Newfoundland National Convention, 6 January 1948, Debates on Confederation with Canada


January 6, 1948

Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in moving that the first order be deferred, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask His Excellency the Governor to ascertain from the United Kingdom government 1048 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 the latest date on which the recommendations of this Convention must be submitted to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in order to ensure the holding of a referendum in the spring of 1948. Second, in the event of the majority of the voters in the forthcoming referendum favouring a form of government other than Commission of Government, at what time and by what method will the change to the new form of government become effective? I now move that the other order be deferred.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, before we go into committee of the whole this afternoon, there is a matter that I want to raise, and I think this is the time to do it. Yesterday afternoon I had occasion to interject on two occasions when Mr. Smallwood was replying to Mr. Hollett; on both of these occasions I used the term "tedious repetition of irrelevant matters". On the second occasion Mr. Smallwood made a statement, of which I have not all the words, but I have sufficient that I want to repeat them today. Mr. Smallwood said, "I don't want to turn on Mr. Higgins, but if I do someone will be hurt, and I won't be the one that will be hurt. I am holding myself in." As far as I am concerned that was a reflection on me, both offensive and unbecoming, and many of the members here today think that Mr. Smallwood has something on me. That is the general tenor of the remarks, and the impression they got. That's not only here, but outside of the Convention, and I want a ruling on that. If Mr. Smallwood has any reflection to give on me, now is the time and place for him to say it.
Mr. Chairman I think I am in duty bound to hold that Mr. Smallwood was out of order, under standing order 31, which provides: "No member may use offensive or unbecoming words in reference to any member of the Convention". It is a fair inference to draw that the words were offensive, but if there should be any doubt, I think it is clear that the words were unbecoming, and if the words are either offensive or unbecoming, the member using the words is entirely out of order. I personally feel that the words were both offensive and unbecoming, and it might well be that there was a serious innuendo contained in the words. I am asked to decide whether or not standing order 31 was violated by Mr. Smallwood when he employed the language to which my attention has been drawn by Mr. Higgins. I hold and rule that the language employed, while perhaps in the heat of the moment, was both offensive and unbecoming, and certainly was not calculated to preserve to the distinguished member for St. John's East, and all other members of the Convention, the dignity and respect to which they are fairly entitled, and the responsibility for which is laid on my shoulders. I feel that the dignity, and perhaps the integrity of the member for St. John's East has been perhaps seriously affected by the language employed. Before going any further with the matter, if there is anything that Mr. Smallwood would want to say I would be very glad to hear from him.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, if it will please Mr. Higgins, or reassure him, let me say that what I had in mind when I Spoke as I did yesterday, was nothing secret, nothing confidential. I certainly had no thought that I had anything on him. What I had in mind, sir, was rather something that was extremely public, that all the members of this Convention and most of the people in this country know all about. That's what I had in mind.
Mr. Chairman Well, if you don't mind...
Mr. Smallwood Sir, I am making an explanation. So far as I am concerned no member of this Convention has had as much to take and contend with as I have. I suppose I am the only member here who has been called a "Quisling" and a "Judas Iscariot". I did not object. I have been in this chamber in one capacity or another since 1915, and I have learned to let things of that nature be as water on a duck's back. The man who called me a "Quisling" and a "Judas Iscariot" is perfectly well accustomed to calling and being called names in the past 25 years, and he rarely objects when anyone says anything to him, and I rarely object. What I had in mind yesterday was the continual process of being nagged at by Mr. Higgins. That's what I had in mind, and so I said that if I turned on him somebody would be sorry, and it would not be me. Perhaps I would have been sorry, but I would not be the only one. What I meant was that I would turn loose on him a verbal barrage. I have nothing on Mr. Higgins except that since we returned from Ottawa I have been continually nagged at by him — in a very polite and mild way, but nevertheless nagged at, and I resent that.
Now while I am on my feet and speaking to a January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1049 point of privilege, I want to draw your attention to the fact that I have been charged publicly with having challenged Mr. Fudge to go outside and fight. This is untrue. It was Mr. Fudge who waved and pointed to the door. Now that was not broadcast, what was heard was me saying, "What, go outside and fight?" He said nothing, butI saw the motion, and a few people in this House saw it, and my remarks were made after his gesture to the door —- "What, go out and fight?" Maybe the reporters were not looking up and around the chamber.
Mr. Chairman Never mind the reporters.
Mr. Smallwood Well, that is where the report went. I may be this and that, but I don't want to be a rowdy. I have been the victim of that sort of thing and I have said nothing about it. I can take it as well as try to give it.
Mr. Chairman Before you take your seat, Mr. Smallwood, I feel compelled to rule that you used unbecoming and offensive language towards the member for St. John's East, and whatever doubt I may otherwise have had upon my finding, it was resolved by your statement that you had nothing on Mr. Higgins beyond the fact that you have been irritated by the manner in which he has debated certain measures before the Chair with you at various times. With the source of your irritation I am not concerned; I am seriously concerned, however, over the fact that members of this Convention and members of the public should labour, or be left under the dangerous misapprehension by words employed by you, and perhaps at a time when you did not intend to convey any such misapprehension, that you had something on Mr. Higgins. According to you, beyond being irritated in the course of debate, you had nothing on Mr. Higgins, and there is nothing factual to justify yourleaving the impression with anybody that you had something on him, in other words that his integrity and his honesty was in question. Now, no man can afford to disregard what each needs for his own protection, and it is my duty to preserve you, Mr. Smallwood, or any other member, from loose charges of dishonesty, and that is exactly what I propose to do as long as I am in this Chair for the obvious reason that all members stand equal before the Chair. In the circumstances therefore, Mr. Smallwood, I think you will agree that the fair and proper thing to do is to apologise to Mr. Higgins for the inferences which were gathered, perhaps quite unfairly so, but none the less effectively, by other members of the Convention and sections of the public outside. I must ask if you would be good enough to unqualifiedly retract, and apologise for any inconvenience or worry which perhaps you have quite unintentionally occasioned to Mr. Higgins by the utterance of the words.
Mr. Smallwood I have explained, but I have no apology to make. I have explained what I said and that eliminates the need of apology.
Mr. Fudge I rise to a point of privilege. Mr. Smallwood tried to kill two birds at one shot. He says I offered him a challenge yesterday afternoon. That is not correct. When he did get a wee bit excited, I suppose I did make motions with my hand to the gallery and to the people there. That was all that was in my mind. Eventually he said, "I am not afraid of you", and he offered to challenge me outside. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry for that, because I am not a rowdy. I can get along with people. But I am not prepared to accept a challenge from Mr. Smallwood and lie down on it. That is not my type. I do not permit Mr. Smallwood or anyone else to put anything over the air that would blacken my character. Therefore, if Mr. Smallwood thought, by the motion of my hand, it was a challenge to him to fight, he must have something. There was no such thing in my mind. When he offered the challenge, yes, I gladly accepted. That is all for now. That challenge still stands in faimess to the people of the country whom I represent.
Mr. Chairman I am going to call a ten minute recess. Before I do so, is there anything further you wish to say, Mr. Higgins?
Mr. Higgins No, sir.
[Short recess]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood, this is perhaps even more painful to me than it is to you; but having regard to all the attendant circumstances, I am inescapably driven to the conclusion that there was definite violation of standing order 31 yesterday. If I am correct, and I feel I am, the language employed by you was offensive and unbecoming. That being so, it becomes my duty to rule you were out of order on the occasion in question.
Mr. Smallwood It is very clear thatl was out of order. I did violate rule 34, or whatever it is. There 1050 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 is nothing painful on my part about apologising to the Chair for my breach of that rule yesterday. Furthermore, I will go a little step over that and say I will gladly offer my apologies to the Chair for any rules I may break, if I am reminded of it.
Mr. Chairman Thank you, Mr. Smallwood. May I assume that that is satisfactory to Mr. Higgins and to all members?
Mr. Higgins There is no doubt in my mind; Mr. Smallwood has nothing, secret or open or any other way, on me.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood has nothing on Mr. Higgins and in view of his explanation and apology to the Chair, I rule the matter now closed.

Report of the Ottawa Delegation Proposed Arrangements for the Entry of Newfoundland into Confederation Committee of the Whole

Mr. Smallwood I have no intention of proceeding with any remarks. I concluded my remarks at the time we rose the committee yesterday afternoon. One thing I would like to say now: during the debate a number of questions came before the committee and were directed to the Government of Canada. A number of replies arrived yesterday and these replies were read. It seems to be desirable that these be dealt with in somewhat greater detail in committee of the whole than was possible in formal session. Two of these were of the utmost importance and need to be explained. You will remember in the Grey Book, the Government of Canada gave its estimate of what revenue it would collect, and what money it would spend in Newfoundland. Two questions were directed to the Government of Canada on that estimate: Major Cashin, feeling the Canadian government had been conservative on the wrong side, they would collect more, and on the other hand Mr. Hollett, being dissatisfied with one item showing what they would spend. We listed the various headings under which they would expect to spend money here. One of these headings was departmental expenditures, $9.4 million. No detail was given. Mr. Hollett asked for a breakdown. They gave it. He read it yesterday afternoon. I fear few of us had the opportunity of getting the details. I asked them to show us how they arrive at the estimate of $20 million a year they would expect to collect from the people of Newfoundland. In their reply to me, which I read out without comment, they gave details. While the debate is on, it is highly desirable that both answers be repeated, and something done by us here to analyse and explain the meaning of the two answers. I do not propose to do it at this moment.
Mr. Chairman The answers are being mimeographed and will be distributed, and after perusal and study members will be in a position to debate the information contained therein.
Mr. Fogwill Since Christmas recess, I have concerned myself quite a lot with federal taxation, in the event of Newfoundland embracing union with Canada. We have had quite a debate on probable revenues and expenditures. I am not concerned with that, although I realise in that event we shall have to collect from the people probably $6-7 million. What I am concerned with is the different taxes imposed by the federal government. It was laid down in the Black Books, on which I received communications and answers to questions making inquiry as to the list of all the items coming under federal sales tax; also regulations in respect of transportation tax. I got the information and I have been informed what items are covered by the excise tax of 1947. During the Christmas recess, I applied the general sales tax to all imports coming into Newfoundland in the fiscal year 1946-47. I may be in error, if so I will gladly admit it; if I am right, I ask members to admit it. I am not intending to quote all these taxes. Hams, salt beef, etc., sales tax would be $369,000. You have canned beef and other products, sales tax $65,458. Tea, sales tax $81,366. On confectionery, $52,000. All these are federal taxes; they go up the river. Boots, clothing, rubber boots, etc., $78,000. Tobacco, cigarettes, plug or pipe tobacco, $102,000. And so on the sad story goes. The total I arrived at, based on ourimports of last year, was $3,818,000. That does not take in local manufacturing, which I shall come to by and by.
I have here the excise tax act of Canada and I want members to turn to page 136 of the Black Book, Volume 1. Beer — I have not computed that. Malt -we imported last year 2,233,000 pounds of malt, excise tax, 16 cents per pound, $357,341. Whiskey, 45,461 gallons. In the past, January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1051 we imported $31 million worth of goods from outside Canada. It has been assumed that would be reduced to one-third. l have transferred one- third of the imports to Canada, making a total of 36,960 gallons of whiskey, $11 excise tax, revenue to the federal government — $406,000. Whiskey will give the federal government a revenue of $100,812. But the importation of gin has been alternating. The excise duty of $11 per gallon will give a revenue to the federal government of $18,084. Now the other item, rum. We imported last year 123,740 gallons at a value of $284,574. The importations of Canadian rum amounted to 1,271 gallons, and if you add one- third of the other imports you will get 42,096 gallons. If you impose the excise duty you get a revenue to the Canadian government of $463,056. Other imports of rum will give a revenue to the Canadian government of $989,728. Brandy imports would give a revenue to the Canadian government of $9,459. Other imports of brandy $24,876.
Now tobacco, firm pressed and manufactured, total 149,041 pounds, multiplied by 77 cents per pound, which is the duty, will give us a revenue to the Dominion government of $114,761. Other tobacco imports 157,000 pounds, import duty $1 per pound, will give us a revenue of $157,000. On top of that there is an excise tax of 2 cents per ounce. Now we have Newfoundland manufactured tobacco — 773,000 pounds; under federal union at 77 cents per pound, it would give the federal government $595,000. The duty on raw leaf tobacco is 20 cents per pound, will give a revenue to the Canadian government of $300,000. Last year we had an import of cigarettes of 545,860 pounds, a total on imported cigarettes of $1,402,551; and to that must be added an import tax on cigarettes which will be $568,000. Now then, we have our local manufactures. Last year we manufactured 159,962,000 cigarettes. The excise duty of $6 per thousand and excise tax of 2 cents per pound equals 1 cent on each cigarette, which will give a revenue to the Canadian government of $1,589,620. Cigar imports: that will give a revenue to Canada of $30,846.
Letters and post cards, you will see in the Black Book, 2 cents in addition to postage.... If we leave it at $100,000 I think I would be fair.
Mr. Cashin As a matter of fact there is extra taxation put on in the last six weeks that is not included in that at all.
Mr. Fogwill Motor trucks and buses, total tax, $135,305. Tires, cycle tires, truck and auto tires, $17,980. Chewing gum, $25,385. Confectionery, a federal tax of $246,069. Soft drinks, Newfoundland manufacture, 16 million bottles — $360,000 for soft drinks, manufactured in Newfoundland, and this can go to the federal government. Cameras, $1,891. Rolls of film and packs and photographic apparatus, total tax $52,052.
Carbonic acid gas, which is used to make soft drinks, will be a tax of $104,044. Cigarette papers, tobacco pipes, tax will equal $29,541. Furs, the tax will be $15,644. Fountain pens and pencils, the tax will be $14,013, Matches — the tax on these ordinary matches that we use every last day will amount to $82,319. Radio receiving sets and tubes, the tax will amount to $29,955. Photographs $971, playing cards $9,439, slot machines, phonographs, the tax will amount to $12,132.
Toilet preparations $64,533. Glucose, $7,060. Suitcases, bags and trunks, $12,103. Toilet soaps, $5,511. Champagne, $1,390; wine, otherwise, $10,729. Amusement tax, 20% on admission price. I visited the municipal office and found they are collecting approximately $50,000 a year on a 10% tax, and the federal amusement tax is 20%. I figure in St. John's we will collect a tax of $100,000, and in the rest of the country another $100,000.
Mr. Smallwood I believe that tax is abolished.
Mr. Fogwill It doesn't say so in this, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smallwood That's abolished.
Mr. Fogwill When was it abolished?
Mr. Smallwood Very recently.
Mr. Fogwill It must be recently. Telegraphs and cables, the tax amounts to 7 cents on each message. The total number of messages issued and transmitted in Newfoundland in 1946 amounted to one million, which will amount to $77,000, and that will go up the river too. Then we have a 3% tax on imports.
Mr. Hollett I would like to get that other question straightened out. Mr. Smallwood said the amusement tax was abolished. Have we any proof of that?
Mr. Cashin It was not a week ago.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Smallwood said it was abolish 1052 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 ed and I want to know when it was abolished. I am very interested in these figures.
Mr. Fogwill Well, I am interested now that you bring up the point. When was it abolished, Mr. Smallwood?
Mr. Smallwood The taxing of amusements was done by the provinces and during the war by the federal government, and now again by the provinces. That was one of the causes of the dispute between Premier Angus MacDonald and the provinces about the tax agreement, and he would not sign until the federal government decided to hand it back to the provincial governments. He would not sign until it was settled.
Mr. Fogwill What was the date?
Mr. Smallwood I can't tell you the date of it. Send a letter to the provinces if you want to know. Forget it.
Mr. Fogwill If Mr. Smallwood is deliberately. trying to break up the harmony of the house he is not going to succeed as far as I am concerned. (Cries of Hear! Hear!) Tax on imports. I have applied the Canadian customs tariff to several hundred items of Newfoundland imports and I have arrived at the conclusion that the average rate will be 15%, and 15% on $20 million, on all imports except spirits and tobacco, which I have done separately, are $19 million, Because of the fact that I have taken some out, the excise on all imports will amount to $600,000.
Transportation tickets. On the basis of the tickets sold by the Newfoundland Railway, which I believe was $6 million, and taking into consideration the hire of buses and other means of transport in Newfoundland, and the tax on airways on people leaving Newfoundland, and on water transport, I have concluded that the figure of $400,000 is reasonable.
On clocks and watches I figure there will be a tax of $36,064 collected; on jewellery and plated ware, a tax of $49,478, and on ornaments a tax of $2,481.
Mr. Cashin And a 25% luxury tax on top of that.
Mr. Fogwill All these excise taxes are commonly called luxury taxes.
Mr. Smallwood Would Mr. Fogwill permit me to ask a question?
Mr. Fogwill No, I won't. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to challenge any one member of the Ottawa delegation on the figures which I have here. I did suggest before the Christmas recess that we should have a committee going to work on these taxes, and it was not accepted with very good grace by the members at that private session. We had several answers to questions by members of this Convention, and even before the Christmas recess I thought to myself that what information we had at that time was all the information we were going to get, and that's why I dug down to try and get the facts myself, so that the people of this country would know the facts of the taxes they would have to pay under confederation. I have a total of excise taxes and excise duties of $7,916,000, and I have got to add to that the excise duty on imported cigarettes, which is $568,000, which makes $8,484,000. Customs duties I have laid down $5,544,000, sales tax local —in Newfoundland we have quite a lot of local production. For instance we have beer and tobacco and soft drinks, and those three items, Mr. Chairman, amount to $4,334,000. Then we have canned codfish, salmon, lobster, rabbit, berries, pickles, jams and jellies, sweet biscuits, etc., all comes under sales tax, and household furniture, boots and shoes, soaps, vinegar, confectionery products, lime juice and fruit syrups etc.; newsprint etc. is free from sales tax I agree, but the newsprint used here in our printing offices is not free from sales tax. Head stones and monuments, except for war veterans, rope 1/2" in diameter, which is 1 1/2" in circumference.
Now, I did ask Mr. Smallwood a question when this debate first started, whether fishery salt was subject to sales tax. I believe now that it is, and if so it means over $40 million which the fishermen will have to pay on salt to process fish. I think you will find that fishery salt is subject to sales tax.
Mr. Smallwood Well, it's not.
Mr. Fogwill I have laid down $3,818,000 to post office revenue. Our estimates for this year in post office revenue in the government estimates is $1,700,000. I don't think it is reasonable to think it would be reduced more than 40%, so I have laid that down at $1 million. I have a total of sales tax and miscellaneous taxes of $20 million. The Canadian government estimate of the same is $9,150,000. I have a difference of $10,896, and I am prepared to challenge any one member of the Ottawa delegation on these figures.
Mr. Higgins I did not quite get all the figures, January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1053 Mr. Fogwill. Do you mean to say that you are only taking now the excise tax and excise duties, and the general customs duties? Is that what you are adding up that figure on, and if so would you give us the total figure of $30 million, I think it was?
Mr. Fogwill The total figure I have is $10 million different from the Canadian government estimate. In other words, $10 million higher. $30 million would go up the river.
Mr. Hickman That would be all federal taxes instead of provincial?
Mr. Fogwill On that score, if these figures are correct — they may not be — I am prepared to back them up — in addition, there are some increases in income tax which I am not competent to assess. Then you have provincial government tax which we have heard so much about these last few days. It is estimated at $59 million. In addition, the increase in income tax will probably bring up taxes to $36-37 million separate and apart from corporation tax, which may remain substantial as it is now.
Mr. Higgins Your figures do not include income tax at all?
Mr. Fogwill No.
Mr. Smallwood I wonder, would Mr. Fogwill mind telling me his basis for the figure arrived at of $400,000 through the travel tax he thinks the Government of Canada would get from Newfoundland? He says he applied, I believe, 15% on the actual value of tickets sold by the Railway last year; is that what I understand? And he found out the value of tickets sold on steamers and trains last year, and having got the value of that he merely applied 15% to that value sold by the Railway last year?
Mr. Fogwill I applied it to your own Transportation and Communications Report. I did not apply 15% tax to sleeping berths or parlour car seats. I applied it to the amount of tickets sold by the railway and steamers.
Mr. Smallwood I think we have it fairly clear now. The Newfoundland Railway charges certain rates for passenger fares on trains and boats. I believe on trains it is 5 - 7 cents a mile. In Canada, when you buy a ticket on a train or plane or any kind of transport, besides the amount of the ticket, the railway or airline collects 15% tax from you, which they pass back to the Canadian government. The fare and the tax, together, comes to 3 1/2 cents a mile. If that is true, confederation would mean this: with our transport system operated by the CNR, and with the rates being charged, we would pay 15% travel tax when we buy the ticket and that tax and the fare would come to 3.5 cents a mile, where now we have to pay 5-7 cents a mile. If Mr. Fogwill would take the total value of tickets sold last year by the Railway, deduct from that what would have been paid at the Canadian rate, then add 15%, instead of $400,000, it would be half. He can cut that in half. On top of that, our people would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in pocket by getting cheaper travel.
Mr. Higgins I think Mr. Fogwill's point was merely the additional monies the federal treasury would get, not the question of rates being cheaper.
Mr. Smallwood Why not take the value of tickets and apply the Canadian rate to it?
Mr. Fogwill All right, reduce it 50%. I am satisfied.
Mr. Cashin Why was not the value of tickets sold in Canada put in the report?
Mr. Smallwood It is not an Encyclopedia Brittanica — Eaton's Catalogue is not in it; Simpson's is not in it. He estimates the Canadian government will take $20 million in taxes. One of the items he takes is travel tax, $400,000. I asked him how he arrived at that figure. Now he says, "Cut it in half."
Mr. Fogwill I said I was willing to cut it in half.
Mr. Smallwood He said he added 15% to the value of tickets sold last year by the Railway. But that value was Newfoundland value — these were rates charged by the Newfoundland Railway. The Canadian government is not going to take 15% travel tax from us unless we become a province, and if we become a province, one of the conditions would be that the rates charged on the railway would be the CNR rates.
Mr. Hollett What are the Canadian rates?
Mr. Smallwood 3.5 cents a mile, including tax, as against 5-7 cents in Newfoundland. Mr. Fogwill says, "Cut it in half", and you would collect $200,000.
Mr. Fogwill I did not compute sleeping car berths at all.
Mr. Smallwood All that boils down to is you pay 15% on travel tickets and 15 cents for berth.
Mr. Fogwill 35 cents.
Mr. Smallwood All right; if Newfoundland railways become CNR and you have to pay less than half what we are charged now, if you can get a berth for half what we are paying now, you will be glad to pay 35 cents tax. You are still saving dollars and dollars. The other question is, Mr. Fogwill has compiled a lot of figures with great industry — I know what it is to pore over documents for hours and he must have worked hard. He has prepared a table showing to his own satisfaction where the Government of Canada would take from us $20 million. One of the figures he has to make up that $20 million is completely wrong. Another basis for his computation is, he figures the average Canadian duty as being 15% as applied to Newfoundland. Let us agree, for the sake of argument that that is correct. I think I know his reasoning, and there is a certain amount of common sense there. In Canada, the average is 10%. That is because of the large quantities of raw materials transported to go into their industries, which beings it down to an overall rate of 10%. Whereas, in Newfoundland, we have mostly consumable goods coming in.
Mr. Fogwill Do you agree with the 15%?
Mr. Smallwood It may be 17% or it may be 12%. I think that is a nice job for some Customs man to work out; I doubt my ability to do it and Idoubt Mr. Fogwill's ability to do it. He has made a stab at it. I agree it would be more than the average in Canada, which is 10% and in Newfoundland 25%. Under confederation it would be something over 10%. Mr. Fogwill insists it would be 15%. I daresay if Mr. Howell were assisted by some of his officials and were to spend several weeks, dropping everything else, they may be able to work out the figure for us.
Mr. Fogwill He could do it in six or seven hours.
Mr. Smallwood He says 15% the Government of Canada will collect on all goods we get in from countries other than Canada. He is on reasonably safe grounds there. What grounds has he for saying only one—third less would come into Newfoundland from countries other than Canada under confederation?
Mr. Fogwill That is in the Black Book.
Mr. Smallwood No. We had quite a debate on that, Mr. Crosbie and myself. That is what they have not done. I pointed out in the debate, the total amount the government collects is 4.28%. I said two millions is actually 10% of twenty mil lions. That was my estimate, not the Government of Canada's. Mr. Fogwill applied Canadian tax to our imports — to what they were before confederation. He applied the Canadian rates to two- thirds. I quarrel with that.
Mr. Fogwill I applied the Canadian taxes to 3-400 items and I arrived at 15%. If you want to refute it, get down and try and work it out.
Mr. Smallwood It would be more than 10% but far less than 25%. What has he done? The average duty he says is 15%. What is he collecting 15% from? Two possibilities — (1) To collect 15% from all the imports shown in the Blue Book--except from Canada. (2) In theory, he could es» timate how much goods, under confederation, would come in from Canada; then apply 15% to the goods coming in from countries other than Canada. He has made an estimate. He says we are collecting "X" amount of goods from the world; so much from Canada, and the rest from the rest of the world — two-thirds.
Mr. Fogwill We are talking about the average tax. Take rum — we imported last year 123,740 gallons. Under confederation we would have to pay $12 per gallon — right there you have 400%. What are you talking about?
Mr. Smallwood I object to the little elements of sauce that Mr. Fogwill gets off. Let us take the 15% figure. What is he going to apply the 15% to? He says 75% of what we are now importing is from non-Canadian countries. Why not say 50%? How does he know it will be only one-third of what we import from the United States, British West Indies, the United Kingdom and the Mediterranean? Of the total of all the countries we are now importing from, not Canadian, how does he know in the future what we will be importing from Canada? Let us get down to brass tacks. I am interested in this confederation. If we become a province, no doubt there will be a change in our trade. Goods coming in from Canada will be duty free; and if you can get the goods from Canada, will not more be bought there rather than from other countries when you would have to pay duty? You will buy as much as you can from Canada, if Canada has it to sell. You cannot buy what she has not got. In some cases you may buy from other countries and pay the duty and still save money, compared to what you would have to pay in Canada. There will be cases like that. What these cases are, I do not January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1055 know. The United States is famous for producing certain kinds of products; the United Kingdom is famous for producing other kinds of products. If we become part of Canada, we will be importing all we can from Canada. On the things we import from the United States and the United Kingdom, we will pay Canadian rates of duty. But what I would like Mr. Fogwill to tell me is how he figures customs duties on what we will import from countries other than Canada; how does he know what we will import from other countries under confederation?
Mr. Fogwill I do not know any more than you do. I know what we are importing now.
Mr. Smallwood I am trying to be fair.
Mr. Fogwill Page 123, Volume 1, of the Black Book, there is a chapter on indirect taxes. On that point we, in this country, import most of our clothing, food and machinery from abroad. Last year we imported from other countries, apart from Canada, $31 million worth of goods. I have assumed that our imports will be reduced from other countries other than Canada, and I have assumed that the figure of $20 million will be reasonable After all, we have got to sell our produce in the world. We have got to sell it to England and Spain and Italy, and to Portugal and the West Indies and the United States. Surely goodness, you can't expect Newfoundland to sell all her goods to other people and import all her needs and wants from the mainland of Canada. We can't expect to sell everything to other people and import everything from Canada. I think our reasonable imports from Canada would be $20 million.
Mr. Smallwood Now we are getting somewhere. Last year we imported $30 million worth from other countries, and $40 million from Canada, was it?
Mr. Cashin $40.1 million.
Mr. Smallwood No, from the latest book, what is the figure Mr. Fogwill'?
Mr. Fogwill $31 million.
Mr. Smallwood That's as it is now. Now under confederation. On the $43 million worth of goods we imported from Canada, we paid customs duty on some of them, and some came in duty free. Well, all goods will come in duty free if we are into confederation.
Mr. Fogwill It won't all come in duty free, it will be customs duty free.
Mr. Smallwood Yes, import duty free. What we usually call customs import duty, ad valorem and specific rates when they come into the country. There will be none of that on goods coming in from Canada. On that $43 million that we brought in last year, or $86 million if you like, it will be without paying any import duty. Mr. Fogwill says when he was working out this table, "Yes, that's true, therefore as everything would come in duty free, we will bring in more than we have in the past", and he begins to figure how much more. He says, "Last year we brought in $30 million from the rest of the world, I wonder how much we would bring in under confederation?" He says he will lop off $11 million. He says we will bring in $20 million from the rest of the world, and $1 1 million of this $31 million we will bring in from Canada. So that it will be this: $54 million we would bring in from Canada, and $20 million from the rest of the world. Now what I want to know is, and he has based his table on that 50% and the $30 million, what I want to know is this: is that a guess, and if so, is it based on something fairly concrete? Because I will confess that I am absolutely stumped when I come to try and figure exactly what the proportion of these imports under confederation will come in from Canada, and what proportion will come in from the rest of the world. I am not sufficient of a trader, I don't know the trade of this country. I can't, for instance, say, "Microphones, where do they come from — Canada or the United States?" I can't say whether it would pay to bring them in from the United Kingdom, or Canada or the United States. I don't know enough about the trading practices of our country. I doubt if Mr. Fogwill does. He says last year we brought in $31 million worth from the rest of the world, but under confederation it will be $20 million. How does he get that? Otherwise we can't accept his figure. How does he arrive at that?
Mr. Fogwill I am not asking anybody to accept it. I have done these figures for my own personal information, and I don't have to prove it to you or anyone else; but it is on this that I will make up my mind in this Convention, and not on what anyone else is going to say.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, he is perfectly entitled to do that, but when he brings in figures and lays them before us in this Convention, he goes beyond the point of doing them for his own 1056 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 satisfaction. In my consideration of it, I am merely asking the perfectly reasonable question: how does Mr. Fogwill figure, how does he estimate that if we imported $31 million from the rest of the world with no confederation, under confederation, with everything coming in duty free from Canada, how does he figure that we will bring in $20 million from the rest of the world?
Mr. Chairman I think the point is well taken by Mr. Fogwill. I know that I never advance an argument in the Supreme, or any other court, until I am satisfied myself that the argument is as it should be. Having satisfied myself, then I endeavour to try and satisfy the judge and the jury that my argument is sound. Mr. Fogwill has broken down these figures, and assigned certain reasons, and in the course of his observations, if I understood him correctly, he stated that from that $31 million imported from countries other than Canada last year, his estimate would be, having regard to the type of article, where it comes from, etc...
Mr. Smallwood He did not say that.
Mr. Chairman Well, he estimates that the $31 million figure, having regard to all these circumstances, would be $20 million.
Mr. Smallwood I am only asking him to explain that.
Mr. Chairman You may think it is unscientific, but he says it is to his satisfaction, and I presume that is as far as he wishes to go.
Mr. Smallwood Not quite. His act of giving us these figures implies that he wishes us to consider these figures. Every man who stands up here, he naturally expects that his remarks are going to be analysed and broken down and examined. The net result of his speech is that he disagrees with the Government of Canada. He doubles it, and surely it is fair to ask Mr. Fogwill to explain the basis of his argument. At one point he has explained it. He is taking 15% average duty coming in from other countries than Canada. OK, we will accept that. He is not far out, but we will say it is 15%. Now the next question is, so that he can build up his table, what will the Canadian government collect that from? How much other imports apart from Canada? So Mr. Fogwill lops off $11 million, and still says we will import $20 million from countries other than Canada, and from that he collects 15% duty. I am asking on what basis does he figure that the trade of this country, under confederation, will change to this effect ... that where we imported $31 million from countries other than Canada, we will now import $20 million What is the basis of that estimate? If he is not prepared to tell us, for instances if he were to admit that it is a pure flat guess, his whole table comes tumbling doWn, On the other hand, if he says it is worked out realistically, the best country to get this and that from, and that there we could definitely import $20 million, then he is in the right. How can he do that?
Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman, I don't have to prove it, but I have been here 45 years, and in fact I know some of the people's taste, and a lot of people in this country like to wear English clothes, and like to use Spanish goods, or Portuguese goods...
Mr. Chairman And American cars.
Mr. Fogwill They like to use things that are not entirely manufactured in Canada. American cigarettes for instance — some people smoke no other. I won't be able to smoke at all if they get them from Canada I don't see the point of Mr. Smallwood asking me the basis on which I express the opinion of $20 million imports. I don't see the point, and I think it is only labouring this debate and has no purpose at all.
Mr. Smallwood It has purpose all right — a good one.
Mr. Fogwill I know you have something in mind there, but I am not going to be caught. I don't care personally if Mr. Smallwood wipes out the $20 million, and says that everything we import will come from Canada. It will only make a difference of $2 million in the total, because the general sales tax will be applied to the great majority.
Mr. Smallwood What was your total?
Mr. Fogwill 15%.
Mr. Smallwood It came to what?
Mr. Fogwill Never mind, you work that out yourself.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, before I proceed with my remarks in connection with this proposition now before the Chair, I want to express my congratulations to my friend, Mr. Fogwill, for the effort he has put into building these various statistics. With regard to Mr. Smallwood's request, asking him to give some concrete basis for his estimate, we have witnessed in this House, since this thing was placed on the table six weeks ago, January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1057 that the Ottawa delegation themselves have not been able to explain one figure of what is contained in the Grey Book — not one figure.
Now Mr. Chairman, in rising to make a few remarks on this confederation issue now before the Convention, I must confess that I do so with a sense of some discouragement and even disappointment. For when I consider the political situation which exists in Newfoundland today, the bewilderment which has been created in the minds of some of our people, the disgust and even the bitterness in others, it proves to me beyond all doubt that far more harm has come out of this Convention than good. It tells me that neither myself nor any other delegate can take any great pride in the position we have helped to create. It is said that sometimes good comes out of evil, but such has not been the case of this Convention. When I look back over the long period that we have spent in fruitless discussion, wasting our own time and the people's money, in trying to do something which we should not have been asked to do — in allowing ourselves to be diverted into this political cul-de-sac — I honestly feel that we, all of us, owe an apology to the people who sent us here. For months, I think about 16 months, we have been engaged in what I regard as a wasteful task of finding out the economic condition of this country, when the truth is that we could have been told every last detail concerning our financial and economic condition on the very first day this Convention opened its doors.
For months we have been squabbling over matters which have already been decided by those who control this country — seeking solutions to questions, the answers to which were already stored away in the files of some government office. But even more regrettable than the useless friction and bad feeling which has been created in this Convention, is the manner in which this present set-up has affected and upset the temperament of the people of the country. This mock parliament, it is obvious, has spread its harmful influence of political controversy to every town and settlement in Newfoundland. Through the government radio broadcast the people have been invited, even encouraged, and given ringside seats at this political burlesque. And, like the spectators at any street brawl, they have been infested with the spirit of animosity, argument and abuse which has been broadcast from this very chamber. What isthe result? It is that which I forecast on the first week this Convention assembled. Settlement is divided against settlement, district against district, neighbour against neighbour. Everyone has been infected with his own particular political ideas, irrespective of whether they understand what they are talking about or not. I say, Mr. Chairman, that this was the preconceived idea of the United Kingdom government and the Commission government, when they jointly brought about this Convention idea.
Now Mr. Chairman, this setting of our people at one another's throats is one of the things for which those who have set up this stupid Convention should never be forgiven. There is no excuse for it. But what makes this even worse is the fact that there are indications, strong indications, that the whole thing was deliberately planned to create political disorder in our country, to muddle the people's minds with a hotch-potch of ideas. And this, remember, in the case of a people which has been kept in political ignorance for 14 years. To expect them, the average man or woman in this country, to understand and separate the qualities attaching to such varied forms of government as responsible government, Commission government, confederation with Canada, union with the United States of America and what have you — to expect I say, our people to have a knowledge of these forms of government, to understand the multitude of debatable issues which go with them, to be able to say to what extent we would benefit or suffer by attaching themselves to any one of them — I say, to set this Convention and the people of the country to such a task, I regard as being inspired either by a sense of stupity or with the deliberate desire of injuring us. To repeat what I have so often stated before: was there ever such a farce perpetrated on an innocent people? It is my personal opinion that it is all simply the working out of a shrewdly conceived plan. First Newfoundland would be divided politically, and then it would be destroyed politically.
I remember I was one of those who went on a wild-goose chase with a delegation to England, half expecting that we would be able to do something on behalf of the people. But when I look back now, my feeling is that if I were a wealthy man I would repay to the treasury of this country 1058 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 the amount which our trip cost the taxpayers of Newfoundland. I would regard it as conscience money. Because the fact is that that delegation, in addition to being coldly received and treated as children, was simply wasting the people's money, and I am now convinced that the same situation applies in the case of the delegation which went to Ottawa this past summer. What did we get for that three month trip? What have we got, I ask, to justify hanging up this Convention for more than 100 days? What have we got to justify the spending of around $30,000 of the people's money? As far as I can see, all we have got for all this is two books with black covers and another one with a grey cover. And as far as they are concerned, it is my opinion that you could go into any bookstore in Ottawa and for about a dollar get a book containing the Canadian facts and figures. The Newfoundland part of the book could have been obtained locally for the expenditure of another 50 cents. Yet, the three books in question cost us nearly $30,000. Why Mr. Chairman, if the collectors of rare books knew that we were in possession of such valuable volumes, they would come running to have a glance at them. You wouldn't have to pay that amount for a first edition of Shakespeare.
But these famous books we are asked to regard as containing the terms upon which Canada would be prepared to adopt us. Of course they are not called terms. That seems to be a dangerous word, and they are called proposals. The Ottawa delegation, by the way, was neither entitled to negotiate nor to arrange terms, but it is quite obvious that they have done both these things.
Now my first impulse, and that of many other delegates to this Convention when these terms were introduced here, was to have nothing to do with them — to throw them out the window for the worthless things they were. But we did not do this, for the simple reason that if we did, some people might think that we were trying to hide the wonderful offering which Canada was making to us. Or they might think we were afraid to discuss them. They might think we were afraid of the effect they may have on our people. But sir, it was not for these reasons that I did not favour them. My attitude was then as it is now, that the contents of these books were worthless, for the simple reason that they only give us half the story, they are half-truths, what they tell us is what the pro-confederates want us to know. I condemn them because the information they should give us is not to be found, because the things we should know are kept from us, because the estimates they contain are the wildest kind of guesswork, because the figures in these estimates are false. Because, in a word, these three books represent the biggest fraud that was ever perpetrated in the history of our time.
I am not going to weary you by dealing in detail with the contents of these Canadian proposals. For there is not an item, not a figure which is not open to correction, criticism and, in many cases, suspicion. Let me give you an example: when I received my copies of these books, the first thing I set out to look for was the present Canadian national debt. I felt that if we were to go into partnership with Canada, it was proper that we see how our prospective partner stood financially. I therefore went through the books, page by page, from cover to cover and from beginning to end. And did I find what I looked for? I did not, because it was not there. It had been left out. I asked myself why it had been left out. I became suspicious. I concluded that it must be in the interest of the pro-confederates to leave this out, or it would be there, lined up with all the other attractive items. Well, I finally did dig it up in another way. I got it by discovering that the Ottawa delegation had brought home other documents which they had not produced, some of which, I understand, were labelled "secret" in big red letters. It would appear that the people of the country were not supposed to know about these secret documents, even the Convention was not supposed to know about them. But murder will out, and so what I looked for, I found. I found that, according to this secret information given the Ottawa delegation by the Canadian government, the total federal debt of Canada amounts to over $18 billion, or a per capita debt on every man, woman and child in Canada of $1,492. From information taken from the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, we find that the total interest charge on Canada's national debt is close to $450 million annually, or at the rate of $35 for every Canadian. But just compare this with our own country's finances. Our national debt is roughly $70 million as against Canada's $18 billion. Our per capita debt is $213 as against Canada's $1,492. Our total interest charge, January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1059 together with sinking fund payments, is $3,375,000 or slightly over $10 per head, as against Canada' s $35 per head. Therefore we find that the difference between the national debt of Canada and that of Newfoundland on a per capita basis is approximately $1,200 in excess of ours, which means that if Newfoundland were to become a Canadian province upon the terms offered us, our country would have to become responsible for this extra debt, which would amount to, in all, nearly $400 million as Newfoundland's proportionate share of the entire debt of the Dominion of Canada. It would mean that every man, woman and child in Newfoundland would pay in annual taxes, directly and indirectly, about $230 instead of $120 which is our present per capita tax annually. In all, the people of Newfoundland would have to pay an additional $38- 40 million each year in taxation.
But that is not the worst of it. Canada, we are told, in the event of confederation will be generous enough to take over our sterling debt, which amounts to approximately $64 million. On the face of it, this would look like Canada was giving us something for nothing, but in actuality it is nothing like that. It means that for this $64 million Canada will buy Newfoundland — our railways, public buildings, wharves, lighthouses, telegraph system, docks, steamers and harbours, everything for a paltry $64 million. Why, Mr. Smallwood himself gives the Canadian government the valuation of our railways and its subsidiaries, just one item, as being $72 million. If ever there was a one-sided bargain, this is it. If ever there was a pig-in-a-bag transaction, this is it.
And speaking again of our railroad, these Canadian proposals make much of the deficits incurred by our Newfoundland Railway. But they say nothing about the losses incurred by the Canadian National Railway system. Now, anyone who knows anything about the history of the Canadian National Railway system, operated by the Canadian government, knows that they have been a continual political headache. They have lost and cost Canada not millions, but billions of dollars. True, the Newfoundland Railway has cost the country a deficit each year since it was taken over by the government in 1923 at a cost of $2 million. Now, when the Ottawa delegation were discussing this railway matter with the Canadian government, it would appear that they did not ask any embarrassing questions about the Canadian National Railways — what they had cost the taxpayers of Canada, or what was the average annual loss sustained. Although we have not this information officially, it is general knowledge that the Canadian National Railways originally cost the Canadian government in the vicinity of $1 billion and they have cost the Canadian taxpayer uncounted millions since it came under government control. Indeed, it is a matter of record that the Canadian government actually defaulted on the preferred stock out. standing by the Grand Trunk Railway system when the government took it over — which action, by the way, caused great concern and displeasure to the English investors holding these securities amounting to millions and millions of dollars. Incidentally, with regard to the CNR and CPR, it was a story of graft from beginning to end. The directors looted the Bank of Montreal in order to finance the CPR and then went to the Prime Minister and asked him to keep them out of jail. They told him the story of what they had done to complete the transcontinental railway. The CNR was taken over in 1919 or 1920. Originally, a great portion of this system was called the Canadian Northem Railway, the construction of which was begun by two Toronto financiers, Mackenzie and Mann (Bill and Dan), who received vast concessions from the Canadian government for the purpose of building another line across Canada. They operated this system for a short period and then got into financial difficulties. In addition, the Grand Trunk Railway and the ICR got into difficulties. These two systems were operating in the eastern part of Canada. Why I mention this, sir, is because we have been told by Mr. Smallwood that the Newfoundland Railway is nothing more or less than a heap of scrap. Well, I wonder what Mr. Smallwood and the Ottawa delegation thought of that part of the Canadian National system that runs from Sydney to Truro. I tell you, that from what little knowledge I have of railroading, that this particular part of the system is a disgrace to Canada. I will go further, its rolling stock, its roadbed and its general administration are most inefficient. I have travelled from one end of Canada to the other — take the Prime Minister's own constituency, the line from Moose Jaw into 1060 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948 Prince Albert. I would like the Ottawa delegation to have a look at that and then come back to criticise our own. Then if we take the whole Canadian railway system, we find that the roadbeds from the Atlantic to the Pacific have been overtaxed, particularly during the period of World War Two, and like our own Newfoundland Railway which is now being reequipped, the Canadian systems require hundreds of millions of dollars capital expenditures in order to put the roadbeds and rolling stock in proper shape. Again, I say, it would be interesting to know also, what the deficits of the Canadian National Railways have been since 1919, what capital expenditures have been incurred on them, and then compare these deficits and capital expenditures on a per capita basis with similar ones on our own Newfoundland railway system. I venture the offhand opinion that our own Railway, with its various subsidiaries, has been operated on a more economic basis than those of the Canadian National system.
These are matters on which the Ottawa delegation should have been informed during their three months' stay at Ottawa. But it appears to me that instead of this delegation meeting the representatives of the Canadian government on equal, if not superior grounds, that they approached the Canadians in a more or less subservient manner. It would appear from information dragged from Mr. Smallwood during the course of this long and somewhat tiring debate, that the Newfoundland delegation to Ottawa went there not as representatives of a proud and independent people, but rather did they talk as a delegation from a bankrupt country and a pauperised people.
Mr. Smallwood No, we did not.
Mr. Cashin You did not ask them anything about their own affairs. You tell us nothing about the CNR. I want to know what is behind their money. Before we go into partnership, we have to know what is the standing of the Bank of Canada at the present time.
With respect to this railway situation, the point which concerns our people is, that should we go into confederation we will have to shoulder our share of the losses incurred by the Canadian National system. How much greater this will be than our own, no one can tell us, not even Mr. Smallwood. You will not find Mr. Smallwood telling us anything about such drawbacks. Are these important particulars contained in either of the Black Books or the Grey Book? Not at all! Mr. Smallwood has everything painted a rosy pink. He apparently ran out of all his black paint when he was trying to smear up our Economic Report and our Financial Report.
There is mention made of the Newfoundland Airport which was bought by us from the Canadian government at a cost of $1 million. We are, it seems, supposed to throw this into the Canadian jackpot as a present to Canada. Here again is a case of our being deprived of a possible source of future income. This airport is valuable, not alone because of its commercial possibilities, buteven more so because of its strategic position. And it is my firm conviction that, properly operated and properly managed, it could be a source of permanent national worth.
Again, this precious Grey Book tells us that, under confederation, we will have to set aside one third of our accumulated surplus, which would amount to roughly $10 million, in trust with the Government of Canada — to be used only, so the orders run, only for expenditure on current account of the Province of Newfoundland. The rest, we are told, we can use in the development of our local resources. But there is a string to this. We must not, and we will not be allowed to use our own money to subsidise our own sources of production if they compete with similar Canadian products. In other words, Prime Minister King says we will not be allowed to assist with our own money our fisheries, our forests or such other Newfoundland industries. This we are told we must agree with before we are granted the priceless privilege of being allowed to call ourselves Canadians. Is not this, I ask you, an example of unmitigated gall? For 14 years the agents of the British government have been doing what they like with our treasury, and now the Canadian government proposes to step in and do the same thing. In short, we are asked to exchange one form of dictatorship for another. Miss Newfoundland seems to be in a position of a wealthy heiress these days, who is being wooed, and the matrimony business seems to be a matter of money. Let us look a little closer at John Canuck's proposals: let us see if he can keep Miss Newfoundland in the style to which she is accustomed! Let us see what we can find out about his financial standing.
Now, of course, it is no good in our looking in the Grey Book or the Black Books for this information. But there are other places we can look, fortunately, and what we see there is not so good. For instance, we find that in 1931 Newfoundland had to go off the gold standard in order to save the Canadian chartered banks from bankruptcy. We know that Newfoundland depositors in these banks lost some $20 million through the raising of the price of gold in 1933, and that the central bank of Canada made this large profit at the expense of Newfoundland depositors. We know that during World War Two, the same Bank of Canada had the advantage of having the use of hundreds of millions of American dollars spent in this country, and though the people of Newfoundland made nothing, it is estimated that the Bank of Canada made upwards of $150 million from such sources. We know that this same Canada is at this very moment sending an SOS to Uncle Sam for financial help, and that the Canadian people are being forced to take the first steps on the hard road of austerity, that road which the people of Great Britain have travelled so long. Is it any wonder then, that in view of these things we fail to be able to see Canada as a land of milk and honey, which Mr. Smallwood so enthusiastically described and to which he wants us to come? Is it strange that we feel like asking such questions now, as what is the exact financial position of the central bank of Canada? What is the total of Bank of Canada notes now in circulation? What amount of gold is in reserve as security against this paper currency? In short, we want to know, and I say we are entitled to know, what is the actual financial position of this country that wants us to go into partnership. We want to know and we must know if Canada today is a solvent country. Is she financially sound? And we also want to know before we consider union with Canada, what would become of the $110 million in our local Canadian banks? What would happen to the Newfoundland Savings Bank and to the money of our Newfoundland depositors in these banks and in Canadian bonds? Incidentally, speaking of Canadian bonds, when I took up the morning paper today, the first thing I saw was that Canadian bonds had slumped a couple percent. Canada's financial position might not be so hot.
These are vital questions, Mr. Chairman. They should be known to this Convention, to the country and to the Newfoundland people. They represent the very basis of this whole discussion. But we do not know them. They are not to be found in either the Grey Book or the Black Books. I have asked these questions in this Convention, but as yet I have received no reply. Yesterday I received an evasive answer, deliberately evasive. Mr. Smallwood has not told us. No member of the Ottawa delegation has told us anything about them. To all appearances, Mr. Chairman, the Ottawa delegation has absolutely failed in its duty, in not getting this information for us while in Canada. Do they think, does anybody think, that we Newfoundlanders are going to allow ourselves to be dragged into this sort of a transaction and buy a pig in a bag?
At the present time Canada is all out trying to bank itself to the future on the Marshall Plan. If the Plan does go through, it will mean expenditures by the United States for $67 billion worth of goods a year for European countries, and some of these purchases will be made in Canada and will be paid for in American funds to Canada. If the Plan does not go through, none of us knows what might happen.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in moving the adjournment of the debate, I might say with regard to this broadcasting — I want to make it known, as far as having the debate broadcast or not, a lot of people want to hear themselves over the radio. I am not one of those. What talking I have done, I have not gotten it gratis from the Newfoundland Commission of Government over the radio.
[The committee rose and reported progress, and the Convention adjourned]


Newfoundland. The Newfoundland National Convention, 1946-1948 Vol 1: Debates. Edited by J.K. Hiller and M.F. Harrington Montreal: Memorial University of Newfoundland by McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995).



Selection of input documents and completion of metadata: Gordon Lyall.

Personnes participantes: