there are 126 taxes;
on a loaf of bread 52 taxes; on a suit of clothes
105 taxes before it gets to the consumer in
Canada.
Mr. Hickman These taxes would be on if we
became a province. I am talking about, if we went
into confederation. Referring to federal revenue,
I think the members ought to have before us a sort
of provincial budget — provincial revenue and
expenditure. The Economic Report was brought
in by the Finance Committee on the New
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 941
foundland question. They did try to give a picture
of how it might be in the foreseeable future. I do
think we should show how much money we are
going to receive as a province and what the
difference will be between that, and what we will
need for expenditure. That much has to be raised
— the difference between what we get from
Canada and what has got to be raised from taxation. I think that ought to be brought
in here so
that we can discuss that, as we did the Economic
Report, and let the people see what has to be
raised and from what source it has to come. It is
my guess that we are going to be $2 million or $3
million short on provincial revenue after paying
8% of sales tax and all other taxes. We have to
get the provincial side of it. I would rather have
the people see both sides. I do not want to hide
anything — how much have they to pay and who
is going to pay? I do not know whether it would
be in order to make any motion along those lines.
I know Major Cashin introduced the subject earlier in the evening. I would prefer
for him to
express his opinion.
Mr. Chairman I suggest, if that is going to be
done, we might rise the committee; I go back to
the Chair and then, if need be, put the motion
before the Chair and call for a discussion is, if it
meets with the approval of the House.
Mr. Smallwood This is unexpected. It is not at
all, as I understand it, in line with our discussion
and decision of last night. My understanding of
what we decided to do last night was that, pending the time we should have some idea
put before
the House of the purely provincial taxation, we
should go ahead first and discuss federal revenue
and expenditure. That is what we are doing. On
that, if the House is not satisfied with the estimate
of the Government of Canada, of the experts of
the Government of Canada. and cares to solicit
estimates from anyone locally, there is nothing in
the way of doing it. But why not dispose of the
question of federal government revenues and expenditures for the Province of Newfoundland,
if
we became a province, before taking up the question of provincial government revenues
and expenditures? Whichever we take first, we must
take one of them first. You cannot jumble up
federal expenditure and revenue with provincial
expenditure and revenue. You have to take one
of them at first. It so happens it is more convenient to take federal. That is what
we have been
doing. After all is said and done, it is perfectly
true that we have got to consider what would be
the revenue of the Province of Newfoundland;
where it would get the revenue; what would be
the expenditure of the provincial government.
While we have to do that, is it not important also
to know what the federal government will spend
in Newfoundland, and what it will take from the
people of Newfoundland in taxes? Why not go
into that for a day or two and spend the rest of the
week on the provincial government expenditure?
Mr. Chairman Except for this point, I agree
with your contention that we are discussion probable federal revenues and expenditures
with
respect to Newfoundland. That is quite so. In the
course of your own remarks, Mr. Smallwood,
you have pointed out that when this is finished,
inevitably we must come to the time and place
where we have to deal with purely provincial
aspect of it. Now, members — at all events
Mr. Hickman and Major Cashin — seem to be of
opinion that they are not in a position to discuss
the provincial aspect of it when we come to it.
That raises the question as to whether or not it is
necessary to secure supplementary information.
Mr. Smallwood I thought they were addressing
themselves to the federal government revenues
and expenditures.
Mr. Chairman Would you allow me to finish?
Assuming we have to come to the provincial
aspect of it, some members feel that they have not
sufficient data on the purely provincial side in
order to be able to determine with any degree of
accuracy, the impact of section 92 of the
BNA Act upon the productive economy of this
country, if and when we become a province. That
being so, at this time, there is an inquiry as to
whether that information should not well be
secured from some source or sources: if that is so,
it is my duty to facilitate members into an intelligent discussion of this thing.
If some machinery
has to be set up in order to discuss the provincial
aspect of it when we leave the federal aspect, the
sooner it is set up the better for all concerned.
Even if the debate continues for several days, the
machinery would be set up to secure the information and could be operating, which
would minimize or eliminate a prolonged adjournment....
Mr. Smallwood My understanding was that
Mr. Hickman and Major Cashin was questioning
this table, this estimate of the federal government
942 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
of what they would collect from the people of
Newfoundland, and that they suggested that
another estimate be gotten locally from
Mr. Allen, Tax Assessor and from possibly
Mr. Howell, Secretary of Customs, at least in
respect to income tax and customs tax, under
confederation — to get the estimate of what the
Newfoundland people would give the government of Canada under that heading. That was
my
understanding.
Mr. Chairman The position in which the Chair
finds itself is, if at the time, because necessary
information is not available to members at this
time in order to pursue the matter, or if, as
Mr. Hickman says, we have been going along all
evening in a maze because certain other supplementary information has not been forthcoming;
then whether it deals with the federal aspect
of the thing or the provincial aspect of the thing,
it is my duty to sympathetically consider and give
every attention to the unenviable position in
which members might find themselves.
Mr. Hollett Might I suggest that it be brought
before the Steering Committee?
Mr. Cashin In connection with this whole
federal revenue set-up here, let me point out
again that personal income tax, corporation tax
and succession tax amounts to only $11 million;
and as I pointed out earlier this evening, it should
be much more if we go into confederation. The
people who computed this could not have been
particularly well informed on the Newfoundland
situation. Our own Assessor of Taxes or his assistant, or some of his chiefs, would
know more
about it than anyone in Ottawa. They could give
us only an estimate, a fairly conservative estimate
of what would be collected by the federal government of Canada if we went into confederation.
With regard to customs duty, I cannot agree with
the figure, because if they based their estimates
of liquor taxes and which they put down at
$400,000; last year $1,674,000 was collected.
That is $1 million out. In the case of tobacco taxes
which they put down as $500,000, last year it was
$2.5 million. If the customs are out in proportion
to tobacco and liquor taxes, you can see my point,
what I am trying to drive at. They are just guessed
at by those people in Ottawa from whatever information was given them. Then turn over
the
other page of the book and look at the federal
expenditure. The point I am getting at, the federal
expenditures, for instance, tax agreement is what
goes to the province; old age pensions, that goes
to the province. Family allowances, that is from
the federal government and has nothing to do
with the province. "Other departmental expenditures $9,400,000" — we certainly ought
to know
under what departmental heads it is going to be
spent. I have had a little experience in this financial business. I should know what
I am talking
about in connection with this. I want to get it over
quickly; I was never particularly agreeable to
having this Convention at all, as everyone knows.
I feel the suggestion by Mr. Hollett is right; it
should come before the Steering Committee and
should get down to closer grips and see if we can
work out places to get the proper information for
the Convention as a whole. I suggest the committee rise.
Mr. Smallwood I am agreeable to have the
committee rise. I would say this; my motion will
be made as plainly as words can make it. I am
personally anxious that this Convention finish
before Christmas. I am sick and tired of it.
Mr. Smallwood Now, I want to get out at something else. I am fed up with it. I want to finish
before Christmas. We will never do it if we do
not use up every hour and every minute. I am
prepared to go ahead. I am satisfied with the
estimates of the Canadian government as to what
revenue they will collect. I am equally satisfied
with what they will spend. I do not think anyone
in Newfoundland will tell us one word better than
they estimate what they will spend. I estimate
around $35 million or $36 million a year. Their
own estimate of what they will collect is $20
million. I am satisfied with that. I am prepared to
go on.
Mr. Chairman I can say what I expect to spend;
but what I expect to collect over the next year
might be something entirely different. I know
what I can do with the money I have in hand. I
can see what I have in hand. But as to what can
be collected over a given period, that might be
something entirely different.
Mr. Smallwood I am prepared to go ahead. The
less delay, the better I will be pleased.
Mr. Hollett Could Mr. Smallwood or any member of the Convention tell me how much personal
income tax was collected in this country last
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 943
year?
Mr. Smallwood Not last year; even the
Assessor's department does not know that. I can
tell you for the year before. It is in Volume 2, I
believe.
Mr. Chairman While Mr. Smallwood is looking up that — arising out of your suggestion, and
you contemplate a meeting be held by the Steering Committee — suppose for argument
sake the
Steering Committee decided on a certain course
of conduct which ought to be pursued in order to
acquire the necessary information for members,
would it be your intention to continue debate on
this thing?
Mr. Hollett Yes, there is plenty here to debate
and still get the facts.
Mr. Smallwood There is a book known as
"Comparative Statistics of Public Finance"; it
covers it in detail.
Mr. Smallwood Page 73, Volume 1; personal
income tax as distinct from corporation tax.
Mr. Hollett I am entirely in agreement with the
statements by Major Cashin and Mr. Hickman
when I look at this particular item which they will
collect in personal income tax from the people of
Newfoundland — $3.2 million. I am prepared to
say they collected in personal income tax that
much last year, on our rates. In other words, a
single man earning $1,000 before he pays any
income tax whatsoever in Newfoundland. After
he passes $1,000, he pays 9%. A married man
with no dependents but his wife can earn $2,000
before he pays income tax. In connection with
that, I would refer you to page 153, volume 2 of
the Black Book, to show you how ridiculous that
amount of $3.2 million might be. A single man
pays income tax if he earns $750. Also he has to
pay 8% sales tax on practically everything he
buys in Canada. More than that, if he has to buy
a present for his girl friend, he has to pay luxury
tax.
Mr. Smallwood You are quoting figures on the
single men; what about the married men?
Mr. Hollett I said I would take the single men
first. I am thinking mostly at the moment of our
fishermen who fish out of Harbour Breton,
English Harbour and Burin; the loggers who cut
down the trees; the miners who dig out the ore;
our paperworkers in paper mills. We have a lot
of young men who came back from overseas who
are in these income tax brackets. For instance this
$1500; we had fishermen who earned as high as
$2,200 in Fortune Harbour. Those fishermen in
Harbour Breton or Burin will pay $264 in
Canada, whereas here in Newfoundland he will
pay $110. On top of that also, he pays 8% sales
tax on practically everything he buys and 25%
luxury tax. $2100 or $2200 or $2400 — we have
a lot of people in this country earning $2400; a
surprising number. In the industrial towns of
Grand Falls and Corner Brook, a great many
Banking fishermen, over on Bell Island there is
an average of $1,600 or $1,800. That was worked
out by the Mining Committee. We can go back to
$2,200; on that he pays $264 in Canada if we
become a province; whereas at the moment he
pays $110. A single man should pay; he has no
dependents; I grant you that. I also grant you this;
if he is paying that much more, that is all the more
reason why this $3.2 million is wrong. Take a
married man with two dependents; he earns
$1,980 before he pays any tax, then he pays $20.
Mr. Smallwood Take a married man with three
children under 16 years of age, of course he
collects $72 a year average on each child —
$216; he is better off by $196.
Mr. Smallwood You were careful to point out
what the single men would pay with confederation and without. Now I am talking about
how
they will be better off.
Mr. Hollett If you continue interrupting —
how, when, where and why would they be better
off?
Mr. Hollett No. He has to buy food, boots and
shoes and clothing for his wife and three children.
He has to pay 8% sales tax on all that.
Mr. Hollett A married man with three children,
in this country, has to earn $2,900 before he pays
income tax. In Canada, a man earning $3,000,
944 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
with three children, pays $210 income tax; in this
country, a man with a wife and three children
pays $9. A man earning $3,500 pays $310 income
tax in Canada. The point I want to make is this;
if you take the amount of income tax which will
be collected under confederation, the amount of
income tax which will go to the federal government, it will be much more than $3.2
million.
That is why I think the suggestion made by Major
Cashin in having Mr. Allen and to get him to help
us is right. Mr. Allen in collaboration with the
census people, who have the number of people
earning, and who know practically in what income groups they are, could help us.
Mr. Job I was going to say, Major Cashin has
pointed out some definite, concrete things; particularly that liquor tax which is
down here as
$400,000; Major Cashin has shown very clearly
that that should be $1.6 million. That, in itself, is
an item that shakes your faith, absolutely shakes
your faith, in this thing. Another thing is, if the
federal government have made mistakes in this,
their offer is all wrong, as it is upon this federal
revenue that they based their offer. It is very
important then to get this into the hands of experts
and have it looked into carefully.
Mr. Ashbourne I would like to know if Major
Cashin would give me what the amount of liquor
imported from Canada was last year. He gave us
the duty collected on liquor and tobacco.
Mr. Cashin These figures were excepting
Canada. Liquor of all kinds imported, $12 million; yielded $1,674,800.00. This thing
here says
$400,000. In the case of imported cigarettes from
the United States, 529,412 pounds; approximately $2 million in duty. Here you have
$500,000. It
is quote evident that my friends in St. John's
West are not going to get their liquor cheap if we
go into confederation.
Mr. Chairman In view of the opinions expressed here this evening, I think I should meet
the Steering Committee for the purpose of discussing future procedure. I would therefore
like
the members of the Steering Committee to meet
me tomorrow. I would prefer it to be 2 pm rather
than the morning. Will members of the Steering
Committee please note that there will be a meeting in my room at 2 pm.
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Hollett Might I ask if the publications
which we were to get from Ottawa have arrived?
[Carried]
Mr. Higgins On the motion to adjourn, I do not
think the Steering Committee can do much between 2 pm and 3 pm; it is a question of
going
into the whole business, the full picture has to be
considered.
Mr. Smallwood Not another holiday tomorrow
afternoon? Is there anything mysterious about it?
Is it not merely to ask the Assessors Department
and the Customs Department to work out an
estimate for us? From 2 pm to 3 pm, a whole hour
to decide that? Let us decide it right now.
Mr. Ballam Bring in a motion to ask the Customs Department and Assessor's Department to
prepare such an estimate.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Higgins thinks that not
much can be accomplished if the meeting is held
at 2 pm and we have to go into session at 3 pm.
Mr. Job We could adjourn if we are not
finished.
Mr. Chairman That is why I want the Steering
Committee meeting held. I must take note of the
fact that there are difficulties confronting members here. I have a Steering Committee
and it is
my duty to call it together in an effort to resolve
any difficulties which may confront members.
My object in calling a Steering Committee meeting is to try and resolve difficulties
which
presently exist and which are likely to exist unless something is done about it: to
have them
perhaps decide what
modus operandi can be
employed in order to eliminate the difficulties
which now confront the Chair.
Mr. Smallwood I am opposed to the Steering
Committee making any decisions. Let the Convention decide. Let it be done in public.
Mr. Chairman Suppose I decide to appoint a
special committee, which I have the right to do,
in order to facilitate members to eliminate difficulties which must otherwise come
before the
Chair; there are difficulties and they must continue if they are not anticipated.
My object is
merely to secure advice.
Mr. Chairman If the occasion so arrives, a
decision will be made by the Convention. Sup
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 945
pose a certain course of conduct is carried out; to
carry that into effect, I will avail myself of my
rights to appoint a special committee for that
purpose. I might be put in a position where I
would have to appoint a committee when members could accomplish the very same thing.
If I
am forced to do it, I certainly will appoint a
Special committee to deal with future procedure
of the matter now before the Chair.
Mr. Smallwood I am agreeable to the Steering
Committee, but I would say that any suggestion
or any decision should be a decision by the Convention, and not the Steering Committee.
That is
turning it into something it was never intended to
be.
Mr. Chairman You are anticipating too much.
I am asking the Steering Committee to meet me
for the purpose of discussing matters which have
arisen this evening and which are not going to be
resolved unless and until some course of proce
dure is adopted. To that end, therefore, the members of the Steering Committee, not
as a Steering
Committee at all, but rather in the status of an
advisory committee are asked to meet me in the
endeavour to try and find some means whereby
the Convention members may be facilitated in the
discharging of the duties assigned to them, in
particular in regard to the business now before the
Chair. Surely there is nothing wrong about that.
We will meet to consider and recommend. I have
not attempted to force anything on this Convention. Recommendations will be made;
if the Convention sees fit to adopt them, all right; if they see
fit to throw them out, well and good.
Mr. Higgins I move the adjournment until 3 pm
Thursday.
Mr. Smallwood I give notice I will not be at the
Steering Committee. I am absolutely opposed to it.
[The motion carried 25-7, and the Convention
adjourned]
