Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, I presume that
Mr. Hollett has the floor this afternoon?
Mr. Chairman He has, Major Cashin, for two
reasons. First he did not finish yesterday; and
second he was the first to catch my eye.
Mr. Cashin If Mr. Hollett was not going to
speak, I presume I could speak, and if not, I would
follow him.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, that is a little
irregular. I propose to comment on Mr. Hollett's
1018 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
remarks, and as he had not finished when we
completed yesterday, I was expecting too that he
would complete his speech this afternoon, and
that I would then reply to him.
Mr. Chairman I will not make a ruling on that
point. I will simply rule that Mr. Hollett has the
floor. First things first. If you are ready to proceed
Mr. Hollett, I am ready to listen to you.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I
am not trying to take the floor from Mr. Hollett,
but it's been customary in debate in this House
for any gentleman bringing in a report, or at least
legislation, not to reply to every individual personally; he waits until the debate
is finished and
he has the privilege of replying then.
Mr. Chairman Except if there are questions put
or implied, he has the right at the moment to reply
to them, but he has to confine himself to that and
that alone. I am not prepared, Major Cashin, at
this time to rule on what Mr. Small-wood has to
say until I first hear what he has to say. All I
would say is that he has the final word, and the
summing up. It is true, in the interim, he has the
right to reply to any questions which may be
addressed to him. As a matter of fact that is his
responsibility and part of his duties.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smallwood has
intimated that he wishes to reply to what I have
said yesterday and what I will say today. I have
not yet asked Mr. Smallwood any questions, and
therefore I don't anticipate any reply from him
on the point at all. If he wishes to, of course, that's
another matter, but what I am trying to tell this
House is a set of facts.
Yesterday I think I ended on a certain tax
notice which I have in my hand, with reference
to an amount of some $28.62, levied on the estate
of a deceased person in Cape Breton. The estate
was valued at $100, and the amount of taxes
collected up to that time, at least the amount of
taxes accrued in four years was $28.62, and that
consisted of the county rate, school rate and poll
rate of $7.13 per year. It has been intimated to me
outside this House, that that is not the case all
over Canada. I have also a notice which appeared
in the Port Arthur News Chronicle on Thursday,
November 6, dealing with the public sale of land
because taxes and costs had not been paid....
I read that to show that in the provinces of
Canada, as in Newfoundland when we are a
province, monies have to be raised in order to pay
for social services and the servicing of the debt,
and all other things pertaining to government in
any province or country. These monies have to
be raised, and the point I am trying to make,
which I think nobody in this House can deny, is
that if we give away our revenue-producing taxes
now, if we give up our customs duties, if we give
up the monies which the Assessor collects from
our people, we lose about $30 million in this
country; and we still have to carry on the services
for forestry, and various other things — justice
incidentally has to be taken care of. So in order
to raise the money we must tax. There is nothing
left to tax except our land, homes, personal
property, in other words real and personal property.
I think I have got almost as far as to say that,
for the first three years of confederation, the
Province of Newfoundland will have a revenue
of $11,462,128. You remember I accepted the
irreducible minimum, and not the $6,820,000,
because, as I pointed out, your irreducible minimum is the only thing on which you
can bank.
The only guarantee from the Canadian government is that that will be paid and I showed
you
how, in one province in Canada, the irreducible
minimum was last year all that could be paid,
because the GNP and the population had altered
to such an extent that it could not be increased.
And so we go back to the beginning of union with
a revenue of $11,462,128, or, for purposes of
reckoning, let us add another $500,000 for the
possible purpose of interest from our so-called
surplus. Right here I must say that we are banking
an awful lot on the surplus, $28 million apparently. ÂŁ9 million of that is in Great
Britain, in sterling. That is $15 million subtracted from $28
million. That leaves $13 million, if I am correct.
There is no gainsaying that we may not have to
do the same thing next year to market our fish or
our iron ore. But let us say we have about $12
million in this country in dollar funds. One-third
of that will go to Canada to be placed at interest
there, which we cannot use for current expenditure, which will leave us only about
$8 million.
So don't let us bank on that $28 million too much,
a surplus is of no value to this country unless it is
liquid, unless you can obtain it. If it is in sterling
funds in Great Britain it might just as well be in
the bottom of a mine. It is of no value to us unless
it is liquid, if you like to pay for our fish or iron
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1019
ore and what not. These are troubled times, and
if we have any surplus we ought to try and hold
on to it for just such an emergency as happened
this fall, when we could not sell our fish if we had
not had this surplus. We should not use our
surplus for current expenditure, which apparently
is the intention of some of the members of the
Ottawa delegation. Well, let us say we have $12
million revenue.
Now let's look at the other side of the picture.
What will be our expenditure? See page 62 of the
Black Book... Let us assume for a moment that
these figures are correct. It would be a fair question to ask, but I am not going
to ask it, where do
they hope to place the taxes in this country in
order to raise that $2.5 million? You can have no
indirect taxes, you can no longer have taxes on
the incomes of the individual and the corporations. Ottawa will be busy bleeding the
resources.
Where then will they get the $2.5 million? 1 have
hinted where you are going to get it, and where
you are going to place you taxes.
Let us take a look at the estimates of an
expenditure of $14.5 million. Take a look at their
proposed expenditure for Education. The estimates for Education this year in Newfoundland
are $3,622,300. Now what has the Ottawa
delegation done? Mind you, I suppose the people
in Canada believe that they acted in good faith
when they took this figure. What have they done?
They have lopped off $5 14,000, and reduced the
estimate to $3,107,700. Again it has been stated
that the surplus will take care of the construction
of these figures and education. In other words,
they say, "We won't build these new schools, we
shall stop all new reconstruction on account of
education." Let education remain stagnant for the
next three years, and indeed for the next 12 years
if need be. Our whole education plans for the
future are out. After all, are not our teachers
already receiving much more than they are in
Prince Edward Island? Gentlemen, as you know,
our educational authorities were budgeting for $4
million next year in order to bring our teacher
salary scale on a par with that in Nova Scotia. So
if we are honest as to the needs of the education
of our children, rather than take off $514,000 we
must add on; and I submit a further $900,000
must be added to the $3.1 million suggested by
the Ottawa delegation, and no doubt accepted in
good faith by the Canadians to whom they talked.
Now take a look at what they have estimated
for Natural Resources. You will note that the
Ottawa delegation here again has cut reconstruction to the tune of $1,629,428. Do
they mean to
tell us that under confederation there will be no
need of reconstruction with regard to fisheries,
forestry, rural development, etc? Are we to
remain stagnant in this field? I have studied this
thing as much as I am capable of; I am sure that
we, as a province, in making an estimate, must
leave in the following amounts, that is to say:
| Handicrafts |
$ 39,600 |
| Fisheries |
324,500 |
| Forestry |
79,800 |
| Rural Development |
682,000 |
| Loans for Development
of Fishing Industry |
290,000 |
| Making a total of |
$1,415,900 |
Which, I feel, must be added on to the estimates
made by the Ottawa delegation if we are to exist
at all as a province. But let us assume that under
sub—section 8 of clause 5 of the proposed agreement, Canada will take care of fisheries.
Canada
will lop off the reconstruction of our fisheries. I
put it to you, gentlemen, that is not generally done
in the provinces of Canada today. but let us
assume that, under this Grey Book, Canada is
going to take care of our fisheries, let us lop off
that $514,000, and we still have left $801,400 to
take care of the most necessary reconstruction.
Let us pass quickly over Public Works, but in
passing I ask you to note that they have cut out
$4 million of reconstruction, $3.5 million of
which consists of the construction of roads,
bridges and buildings These things are our
responsibility as a province. Must we, for this
union with Canada, forego all hopes of further
extending our roads? 1 have pointed out the position of the surplus. I wonder how
many people in
this country today earn good money on road
building and repairing? That would have to stop.
Our confederate friends will deny them that. If it
is right to build roads and bridges at this stage in
our history to open up our country, then it is
wrong for us, as individuals sent in here by our
people, to consider these matters. It is wrong for
us even to think of confederation at this time, for
we shall not be able to get the money to do this
work, to build the roads and other things.
Suppose for a moment we listen to our financial wizards here and at Ottawa, and cease
all
1020 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
further new road building to the extent of $3.5
million a year for years to come, a lot of which
goes in for labour. Let us forget all that, and go
on to Public Health and Welfare, and this too is
our obligation as a province. One would have
thought that since the Ottawa delegation had cut
out $3.5 million road and building construction,
they would have budgeted for an increase in the
estimate for Health and Welfare. That, to me,
would have been the obvious thing to do. But no,
this is what they do: they cut out $235,000 on
account of reconstruction, and $828,000 on account
of assistance to the poor and allowance to
widows and orphans, maintenance of hospitals
and general public health services and reduce the
estimate from $5,830,239 to $4,767,239 as the
amount required. For the moment let us turn to
page 60, book 2. They cut out assistance to indigents, $250,000; general public health
service,
$50,000. If I remember correctly it was intimated
to us that $278,000 maintenance to hospitals was
cut out by the delegation to Ottawa because under
confederation supplies coming in for hospitals
would cost less, and we would be able to reduce
the amount by cutting off $278,000. They have
intimated that. I see nothing in the estimates for
the maintenance of servicing of the Corner Brook
hospital. You cannot see where they cut out
$50,000 except for nutrition for schools and child
welfare. Why must we give up the proper servicing of our hospitals simply for the
honour of
being a province of Canada? I have the greatest
respect for the Dominion of Canada for what she
did in the last war. You may respect a person or
a country, but that does not justify your cutting
out services to your own people and reducing
them to paup-erism. This is something we cannot
pass over lightly, and so we must add to this
estimate of theirs $1,068,000, even if we allow
for no further improvements and allow no increase whatever by way of relief. That
brings to
my mind that they also cut out $10,000 for relief
on Labrador. The minimum on account of
expenditures with Newfoundland as a province
would be:
*
You cannot do it for less. I defy any man to prove
to me he can. People have to be taken care of in
this day and generation, and in every day and
generation, I hope. Against this expenditure we
shall have as revenue, as already pointed out, for
the next three years, $12 million. Thus the
balance sheet for Newfoundland for the next
three years will look like this:
| Expenditure |
$17,269,000 |
| Revenue |
$12,000,000 |
| Deficit |
$ 5,269,000 |
Thus by cutting out the following on reconstruction plans already envisaged on the
following
accounts, that is to say:
| Fisheries |
$ 614,500 |
| Public Works |
3,500,000 |
| In all |
$4,144,500 |
Cutting out all that, we shall still have a deficit of
$5,269,000 per year for the first three years as a
province of Canada. But were we to try to carry
out the programme for fisheries and for public
works, we should have a deficit of $9,383,500.
Figures do not lie; rather do they give us the
lie if we do not heed them. Surely we, as a body
of 45 men who should have the best interests of
our people at heart, need no further evidence to
prove that this so-called fair and equitable basis
of union with Canada is nothing more than a
financial and economic mirage, leading us on to
the desert of economic stagnation and financial
ruin from which we should never recover and
from which we can never as a country return.
Underneath a thick spread of oleo-margarine we
find nothing but a crust of black bread in which
rot and mould have already set in. What attempts
have the Ottawa delegation and their wizard
financial friends in Canada's capital made to
make up this deficit of $5,269,000, not to say
anything of our plans for reconstruction? Taking
a leap in the dark they pounced on gasoline and
stuck on a tax which they say will yield $750,000;
and having got thus far they merely hinted at
possible additional provincial taxation of$l million. What this taxation which will
bring in $l
million is, they do not tell us.
This is a plain fact, gentlemen. Under confederation,
Ottawa will collect from our people
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1021
more in taxation by way of income tax, corporation taxes and succession duties than
are being
collected now by our own government, and will
leave us as a province to collect additional taxation to the tune of $5,269,000; or
if you want to
build roads and bridges, develop your fisheries,
$9,383,000. How can these monies be raised? Let
us turn to page 149 of the Black Book, vol. 1:
Taxes on corporations; income taxes on persons; succession duties; real and personal
property tax; gasoline tax; fuel oil tax; tobacco tax; retail sales tax; amusement
tax; etc.
They have to do it in order to get the revenue.
These things are so numerous, it is impossible to
put them all in the Black Book. It is important that
our people should know where that money is
going to come from. I refer you now to the
Assessment Act of Nova Scotia. I believe I have
the right to quote from it. Section 3, property
liable to taxation...
[Mr. Hallett read sections from the Nova Scotia
act listing all provincial taxes]
That is our hope. That is the basis of our hope
for running this province. Unless the Dominion
government changes its mind and gives us $5
million - we say it must be $9 million — and
that is how it has to be collected. These are facts
and truths that are indisputable by even the most
ardent confederate. I do not remember any confederates yet having gone out of their
way to
mention any of these things.
Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, for the glories
of confederation are we to abandon that position
of governmental prosperity which we have enjoyed since 1940; that enviable peak from
which
we have been budgeting for surpluses and still
more surpluses, even though there has been a
gradual lessening of taxation? Are we, I say, to
freely and of our own volition abandon this position, enter into union with Canada
and budget for
a deficit of $5 million and thereby have to tax still
more? Are we mad? There can be no other
answer, otherwise we would not waste the time
we have on this thing. Of what use a baby bonus
if we are to be taxed still more? Taxes on our land,
our homes, our cattle, our boats, our nets, our
everything, possibly your fur coat.
The delegation to Ottawa was asked to find
out if there existed a fair and equitable basis of
union with Canada at the present time. Thank
God that at least two members of that delegation
have been able to look at the whole question in
its true perspective and have said openly that no
such fair and equitable basis of union exists. As
for myself, Mr. Chairman, I have never believed
there was a basis at all at this time. But heretofore
I looked at it only from the economic viewpoint,
from the point of view of our exports of fish and
fish products, our ore and the products of our
forests. Looking at it thus. I am compelled to say
that the closer we can get to the USA the better
will it be for the welfare ofour people. Last year
Canada took from us $7 million worth of
products - but how much fish? How much
paper? The United States took $20 million worth
of fish, of ore from Buchans, and of paper. I say
therefore, and I repeat, that the closer we can get
to the USA the better will it be for the welfare of
our people, and I advocate such a policy.
Mr. Hollett What point of order? Don't fash
yourself, laddie. May I finish, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hollett What shall I say. Mr. Chairman?
What shall I say now when I look at it from the
financial angle? What must we all. as responsible
men say, I ask you? Only this, that there is not
now, and l doubt if there ever can be, having
regard to what we live on, our fish, our ore, our
paper, our natural resources, a fair and equitable
basis for union with the Dominion of Canada,
unless she can buy more of our goods. Never
mind your baby bonuses, tell them the truth. How
do they live? By the sweat of their brow, by
digging out the ore and catching fish in all kinds
of weather, and cutting down the trees. Those
countries which take our products will make it
possible for them to live and support their babies
without any handouts from anyone else. I am not
talking about baby bonuses at the moment. Yes,
gentlemen, I call upon each and every one of you
to tell our people the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, and then, Mr. Chairman, we
need have no fear whatsoever. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I would like to
reply to Mr. Hollett.
Mr. Chairman There seems to be a marked
competition for the floor this afternoon, and I am
compelled at this time to speak. so that members
may understand the position in which I find
myself. I remind members that we are in commit
1022 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
tee, and the object of committee is to relax the
rules of debate, in particular the rule which
restricts any member when in Convention to
speak more than once, and then for not more than
one hour, unless extended for a further 15
minutes by the indulgence of the House.
Under standing order 45 it is specifically
provided, "In committee members may speak
more than once to the same question." Now as to
the number of times he may speak, how long he
may speak, there is no restriction. That is in the
discretion of the Chairman in committee and
there is no appeal.... Under standing order 54 it is
provided, "Whenever any matter arises which,
in the opinion of the Chairman is not covered by
the standing orders, reference shall be made to
the rules and regulations of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, and the matter
decided in
accordance with those rules, save that where the
said rules are silent upon the matter, the question
shall be decided in accordance with the rules of
British parliamentary procedure"
There is nothing in the rules of the House of
Assembly covering this course. I have to take
recourse to established parliamentary procedure,
and in May, 14th edition, pages 570-571, the
author says that "Order in debate and in committee is enforced by the Chairman, as
he is responsible for the conduct of business therein, and from
his decision no appeal can be made to the Speaker
or the House." On page 571 it says, "The Chairman is permitted to check irrelevant
or tedious
repetition." Now in this particular instance,
Mr. Smallwood, I am not permitted to prescribe
a time limit as such.... I cannot abridge your right,
or the right of any member to speak more than
once ... but I will have to ask you to confine
yourself to strictly relevant matters, and to matters of a novel origin which may
have been raised
by Mr. Hollett; I don't want any repetition of
matters to which you have already referred.... I
will have to ask you, if you don't mind
Mr. Smallwood, to make your remarks as brief as
you possibly can, please.
Mr. Hollett Point of order. I might point out that
in summing up this matter I asked the person who
is supposed to be piloting this thing through no
questions whatsoever.
Mr. Chairman That is not the point. He is per
mitted to speak more than once. There does not
have to be any question at all....
Mr. Smallwood Yes sir, I will attempt to cover
all or nearly all the points raised by Mr. Hollett
in his speech. I made a number of notes as
Mr. Hollett went along, and I intend to refer to
those notes.
Mr. Hollett paid a tribute to the Dominion of
Canada for the very great part that Canada had
played in this war, and he made use of this phrase:
"Canada, united in war, divided in peace." Sir,
the Dominion of Canada is a federal union of nine
self-governing provinces, just as the United
States of America is a federal union of 48 self-
governing states, just as the Commonwealth of
Australia is a federal union of, I think, six self-
governing states, and in every case in this world
today that I happen to know about, where you
have a federal union, what you find is difference
of opinion, of conception, little grievances, little
quarrels between one state or province and
another. or between a number of states or provinces and the federal government on
the other side.
Mr. Chairman My attention has been called to
the fact that at the moment I have not a quorum.
Mr. Smallwood I may inform you, sir, if it is of
any interest to you, that the idea was that I was
not to be allowed to speak today, and that is why
there is no quorum at the present time, but if there
is a quorum I will speak.
Mr. Chairman (to Secretary) I will have to ask
you to call the members again.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, sir, we are adjourning
today and they want the last word to the country
to consist of a lot of poison that can't be
answered, but I am going to answer this. I know
all about it. I have known it for a week.
Mr. Chairman Fifteen members of the committee constitute a quorum. We are sitting in
committee.
Mr. Smallwood Well, sir, I will proceed. It has
been said by Mr. Hollett that Canada is a nation
united in war but divided in peace, and the reference came while he was describing
the
Dominion-provincial conference that was held a
couple of years ago.... At that conference they
had their differences of opinion, the various
premiers stating their viewpoints and the
Government of Canada stating theirs, and he
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1023
gave that as an illustration as to how divided
Canada was. It is only fair to point out that while
it is perfectly true that in many matters these nine
provinces have their disagreements between
themselves on the one hand, and sometimes between a group of them and the federal
government on the other hand, that the same thing
happens in other federal unions.
Mr. Chairman I am sorry, Mr. Smallwood, but
we have not a quorum.
Mr. Smallwood Cat and mouse, so that it will
be kept just below a quorum Well, the country
will know all about it. The plot that misfired.
Well, the country will know.
[At this point there was a wait of several minutes]
All right, we have a quorum again. Now, I will
give you an example of how a country that is a
federal union rather than a unitary state can have
its serious disagreements. its squabbles, its weaknesses, and yet be a great country.
Let us take
United States as an example. There you have had,
since the days of Thomas Jefferson, a continuing
dispute over the question of states' rights.... That
has rent the United States on more than one
occasion. Then again, you have the great question
of child labour. They have not got a federal law
in the United States forbidding child labour, and
you get young children working in mills and
factories, because there is no American law for
the whole nation that forbids it. In the individual
states they do have their own state law, but because of this dispute they still can't
get a federal
law to forbid child labour generally.
Then again in the United States you have the
racial question, the negro question. You know,
the whole world knows. and has been shocked by
the trouble caused in the United States by this
question of the negro. We know the stories of
lynchings, and miscarriages of justice, of the Jim
Crow policy, of the way the negro is treated. And
you have anti-semitism in the United States. The
country is made up of all kinds of nationalities,
and again you always have trouble coming for
that cause. We know the story of the Ku Klux
Klan, and we know that all these and similar
troubles ended in the United States with a civil
war, and yet...
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. I see nothing in order about a Ku Klux Klan or anything
else...
Mr. Hollett My point is that the remarks are
irrelevant...
Mr. Chairman Except insofar as he intends to
show that arising out of your statement that the
Dominion of Canada is united in war but disunited in peace, disunity on questions
of national
importance is not confined to Canada alone. But
I quite agree with you, I think, Mr. Smallwood,
that you are getting a little bit far afield, and I
would like you to come back.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, sir, I was just about to
clew up on that one point.... To reply thoroughly
and adequately to Mr. Hollett it would be necessary to speak for about two or three
days, which
I have not got time to do, and in fact the House is
adjourning this afternoon. So to sum up that one
point, while it is perfectly true that there are
differences of opinion in Canada between one
province and another province, or between two
or more provinces on the one hand and the federal
government on the other, so you have it in the
United States, Australia, South Africa, and
wherever you have a federal union. Nothing
surprising about it. You might only describe it as
the growing pains of a great nation, and Canada
is one of the great nations of this world today.
Yesterday Mr. Hollett made this remark. I
jotted it down. I don't guarantee that it's the
identical words he used because I don't write
shorthand, but he said that if we become a
province of Canada, everything we import into
Newfoundland which is not imported from
Canada, we will have to pay duty on. Well, I don't
know if Mr. Hollett has taken the trouble to look
through the tariff of the Government of Canada...
Mr. Smallwood Well if he has, sir, I say that a
lie is something said intending to deceive, knowing that it is a lie and untrue, and
if a man knows
it is untrue and then says it, it becomes a lie.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. Is that man
insinuating that I am a liar? If so I want him to
take it back.
Mr. Chairman If you have made that statement, Mr. Smallwood, I must ask you to
withdraw it.... He must be presumed to be honest
in the expression of his opinion for the same
reason, Mr. Smallwood, that you must be
presumed to be honest in the expression of your
opinion. I don't care if your ideas are so diametri
1024 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
cally opposite as to be impossible of reconciliation, that has nothing whatever to
do with it. You
are not justified in imputing dishonesty or any
intention on Mr. Hollett's part to convey a misleading situation to this House, or
a lie, and
before I can allow you to go on I will have to ask
you to withdraw that statement.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Hollett made the statement
yesterday that whatever we import from Canada,
whatever else we would import we would pay
duty on. I say that is not so, that about half of all
the things that Canada imports come into Canada
duty free; and if we become a province of Canada
and we import goods from countries other than
Canada, whatever came in from Canada would
be duty free (that would be the bulk of it); but if
we still imported things from other countries
we would pay the customs duty according to the
Canadian customs tariff....
Mr. Smallwood Well, if everybody understands it, why did Mr. Hollett make the remark
yesterday that if we become a province, except
for the things we would import from Canada
itself, we would pay duty on the rest?
Mr. Chairman In matters of opinion a man may
reasonably differ. Mr. Hollett is entitled to his
opinion for the same reason that you are entitled
to yours.
Mr. Smallwood He expressed his opinion and I
am expressing mine. My opinion is based on the
fact that about half the imports that come into
Canada come in duty free.
Mr. Chairman ....I am trying to preserve to
members the dignity and respect to which they
are entitled. No member can afford to disregard
what each needs for his own protection.... Now I
suggest to you Mr. Smallwood, I think it is in the
best interest, if you would please refrain from
personalities. If you want to discuss the merits of
Mr. Hollett's speech and to express yourself in
agreement or disagreement that is your inalienable right, but please, in so doing,
do not
identify your observations with personal discrimination, and if you do that I am sure
we will
get along very well.
Mr. Smallwood Yes sir, I will certainly attempt
not to do so. I have a note here which I wrote
yesterday while Mr. Hollett was speaking, and
the note I have made was that he said such and
such, and that is his right to express that opinion.
Now I am now offering my opinion, which is the
exact opposite.
Mr. Chairman Which can be offered offensively or inoffensively, depending on the manner
and language employed.
Mr. Smallwood Well now, since I withdrew the
thing I did withdraw have I been offensive, sir?
Mr. Chairman You are on very thin ice, but
however, Mr. Smallwood...
Mr. Smallwood Yes, I say if we become a
province of Canada everything that we import
from Canada would come in duty free — everything. If we import anything from other
countries
then we will pay duty, if there is a Canadian duty
on it.... Half the value of all they import into
Canada comes in duty free, and the rest of it
comes in at a lower rate of duty than our own
present customs duty.... We know if we become
a province of Canada, anything we do import into
Newfoundland not from Canada would come in
at much lower rates of duty on an average than
we are paying now in our own customs tariff.
Now that's that.
I have another note here. Mr. Hollett said that,
"If Newfoundland goes into confederation
Canada will man the American bases, probably
with skeleton crews, and in that case 3,500 Newfoundlanders will lose their jobs."
I presume he
means the 3,500 Newfoundlanders that he assumes are now working on these American
bases.
That is a remarkable statement for a man to make.
No one has brought any evidence, still less
brought any proof. It is just a statement of a
personal opinion, that if we become a province
the Americans will be forced out of Newfoundland, out of these bases that they occupy
now, and that therefore the Newfoundlanders that
are working on the bases will lose their jobs
because Canada would occupy those bases with
her own soldiers.
Mr. Chairman That is not strictly correct. The
conclusion arrived at by Mr. Hollett was based
upon a communication received from the
December 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1025
Secretary of the Commission....
Mr. Smallwood Yes, but a conclusion, I hold,
utterly without foundation.
Mr. Smallwood We had a reply here which
Mr. Hollett read yesterday, a reply from the Newfoundland govemment...that in case
we became
a province, the principals in the bases' treaty
would be the Government of Canada and the
Government of the United States. That of course
is true, because defence is a federal matter. There
is a Joint Defence Board of the United States and
Canada, and all defence matters relating to
Canada and the United States come under that
Board — they are acting together as partners in
western hemispheric defence. But from that can
it be inferred, can it be presumed that Canada
would request the United States to withdraw from
these 99-year bases? Can it be argued that they
would order the United States people to leave
Newfoundland so that Canada could place her
own troops on that base? And above all can it be
presumed that Newfoundlanders working on the
bases would lose their jobs? I have a little something here to back up that. If Mr.
Higgins or any
of the members of the delegation are in the House
they will either affirm or deny it. I raised that very
question in Canada and we were assured by the
Government of Canada that no such thing would
happen.
Mr. Smallwood It will be better than in the
Books within a matter of weeks. Every Newfoundlander will be assured definitely and
finally
that under confederation they will go on being
employed on the bases as if confederation had
never come at all. That will come out.... I have
down here a note I made while Mr. Hollett was
speaking.
Mr. Chairman I am not bound to take notice of
your notes; please refer to remarks made by
Mr. Hollett in the course of his address.
Mr. Smallwood All right, Mr. Hollett in the
course of his remarks said that under confederation the town councils would have the
right to
attach your house, your land, your boats, your
fishing gear, even your fur coat.
Mr. Smallwood Very well, but the other statement was pretty categorical.... Mr. Hollett has
spoken here this afternoon along the same line.
He read from the municipal tax act of Nova
Scotia. He might have gone a step further and sent
to the various other provinces and found out what
powers the provincial legislatures have given the
town councils.
Mr. Smallwood He might have found out what
powers the town councils act of Newfoundland
gives the town councils. He might have gone still
further and found out what powers are given
under the municipal charter of St. John's — what
authority the municipal council has in St. John's
— the taxes on houses, homes, land, shops, goods
in the shops and taxes on property generally in
the City of St. John's. No, not a word about that.
Not a word about the taxes on property in the
Windsor area, although he must have known
quite a bit about it. He might have found out what
the town council in Corner Brook West is permitted to collect. We have 20 town councils
—
not all functioning yet....
[Mr. Smallwood gave a list of there town councils]
And there are ten others in various stages of
preparation.
If Newfoundland becomes a province of
Canada, Newfoundland will be subject to three
governments — some will be subject to two
governments. All Newfoundland will be governed in some things by the Government of
Canada;
in other things it will be the Government of
Newfoundland; and they will also be governed
by the town councils. When has the federal
government of Canada ever collected a dollar or
a cent on any kind of property? Never has it
collected any taxes on land, houses, property or
cattle.
Mr. Smallwood I know you did not say it. You
had your say, now it is my turn. Never since it
began in 1879, never has the federal government
collected a cent on farms, homes, or buildings, or
boats, or schooners or fish stages.
Mr. Smallwood You cannot make a motion
when there is no quorum present.
[The Secretary summoned members to return,
1026 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1947
but none did so. As a result Mr. Smallwood
moved that the committee rise and report
progress. The Convention adjourned until
January 5, 1948]
