Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, when we rose
on Tuesday night we had been discussing Annex
IV of the Grey Book, which set forth the
Canadian government's estimate of what we
would collect from the people in taxes in Newfoundland if we became a province, and
also what
they estimate they would spend in Newfoundland
if we became a province. In the course of the
debate, Major Cashin particularly, and Mr. Job
also, expressed the feeling that the estimates
provided by the Canadian government on those
two matters were not sufficiently accurate and
comprehensive, or in sufficient detail in some
respects. So the feeling seemed to develop
amongst some delegates that the matter should be
looked into, and for that reason no public or
private session of the Convention was held
yesterday. Instead a meeting of the Steering
Committee was held, and I think I may say that
the result of yesterday's Steering Committee
meetings was shown this afternoon, when Major
Cashin gave notice of these questions bearing on
the Canadian government's estimates of what it
would collect in the way of revenue from Newfoundland, and in the next place by Mr.
Hollett's
notice of question directed to the Canadian
government, asking them for more details of that
amount of $9.4 million which the Canadian
government estimates it would spend here. There
was a feeling in the Steering Committee meeting
that it might take some time for the governments
to furnish the information which Major Cashin
and Mr. Hollett request ... and that therefore it
would be impossible, or at least not very practical, to proceed with the debate on
the financial
aspects of these terms, or of this Grey Book, until
that information is forthcoming, and that we
would in the meantime postpone our debate on
these financial aspects.
There was a further thought that although it
was not practical to go ahead with the debate
from a federal standpoint, it might be practical to
go ahead with the debate from the purely provincial standpoint, that is what would
likely be the
948 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
provincial government's revenues and expenditures, since that that might be ready
by Monday
next; but that until Monday next it would not be
practical to proceed even with the provincial
finances. Therefore, as there remained a number
of matters of considerable importance in connection with this whole confederation
question, a
number of matters of importance in the Black
Books, we would save time while waiting to
receive the information requested if we
proceeded to discuss some of these other matters
that are in the Black Books, that we have not as
yet touched on....
No one wants anyone to begin at the first page
of the first volume and plod all the way through
to the last page of the second volume. I don't
think any one of us or the country would be very
much the wiser. So there is no purpose in our
doing that, but rather we should take some of the
matters that are in the Black Books....
Now in Volume 1, on page 2, there is a list of
contents of chapter 3 — functions of certain
federal boards, agencies, and offices, etc. I don't
know that there would be any particular value to
anyone to wade all the way through that, but there
are, as I see it, six or seven of these matters that
seem as though they might have some importance, which we might take up. I was thinking,
for example, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; another one, the Civil Service
Commission; and another, the Foreign Exchange Control
Board, and the National Film Board, the National
Harbours Board, the National Research Council,
and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I
thought that we might take up these and go
through them and then turn to some other
matters. New page 105 of the Black Book deals
with the first matter.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation exists under an act of 1936. The Corporation
has
two principal jobs: "(1) To carry on a national
broadcasting service within the Dominion of
Canada; (2) to regulate and control all
programs...."
....I don't know, sir, that there is anything else
in that section that is worth reading. It is not a
particularly important matter, probably we could
move on to another one if no one has anything to
say on it.
Mr. Higgins Why not go over to page 137 of the
Black Book? It is a very important matter I think.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, we had a meeting of the Steering Committee yesterday, as you
know, and it was agreed that finance and taxes
would be held over until we get this information... We have a lot of things in these
books that
we can take up without going into a question of
taxation. I suggest strongly that we drop the
matter of taxation now. When it is dealt with let
it all be dealt with at the one time.
Mr. Hollett May I rise to a point of order? Not
exactly a point of order, but I don't entirely agree
with the statement which my friend
Mr. Smallwood has made about the agreement
reached about financial matters not being discussed. I do agree if he will state this:
that the
discussion of federal revenues and expenditures
would not be discussed, and also a discussion of
the matter touching our proposed budget which
might be brought in by the Ottawa delegation, but
surely this matter which Mr. Higgins has just
raised here with regard to customs and excise
tariffs, I am sure that would not in any way, shape
or form interfere with these two matters.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, the matter of
taxes is certainly covered in revenue. If we are to
discuss taxes we have to discuss revenue. That is
how revenue is got — through taxation.
Mr. Higgins No, Mr. Chairman, I disagree. We
have to find out here what taxes, duties and excise
taxes are, and to what things they apply. We don't
go into the amounts, we certainly find out what
they are and how much they are — not in quantity, but specific items. l think we should
know
that. We don't know what they are around here,
because we have never had them. We have never
had excise duties or excise taxes. We have had
excise on a couple of things only. Now we have
excise duties and excise taxes to consider, and I
think we should know what they are.
Mr. Smallwood I agree with Mr. Higgins that
we have got to know these things. The only
question is, when is the time? It was agreed
yesterday, with one man dissenting...
Mr. Smallwood It was generally agreed that
until this information was obtained this matter
would be left over. Now why take it up a bit at a
time? Why not wait until all the question is before
us and then have a thorough debate on the ques
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 949
tion of revenue and taxation and expenditure?
Mr. Higgins This in no wise prevents your
referring to it later on. It is merely letting the
house and the people understand what it means.
Mr. Smallwood I understand very thoroughly
what Mr. Higgins means. But what is the need for
us to debate it now when we are going to debate
it thoroughly later on?
Mr. Higgins Well, it is much more important
than discussing Canadian broadcasting.
Mr. Smallwood If you don't want to discuss
Canadian broadcasting, let's discuss something
else.
Mr. Smallwood What is the good of deciding
something in these private meetings and then go
right back on it again? That's why I did not want
to attend that meeting yesterday. We attended a
meeting the night before, and discussed a lot of
things, and then came in here at a public session
and turned it right upside down again.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, may I speak now? I
insist, sir, that there was no agreement at all, and
I don't want to refer back to that Steering Committee at all.
Mr. Chairman I don't think I should be put in
a position where I have to rule on it.
Mr. Hollett If I may, if there was any agreement
whatsoever it was the matter of the probable
federal revenues and expenditures, and the probable budget that one might conjure
up if we
became a province. Now these things here to
which Mr. Higgins has referred are customs and
excise duties which are in effect at the moment,
and neither Mr. Smallwood nor myself can alter
them, and there is no reason why they should or
may be altered before we enter into confederation. These are things which are not
relevant to
the matters which we cannot discuss before we
get certain information asked for; and I insist that
Mr. Smallwood is making a misinterpretation,
not intentional I suspect, but there are certain
things there that our people do not know, and I
want them to know, and I hope Mr. Smallwood
does that.
Mr. Bailey There is one thing here that struck
my mind...
Mr. Chairman If you don't mind, Captain Bailey, I want to settle the matter before we
go on. It is with the greatest reluctance that I make
any reference at all whatsoever to the meeting of
the Steering Committee which occurred yesterday afternoon; but I feel it is correct
to say there
was no unanimity of opinion as to the procedure
to be employed between then, yesterday afternoon, and Monday afternoon next. My impression
is that perhaps a slight majority might have
had what Mr. Smallwood suggests in mind, but I
am quite sure that that was not unanimously
agreed to, because one member very emphatically stated that he would not consider
himself
bound by any such decision, even if it were
arrived at; and secondly, it will have to be remembered that a decision of the Steering
Committee
is not binding upon the Convention at all. It is a
recommendation as to the procedure to be followed in a given case, which may be accepted
or
rejected by the Convention and therefore I do feel
there is no useful purpose to be served in debating, or trying to break down the probable
revenues and expenditures as set forth in pages
l5 and 16 of Annex IV, until the information
requested from the various governments and
government departments is forthcoming, and
Mr. Smallwood introduces his breakdown of the
figures in question. But, Mr. Smallwood, while it
may very well happen that miscellaneous excise
taxes and sources of revenue of $1.5 million is an
item included in the probable revenues estimated
by the federal government, I think that might be
deferred until Monday for the reason that we have
decided, at least I think we ought to decide, to
defer discussion in this matter. But surely, surely,
in discussing the meaning of excise duties, its
effect upon the economy of a country is something entirely different from trying to
show how
the figure of $l.5 million miscellaneous excise
taxes and other sources of revenue is arrived at
by the federal government. Is there anything
wrong in principle in discussing the meaning of
excise taxes?
Mr. Smallwood Well, they are not to be hidden.
I am not trying to hide this confederation thing. I
am the last man in Newfoundland to do that....
Let the guilt lie where it belongs, not on me.
Mr. Smallwood No sir, there is the accusation
950 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
about this thing. If the country wants to know
who is doing the hiding they will hear it some
day!
Mr. Chairman Well, the suggestion of Mr.
Smallwood is that since this question of excise
has to be dealt with by him in the breakdown
which he proposes to introduce into the house on
Monday, that...
Mr. Smallwood No sir, not on Monday. That's
provincial. Federal is the matter under discussion
just now. But there is this point. Sir, we have here
in this book the Canadian rates of customs and
excise taxes on certain goods. Since that was
prepared many of these have been changed in
Canada.
Mr. Smallwood I can't tell you because I have
tabled a question asking the Government of
Canada to tell us all the changes that have been
made since they gave us this book. There have
been these multilateral agreements. Canada has
been a party to them. There is a great change in
their rates of taxation, downward in some and
upward in others, and until we get the actual
figures what is the good of debating it now, only
to find that we have to debate it all over again
when we get the new rates?
Mr. Hollett What have we got to go on then,
these are correct?
Mr. Hollett We have got to wait six months
until they change their tariffs, is that it? I move
that the matter be discussed.
Mr. Chairman The position is that this
reflected the factual position at the time it was
prepared. It has been suggested by Mr. Smallwood that there has been a change since
this was
prepared, by the fact that rates have been reduced
since that time, and therefore, in order to reconcile the "then" position with the
"now" position
that he would send a question to the Government
of Canada, and I recall his question going forward, and he is awaiting the current
information
from Ottawa before he can intelligently discuss
the question. But if he feels that he cannot discuss
that until he receives this information, Mr. Hollett, I don't see there is very much
point in going
on with it. If we are going to deal with it at all
let's deal with it upon the assumption that it
reflects the actual position, not as it was six
months ago, or as it may be six months time. Let's
take the actual position as it is at the moment.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, may I ask
Mr. Smallwood if he enquired of our government
if there are any changes likely to be made in these
Newfoundland tariffs or excise taxes?
Mr. Smallwood Yes, I am interested; but the
fact of the matter is that since the Government of
Canada gave us their rates of taxation in certain
matters, since we brought the Black Books down
here, the Government of Canada has entered into
multilateral trade treaties with a large number of
countries, and these reductions in tariff rates are
taking effect from December 31, this very month.
Now in open session here, I tabled a question
asking the Government of Canada to give us the
correct figures. What is the good of wasting the
country's time, and the Convention's time, talking about figures which we know have
been
changed, until we get the actual changes? Let's
put our cards on the table, Mr. Chairman. It is
agreed now, right here in this Convention, that
whether we like it or not, that we cannot finish
before December 15. We have got to come back
here in January, and by then we hope to have the
information from the Government of Canada that
Mr. Hollett has requested, and the information
that Major Cashin has requested today: and as by
then we will have these corrected figures from
the Government of Canada on customs and excise, then isn't it ordinary downright commonsense
to put off this question of taxation and
revenue until we have all the facts before us?
Why take it piecemeal? Why do that when we
have so many other things we can ventilate and
debate?
Mr. Higgins If the Convention wants, I presume
we can have a vote on it.
Mr. Smallwood Oh, you can have a vote on it,
and if you have a vote on it I could tell you what
the vote will be.
Mr. Chairman Just a minute, Mr. Smallwood,
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 951
please. The actual position is that it is the right of
this Convention to raise any question at this time
arising out of the terms received from Canada, all
of which have been read and the business is
before the Chair. I ruled in the beginning and
several times since that members would be free
to revert back to any clause after and when the
document as a whole had been read and considered. Now I do feel that until the information
is forthcoming to enable us to make this breakdown, that there is not much point in
going on
with this debate on the aspects of clauses 7-14
inclusive.... If we are going to debate it should be
on the actual position. If these figures are wrong,
or at least out of date, I cannot see much point in
pursuing it. I am not suggesting you cannot
debate it; but unless you are prepared to carry on
the debate on the presupposition that the figures
here are subject to change, there is not much
point.
Mr. Higgins If there are any changes, we are
prepared to make the changes.
Mr. Hollett This is 1945-46; it is as fair to Newfoundland as it is to Canada. It is the Customs
returns for 1945-46.
Mr. Bailey I wonder when we received these
books if they were sitting at Geneva? Why did
not the Canadian authorities make a note that they
would be changing their tariffs? We have the
official report, but by the time we received it,
there was a conference at Geneva by which this
will be changed.
Mr. Chairman It may develop that Canada or
no other country could forecast the outcome.
Mr. Bailey They could have put in a note that
there may be changes.
Mr. Cashin That has been done. The conference
has made public the various tariff changes. And
Newfoundland made it in the public press a
couple of weeks ago. I presume the Canadian
changes were not in the press.
Mr. Smallwood I have a table sent by the
government of the changes.
Mr. Cashin The Canadian government should
have had courtesy enough to know that we were
discussing these terms or proposals and they
should know that these figures are not sufficient
in any way, shape or form. In other words, that
thing is a fraud. No member of the delegation to
Ottawa can attempt to get up here and discuss the
questions to which they should know the
answers, and be able to explain to us the various
figures in the Grey Book, to the satisfaction of the
Convention. I could tell you how long it will take
to get the answers regarding the Customs — in
my opinion and in the opinion of the experts of
Ottawa, it will take six months. Are we going to
stay here six months trying to dig up information
from Canada ... when it should be here properly
made out? There is not a correct figure in the
book. These experts at Ottawa faked the figures
in this book as far as the Ottawa delegation is
concerned.
Mr. Vardy We are trying to base these terms on
known facts at the time the delegation was in
Ottawa. I fail to see why changes should be
brought in except where we find anything in the
Black Books which may be wrong; then it is our
duty to secure confirmation or contradiction of
the facts. There may be changes in the tariffs in
Canada, changes in the excise duty. After receiving particulars of the changes we
may debate this
only to find out 12 months from now that there
may be other changes. In reality we are endeavouring to debate what is contained in
the
Black Books. If we find the figures open to question, we have every right to question
them. It is
on the basis of these terms of confederation that
we must continue our debate. I am agreeable to
waiting for particular information. I am not so
sure any of the questions asked cover the excise
taxes which are really different from tariffs.
Mr. Higgins Is it not correct that any tariff changes, before they can be made, first have to
be
debated in the Canadian Parliament, no matter
what agreement was arrived at?
Mr. Chairman It is not binding upon the signatories unless and until it is implemented by the
local legislators.
Mr. Higgins It is quite possible they may not be
debated until January, February or March. If we
have to wait until that matter comes before the
Canadian Parliament to discuss this important
matter, where are we going to be?
Mr. Harrington In connection with this matter,
the suggestion has come up here as to when the
Canadian Parliament is going to discuss tariff
changes. There is one question in my mind in
connection with this whole business, these Black
Books. We have the understanding that there will
possibly be changes. What about the Grey Book?
The letter says. "I am now in a position to advise
952 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
you regarding the arrangements which the
Government would be prepared to
recommend to
Parliament". I take it this Grey Book has not been
recommended to Parliament and even then they
must have an agreement among themselves. We
have no reason to believe that this Grey Book will
be accepted
in toto. In that case we have been
discussing something that may be ripped to
pieces afterwards. I would like to have some
clarification on this.
Mr. Fogwill We had no session yesterday,
nevertheless I did a little work. It is laid down
here that the federal government will collect $2
million in customs and import duties....
Mr. Smallwood If Mr. Fogwill wishes to
debate finance, count me out. I will not follow the
debate through. Let us take the lid off the debate;
either wait for information or let us be frank. We
decided we are going to hang the dog until
December 15. We have nothing to do.
Mr. Chairman I do not think you have any right
to make any such statement implying that all the
members, including myself, are hanging the dog.
It does not follow at all. Because any member is
desirous of seeking information, and we are waiting receipt of further information,
we are not
hanging the dog. You have no right to arrive at
any such conclusion.
Mr. Smallwood I feel like doing some plain
talking. I will not do it.
Mr. Hollett Why am I the last man to talk? Let
us have it.
Mr. Chairman I think if members would cool
down, I would not pay too much attention to what
has been said.
Mr. Fogwill I want the people to know the truth
as far as taxes are concerned. As far as excise tax
is concerned, I do not think there is much difficulty. I do not think the tariff or
the Geneva agreement is going to make much difference.
Nevertheless the total in the estimates of the
federal government is $2 million customs duty;
$400,000 liquor tax; $500,000 tobacco tax; $1.5
million miscellaneous excise taxes. Take that
$4.4 million — I took the customs returns for
1946 on only nine items, including four items
contained in this book and I got $3 million over
and above this estimate, which is the estimate of
the federal government.
Mr. Chairman That is why I question the advisability of going ahead with the debate at this
particular time. Your figures are predicated upon
the present set-up, whereas these figures are
predicated upon what our probable position will
be if and when we became a province of Canada;
and because further information has been requested by members.
Mr. Fogwill I am not going to discuss how it is
made up; all I want discussed is, what are the
taxes? What will each have to pay? I think it is
the proper way to talk about it — for instance, 20
cents on a pack of playing cards.
Mr. Smallwood You want to get in a sly dig
every once in a while. We are going to have a
debate on the financial side. Are we going to
spend the next four or five days going over things
we have to change, and come back to it again?
Mr. Crosbie I have a lot of sympathy for Mr.
Smallwood. He finds himself in this position. He
has to debate and pilot through the House figures
which he himself does not know how they were
arrived at, how they were compiled. He cannot
do it. As far as I am concerned, there were certain
questions asked from the Canadian government
and Newfoundland government concerning the
Newfoundland section of this document. Apparently, to kill time, we are going to debate
all
over again the things we have debated. To me, it
does not make sense. I would rather adjourn for
a week or ten days than debate that all over again.
I move the committee rise now.
Mr. Bailey Are we not to discuss this matter at
all now?
Mr. Chairman I have a motion to rise the committee. Is it the intention to adjourn the House?
Mr. Crosbie Yes. Why waste our time here discussing figures which are not correct? That is my
attitude. The House does not have to listen to me.
We have here a bunch of figures and this country
is supposed to vote in the referendum on those
terms which are the basis of negotiation with
Canada. There is a discrepancy in the figures. Mr.
Smallwood says things have changed since the
document came down. These figures have to be
changed. We have got to get what it will cost the
country, where the money will be raised. When
we get to revenue and expenditure we will need
experts. That means two or three months. Mr.
Smallwood admits these figures are wrong. Until
we get the answers, we are wasting the country's
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 953
money and my time.
Mr. Newell A couple of days ago we reached a
point where individuals had asked questions to
which they had not received answers and the
answers were necessary. We left it to the Steering
Committee to determine the method of procedure. Apparently the Steering Committee
did not
agree unanimously. While I cannot agree with
everything Mr. Crosbie has said, I am certainly
in sympathy with him on one point. While I
would like to see this Convention over as quickly
as anyone else, I do not see the sense of quibbling
for four or five days without the information.
That is all we did this afternoon — quibbled. Let
us adjourn until we have the information to go on
with.
Mr. Hollett I disagree with Mr. Crosbie and
Mr. Newell. These two Black Books are sent us
by Ottawa and we are supposed to do the best we
can by telling the people of this country their
contents. Although we have asked some questions which have not been answered, and
although we have asked questions which never will
be answered, I do not believe that is any reason
why we should hold up the debate. If you will
bear with me, on the particular question I asked
today — a breakdown of the $9.4 million — it is
absolutely immaterial in one sense except that it
would help us to understand a little more. That
$9.4 million has to be taken as read; that is not
going to be changed, as far as we know. If the
question which I asked today has any bearing on
holding up the Convention, I here and now
withdraw that question. Let us tell the people
what is in the books. Let us get it over with; then
forget it.
Mr. Chairman I think Mr. Crosbie was fair
when he pointed out that it is not possible for Mr.
Smallwood to be expected to break down these
figures or to give detailed information in respect
of matters he has not got the information about.
Either he can or he cannot. Only he can decide
that. If there are other matters which have no
direct bearing upon the questions which have
been forwarded, it is rather a pity that the House
should rise at this particular time. I suppose they
will have to be touched upon if the report has to
be fairly debated. I am entirely in the hands of the
House.
Mr. Job I would like to say a few words on that
point. It seems to me we cannot get ahead with
this debate on this Canadian question, because a
great many of the figures in this Grey Book are
grossly wrong. How can we possibly put that
document or anything like it before the electorate? To get the information, I am convinced
it
is going to take months. Are we going to sit here,
keep this Convention sitting all that time, until we
get it? Or are we going to do what I think should
be done? These figures have been challenged. If
we are not going to get the correct information
within a reasonable time, I am of the opinion that
we should simply vote this thing out. I do not see
how we could put before the country figures we
have not approved. Major Cashin pointed out one
glaring case, these liquor figures, where the estimate given by the Canadian government
was
$400,000 and it seems it should be $1.6 million.
If Major Cashin's contention is correct, those
figures generally should be increased by 20%.
Surely the basis upon which the offer has been
made would be materially changed. They base
their offer on the fact that they are expecting to
get from Newfoundland $20 million; that is perfectly clear in the Grey Book. If they
are going to
get $24 million, then surely they could make their
offer a better one. I have great sympathy with
Mr. Smallwood, and those people who spent a
great deal of time on this confederation issue,
who have it honestly at heart. But the confederation question would not be dead if
we turned it
down. It would be impossible, in my opinion, for
this Convention to recommend that confederation be placed on the referendum paper,
unless
we are sure that these figures are correct.... I do
not want people to think I am against putting this
before the country. I think there are people interested in this and they should have
all the information we can give them. If that information is
incorrect, we have no right whatsoever to put it
before them. I think that is all I have to say about
it. I do not think if it was turned down, the time
we have put in on it has been wasted. I think it
will come in very useful at some future time. I
think this whole question of confederation must
be a matter of negotiation between governments;
it is utterly impossible for us to negotiate, and that
is what we will be doing if we go back and say.
"Your figures are wrong, based on wrong information".
Mr. Chairman I don't accept that position. If
you ask a man for better particulars you are not
954 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
necessarily negotiating. You could say to him,
"Well, this thing is ambiguous, and I don't understand it. Would you mind breaking
it down and
telling me exactly what you mean?" I don't think
you are negotiating by the mere fact that you
request further information.
Mr. Job I was not making that point, sir; but in
any case, the main point that we have got to
decide in the next few days is how long it will
take to get this information corrected... I don't
know what the feeling of this Convention is, but
my own feeling is that if it is going to take
months, how can we possibly ask the country to
wait?
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
gracious and charming things the Hon. Mr. Job
has said. I think there is something utterly
delightful in the naivete with which he suggests
that we might perhaps drop this question of confederation. And on what basis? On the
basis that
Major Cashin doubts the accuracy of one or two
items in this table here compiled. Major Cashin
has a right to doubt it. He has directed a question
asking the Government of Newfoundland — no,
sir, not to break down this same table, that is
something completely different. This is a table
compiled by the Government of Canada giving
the estimate of what revenue they would collect
from the people of Newfoundland if Newfoundland became a province. In doing that they
have tried to picture Newfoundland's trade as a
province, and on that basis they have compiled
that table. Major Cashin has asked our government not to picture Newfoundland as a
province,
but only to picture Newfoundland paying the
Canadian rates of tariff on the trade we are now
doing, not on the trade that we would do if we
were a province. I suggest this to Major Cashin
now, that he ask the Government of Canada in
respect of this table the same thing that Mr. Hollett has asked the Government of
Canada in
respect of the table on the next page. Mr. Hollett
has asked them to give us more details of what
the Canadian government will spend in Newfoundland. Now I suggest that he or Major
Cashin, or someone, ask the Government of
Canada more detail of the estimate of what they
will collect from Newfoundland. If it is suggested
that this thing is so hopelessly wrong, let's get at
the bottom of it.
Mr. Smallwood How long? i could suggest an
idea on that.... Do we deny that the Ministry of
Finance of the Government of Canada is served
by outstandingly able financial men. do we deny
that? Why we have them in our own Finance
Department, a tiny little department. but the
Government of Canada is served by some of the
ablest economists in the world, not
the ablest, but
some of the ablest.... Don't think for a moment
that when they compiled that table of $20 million
they were just pulling it out of the air like a
magician. Oh, no! It is based on solid, concrete
information. And furthermore, don't suppose
that when they got that total of $20 million that
they then took all their basic working pages and
burnt them. I suggest that it is likely that the
individual tables of statistics upon which each of
these items are based are still extant, in the
various financial offices in Ottawa; and i I suggest
that if we sent to them and asked them, politely,
because they are a friendly government ... to
explain in a little more detail the estimate of $3.2
million a year for income tax that they figure they
would get from the people of Newfoundland; if
you ask them to explain how they arrive at a
figure of $7.5 million a year from Newfoundland
in tax on the companies and corporations. I feel
that they would give us more detail. If you ask
how they come to the figure of $2 million on
customs duties and excise taxes, I have little
doubt that they would give you that information,
and you could have it back here in time for your
re-opening in January.
Do you suppose that the Government of
Canada ... do you expect that that nation is served
by ignorant clowns? Do you suppose they plucked these figures out of the air? Do you
suppose
they are not based on something, when they know
every little nook and comer of our national debt?
They know exactly every item of merchandise
that comes into Newfoundland, where it comes
from, what it costs, and what duties are paid on
it. They have a Department of Trade and Commerce with 6,000 employees, one of the
world's
greatest, and don't think for a moment that this is
a table that is faked or fraudulent, or that they
imagined it, that it is without foundation. You are
talking about a table compiled by the government
of a great nation. You can't talk about them as
though they were a pack of crooks...
Now I would suggest to Major Cashin, as he
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 955
is genuinely concerned as to the accuracy of these
figures making up this total of $20 million, that
he can solve the matter and put it beyond doubt.
He can ask the Government of Canada, table a
question and ask them, will they please give us
some of the details on which they worked it out.
Mr. Hollett has already done it in regard to the
Canadian government figures on what they will
spend in Newfoundland. He has not done that
exactly, but what he has done is ask for further
detail on one item. Here is a table of $26 million
or $27 million, that is made up of various items,
and one of the items is $9 million that the various
federal departments figure they will have to
spend in Newfoundland.... The Departments of
Agriculture, Fisheries, Transport, Health, and
Labour of Canada have to spend money in Newfoundland. Mr. Hollett would like to have
the
details and he has put in a question. We will get
those details. If Major Cashin will put in a question on the details of what taxes
they expect to get
from Newfoundland we will get it. Then as sensible, practical men we can stand up
here and
debate this thing to our heart's content, and the
people will know the truth. That's the way to do
it. In the meantime let's adjourn the Convention
and go home and take a rest. I know I need a rest,
for one.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I think we are
doing a lot of yelling and talking about very little.
We seem to have overlooked the more important
phase of this. We have asked for these questions
to be tabled and sent forward, and I think we were
agreed that this would take some time to get, and
it might not be before we re-assemble in January.
I think everyone feels we cannot get out of here
without a Christmas recess, but we seem to be
overlooking the fact, when we talk about adjourning, that as I understood on Monday
we
would have some figures to go on with our discussion on a provincial budget, and that's
a lot
more important than this federal one. This federal
one is important because it means the money that
the Canadian government will take out of Newfoundland and spend.
Mr. Hickman Yes, and spend. But what is more
important is: as a Government of Newfoundland,
what are we going to get as revenue and expenditure? I think that has a much greater
bearing on
the people of this country, and they should have
every opportunity to know that. Now that debate,
as I thought, we had decided to have on Monday.
Why can't we forget this? The questions have
gone in and we realise we won't get the answers
till January. Let's rise and adjourn until Monday,
when we can go on with the provincial discussion, and I don't know, but we might be
able to
finish by December 15.
Mr. Chairman Before you resume your seat,
Mr. Hickman, would you mind? Mr. Hollett, I
think, feels that there are matters of interest, other
than the purely financial questions, which could
be dealt with this afternoon.
Mr. Hickman Well, sir, on that, and going back
to yesterday's Steering Committee, there was no
such agreement on what we would do, if anything, for one good reason mentioned this
afternoon, and yesterday afternoon in the Steering
Committee — that the Committee can make no
agreements binding on this Convention, and
there were suggestions that there was much in
this that has no bearing on that question of
finance; and the suggestion that this should be
brought up or not brought up was discussed; and
the very point was made the Steering Committee
could decide nothing because it would only be the
decision of a few, and the other 34 or 35 members
could bring up anything they like as long as it is
relevant to what we are discussing, which is these
books and the Grey Book, and for that reason
there was no such agreement made. In fact there
would have been no unanimity because there
were men in disagreement there.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Hollett is perfectly correct.
All I want to say is that I will have to put the
motion for us to rise. If it is adopted, it must of
necessity mean that those voting for its adoption
do so on the understanding that there is nothing
further that can be discussed until the proposed
breakdown of figures is introduced by
Mr. Smallwood sometime next week.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, if I may, if
Mr. Hollett would permit me...
Mr. Hollett I will permit nothing. I have not
spoken. I have the floor. I have taken just one
word too much from you this afternoon.
Mr. Hollett I may have to take a lot more yet,
but I trust it won't be from you. I don't want any
more of that nonsense. I was going to say that I
956 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
think it is a pity to adjourn now and not carry on.
I don't care if Mr. Smallwood objects to having
the tariff set out. Let's have something else. But
I do object to one man insisting that his will shall
be carried over 44 men. That's one thing, and I
don't care if you take another hour to decide that.
I think it is an outright disgrace to adjourn until
Monday. Here we have the rest of this afternoon,
and the night session, and tomorrow afternoon,
and we should not adjourn, but go ahead and get
what we are allowed to give to the people out of
these Black Books.... These are the only things
we can give to the people. We cannot go back to
Canada and start to negotiate for better terms. We
are not allowed to as a Convention, the delegation
was not allowed to. I think it is ridiculous.... I am
very much against any adjournment on this matter, and I think Mr. Crosbie might agree
to that.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I
created anything of a furore. I have never done
that in my life! But here is the position. I have a
lot of sympathy in many ways with Mr.
Smallwood. He fostered this delegation to Ottawa in the beginning. They went to Ottawa,
and
I hold that the delegation came back with an
incomplete report. They have made no report
whatever as a delegation to this Convention, and
this Grey Book may or may not be the result of
their efforts in Ottawa; we don't know, because
before they left Ottawa this was not in their
possession. It was sent here afterwards by the
Canadian government through His Excellency
the Governor in Commission, and from then it
was sent to this office, consequently the delegation which we sent to Ottawa merely
came back
with the Black Books. Now when we received
this document here, and when we go into the
figures in it, we find that they have no foundation
in fact, and that there is no member of the delegation who is able to properly explain
them.
Mr. Chairman, surely the members of the Ottawa
delegation should be able to get up and explain
every item that is in here in connection with the
financial situation of both Canada and Newfoundland; but no, what happened was, as
I see
it, when they adjourned in Ottawa to return to
Newfoundland, the Canadian government made
up a budget, so to speak, of its own, particularly
with regard to federal expenditures, and the Ottawa delegation came back; and when
they see
this, whilst they might have talked about it up
there, they got no information on it as to how it
should be spent, is $9.4 million. It means,
Mr. Chairman, that the Ottawa delegation fell
down on its job, because they should have had all
this information, and we should not have to ask
any questions at all. Mr. Smallwood pointed out
to me that the way I asked these questions this
afternoon did not suit him. I am going to ask them
the other way at the next meeting of this House,
because I want to draft them properly — it took
me all night to try to figure out the other one —
and ask them on what basis they made them up.
Mr. Cashin And if they made them up on the
same basis that they made up this $9.4 million,
then I will say they are fraudulent. It is all
guesswork. I said when this House opened 15
months ago, and I am going to repeat it: there is
only one regret I have, that I consented to be a
party to this farce.
Mr. Chairman Well I don't know that you
ought to say that, Major Cashin. You stated here
15 months ago...
Mr. Cashin Yes, and I am sorry that I have to
make a confession about it. This has been the
greatest political mistake of my career, to stay
here and talk at a mock parliament that means
nothing. The power remains with the other
people, and we held the glory. I think I made that
statement here, and I am going to repeat it now.
Mr. Cashin No sir, September 18, 1946, and
two days later it was attacked in the House.
Mr. Cashin And some time later people
apologised for making that attack, and now they
realise that what I did say at that time was the
truth.
Mr. Smallwood Major Cashin will you exonerate me from that? I made the attack, but I did
not apologise.
Mr. Cashin I don't care who apologised. It was
true anyhow.
Mr. Cashin Well, now we have arrived at the
stage where the Ottawa delegation came back
without a report, and we have got to go on the
best way we can, in some way. We have either
got to kick this thing out or discuss it. It is going
to take us months to get the information. I am
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 957
prepared to ask Mr. Smallwood a question, but
before I ask it I want an assurance from the
Canadian government that they are going to
answer some of the questions that I have already
asked them, and until such time ... I refuse to ask
them anything further. I am going to wait until I
see whether they answer them, but if they don't,
then I claim they will be dishonest, and the whole
truth is going to come out before very long.
As far as adjourning is concerned it is immaterial to me, but I will say this, in
justice to
Mr. Smallwood, and I have had something to do
with making up an Economic Report, I believe it
should be the work of the committee that went to
Ottawa to do it. I am exonerating no one, I am
taking them as a collective unit. That Ottawa
delegation should have been in a position when
they returned here to lay the goods on the table
as regards our position if we become a province
of Canada. That has not been done. There are
some things in this Black Book, or one of the
Black Books, and I will give you an item just to
show you how foolish it is, while I am on my feet.
I don't have to look at it. Mr. Chairman, if the
members will turn up the finance revenue that
they have estimated in that Black Book, we find
repayments from the Housing Corporation
brought in as prospective revenue for a province.
Mr. Chairman, would you ever think anything so
silly? Because it is money which should go back
to where it was borrowed from, and it is not
revenue of the province, it is repayment of loans,
and it is not a revenue.
Mr. Cashin Because it's not. It can't go on
indefinitely, it's capital account. Consequently
there's one item alone ... does not exist, because
it should be paid back to the surplus, if we have
any left by the time this thing is all over.
Now to come to the surplus. I was attacked
here, or the Finance Committee was attacked, on
our estimates being faked, and here we come to
the greatest faker of all in this document. I have
said I have sympathy with Mr. Smallwood, because he is piloting this through on behalf
of the
Canadian government, so to speak, as I was
trying to pilot the Finance Report through on
behalf of the Finance Committee; and he is taking
the position today, in a sense, that he is the
Canadian government, and replying to every
question we put to him. That should not be his
position — it should not have been mine, but we
adopted it in the beginning, and have to carry it
on to the end. It is immaterial to me whether we
adjourn now or any time. I am prepared to stay
here forever now. We are accustomed to being
here, and the people are laughing at us for being
here, because that's all we are, a laughing stock.
There is a matter on which I want to say a few
words this afternoon, as people have been blowing off steam, and that's the matter
of the public
debt.
Mr. Cashin I am speaking to the members of the
committee, and I am entitled to mention this
matter, the public debt of Canada. In this book
there is nothing regarding the public debt of
Canada — nothing. Why? Is that honesty on the
part of the Canadian government? They were
going to enter into a partnership with Newfoundland, and they certainly put down
Newfoundland's debt and pointed out why they
were going to take off $64 million or $65 million,
whatever it might be; but they conveniently and
deliberately refrained from putting in their own
public debt, and showing the per capita debt of
Canada as against the per capita debt of Newfoundland, and I say that is done deliberately.
In
view of the fact that we questioned other figures
in here, and that this $9.4 million has not been
explained properly to this Convention, I am justified therefore in saying that the
exclusion of the
Canadian public debt from being set side by side
with the Newfoundland public debt has been
deliberate, because we are going into partnership,
Mr. Chairman. And what do we find the
Canadian public debt is today? We will use their
figures this time, not mine. We find that the total
debt of Canada, federally now I am speaking, the
total debt is $18,890,359,000.
(Speaker unknown) Gross or net?
Mr. Cashin Gross. And its per capita debt is
$1,492.89.
Mr. Smallwood Well, if Major Cashin will
allow me, you see that includes their sinking
fund. Their net debt is $13 billion.
Mr. Cashin Have you got your Auditor
958
NATIONAL CONVENTION
December 1947
General's report there?
Mr. Smallwood The net debt is $13 billion and
the per capita debt is $1,100. They have got
nearly $5 billion in assets.
Mr. Cashin Well, I am going to tell you some
of them. Loans that they will never get returned,
to Europe, etc. Billions of dollars they have allowed for relief in Europe — charity
if you like,
and they have put them down as an asset, and they
won't get half of them. No. The per capita debt
is $1,492.89, and their provincial debt is $149.06,
and the municipal debt is $77.29 per head. Add
these three together and you have nearly $1,800
per head in Canada. Now let's have a look at
ourselves, and I am going to use the Canadian
figures. I am not using mine, because I have been
accused of faking mine. Now we have to go and
get some of these experts up there to make up
ours. No, according to their figures, not Cashin's,
our per capita debt is $212.94 per head, and our
St. John's city debt is $44.94, say $45.00, that
means a total debt for Newfoundland, including
the City of St. John's, of approximately $260 per
head.
Mr. Cashin I am coming to that too, Mister. You
just keep quiet now, I know my stuff on this
contingency debt. We had our security for this
contingency, and I know what Mr. Smallwood is
driving at — Bowaters; Harbour Grace waterworks a few thousand dollars; Placentia,
and a
few more, but Bowaters is the outstanding one,
and I see now it is less than $7 million. Now our
own debt is $260 a head, taking in our
municipality of St. John's. Theirs, with their
provincial and - no, we will figure that they
haven't any provincial debt, or any municipal
debt; they have $1,492 net debt, we will call it,
and take $260 from that and it leaves us what? A
$1,230 difference between the two. Now someone take it down if you like, and multiply
320,000
people by $1,200, and you will find a $380 million-odd difference. Now what is happening?
Here is the basis of a proposal that Newfoundland
would enter union with Canada, figuring that we
owe $260 a head, or whatever it is. We say, "All
right, we are a wealthy people now, we are
prepared to take upon ourselves a further
liability, We will wipe out ours and take on a
liability of $1,492." But that's not the whole
story. A few weeks ago the Dominion of Canada
went to the United States to borrow money. We
went one time too, to Canada, and were turned
down. They went to the USA to borrow some
money not long ago, and they got $300 million,
and they were looking for $700 million. If,
Mr. Chairman, Newfoundland got its just desserts and entered union with Canada on
an equal
basis, that $300 million that they borrowed from
the United States belongs to the Newfoundland
people, because it is the difference, between their
per capita debt and our per capita debt. You might
also say it was on our credit that they were able
to raise that $300 million, because they were not
able to raise all they wanted on their own. Now
with respect to this contingent liability, 1 think we
have them here — anyhow, l remember them.
Our contingent liabilities are something over $7
million. What are the contingent liabilities of
Canada? I can't count them.
Mr. Cashin Some difference. Multiply that by
320,000, and the other by $12 billion and see
what you get. Everything is against us confederating with Canada. Mr. Chairman, I
have
every sympathy for the Ottawa delegation in one
sense, although I criticise them for not coming
here with full particulars. I have every sympathy
with Mr. Smallwood trying to drive this thing
through the House here with such poor information at his disposal, because he has
not got any.
The Government of Canada gave them no financial information.
Mr. Smallwood Don't pity me too much, because we have a lot of information yet.
Mr. Cashin Well, you had better come out with
it in connection with the financial business.
Mr. Cashin When the debate on it starts! As far
as I am concerned I am prepared to go ahead with
the debate on the financial position now, if you
can answer the questions. As a matter of fact we
will give the question and see if you can answer
it. Can Mr. Smallwood give me and this country
a statement of the Bank of Canada and its gold
reserve?
Mr. Cashin No, you cannot. Very well. The
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 959
position is this: here in Newfoundland the people
and the government have $115 million on deposit
down here, and we don't know what reserve of
gold is behind it. We are entitled to know if we
are going in partnership. I think I told the story of
the gold standard in 1932, and how, through
manipulation at that time with the Canadian
government and the Canadian banks, Newfoundland depositors were deprived of approximately
$20 million. As far as I am
concerned, I am going to see that that does not
happen again, that before this country goes into
confederation with Canada, or into confederation
with any other country we want to know the state
of their affairs, just the same as they know ours.
We were told here this afternoon by
Mr. Smallwood that the Canadian government
knew all about our affairs.
Mr. Cashin Well our trade, our business, how
do they know all about it?
Mr. Cashin Yes, and they have had a High
Commissioner here since 1941, who laid the seed
to bring Newfoundland into confederation, and I
mean former Commissioner Burchell. That was
his main object, and today he has a continuation
in his office here in Newfoundland, and the only
regret, Mr. Chairman, that I have is that his office
is located in the house in which I live. He left his
job and was given a holiday. For what? To go to
Ottawa to help the Newfoundland delegation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I propose to make a further
speech on this whole affair at some later date,
particularly when Mr. Smallwood brings in his
provincial set-up, which I understand from him
will be on Monday. But in the meantime it is
immaterial to me whether this House adjourns
until Monday or not. As far as the financial situation is concerned I am prepared
to go ahead with
it now, and in that respect, if Mr. Smallwood is
not prepared to give us the information, and the
High Commissioner for Canada comes in here
and gives us the information, I am prepared to go
ahead with the debate with him, and let him tell
the story of Canada's present financial position.
Mr. Chairman, I got an answer to a question
yesterday which I placed on the order paper, and
I am sorry I have not got it here at the moment. I
asked how much the present austerity program
recently adopted in Canada will affect the people
of Newfoundland. It was no surprise to me. It is
going to affect the people of Newfoundland. If
you, sir, or me, or any other gentleman. wants to
take a holiday in the United States now (and we
are entitled to one if we can afford it), some for
health purposes, etc., you get $150 of your own
money, Canadian money, American money,
that's all they will allow you, even though we are
probably $20 million in credit in United States
currency in Newfoundland. Consequently the
people of Newfoundland are being persecuted, so
to speak, in order to assist Canada in this present
austerity program. That was the question I placed
the other day, and to which I received an answer.
Mr. Cashin It has a bearing on the whole situation.
Mr. Cashin I am speaking to the whole confederation issue.
Mr. Cashin As I said a minute ago, in view of
the fact that Mr. Smallwood is not ready to continue the debate I am prepared to refrain
further
this afternoon from any comments in connection
with this whole matter, and I am prepared now to
support Mr. Crosbie's motion that this committee
rise.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I appreciate
very much what Major Cashin has said, and what
Mr. Crosbie has said about rising the committee,
for this reason: if I am to bring in certain figures
and statistics on Monday, affecting possible and
probable provincial government finances, to
have the next couple of days to do that would be
a great help to me. After all, I don't know that
there is much that we could debate between now
and Monday that would be very profitable, and it
would be a good idea in my opinion, as Mr. Crosbie has suggested, and Major Cashin
agreed, that
we should rise the committee and then adjourn
until Monday.
Mr. Reddy We have heard a lot about the good
side of confederation — baby bonuses and old
age pensions and all the rest. Now, sir, we come
to the dark and gloomy side. I want to hear the
960 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
dark and gloomy side, and the people of Newfoundland want to hear it. I want to hear
it now.
(Cries of "Hear! Hear!")
Mr. Chairman The motion is that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit
again tomorrow. Is the Convention ready for the
question? Those in favour say "aye", contrary
"nay". I can't decide. Division of the House....
All those in favour of the motion, stand — 25. All
those against the motion, stand — 6
[The committee rose and reported progress, and
the Convention adjourned until Monday. December 8]
