Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, if I might intervene
for a moment.... I was referring yesterday to a
motion introduced by Mr. Jackman some time in
the early part of our proceedings,
[1] to the fact that
when this Convention had almost unanimously
turned it down, I had been approached by people
asking where I got the right to do such things. I
generally refused, and said that a number of other
members had also been censured by various
people. At that time Mr. Smallwood interrrupted
and said nobody had spoken to him on the matter.
That's the statement as well as I recollect it.
Nobody had spoken to him. Now either Mr.
Smallwood has lost his memory or else he's not
telling the truth, because I was informed by a
gentleman today that he had spoken to Mr.
Smallwood, and had asked him what was the
meaning of it, and that gentleman's name is Mr.
Walter Dillon, who's a very prominent taxi-man
of this town. It's merely for the purpose of the
record, sir. that I intervene in this matter.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman. Mr. Higgins, if
he has to believe Mr. Walter Dillon or believe me,
has his choice of behaving which of us he prefers.
To put the matter straight, I did not say that no
one had approached me. What Mr. Higgins suggested is pure waste of breath.
Mr. Smallwood ....Don't ask me what I said,
when you already told me what I said I say I did
not say it. If you want to know what I did say, go
and find out.
Mr. Chairman I think it's time to put an end to
this, gentlemen.... Mr. Butt you have the floor.
Mr. Butt Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was
enumerating some of the things which I consider
of great importance, which Newfoundland, under
the terms of confederation as given to us here,
would have to give up. I did digress for a moment
to say a word on the sales tax. I did that, sir,
because I feel that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the point. Mr. Smallwood
touched on it
yesterday to a certain extent. For example, there's
such a thing as a retail sales tax, which means that
if you go and buy an article costing $1 in a store
and the tax is 2%, the two cents is tacked on to
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1131
that $1. But the sales tax referred to in these Black
Books is an indirect tax. Its effect on the consumer is exactly the same as a customs
duty. For
example, if an article cost 50 cents either from the
importer or the manufacturer to the retailer, the
first thing he does is add on the 8% tax, which
would make the article 54 cents. After that it's on
the 54 cents that the retailer puts his markup or
profit. An article which cost 50 cents ... would
cost 76 cents. I've taken one item at 50 cents, but
that is the principle that we must have in mind
when we think of a sales tax. It is exactly the same
in principle as a customs duty. It should be borne
in mind that there has been in the last 16 months
a considerable amount of discussion on the profit
that is made on customs duties, and on the profit
on profit. That's the way it's been said, exaggerated beyond words to my mind.
I was referring to the things we would give up,
and in doing that I really moved on to clause 5 of
the proposed arrangements. But there is clause 4
and some people may have thought that I
proposed to avoid clause 4, which concerns welfare services. Nothing was further from
my mind.
The welfare services enumerated in clause 4 are
all good. Some such schemes must in the future
be applied to Newfoundland if we are to keep
abreast of the times. Any scheme however, that
is applied to Newfoundland must be consistent
with ....
[1] national minimum standards, for the
sole purpose of avoiding want, when the earnings
of parents with large families for example, are
either cut off or insufficient to avoid that want.
Mr. Chairman, it is wasteful and unjustified to
pay family allowances, for example, to a man
earning $5,000-$10,000 a year. I'll put this on a
personal basis. I have never been able in my life
to earn very much more then $3,000 a year. I have
two children, and family allowances on the scale
given by the Canadian federal government would
be very nice. But I honestly feel that I am not
entitled to family allowances as long as there are
people in this country who earn way less than
$3,000 a year, especially when I can offset my
family allowances against what I would normally
pay in income tax, which is the principle applied
in the family income allowances in Canada.
People in the same category may or may not face
up to that position.... In England they have a
family allowance scheme and the first child is
exempt. That's one way of getting over the difficulty. I do not want to give you the
impression
that I'm an expert on social services, family allowances, or any of the welfare schemes.
But I
am concerned in the view which I have just
expressed by reference to the Beveridge Report.
[2]
Anyone who wants to check on what I have said,
a reasoned basis for it will find it on page 154 of
that report. Also I would like members to read
page 115 of a book which has been referred to
many times in this Convention,
Quick Canadian
Facts. Bear in mind sir, that what I have said must
not be taken to mean that I am or will be in the
future opposed to social welfare services
wherever and whenever we can handle them.
Whatever form of government we have in the
future, these things must and will be brought
about, provided we can find a solid basis for
paying for them.
Now let's take the old age pension. Here
again, I am all for it. I believe it is the measure of
a people, the standard of civilisation, the way in
which the younger generation will take their part
in doing the fighting for their country, and also in
the protection of both the young and the old.... I
want you to look for one minute at the Canadian
Year Book, page 795. You will find there, that in
Nova Scotia for 1945-46 the average monthly
payment on family allowances was $1 million.
The population of Nova Scotia is 620,000.
Mr. Butt That's right now — 620,000. The
population of Newfoundland now is 320,000.
Mr. Butt 327,000 — that makes it better from
my point of view.... The point I am making is this
and it's only a matter of half a million dollars or
so, but our population is half the population of
Nova Scotia. The payments there are at $12 million. Half $12 million should be $6
million. The
estimate given here for family allowances is
$8,350,000.
Mr. Smallwood To begin with, the basis you
were taking for Nova Scotia is merely the last
three months of 1945. It's not a sufficiently long
period on which to base anything. The other point
1132 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
is this. From province to province the actual
payments made will depend upon the age grouping of the population. If you compare
our age
grouping with that of any other province, and
because we have a higher birth rate than any part
of North America perhaps, you will find that we
have a larger proportion of our population in the
low age groupings.
Mr. Butt I'm coming to that, Mr. Smallwood.
I'll take the first point — it's hardly a sufficient
period on which to make an average..." It seems
sufficient to say for practical purposes that the
average amount paid in Nova Scotia is around $1
million a month or $12 million a year. In Newfoundland it ought to be six, make it
seven.
There's the difference of $1 million. That throws
some doubt upon this probable estimate of expenditures, Mr. Chairman.
Let's turn now to the old age pensions.
Remember now the population of Nova Scotia is
just double that of Newfoundland. I found that
the contributions for 1945 would be $2,879,000
— half of that should be $1,400,000 for Newfoundland. The figure given in the possible
estimate of expenditure is $2 million for
Newfoundland, $2 to $2.6 million. Now, when
Mr. Smallwood talks about the age group, it may
be quite true that we have more children in Newfoundland then they have in Nova Scotia
proportionately. It is also therefore true that we have
more old people in Newfoundland, on the basis
of this estimate. Now if one is right the other can't
be right, as I see it. To borrow a phrase from you,
sir, I'm driven to the conclusion that we must be
a very hardy people to produce more old aged
people than they do in Nova Scotia, or that this
estimate is wrong, and that it isn't true, as we
heard some years ago, that the people of Newfoundland died before they reached the
age of 40.
I cannot accept the probable expenditure without
a greater amount of study than I am capable of
giving it....
[1]
It was designed relatively lately in the world
to take care of a better distribution in highly
industrialised countries. We in Newfoundland
have not reached that stage yet, and consequently
when you read in the Black Book the things to
which unemployment insurance does not apply,
you will find that from Newfoundland's point of
view, we will get practically no benefits out of
it....
[2] It must be remembered that one-fifth
must be paid by the federal government, two-
fifths by the employer, and two-fifths by the
employee himself. If you apply the whole scheme
to Newfoundland, taking into consideration the
fact that we are not yet a highly industrialised
country, you will find that it is not something
upon which we ought to have based the question
of political union with another country.
Now we come to the sick mariners' fund.... It
is shown in the Black Book that the expenditure
per capita boiled down to $3 per seaman treated.
It is specifically pointed out that it is not a health
scheme, in spite of the fact that we have heard a
lot of loose talk about the building of sanatoria in
this country under that scheme.... The whole
scheme is now being applied to Newfoundland in
a different form, and will be further applied if and
when we get cottage hospitals and more facilities.
You will find that if a man gets taken ill or has an
accident on a ship and he puts into port, then he
is treated, put into hospital if necessary and the
funds to pay are found, by himself if he can afford
it, or by his employer; or if he cannot afford to
pay anything, by the government. Sir, that
scheme is actually in effect at the present time.
For the moment, I am going to pass over
clauses 4 and 5, which refer to things which
Canada would take over, and pass on to our debts.
This creates one of the greatest intellectual difficulties that I found in this book.
In fact, if it
weren't serious, I would just slap it down and be
amused. "Canada will assume and provide for the
servicing and retirement of the 3% stock issue
guaranteed by the United Kingdom government." I ask you to listen closely. "This,
in the
opinion of the Canadian government, represents
a fair estimate of the amount of debt incurred for
purposes which would presumably have been the
responsibility of the Government of Canada, had
Newfoundland been a province when the debt
was incurred." On page 253 of the Amulree
Report is a list of the items upon which the $100
million debt that was incurred in this country was
spent. It starts with $34 million for railways, it
has $13 million for war purposes, it goes on to
highroads and other roads, and it goes all the way
down through the picture till it comes to deficits
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1133
on current account including railway,
$24,460,000. Now when Mr. Smallwood speaks,
I would like him. to tell me how any group of
experts in Canada was able to break that down
and then say that this part of it which they're
going to take over, represents that part which
would have been the responsibility of the
Government of Canada if Newfoundland had
been a province. The second part is more interesting still. "All sinking funds against
this portion
of the debt will be taken over by Canada". But
the argument has been that that amount of the
debt which they are taking over would have been
the responsibility of the Government of Canada.
Therefore Newfoundland was not bound to find
any part of the sinking fund, or service of the debt,
or anything of the kind. Therefore, if it makes
sense, and I think it does, the $9 million belongs
to us.... That is the position, it is our money. It is
money that we would have had in this country if
that amount of money had been taken over by
Canada, and this argument which they put here is
right. I would like to ask the Ottawa delegation if
that was put to the Canadian government. You
will note that in the part of the debt which is left
to us, we are left with our own sinking fund.
Next, our accumulated financial surplus. I got
hot under the collar about that once before, and
I'm not going to get so again. But I will point out
that "Newfoundland will have the right within
one year of union to deposit with the Government
of Canada all or any part of the surplus held in
dollars, and to receive interest at the rate of 2
5/8% annually during a maximum period of ten
years after union on the minimum balance outstanding at any time in the year preceding
payment of interest". I would draw your attention to
the fact, that the people of Newfoundland today
have on deposit with the Government of Canada
an amount which must certainly be equal to, if
not more than the surplus which the government
has in hand, in that we have Dominion government bonds and our deposit of money is
with the
Government of Canada. We do not have to have
any special wording put in here, if and when we
wish to deposit money with the Government of
Canada. We do not even have to have a limit of
ten years.... It must be $20 million which is
actually on deposit today with the Government of
Canada.... That really annoys me. I am sick and
tired of hearing people tell the people of New
foundland that they got to be protected against
themselves, and that can be the only reason that
clause was put there.
Now to contract rights arising from the advance of public funds. Well I suppose that
if you
were drawing any kind of a draft agreement, there
are certain things which you would have to put
in. That's the only excuse that I can see for putting
that in there, for the simple reason it is our money.
It's part of what we might have had if we hadn't
put it out as a surplus. It might have been added
to our surplus.... Subsidies to the provincial
government. $180,000 a year and 80 cents per
head — $1.1 million. It isn't an awful lot of
money, but it's all to the good. It's something
which Newfoundland can do with — an extra
million dollars.... Clause 12 — tax agreement.
Prior to 1939, the provincial governments of
Canada, taken together, were spending more
money than the federal govemment.... As a result
of two world wars and the institution of certain
federal welfare services, the federal government
has had to get into its hands, to take care of
Canada as a whole, a lot more money. During the
last war they made war tax agreements with the
various provinces. Since that time, tax agreements have been made with seven out of
the nine
provinces for short periods. Whether they were
good or bad, I don't know but what we are
asked to do is to assume that a tax agreement will
be applied to Newfoundland, the equivalent of
which in Canada has been the subject of bitter
controversy for quite a few years. The formula
itself Mr. Smallwood skipped over, because he
knew that nobody in the room would understand
it, and yet we are asked to assume that a tax
agreement would be applied to Newfoundland,
and we are given the probable expenditure of a
tax agreement payment for 1947 of $6,820,000.
Now the point I'm trying to make is this, that we
ought not to expect either this Convention or the
people of Newfoundland to agree to an assumption that we would go into a tax agreement
until
it is very carefully studied by people who know
precisely what they're doing. Now we come to
transitional grant. We are going to get $3.5 million for three years and that's going
to tail off in
the twelfth year. After that we get a reassessment
of our position ...
Mr. Butt I'm sorry, you're quite right. Within
1134 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
eight years, before we come to $1,750,000 a year,
we are going to have a reassessment of our position to tell us if we are to go get
any more help,
having respect to our ability to pay taxation in
line with the other provinces of Canada. That can
only be read one way, and that is that we are to
get transitional grants for a period until we are
able to develop revenue producing services, so
that we can pay our own taxes. That's the only
way in which I can read it. I said yesterday that
we would become the baby province of Canada.
This transitional grant, I hope it's not being
facetious, makes me feel that while we are the
baby province we will get a few rattles and a few
diapers, and we'll be kept clean and we'll be fed
the extra bottle of milk, and we'll be played with
to a certain extent, but when you grow up eight,
ten years from now, you carry your own burden.... Representation: I'm going to skip
over it
— the fact that we're going to get six senators is
really delightful. The fact that we're going to
have seven people up in Ottawa, miles and miles
away, to plead our cause is also delightful.
Mr. Smallwood I don't think so. There's two of
them won't be there.
Mr. Butt ....Now sir, we come to transportation.
I can see that the application of the Maritime
Freight Rate to Newfoundland may be of help.
Why, in the name of fortune we haven't asked for
some concessions like that, in view of the
favourable balance of trade that Canada has with
Newfoundland, I don't know. Why couldn't we
ask for it in the future? I took the $40 million that
we bought in Canada last year and I assumed that
they would make 20%, which turns out to be $8
million that's made by the producers of goods in
Canada on their sale of goods to Newfoundland.... I'm talking about the markup and
the profits which will be made by the producer or
the manufacturer. I don't see that there's any
earthly excuse for this country's not asking for
concessions of that kind. It's only because we sit
down on the job that we don't get these things. 1
don't know whether I'm very young and foolish,
but these things really make me boil. There is a
definite inertia that comes over the people of
Newfoundland, and they're prepared to sit down
under anything without asking for concessions
from other people. It seems to me to be a stupid
sense of pride, or that we're altogether too naive.
If we wait long enough, if we find the money to
produce the roads and build upour tourist traffic,
we'll get a ferry. I don't know how much the ferry
is going to cost. I know our present boat cost $2
million, and we found it ourselves. Why couldn't
we find an extra $2 million to find a ferry? If we
want to go after the tourist business, if we're
going to find the roads that are necessary, if
we've got to find that money ourselves to build
the roads, if we've got to find the money to pay
for the lodges and cabins and all the other organisations, I think that we've stretched
the point.
We may be able to find another million or two to
put a ferry on the Gulf.
The government employees — I don't suppose, Mr. Smallwood, that it would be fair to
criticise you, in making up your budget, for leaving out one item because I don't
see how it would
ever occur to you. It did occur to me, however,
because I was one time a civil servant. The point
is this, you will find the civil servants are on scale,
that there are yearly increments that are going to
civil servants. That that has to be paid. It has to
be found this year, it has to be find again next
year.... These increments will have to go on for
quite a few years, because a number of young
people at the lower part of the scales are being
taken into the civil service. I suggest that in the
budget made up by Mr. Smallwood you could
completely wipe out one item which he put in
there this year, and that you would have to double
it next year. That particular item is $254,000 from
refunds. One man estimated for me that within
the civil service the yearly increments alone next
year would cost practically 10% of the amount
paid to the civil service normally. I'll be accused
of propaganda if I say any more about this.... It
only means one thing, that if you cut out that item,
and I'm not talking about extra increases that the
civil service are looking for now, you have to add
an equal amount to your budget, which means
that you have to add another $2,400,000 a year
to your provincial budget, which can only be
found out of direct taxation on the people of
Newfoundland. I would also point out that
federal employees may get better wages than
employees in the Newfoundland government. If
they do, and if they have got to make contributions to the pension fund, then in all
fairness,
those that are kept by the provincial government,
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1135
who have given years of service, should be given
equal treatment with those that are passed to
another government. In fair play that should be
done. There is no reason why one man in one
department who has served ten years shouldn't
get equal treatment with another man who'll be
taken over by the federal government, and has
also served ten years.
We passed the unemployment benefit. I have
nothing further to say about it. I'm going to say
nothing about education except this: that I don't
see any earthly reason for putting it in there at all.
It's a purely provincial matter, and as I understand it we can do exactly as we wish
and carry
on as at the present time. I would like to point out
though, and here I refer to something that Mr.
Bailey has been trying to get across, that a lot of
the school money which has been paid by the
Newfoundland government has been found
through municipal taxation. The point that Mr.
Bailey, I take it, was trying to make is this: that
if you want to progress in education and social
welfare, and want to run your government on the
same basis as in Canada, we in Newfoundland
will have to follow the same pattern. If you don't
want to do these things, then as Mr. Bailey says,
you can remain as you are. But don't say on the
one hand that you're going to have the standard
that they have in Canada if you do not apply the
same formula. The taxes have to be found somewhere. The whole scheme of municipal
government in Canada is an integral part of the scheme
of government in that country. I'm not against
local councils, I'm all for them. I would like to
see them built up. I would point out this though,
that under the provincial budget that has been
arranged, nothing has been left except the amount
which we have at the present time ...
[1] and I will
say, from personal experience with these matters,
that if you are going to develop local councils in
Newfoundland, you've got to give them not only
the ordinary maintenance services, but something to build up so that they can carry
on. That
accounts for what the present government is
doing, in giving large grants so that local communities can build their roads and
keep themselves in a position where their normal revenue will
maintain them. I contend that you must add a very
considerable amount to this provincial budget
which has been produced for us, whether it's the
one taken out of the Black Book or the one
produced by Mr. Smallwood himself.
Now, sir, I've been talking a long time, but I
want to say one or two things more. I want to
come to oleomargarine. It says that we can
produce it but we mustn't ship it outside of the
country. When you read that you made a speech
and you ended up by having oleomargarine
produced in a magnificent factory on Lemarchant
Road, and sold across Canada. I think it's only
fair to say though, that a little small company, it
can't be bigger then a small empire, like Lever
Brothers is very likely to establish branches in
Canada, if the time ever comes that they can
produce oleomargarine there. And as far as our
plant here is concerned, we could not count on a
great increase in production which would bring
extra wages. Modern oleomargarine is made
from vegetable oil, as against the old-time fish
oil, and it doesn't seem reasonable that Levers
would come to Newfoundland, ship in its
vegetable oil make its margarine and ship it to
Canada. I mention this fact, because an exaggerated statement of that kind is likely
to create
the impression that we are going to get much
more then we can find from the evidence in the
Grey Book or the Black Books.
The pièce de resistance, clause 22. I understand Mr. Smallwood is very proud of this
one....
What is proposed is that we should go into
Canada first, and then find out what is in this
country, rather then staying out, finding out what
is in this country, and seeing if we can make
better terms as a result of it. We know what we
can get without an economic survey. We don't
know what we can get with an economic survey.
I can understand now why there was such a
deadset on the proposal suggested by the chairman of the Industrial Association....
We are told
that we'll get the services of technical personnel
and agencies to assist in the work. Surely people
must know that Montreal brought in experts, not
from Ottawa, but from the United States of
America. Surely they must know that two provinces brought in experts from America.
And yet we
were given the bait, that if we get into confederation they will send the experts
to carry on this
survey. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the
only common sense thing to do is to find out what
we have in Newfoundland first, and then find out
1136 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
if we have greater bargaining power which can
give us more than we can get now. We might be
able to get a lot more as a result of that survey.
I'm not going to touch any of this general stuff
—it only makes us Canadian citizens and applies
Canadian law, and so on. On the war veterans'
service, one man rang me up indignantly and
said, "Don't the people down there know that
what we're doing here in Newfoundland is based
upon what they're doing in Canada?" I do. I'm
going to skip over the public debt and the tax
agreement, which I can't understand. I doubt that
there's more then one or two people that could
approach it. Then I come to federal revenue and
expenditure. I don't propose to go into them. I
don't propose to go into the proposed provincial
budget, because I hope I'm not hurting anyone's
feelings — it seems to me to be too silly to merit
much time to be spent on it. I have seen a budget
prepared. I have seen dozens and dozens of
people work for months, people actually dealing
with these matters. I have seen that budget
brought forward to the minister, and he has had
a go at it and I have seen it in the end torn up by
the responsible government of the day.... And
then I am asked to accept a budget which is based
upon a short study and also has in it the normal
capital expenditures ... taken from our surplus.
And we are asked to believe that that goes with a
province that is self-supporting. I would say this,
that looking at Newfoundland over a long period,
when the transitional grants and our surplus have
come to an end, and on the basis of the figures
produced here now, not allowing for the normal
increase, that you'll find in the accounts, as
governments progress, that the government
would have to find $9 million more. It is now
finding according to this $3.3 million. It is now
finding from the interest from its own surplus,
$600,000 under this budget. It is now finding
$250,000 just to pay the normal increments in the
civil service, $250,000 from refunds, mind you,
from refunds.
Mr. Smallwood You mean the normal growth
of civil service pay, $250,000 a year?
Mr. Butt I don't know how far it can go. I
specifically told you, it was because of the age
grouping.... The civil service has been reorganised over the past few years and they've
brought in men who are younger than the average
civil service in an older established country
which hadn't been reorganised, would be.... The
point is, that we're finding here under this budget
$250,000 out of refunds from money which I
doubt is paid yet. And if it isn't paid yet, and the
government just balances its budget this year,
then the money to pay for these steamers will
have to come out of surplus, and your $28 million
will get another grant of a few million dollars. If
they keep balancing as they are at the present
time, and there's no surplus this year, that money
will have to come out of surplus. Then the tax
rental, well I already spoke about that. How any
person could recommend to the people of Newfoundland that they should accept that
just because seven provinces have accepted it, is beyond
me. Several provinces which carry, I believe,
about two-thirds of the population of Canada, do
not accept it. Gas and electricity — $50,000. I
would point out that that represents half that
would be collected from these companies. Incidentally I thought they were public utilities
—
publicly owned. I may be wrong. That involves
taxation of $100,000 — on some of it. That's
what they pay now, I think.
Mr. Butt Now we come to the transition grant,
and to the new taxation to be imposed of
$1,236,000, that has to be found in direct taxation. In addition we are to take out
$3 million a
year from our surplus to spend on ordinary capital
expenditure. It's the sort of thing that must be
taken into consideration when you're considering the working of a govemment.... I
contend that
the surplus should not be touched under any
circumstances, except in the case of national
emergency. If I were a member of a government,
I would suggest that if we didn't have a surplus,
that we would build one up. And my reason is
this: because we have not developed to the point
of self-sufficiency. When we must depend upon
the outside world, we must take care of emergencies.... I contend it is criminal to
get rid of our
surplus, I don't care what kind of a government
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1137
we have... We need it, in case of national emergency....
The point that I've been trying to make is this:
that it is positively stupid, wicked, to ask a group
of people organised as we are, who cannot, because we have not had the experience,
deal with
matters of this kind, and to ask the people of this
country, who spend their time catching their fish,
tilling their farms, going to church ... to decide a
matter of this kind. The only way in which it can
be done is to get a properly organised group, who
understand all the implications of these matters,
to lay it out so as the people can understand.
A number of things have been said here I
would like to refer to, but I want to pick one or
two only. Mr. Vincent said he was ashamed of
the price of a loaf of bread in this country. I would
point out that if you were to go to Puerto Rico,
that the Puerto Rican would probably be equally
ashamed at the price that he has got to charge the
poor Puerto Ricans for Newfoundland salt codfish. Instead of being ashamed of a thing
like that,
it is up to you to find out why these things cost as
much, and see if it can be settled so that it will
not. I think it is up to you to point out that the
wheat, that price of the flour that sells in Newfoundland did not originate in Newfoundland,
but in Canada. And that's the reason why the
price of a loaf of bread has got to be 18 cents.
There are dozens of other things which have been
told to this country which are wrong in essence
and in spirit. I cannot and will not take the time
now, but they will, I am sure, be said to the people
of this country. We're going to have, I think, an
extra 1,000 employees in the government if we
become a province. In 1937, Prime Minister
Mackenzie King pointed out that one of the big
problems of Canada was the fact that they had
such a small population in such a big area. And I
would only point out this one thing. If Newfoundland is going to have an extra 1,000
employees because we're going to have an extra
government imposed upon us, then presumably
it's equally true all the way across Canada; which
means that in time the civil service is bound to
cost the people of Canada, including the people
of Newfoundland, much, much more than is
necessary.
Before I sit down I go back to one thing that I
spoke about yesterday. I laid some emphasis on
the question of morale. I expect it to be sneered
at in certain quarters. I expect it to be said that
you can't eat morale. I am well aware of the fact
that you cannot eat morale, that it is all very well
to have morale in a family, but that a child has
got to have boots and shoes and clothing. But I
would say this, and I want to repeat it. That if the
scrounging for material things is important, so is
morale. When England was practically on her
knees in 1940, she didn't ask where the materials
were coming from, in fact she didn't have them.
But she did have guts. As a result, you got the
salvation of England. What happened? Once they
produced the morale, the material was forthcoming. I leave you with this thought.
The people of
England today are facing up to their problem, and
as a result of it, in the end they will come out on
top, in spite of the fact that at the moment they do
not know where the material things are coming
from. What I am fighting against in this country
is inertia, against something taking hold of the
whole world — gross materialism. That's why I
spent the time that I did yesterday on the question
of morale. That's why I say to you, that if you
give away the advantage that might come from
your strategic position; if you give away your
control of your communications; if you give
away control of your fisheries; if you give away
the right to settle your own taxation and methods
of taxation; if you give away the right to discuss
as an entity in the family of nations your
geographical position in an age which is just
coming; if you give yourself into the hands of
Canada so that you will be bound by laws and
regulations to purchase your goods solely there
instead of in the open market; if you give away
these things to find the easiest way out, then
you've lost your morale and you've lost the advantages which give you the material
things
which bring about the social welfare and progress
of this or any other country.
Mr. Northcott I have not used up much of the
Convention's time over the proposed terms of
confederation now before the Chair. I figure that
it is a job for an elected government, and that is
why I voted against sending a delegation to
Canada. Now sir, none of the Ottawa delegation
said very much about the Canadian divorce law.
This is a very important matter. The Good Book
still says, "What God has joined together, let no
man put asunder." This, gentlemen, this is very
important. Surely we're not going to allow this to
1138
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1948
be part and parcel of the terms to confederation?
Are we going to allow this divorce question to
come in, to sow the seeds of unrest amongst us?
I hope not. We are a happy and contented people.
We want to remain happy, and I pray to God we
will. I would like to ask Mr. Smallwood, when
the time comes in his rebuttal, if he would turn
back to the Black Books, part 2, appendix 4, and
explain something about marriage and divorce. If
he does I'll have no more to say on this matter.
Will you do that?
Mr. Northcott Thank you. Mr. Chairman, after
studying the Grey Book and the Black Books,
and after many weeks of listening attentively and
patiently, I find the issue of confederation becoming more and more bewildering, conflicting,
and confusing. And I fear that this can be said of
many people in our island home today. They
haven't as yet got a clear picture. However, much
credit is due to Mr. Hollett, Mr. Fogwill and
Major Cashin, for their great pains in trying to
reveal the truth, as they saw it, regarding taxation
and confederation. Sir, our people must be enlightened on this very important matter.
The
people want to know the whole truth and the truth
shall make them free. You cannot light a candle
and put it under a bushel, for if you do, you cannot
get a very effective light. This can be applied to
our people. They are still groping and wandering
around in darkness over the issue of confederation and taxation. Sir, whatever be
the form of
government, we shall still have to pay taxes. But
the vital and burning question now being asked
is, are the federal, provincial and town council
taxes, all three combined, more than the taxes
now being paid under Commission of Government? This is what the country is asking,
and is
demanding of us as members of the National
Convention. We must in all honesty and sincerity
give the answer to the best of our knowledge and
ability. We must be honest with ourselves and the
people and explain every note and angle of taxation. Then, and only then, can the
people have a
clearer picture of the proposed terms of union
with Canada. We cannot, we dare not, allow
ourselves to make a leap in the dark... There must
be nothing hid, not one single iota. There can be
no misunderstanding then, and everything shall
and will be open and above board; and we will
have fulfilled our tasks. We then can leave the
whole matter in the hands of the people, and make
no mistake about it, they will decide. In closing,
the terms of confederation are not in my opinion
very attractive or encouraging, especially when
one has to borrow to pay one's budget. But be
that as it may, as with all these things, let the facts
be known to the country, and may the great
Master of all guide and direct our people when
the time comes to decide.
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, this Convention has
been dubbed as a glorified debating society. To
my mind I think that's wrong, because so far it
seems that everybody is on one side, the negative,
I think I'll speak from the affirmative side, because it makes it more interesting
to the people
of this country. It's not my intention to go into a
long speech about taxation, federal, provincial,
or municipal. In my opinion this House is already
familiar with all forms of taxes, and the people
will remember the taxes they had to pay under
responsible government as well as those under
the present form of government. I do not think
that we are concerned with one member being
interested in the moving picture business and the
amusement tax in Lewisporte in particular. I am
not concerned if any one member is doing business for an outport or a junk dealer
in Montreal,
whether he is selling merchandise to the Newfoundland shopkeepers or selling ships
and coals
to the Newfoundland Railway. If a member feels
obligated to repay money, then let him pay it, and
he will have the admiration of all concerned. But
why all this bickering and filibustering at a cost
of $1,000 day? We have heard all about our
country being sold down the St. Lawrence over
and over again. For two years over the radio,
every Saturday night, how did we miss the introduction of that beautiful record, the
Banks of
Newfoundland?
Mr. Cashin They're going to have a maple leaf
if you have anything to do with it.
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, when Major Cashin
was speaking, I was ruled out of order by interrupting, you made a ruling ...
Mr. Chairman Will members not interrupt unless they're rising to a point of order.
Mr. Starkes Page 19 of the BNA Act, you'll see
the London resolutions adopted at the conference
of delegates from the provinces of Canada, Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick. They all visited the
Westminster Palace Hotel in December, 1866.
January 1948
NATIONAL CONVENTION
1139
And it reads thus: "The best interests and present
and future prosperity of British North America
will be promoted by a Federal Union under the
Crown of Great Britain, provided such Union can
be effected on principles just to the several
Provinces. In the Confederation of the British
North American Provinces, the system of
government best adapted under existing circumstances to protect the diversified interests
of
the several Provinces, and secure efficiency, harmony, and permanency in the working
of the
Union, is a General Government charged with
matters of common interest to the whole country,
and Local Governments for each of the Canadas,
and for the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick, charged with the control of local
matters in their respective sections, provision
being made for the admission into the Confederation, on equitable terms, of Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island, the North West Territory,
and British Columbia. The Executive Authority
or Government shall be vested in the Sovereign
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and be administered according to the
well-understood principles of the British Constitution, by the Sovereign (meaning
the King),
or by the representative of the Sovereign, duly
authorised." So I think that there's not much to
this talk about us being sold up the St. Lawrence.
Let us for a moment give a little thought to the
value of the Black Books. One member has stated
they're not worth 25 cents — remembering of
course, that the same gentleman said this Convention is a fraud, and said so before
it came into
being. Still, you let him become a part of it, and
he is still with it. With the knowledge the thing is
wrong, he still remains in it. Is it too much to
assume that the same member knows responsible
government is wrong, as far as the working man
is concerned? Whether he is activated by personal motives or the well-being of the
people may
be debateable...
Mr. Cashin I rise to a point of order at this
point... I gather that Mr. Starkes intimated that I
was actuated by personal motives.
Mr. Cashin Well, he had better find out. It's just
as well for him to understand right now about the
personal motives. I have only one personal motive, I'm a Newfoundlander. And as far
as New
foundland is concerned, I have probably done just
as much in the interest of Newfoundland as Mr.
Starkes has done. And if he reaches to cross
swords with me in that respect, I don't know
who's going to come off second best.
Mr. Chairman He stated he didn't know
whether you were motivated by personal motives
or the interest of the country.
Mr. Cashin Politically, if I look at that angle, if
I was a confederate I would have just as much
opportunity of going into politics as I would have
with responsible government.
Mr. Chairman This is entirely irrelevant. Will
you please proceed?
Mr. Starkes Personal income tax. It is true that
income tax is owed in Canada. But what does it
amount to? For example, take a married man with
no children in Newfoundland. He would pay no
income tax up to $2,000, but he pays at least 15%
on the $2,000 that he spends in this country,
which means that he pays in duty $300 to the
importer of the goods he buys, and he also pays
that importer at least 20% on the profit on the
duty, making a total of at least $360 that family
man paid at the present time. In union with
Canada he would pay no duty if he imported
goods from Canada, but he would pay sales tax
on say $1,000 of the $2,000, because over 50%
of what he was buying would be exempted from
sales tax. Therefore, on the $1,000 that he spent
he pays 8%, which is $80. That is sales tax. So
union with Canada takes from that man $80;
while responsible or Commission government
takes from that same man approximately $360.
That is to say he is paying $280 more each year
than he would have to pay under confederation.
Now take a married man earning the same
amount, with three children in the family. He
would pay no taxes in Newfoundland under
$2,000 except the duties. He now pays, as already
stated, around 15% and the profit, which totals
$360. Under union with Canada, he would pay
the $80 sales tax only, and he would receive from
Canada at least $250 family allowance — that
man would save $360 plus $250 family allowances, which gives him a total of $610.
And he pays
out $80 sales tax only. He therefore has approximately $530 more to spend under con
1140 NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1948
federation then he would have under responsible
or the present form of government. The personal
income tax in Canada is being reduced each year
since the war. A single man earning $750 in
Newfoundland pays no income tax. But on
spending that money, he pays at least 15% duty
on his goods — that is $112, plus the profits on
that duty, 20%, which is $22 or a total of $134
extra. In union with Canada, he pays only 8% on
approximately half his items. That is around $30
sales tax compared with $135 under responsible
or Commission form of government. In other
words, that young lad would save at least $105
under union with Canada.
Take the retail prices in Canada. The tax on a
fur coat from Canada was mentioned the other
day. We'll say a fur coat in Canada cost around
$150. An importing agent in Newfoundland first
pays $55 duty which is $82.50, and with a 20%
profit to the importer, the total duty and profit on
that coat is $99. The coat costs the purchaser a
total of $249. Under union with Canada, you
would have to pay no duty whatever on that coat.
Take an alarm clock — and by the way, we're
thinking of the fishermen fishing 20 hours a day
out of 24 off Cape St. John, and the man using
the bucksaw in the woods down in Bishop Brook
all day, working long hours and having only a few
hours to rest, who might need an alarm clock. If
he wishes to buy one from Canada, and it cost
him $3.50 in Eaton's catalogue, he pays 60%
duty on that $3.50, which amounts to $2.10, and
on that $2.10 the importer has his profit, making
a total $2.50 ... and that makes the alarm clock
cost $6. Under union with Canada, he pays only
the sales tax of 8%, which is 30 cents, making the
total cost $3.80. Therefore, under union with
Canada the poor fisherman or the lumberman will
get his clock $2.20 cheaper. Now we'll come to
shoes. The shoes on my feet cost in Canada $7.
The duty on those shoes is 40%, which is $2.80.
And to the importer who has his profit of 20%,
we must pay the total $3.35, so the shoes will cost
me $10.35. Under union with Canada, the 8%
sales tax would cost 50 cents, so the shoes would
cost not over $7.56. Therefore, my shoes would
be $2.80 cheaper under union with Canada than
they cost today. We'll take a suit of overalls, say
they cost $5 in Canada, plus the duty of 40%
coming into Newfoundland, which means there's
$2 duty, 20% profit on that $2 is a total of $2.50
which gives a total cost of $7.40 for the suit of
overalls. Under union with Canada you'll get
them with only a sales tax of 8%, and the same
overalls would be $2 cheaper. Major Cashin
mentioned playing cards, I think he said there
were two jokers in a pack. If so, Mr. Chairman,
there are three at the present time. Two in the
pack and one in the Newfoundland customs, 60%
duty. If, for instance, a champion player of 45's
wants a pack of good cards, and decides to pay
$2 for them in Canada, on that pack of cards he
pays $1.20 duty and 25 cents profit on the duty,
a total of $1.45, making the total for the cards
$3.25. Under union with Canada he would save
that duty of 60% and pay 25 cents tax per pack.
He would then have the cards for $2.25 and save
$1.20, which would give a good player a chance
to reach the jackpot. Even a bottle of Milk of
Magnesia can be purchased 25 cents cheaper in
Montreal than in St. John's, so if a man has a
hangover after drinking, he can get a straightener
in Canada cheaper then he can in Newfoundland.
Pickled beef and pork in barrels. It was stated
here that under confederation pickled beef and
pork imported from the United States would cost
under sales tax, $369,000. This figure must be
wrong. The total number of barrels imported
from the United States last year was approximately 34,144, and at the present rate
today,
$4 a barrel, this would be $136,488. We also
imported 26,223 barrels from Canada, being
8,000 barrels less than from the States. Having
consulted with three Canadian packing firms in
this country, they state that they can sell pickled
beef and pork in Canada considerably cheaper
than they can import it from the States. In the
magazine Maritime Merchant there are three
pages giving prices of food, and only in three
instances can I see any reference to sales tax, on
bacon, shortening (but not on pure lard) and
barrelled beef.
Some have taken the total of our imports from
Canada for the fiscal year which ended in March,
approximately $43 million, putting them in the
categories of sales, excise and luxury to get the
total we would pay — forgetting that in Canada
there are thousands of items which are not taxed.
Railway travel tax — to base the Canadian
government 15% travel tax on the number of
tickets sold by our railway, to get the figure for
this tax, cannot be correct. In Canada, the first
January 1948
NATIONAL CONVENTION
1141
class railway fare is 3.45 cents a mile, plus 15%
sales tax, as against 7 cents a mile in Newfoundland. Instead of travelling costing
us more,
it would be considerably less. For instance, a 500
mile ticket in Canada would cost less than $20.
In Newfoundland, a 500 mile ticket at 7 cents per
mile would cost $35. Therefore, if we were in
union with Canada, the traveller would get that
ticket $15 less then he is paying in Newfoundland
today.
Newfoundland government credit — while
Commissioner James stated that our surplus is
around $38 million, it has been said that it is only
$30 million. I'm satisfied to take the official
figures. I was not a party to the last parliament of
this country, nevertheless there is one fact which
cannot be overlooked; only by default on the
interest on our bonds could we have been able to
carry on. It may be recalled that the late F.C.
Alderdice, during the campaign of 1932, said that
if elected he would get all the money he wanted
within 48 hours. He was elected and what did we
find? We found he couldn't get a cent. I am
stating this to show that we had very little influence as a dominion in raising a
loan. We could
not put our own currency on the market as it
would not be accepted as legal tender in Canadian
banks. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge
the last 14 years, but we did not then and we do
not today exert very much influence in the world.
If prices soar in Canada, from which country we
import the bulk of our goods, they will affect our
prices throughout Newfoundland, and the same
applies to other countries from which we import.
It is too bad that some people have great doubts
about Canada being solvent. I suppose they're
what the Finance Minister would call a reconcilation account — even in that, very
much attacks a
country where the grand national income for this
fiscal year is around $13 billion. And you deduct
her national debt, an amount of $3 1/2 billion
arising out of the war, and a billion dollars spent
on the rehabilitation of the personnel of the fighting forces the wealth for one year
is almost equal
to her accumulated debt of 80 years of confederation. I don't feel the crushing burden
as being so
great after this review.
Not one family in 80% of our population will
pay one cent in taxes on personal income, because they do not earn enough to come
within the
range of the taxable sale. Any Newfoundlander
can check on this. In basing the amount Newfoundland would pay in personal income
tax,
corporation and succession taxes, the Canadian
government took the returns of the past fiscal
year, and I'm satisfied the figures are correct.
What the amount will be under confederation,
nobody can accurately foretell. Using the figures
of the last fiscal year on the basis of Canadian
scale, gives you the actual account if we had been
under confederation that year. Future returns can
only be estimated... Naturally we would not pay
any duty on goods produced within the Dominion
of Canada. Of the $25 million we purchased in
the United States last fiscal year, 80% of this
would be bought in Canada under union. There
is an average duty paid of 25%, being $6.25
million; that would be saved, plus a cheaper
freight rate from Quebec to St. John's, 20% less
than at the present. Are we going to import animal
and poultry feed from the United States when we
can import it freight free from Winnipeg under
confederation? I cannot understand any person
saying that the Canadian government's estimate
of customs revenues is guesswork. The Canadian
government has complete returns of the $43 million they exported to Newfoundland in
the last
fiscal year, and it would be easy to get returns of
what came into our country from the United
States, Great Britain and the rest of the world. The
Dominion government figures would surely be
more accurate than an individual expressing a
viewpoint that is mere assumption. The same
applies to the Canadian government's liquor estimates... Surely a government which
compiles
statistics of millions of dollars each year, would
be more likely to be accurate then any one individual in Newfoundland. Of course,
I am not a
connoisseur of liquor, but I venture to guess that
Seagrams whiskey had the same potency in
Montreal during the past Christmas season as in
the city of St. John's.
Mr. Starkes Of course, we do not have John
Barleycorn's brew in St. John's, as in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, I apologise for this digression but
it is just as sensible as some of the remarks we
have had to listen to in recent days... As far as
we are aware, the United States - Canada defence
board is still in existence, and I would like to refer
to Mr. St. Laurent's statement when questioned
by newspapermen in Ottawa during Mr. Mack
1142 NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1948
enzie King's absence in London. He said that the
agreement existing between Canada and the
United States regarding the bases in Newfoundland....
Mr. Chairman You're quoting an extract direct
from the speech, supposedly by Mr. St. Laurent,
in what circumstances?
Mr. Starkes In the absence of Mr. Mackenzie
King, he made this statement.
Mr. Chairman Well, are you quoting direct, are
you quoting from
Hansard?
Mr. Starkes No, I won't quote from the paper,
I'll just explain it. Mr. St. Laurent said that the
agreement existing between Canada and the
United States regarding bases in Newfoundland
would not in any way be affected by confederation.
Mr. Chairman You're quoting....no, you're not
quoting newspapers.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, to a point of
order. Why can't he quote? He's not quoting
from the newspaper, he's quoting a statement
made by Mr. St. Laurent. He's not saying where
he's quoting it from. We've been doing that every
day, quoting what this man said and that man
said.
Mr. Chairman If you are referring to a speech,
or paraphrasing a speech made by Mr. St.
Laurent, that's in order. I permitted the same
latitude to other people here and I must of course
do the same now.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Starkes said Mr. St. Laurent
said this in the House of Commons when Mr.
King was absent. I'd say the House of Commons
wasn't open when Mr. St. Laurent...
Mr. Chairman My only point was that if he was
quoting from
Hansard, of course I'd allow him
to do so. But otherwise, he's not permitted to
quote from the newspaper as such.
Mr. Starkes Therefore Mr. Chairman, the
United States would still maintain bases in this
country, for at least the next 99 years.
Mr. Starkes Not for the next 99 years, for at
least 99 years.
Mr. Starkes You're a bit hard of hearing. Here
again I'd like to refer to Mr. St. Laurent when
being questioned regarding the assertions of Mr.
Duplessis that the provinces had not been approached before terms of confederation
were forwarded to the Governor. He said it was not
necessary to consult the provinces as provision
had been made in the British North America Act
for the inclusion of Newfoundland in confederation. How can we negotiate on terms
that are
provincial if the British North America Act
provides the conditions under which a province
can enter the union?
The family allowance immoral! It is strange
that 22 nations have adopted these immoral family allowances. Can it not be realised
that there's
a very great principle behind government assistance for children of families? If we
will not
admit the justice of these monthly grants, so that
our future men and women will be brought up
better by being able to buy more food, we must
condemn progress and social justice. If we cannot
recognise that as a progressive step, it would be
just as well to go back to the cave man days. Here
it is in a nutshell: a greater distribution of the
produced wealth to benefit children of fathers in
lower earning classes. Even in Great Britain, they
are endeavouring to provide money to pay family
allowances as outlined in the Beveridge plan. Not
so long ago I read in the Canadian Yearbook that
family allowances were introduced for the purpose of equalising opportunity for the
children of
Canada. What is immoral about this, Mr. Chairman?
War veterans — we have the Canadian War
January 1948
NATIONAL CONVENTION
1143
Veterans Act before us, and also the Newfoundland act. This I know very little about,
except I feel sure that if the officials of the Great
War Veterans' Association were questioned on
the difference between the benefits from Canada
compared with those from Newfoundland, they
would agree that the Canadian war veterans'
agreement is at least 70% better than the present
Newfoundland agreement.
Mr. Ryan Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr.
Starkes has asked his question to any of those
veterans about that, and got an answer from
them?
Mr. Cashin No, no, no. Did you ask Mr. Marshall the president or chairman of the Great War
Veterans' Association, or did you listen to his
address over the radio with regard to that matter?
Did you?
Mr. Starkes I was talking to an official of the
Great War Veterans'...
Mr. Starkes I was told one instance, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very much interested in. Take a
man who returns from the war after 19 months,
and during that time, through no fault of his own,
he fails to make application for assistance in the
manner of children. Under the Newfoundland act
he is not entitled to anything, except the Great
War Veterans' Association and the Women's
Patriotic Association would take it up with the
government and do their best to get something. I
know for a fact that in some cases the returns they
received were nothing except dole, which is
facing the unemployed civilians. That is how the
Newfoundland returned man is treated.
It is the overall picture that counts. Making our
deductions, not on opinions or hearsay, but
wherever possible on statistics, is confederation
a good thing for the country or is it not? In
arriving at our conclusion, we must be guided by
history. It is over 450 years since this country was
discovered. It's only 80 years since confederation
took place in Canada. Why has Canada
developed into a large industrial nation while we
have not made the same progress? The position
should be reversed, considering that Canada was
discovered a very long time after this country.
Average standard of wages. Isn't there a higher
average standard of wages in Canada than in
Newfoundland? Hasn't the dollar more purchasing power in the Dominion of Canada than
in
Newfoundland? Forget about hidden taxes and
figments of the imagination. There is not one here
but will admit that a dollar has at least 25% more
value in the Dominion of Canada. You can be
assured that if prices soar in Canada they will be
much higher here in a country that has to import
about 80% of its requirements. There's a book
here, Mr. Chairman, that costs 25 cents. Some
member said that you could get all the information you want in this book in connection
with
taxes, I think 120-odd taxes on shoes, 150 or 160
taxes on something else, and so forth. Mr. Chairman, we've been paying that all our
lifetime.
Under union with Canada we would have to pay
in no more; and we wouldn't have to pay any
duty.
Major Cashin was a member of the government of Mr. W.S. Monroe, who tried to sell
our
Labrador to the province of Quebec for $15 million. Now there are some who say that
Duplessis
is scheming to take it away from us. It is good to
know that some realise the value of this territory
today, but he should know that it is remotely
impossible for Quebec or other provinces getting
out territory. The tendency is to overestimate the
power of 3.5 million French Canadians. Only in
the Province of Quebec do French Canadians
have a majority of the population.
Municipal taxes. Those who state that in the
event of confederation the property tax will be
enforced on fishermcn's motor boats, stages,
houses, etc., are not stating facts. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, after confederation
no
property tax will be imposed. Mr. Chairman, all
down through my life I've often heard the story
that if we went in confederation with Canada, the
glass in our windows would be taxed, our motor
boats, fishing lines, and everything else would be
taxed to the limit. If we turn to the British North
America Act, clause 125, it states: "No land or
property belonging to Canada or any province
shall be liable to taxation." Now that's what we
have got to go by — with the exception of
municipal taxes, municipal councils and outport
town councils. There is not one act of the Government of Canada or the provinces that
states that
1144
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1948
it is compulsory to tax property, or compulsory
to have such municipal governments. Nevertheless, some communities might consider
it to their
advantage to ask for a town council, and the
people there would elect their representatives and
decide the amount of tax to be imposed on the
people. I'm merely pointing this out to show that
I am not against municipal government, if certain
improvements could be carried out with the small
taxation the people of the place can afford.
Newfoundlanders residing in Canada. It is
being stated that there are over 100,000 Newfoundlanders or descendants of Newfoundlanders
residing in Canada. In Verdun, Quebec,
alone there are over 11,000, most of them hold
responsible positions there. Some of them
employ large numbers of men. With very few
exceptions they are strong in their conviction that
Newfoundlanders would benefit by confederation.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Starkes
produce that figure?
Mr. Chairman I have the statement made by
him, which will be passed or rejected by members as they see fit.
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, the other day when
Major Cashin was talking, he got up on his high
horse and put up a wonderful kick because I just
said a few words — once, and I was stopped. It
seems that there's something getting under his
skin this afternoon.
Mr. Cashin Did you say the people of Verdun
said that they were in favour of Newfoundland
going into confederation?
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, not
Major Cashin.
Mr. Chairman I had to rule you out of order
when you interrupted Major Cashin at that particular time, I recall the incident quite
clearly...
I ruled against you on that occasion and consisteney will not permit me to do otherwise
now. I
have to rule Major Cashin out of order.
Mr. Starkes Unemployment. There is unemployment at the present time in Canada as well
as in Newfoundland, the number there being
around 65,000 or a half of 1%. The number
unemployed in Newfoundland is very much
higher proportionately. Canada is bringing
monthly over 10,000 people from Europe, so this
would indicate that the country is in flourishing
condition. Prime Minister King stated some time
ago that there were more people employed than
at any other time. The federal government has set
up an advisory committee of experts who are
advising on public works to be started in a period
of recession. They have allocated in the last few
months $400 million worth of new public works
to cushion this recession period, and they propose
some very large expenditures this year. Taking
all in all, if conditions get bad in the world the
Canadian unemployed will be better off than in
Newfoundland. For instance in 1934 there were
80,000 unemployed Newfoundlanders living on
6 cents a day. At that period, in the whole of
Canada, you could not find from coast to coast
80,000 living in such poverty. This is a very
serious matter, and the people should endeavour
to find out the truth for themselves, and not be
guided by the ravings of a few who may not be
working in the best interests of the people as a
whole.
Mr. Burry As this debate proceeded ... I found
myself, sir, more and more satisfied with the
conclusion that I was able to come to from a few
months ago, after we finished our work in Ottawa. That conclusion is that the political,
economical, and industrial life of this country
should be more closely tied in with the great
neighbour of ours to the west, if we are to avoid
some of the pitfalls that we have experienced in
the past. I am very conscious that it is easy to
make a statement like that. But I can assure you
that I have not come to that position easily, or by
any haphazard process of reasoning. It has not
been a hasty decision, and I don't think I have
been persuaded by sentiment. I certainly do not
have any political aspirations. I have been often
kidded since I went to Ottawa that I might get a
senatorship but I have no aspirations for that at
all. I certainly do not want to take any part in
federal or provincial politics.
Mr. Higgins You'll get your senatorship in the
next world.
Mr. Burry That may be, sir. I hope that we all
will. I have got enough politics during the past 15
or 16 months, although I must say that I am not
too disappointed with the way that things have
gone here in this National Convention that has
been so much abused by the public. I am not
disgusted with our discussions here, and the way
they have been carried out. There have been some
pretty rough spots and I've felt sometimes like
January 1948
NATIONAL CONVENTION
1145
raising my voice in protest at some of the things
that have gone on, and I know that some of my
friends outside have expected me to do that. But
seeing it from inside this chamber and seeing it
from outside is different; and 45 men getting
together here, knowing human nature as I do, I
don't think that we have done so badly. I am
bound to say that there's been too much politics
in it. I didn't bargain for that when I came to this
Convention. I didn't think there was going to be
any politics at all associated with it. But that
shows just how innocent I was, and just how
ignorant I was about politics. But on the whole,
while I have had to hang on to my chair sometimes to keep myself from rising in protest
at the
way that some of the members have acted, yet I
have allowed discretion to be the better part of
valour and I have held my chair, although I have
been much criticised for not sometimes rising...
I want no part of politics in the future. Therefore I don't think that the decision
that I have been
able to make has been prejudiced. I have come to
that decision as a result of a careful and intelligent
analysis of the facts that I have been able to
gather; and of the experience that I gained with
the Ottawa delegation, the study that we were
able to make of the British North America Act
and of the federal system of government in
general... I have come to the conclusion that this
country's future should be tied up to the great
country to the west of us.... I feel certain that I am
right, and I have a reason to say it, that this
country's future is definitely tied up within the
federal system of government that we have so
close to us.... Long before this Convention
started, in the days of Commission of Government — I believe with all my heart that
we've
seen the best days of government in this country
under the Commission of Government, they've
done some very, very fine things, but I've always
thought that it is not the form of government that
we should continue to have. While we were under
the Commission and before the National Convention was thought of, I was thinking that
when the
time came to think of getting back to a more
democratic form of government, that at least we
should give this federal system an opportunity to
be surveyed. When the National Convention was
announced and it came to my notice, I thought
that this was a splendid opportunity to do that...
I have made the study, and as I say, as faithfully
and as carefully as I can, and I have come to the
conclusion that my thoughts along that line have
many things to justify them. Our destiny, our
future, if we are to have anything better than we
have had in the past, is definitely tied up with a
federal system of government.
I'm encouraged by the fact that some of my
friends within the city and around this country,
men and women who could not be said to be
biased in any way, who are detached from politics
and business life, whose minds have been trained
to think things through objectively, many of them
think the same as I do. My mind is made up. It
has been made up for a few months now, since I
have been able to study it with the Ottawa delegation. I will admit that it is not
made up in such a
way, closed in such a way that it is incapable of
being changed... If anyone can show me why we
should not go into federal union with Canada, and
if anyone can show me that this country will be
worse off, that our people will suffer more under
confederation, I am perfectly willing to change
my mind and to work just as hard for that form of
government which will give our people the very
best that they deserve. Having made up my mind
and done it as seriously as I can, with as much
thought as I am capable of, I think I am in a
position to advise the delegates here, and through
them the country in general, to give this type of
government a careful consideration.
We have done it here as carefully as we can.
We've all been serious about it. There have been
some arguments against it, but I have not been
swayed to the point that I am able to make a
change in the position that I have taken. There
have been some arguments that have had something to justify them. But they can be
refuted...
Some of the arguments, and I don't say it unkindly, have tended to drive me into confederation,
even if I didn't feel that I could support it intelligently. But that's by the way....
The issue is soon
going to be put into the hands of the people, and
I would say to my fellow delegates that we ought
to see to it, whatever our opinions are, that the
people get the opportunity to express themselves
on this matter. And not only that, but we ought to
see to it that they get the opportunity to express
themselves on other forms of government as well.
They are the final judges and they have a right to
have the final say. Perhaps never before have they
had, or will they have such a fair opportunity to
1146 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
express themselves, because before, when they
have been called upon to vote upon certain issues,
it has been tangled up with politics. I think that
the people should have an opportunity to express
themselves on the form of government that they
want for this country.
Now, as far as the terms are concerned, the
terms laid down in this Grey Book that has been
so much talked of, I find myself agreeing with my
colleague from the Ottawa delegation, Mr. Higgins, when he says that they are the
best possible
terms that Canada could offer. Of course, he
qualified it by saying "under the conditions." I
can put in that qualification also but I do not
consider the circumstances as unfavourable as
Mr. Higgins does. It is true that we did not have
a battery of experts with us in Ottawa, it is true
we were not experts ourselves, it is true we did
not have any of the civil servants which we tried
to obtain before we went, but were denied. If we
had had these civil servants with us, I feel sure
that we would not have spent three months in
Ottawa. But while we weren't experts ourselves,
and while we didn't have civil servants with us,
make no mistake about it gentlemen, we had the
facts about this country. Members of this delegation who don't like confederation
can say a lot of
things to deny that, but I want to tell you that we
had facts, the facts about this country; and we had
men on that delegation who could present these
facts. We had men who were very capable of
presenting the facts. I don't claim to be one of
them. I took a small part, as faithfully as I could.
And what is just as important, we had men of
goodwill. We had men with a good spirit backing
them, and men who gained the respect of the
federal government officials in Ottawa. With
that, with the facts before us, and with goodwill,
we made what I consider to be the right and
proper approach. We laid the facts before them.
And together, in an atmosphere of respect for one
another, and in an atmosphere of trust and sincerity, we worked out a plan whereby
Newfoundland might fit into the federal system of
government and operate as the tenth province.
Now it's been said that we didn't get good
terms; we didn't get the financial end of it very
generous. But in my estimation, take it for what
it's worth, we got just as good terms as we could
possibly get, recognising the fact that the federal
system is made up of different provinces that
have their claims; they came into the union, and
they were brought in on certain terms, and we had
to come in on certain terms, and if we had been
given more generous terms.... It wouldn't be fair
for the federal government to go too far to give
us special services, special concessions when
they have to consider that there are other members of the family who have to live
within the
family. To go in at all, we must go in on equal
terms, and we are going to need to go in with
these terms. I'm not convinced that, these are not
generous terms under the circumstances. I think
they are generous terms; what is worrying me is
whether the Parliament of Canada will ratify
these terms or not. And I wonder if they do not
feel that they are so generous that perhaps they
will not be ratified. But I feel that they will, they
are generous, and I would pay a lot of attention
to the arguments that Mr. Butt made here so ably
this afternoon. If I were thinking that Newfoundland under federal union to be an
ideal
place, one which will have after union unlimited
prosperity, I would pay a lot of attention to the
arguments being made. But I don't see that it can
be an ideal state, or that we will have unlimited
prosperity. I don't see the road ahead of us as too
straight, with too many roses. I feel that we have
a hard uphill climb to make. We have got a hard
country to live in. We haven't got the natural
resources that other countries have, don't let us
kid ourselves. We're not too generously supplied
with natural resources, and the means of making
them a good living. It's going to be a hard job for
us to do it. But I am of the opinion that we can do
it better within the federal system of Canada, than
we can do it on our own. I agree with Mr. Butt,
when he raised his voice in the interest of the
morale of our people and all that, but there's a
limit to it. And our people will have the morale
and the spirit, and respect for themselves, when
they find that they're getting somewhere. I feel
that we'll get somewhere under confederation,
and our people's respect for themselves will be
forthcoming when they see that. That's all I have
to say on that line. I would like to reply, though,
to my friend Major Cashin's contention that we
went representing a subservient people, begging
for help — Major, you know that statement,
something like that.
Mr. Burry Appeared to be. Well, if you made
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1147
that statement, sir, I contend that you're wrong.
We went there representing not a subservient but
a brave people, a financially strong country, and
a people capable of good government. That
would be the general tone, I think, of the delegation which went to Ottawa and worked
there for
three months. We were led in that spirit by our
Chairman, Mr. Bradley, when he made his two
masterly replies to the addresses of welcome
from Mr. Mackenzie King on the first meeting in
his country club and the next morning when he
made the official welcome speech. Mr. Bradley
made two masterly replies to these speeches. I am
told that they did not appear in our newspapers in
Newfoundland If they didn't, it's just too bad.
Those pieces should have appeared in our papers,
and when the history of Newfoundland is written,
they should be put into that history to give our
people something like the Gettysburg address
that is so respected by the people of America.
That's how I feel about these replies that Mr.
Bradley made, and the spirit of them. He pointed
out among other things in those replies that we
were not a crippled people, and we did not come
to Ottawa looking for economic crutches to lean
upon, and other things along that line.
[1] That
whole spirit was maintained through-out our discussions. We weren't a subservient
people. We
went there representing a bold, courageous
people and tried to hold our end up as best we
could. I think the Major is absolutely wrong, and
I think he's unfair. If he'd examine the facts I
think that he would find that we did not do badly
and that we did do a good job. Now sir, I don't
know if I have more time to continue. Do you
want to be in till 6 o'clock? I think I'll be finished
in a quarter of an hour.
[The Convention adjourned to 8 pm]
Mr. Burry When the committee rose for the
dinner recess I was dealing with the charge that
Major Cashin has made that the delegation went
to Ottawa representing a subservient people begging for help. I was trying to point
out that as far
as I could see, that had no foundation whatever.
I think it was altogether unfair that Major Cashin
should make that charge unless...
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of
order. I didn't make those charges. I said, if my
memory serves me correctly, that the delegation
went to Ottawa in a subservient manner, not as
representatives of a proper and prosperous
people. I can remember my words.
Mr. Burry ....Now sir, I do not intend to reply
to the many, varied arguments made in this Convention against the terms that we have
here in the
Grey Book. I think that this Ottawa delegation is
acting the part of wisdom when it allowed Mr.
Smallwood to reply to those who had spoken
on the question. I think that it's wise to do that,
not only because he is in my estimation the most
capable person of doing it, without casting a
reflection on any other member of the delegation,
but his doing it naturally limits and conserves
time in this debate. But there is one matter that I
would like to draw attention to. As we all know,
Labrador has played a prominent part in these
discussions and rightly so. It is an important part
of our territory, made all the more important
because of the great iron ore deposits already
found there and the timber wealth that we know
it possesses. But I have a feeling, sir, that sometimes that importance is altogether
warped out of
shape when some member or members are trying
to make a point and ... sometimes I feel that we
are boosting a little too much in making claims
for the great wealth of Labrador, as much as I feel
that it is a value to this country and will be in the
future. It has been said here that Labrador is so
important that Canada is intending to get it at all
costs, by hook or by crook. That I am not able to
follow. My experience at Ottawa and what I
know about the Canadian ambitions do not lead
me to that conclusion. We all know that Canada
has great vast territories to the west and to the
north and it has great natural resources. The
resources that we think of as ours in Labrador —
the mineral wealth there, the iron ore that's found
there — one must remember that we only possess
a part of it. When the Mining Committee brought
in its report sometime last year we were able to
say that the deposits were fairly equal. But I
understand that that would not be true today, that
the better part of the deposits of iron ore are being
discovered on the Quebec side. But there are
great deposits on our side also. I'm not so much
afraid that we are going to lose the Labrador
possession as some of the members seem to be....
I place my trust, sir, in the Privy Council and also
1148 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
in the sense of justice that they're building up in
this great western hemisphere of ours. I don't feel
that we have much to worry about in the fear that
we might lose our Labrador possession, seeing
that it is legally handed down to us by the Privy
Council, and seeing that we're living on this side
of the world, this western hemisphere where
there is such a high sense of justice. I feel that we
might have more reason to be afraid of losing our
Labrador territory not so much from anyone outside taking a hold of it, not so much
that Quebec
will come and take it from us but perhaps there
might be some weakness within our own selves,
or in our governments of the future which might
succumb to offers made for Labrador and we
might lose it in that way. We are reminded here
this afternoon that a deal was contemplated in
selling it for $15 million. We had a question
asked here the other day whether there was an
offer made recently for the sale of Labrador at
$150 million. These are very attractive figures,
and there is a possibility that sometime our own
government might succumb to accepting such an
amount as that and thereby lose a great possession....
I am very proud to represent that great
country, that great territory in the north which
means will mean so much to us as a country. But
the concern that has been expressed so far in this
National Convention about Labrador has been a
concern about the iron ore deposits and the great
timber resources that we have there. We must not
forget that there is in Labrador a population of
over 5,500 human souls.... These great people in
the north have received very little consideration
from governments of this island in the past. They
have been sadly and wilfully neglected by our
responsible governments in the past.... It might
almost be described as a shame and a disgrace on
past governments, the way that Labrador has
been neglected, until we found some iron ore
deposits and became conscious of its great timber
resources and so forth. If we as delegates were to
go to the people of Labrador and ask them what
they think of governments of Newfoundland in
the past, I'm afraid that we would get answers
that would humiliate us, as I have been
humiliated very often when talking to people in
that country about governments of Newfoundland, and trying to uphold the governments
that we have had in the past, and making excuses
for the way that they have been treated.... Why I
bring this matter up, sir, is that recently two
members of the Convention pointed out that
when Mr. Smallwood brought in his budget for
provincial expenditure, he omitted to put in
$10,000 for dole for the Labrador people. That
was pointed out by two members of the Convention and I was asked on one occasion what
I
thought of it. It was pointed out also on that
occasion that responsible governments in the past
made provision for dole for Labrador and that's
very true.... But very little other consideration
was given to these people. Now in the plan that
Mr. Smallwood had for the government of the
future, there was preparation made for the health
of the people in Labrador.... There were plans
made for the people of Labrador in that government envisaged by Mr. Smallwood as he
brought
in that provincial budget. Now dole, it is true, was
something that legitimately belongs to them and
some plansmade for them whereby they might
be able to earn a decent living. From the family
allowances, from one source alone there will go
to the people of Labrador every year...
[1]
Mr. Vardy ....It's not my intention to speak at
length on the question of confederation because
I am still prepared to cover the whole ground
under forms of government, and I wish to avoid
as much repetition as possible. I realise that a very
large proportion of what has been said will be
said again before the final date of this Convention. Those who advocate confederation
will talk
very little else in the debate to follow, what
should or should not go on the ballot paper. I
think the digest of whatl have prepared to the last
question was given over VOCM and published in
the daily press on December 27. My position was
stated unequivocally, and I have never seen any
real reason to alter the views I have always entertained, that our people in this
modern, civilised,
Christian age should be permitted to think, act,
pray and manage their own affairs.... As I view
it, taking the English-speaking world as an example, we have Great Britain, the United
States
of America and Canada strongly contesting for
the central seat of government; and well-wishers
in Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand,
South Africa and the British and American
colonies in the West Indies. Now all these people
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1149
are being speedily forced together by various sets
of circumstances... Now to summarise the position regarding Newfoundland, let it be
made
clear, that it's not our people, our economy, or
both, which interests that group, or any member
of it, but rather our clearly defined geographical
or strategical position, the Gibraltar of the west.
It is from this angle rather than our intrinsic value
as the possessor or producer of wealth that we
should lay a special emphasis on, stressing our
real worth as a proposed partner with any member of that group. Notwithstanding the
fact that
our virgin territory in the Labrador may possess
much valuable wealth, I am of the very definite
opinion that Newfoundland is controlled and will
be more fully controlled in the future by an international body in which Great Britain,
the USA
and Canada will be represented. The unfortunate,
unsettled and troubled conditions in the world
today makes this impossible to avoid. But the
interest of our population and Newfoundland as
a whole could best be served by a revised form
of self-government for our country. And I would
not agree to more than 15 members serving on
that body. The basis of terms may have appeared
at first sight to be generally fair to Newfoundland.
But the more we examine them the more we are
reminded of a huge iceberg which starts to sway
toward the sea.... Mr. Chairman, unless our
Canadian friends are prepared to equalise our
national debt, putting aside the difference to be
spent for the development of this country, and
accept us as equal partners and prove we are to
be treated as such, I fail to see how any fair-
minded Newfoundlander can vote for confederation. We have all heard sufficient proof
from both
sides since the day it started. We should know by
now what is fair and what is not fair in these
terms. There must of necessity be inherent in
every man such a thing as reason. And regardless
of how they vote I'll give to every man the credit
of possessing a fair and equal proportion of this
gift. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to appeal to
every member of this Convention to put both
conscience and reason to the test. This is not a
matter that we should take lightly. It is very, very
serious. And it would be nothing short of an act
of betrayal of your people's trust, to ask them to
vote for a form of government which has not been
fully explored or negotiated by a properly constituted or elected government of the
people of
Newfoundland.
We have a serious task to perform, and it is our
right and duty not to fail the people at this crucial
hour. I advise you, gentlemen, to put Newfoundland and our people first, and never
let them
down. You must know that when we voted to get
these terms, we were all anxious to give Newfoundland the best form of government
possible,
subject of course to the final wishes of the people.
We are undeveloped solely because our progress
has been incessantly retarded ever since 1497 by
the ancient and worn-out colonial policy of the
mother country, and by the constant fear and
dread in the minds of our past governments of
creating too great a national debt. Spend $13
million a year for the next ten years on development work in Newfoundland, and our
social and
economic structures will be above what Canada's
are today; and we would still have a much lower
per capita debt. This debt must be breached, in
addition to receiving sufficient back from the
federal government to balance our provincial
budget. I strongly think then that is reasonable.
Supposing my friend Mr. Ballam...
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen, would you kindly
refrain from talking, please?....
Mr. Vardy Supposing my friend Mr. Ballam
and I decide we're going into partnership. We're
going to buy a schooner together. We put $1,000
each in the deal. Now let us say that Mr. Ballam
owes Mr. Hickman on my left $200, and I owe
him $1,400, just the same proportion as we have
between Canada's and Newfoundland's debt
today. Would it look fair to Mr. Ballam or the
public for the partnership to pay the two bills?
Someone may say, but this is different, this is a
country, a piece of land. All right, we will call it
a piece of land. Now Mr. Ballam's land is uncleared, undeveloped and he owes only
$200.
Mine is cleared, has a nice farmhouse on it, a
good road through it, hothouse, machinery to do
the work, but I owe for it all. Would it be right for
Mr. Ballam to assume my bills unless lpaid into
a trust fund sufficient cash to develop my
partner's property to the level of my own? That's
exactly the picture as I see it, and I'm trying to
make it plain to the people. That's about as plain
as I can go and that is exactly how I view the plans
before us. I am not really prejudiced. I want what
is best for our people but no outside partnership
would ever prove best unless a sound basis of
1150 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
common reason is used. And a lot of the arguments we've heard here are not what any
intelligent person could call sound reasoning. Our
people are not as gullible as some persons may
think.... The arguments in many cases are weak.
Let us have faith first in ourselves, for without
trust and confidence in our own ability we will
not be much of an asset to any country. Let us
pave the future with courage and devotion to the
land that gave us what we have. If we are hurt in
the process, let us try to do better, and the same
hand that guides all nations cherish such ambitions, and faith in themselves will
bring Newfoundland to her reward. I recommend an
independent country on her own, or a proud
partner in a larger family. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hillier Mr. Chairman, with your kind permission, I wish to make a few remarks of a
general nature. During the past few days, I have
had the privilege to listen to some eloquent
speeches bearing on matters now before the
Chair. They made recommendations on which
confederation might be considered. Major
Cashin in his forcible address made reference to
the necessity of a comparable future in considering the entry into confederation;
to that I agree.
He also gave evidence that the ancient political
spirit is not dead. Mr. Higgins, among other
things, pointed out that by reason of Newfoundland's geographical position she gradually
grew
in influence. He felt that under the circumstances
the Ottawa delegation had done a good job and
that the recommendations before us were a good
basis for future negotiations. He stated further
that confederation could be taken up at some
future date. He gave me the impression that he
had a feeling that at some future date it would be
to the advantage of Newfoundland to unite with
a larger power. I might say in passing that there
are those who share our view. Mr. Harrington
gave us a historical picture of Newfoundland,
leading us step by step to her present importance.
Other speakers have had their quota of interesting
information. The majority, I think, advocated a
return to responsible government realising of
course that the final say rests with the people of
Newfoundland.... I have but one vote and after
careful consideration of the whole question confronting us, I shall do what I feel
is in the general
interest of this country.... The debate on the terms
is shortly to be concluded, as is the Convention
itself. In connection with the latter I say that it is
high time. On the former, I am led to wonder to
what extent have our people been helped in the
making of the great and serious decision they will
eventually be called upon to make. Personally sir,
I feel they have not by this Convention been
given the help they expected, and could and
should have been given. I am convinced, further,
far too much time has been taken up in airing our
special political views. In consequence our
people are left in mid-air, left to decide a great
question based on knowledge they have acquired
apart largely from that which was drawn out
through the medium of this Convention. I said
some time ago that this Convention would go
down in history. It certainly shall, and be remembered for one of two things: either
what it did or
did not accomplish for the common good of our
fellow man. During the Christmas recess, Mr.
Chairman, I met and conversed with men from
districts other than my own and I am more than
ever convinced that a lot of our people are disappointed because of the lack of helpful
information thus far emanating from this Convention....
I would have to say that it is not too late yet. The
choosing of forms of government sir, is something which should not be treated lightly....
It is
generally felt that the mischief started in the early
stages of the Convention by the entry of party
politics which still is in evidence, that it has
retarded somewhat the real purpose and work of
this Convention. Some have expressed themselves in favour of responsible government.
Some
have expressed themselves as favourable to
union with Canada. That is their right.... Personally, because I feel that the question
of confederation calls for careful thought based on
definite and reliable facts, I refrain from expressing my opinion as to the wisdom
or otherwise of
union with Canada. I do not mean to infer that the
facts before us are not reliable or that I am hostile
to confederation. I feel that at some time in the
not too distant future, it will be much to the
advantage of Newfoundland to unite to some
larger power than herself, whatever that power
may be. Every man and woman in this land will,
in due time, be called upon to consider and make
a choice of forms of government submitted to
them. How necessary it is then, that they be well,
impartially and correctly informed on all matters
and that any personal ambitions of ours which
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1151
might induce us to make things appear other then
they really are should be kept in the background.
We know that the most solid foundation of a true
democracy is a well-informed electorate. I am
personally not aspiring to any place in any future
political service of this country. But I do desire
that which will produce the most good for the
most people.
Going back briefly to touch on the document
before us on the question of confederation ... I
believe that I am correct in saying that the
average man ... wants some definite information,
something he can clearly understand, and I think
I am correct in saying that he wishes to have this.
One, what will be the purchasing ability of his
dollar under the Canadian set-up as compared
with the present? Two, what taxes in every particular and the nature of those taxes
payable as
compared with ours. Three, he wishes so far as is
possible to have a fair knowledge of the whole
confederation question that he may place that
knowledge side by side with the knowledge he
has of Commission of Government and responsible government and act accordingly. He
wants
the comparative picture all around so far as that
is possible to give....
Mr. Chairman, speaking of faith, faith in ourselves, faith in our neighbours, we can only show
our faith in the common sense, sound reasoning
power and good judgement of our fellow men by
being honest and above-board, by furnishing
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
The people of this country do not expect to get
something for nothing. They have not been
brought up that way. And because they have not
been brought up that way, all who are responsible, they want to know how much they
have to
contribute towards providing these things.
Speaking of family allowances, old age pensions
— these are good things, without a doubt. I have
for years been greatly interested in the question
of providing a decent pension for our old age
fishermen. I introduced a scheme at the opening
of this Convention but the Convention having no
legislative powers, nothing could be done about
it.... I find myself not quite in agreement with the
Canadian pension scheme as outlined in the act
before us. First, the age is quite unsuitable.... It is
too late in life and then again there is the claim of
the pension authorities upon the estate of the
pensioner. I do not like the scheme and am con
vinced that very few in Newfoundland would
approve of in its present form. But I feel that it's
possible to improve that scheme and so make it
suit our people I believe, in connection with the
old age fishermen's pension, that it should come
about through the medium of contributions on
their part either directly or indirectly, because it
is common knowledge that one appreciates to a
greater extent that to which they made a contribution than that which comes to them
apart from
that....
I am most anxious that the Convention finish
its work as quickly as possible. So I do not
propose to speak at length. I sincerely hope that
between now and the day of the referendum, that
our people will have gleaned a general
knowledge of the possibilities for Newfoundland
under the forms of government which are to be
placed on the ballot paper, and from which they
shall have to make a choice. Whatever our future
form of government may be ... its path will be by
no means strewn with roses. We will acquire,
whatever the form of government, strong, fair,
sincere men at the helm. Co-operation will be
necessary between government and people and
there must be a full realisation of the necessity of
each to each. The time will eventually come sir,
when we shall be called upon to make a grave
decision, such a decision as we have never been
called upon in our day to make, a most serious
decision upon which will depend what may be the
future welfare of our children and our children's
children. In the light of that, Mr. Chairman, God
grant that our decision may be based on sound
reasoning and not on selfishness and fear.
[Short recess]
Mr. Smallwood I'm not going to use up much
of the precious time we have left talking
generalities. I'm going to use my share of it
answering point by point the almost countless
wrong charges made against these terms of confederation. But there is one general
remark I do
want to make because it badly needs to be made.
We've been told by speaker after speaker how
complicated these terms are. They've been telling us again and again how hard they
are to
understand. They tried to paint a picture of something so hard to understand, so complicated,
so
mixed up and confused, so inaccurate and so
lacking in information that it would be just a
waste of time for our people to try to understand
1152 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
it. I suppose after painting that picture, their play
is to vote against submitting them to the people
on the grounds that if they can't understand them,
how could the people understand them? Well,
you can lead a horse to the well but you can't
make him drink. None so blind as those who will
not see. There is nothing complicated or hard to
understand about these terms, as I shall show
before I sit down. They are plain, simple,
straightforward, and they can be understood by
any average Newfoundlander. But first we must
strip away the tangled brush of wrong statements
and twisted thinking that has been thrown all
around us. When we have done so, these terms
will stand out bright, understandable and attractive.
Now sir, I wish first to address myself to some
of the points made by Major Cashin in his speech.
It was very noticeable that during the three weeks
we were debating these confederation terms,
Major Cashin remained silent except for one or
two remarks he interpolated as we went along;
but now it seems that he was saving up his breath,
saving it up for one big effort to destroy confederation with one big blow. So like
the big, bad
wolf, sir, in the fairy tale, he huffed and he puffed
in a long straining effort to blow the house down.
For three days he blew and what did he accomplish? He only made confederation stronger
than ever. Indeed, his effort was so feeble that I'm
forced to conclude either that he has a soft spot
in his heart for confederation and didn't want to
hurt it, or else that he really wanted to hurt it but
didn't know how because he didn't know enough
about it and hadn't studied it enough. Certainly,
if his speech was the great, expected, big gun that
was going to thunder against confederation, the
big gun turned out to be only a pea-shooter and a
not very good pea-shooter at that. As might have
been expected, Major Cashin got off his usual
stuff about plots and conspiracies. This Convention he tells us again is just a plot,
just a conspiracy, deliberately planned to confuse the
people; planned to kill responsible government;
planned to force Commission government upon
us. Well, I won't waste time commenting on that.
Major Cashin evidently believes it, certainly he
has said it often enough. I don't believe there's
one single word of truth in it. Now he tells us that
my introduction of the confederation question,
four or five weeks after the Convention opened,
had the effect of dividing what should have been
a united Convention. Isn't he forgetting something? Isn't he forgetting that he himself
divided
the Convention weeks and weeks before I ever
even mentioned confederation? Surely, surely he
has not forgotten that inside of a week after the
Convention opened, he launched an attack upon
the Convention, upon the Commission government and upon the British government itself.
He
told us that this Convention was dripping with
treachery, that it was a glorified stall, something
to fool us into Commission government. He told
us that we should have responsible government,
and that responsible government was the only
thing we should discuss; all that in the very first
week of the Convention's life, and now he turns
around and says thatI am the one who divided
the Convention by introducting my confederation motion five or six weeks after he
had made
his famous speech, the very speech which threw
down the gauntlet for responsible government.
Then Major Cashin tells us that for 14 years
the British government has been controlling
Newfoundland's treasury, that is Newfoundland's public chest. For 14 years the British
government has been controlling Newfoundland's treasury and confederation means that
the
Canadian government would control it. Mr.
Chairman, if the Canadian government controls
our treasury as decently, as efficiently and as
honestly as the British government has done it
these past 14 years, it will be a grand thing for
Newfoundland to be a province of Canada, for
the Government of Canada has fashioned its fiscal system fairly and squarely after
the British
system, than which there is none better in the
world, none cleaner, none more decent, none
more efficient and none more honest. It will not
go down well with our Newfoundland people as
an argument against confederation to say that the
Canadian government will control our treasury if
we become a province as the British government
has controlled it in the last 14 years. Major Cashin
tells us that it's the historical policy of the imperial government of Great Britain
for the past 80
years, for Newfoundland to go into confederation
with Canada. He tells us that the British government and the Commission government
are both
in favour of confederation, that they're both
promoting and backing confederation. Mr. Harrington, incidentally, sir, told us the
same thing.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1153
I don't know how true this is. But there's one
thing I do know. If Major Cashin can convince
the people of Newfoundland that the British
government and the Commission government
believe in confederation, if he can convince our
people that the British government and the Commission government want us to vote for
confederation, if he can convince our people that the
mother country thinks that confederation would
be the best thing for us, if he can convince our
people of these things, then nothing on earth,
nothing on earth, will hold our people back from
voting for confederation. As a confederate, I say
now that I hope with all my heart that Major
Cashin is right....
At several points Major Cashin compared our
railway with Canada's superb and world-famous
transportation system. Mr. Chairman, didn't he
realise that there's something comical about
comparing our 600 miles with Canada's tens of
thousands of miles of railways which happen to
be amongst the very finest railways in the whole
world? He spent practically an hour here telling
us of the hundreds of millions and the thousands
of millions of dollars that Canada's government
has spent on her railways....
[1]
Major Cashin told us that the Bank of Canada
made $150 million out of Newfoundland in
United States dollars...
Mr. Cashin That it made $150 million worth in
the transaction makes a different light in the
terms.
Mr. Smallwood The note I have made here, I
misunderstood Major Cashin and the last thing I
want to do...
Mr. Smallwood It was such an amazing statement. I was going to go on here, but I won't go
on if you didn't make that statement, I'm glad you
didn't make it because that $150 million struck
me between the two eyes.
Major Cashin told us this, I jotted it down, I
won't guarantee, sir, that it's the identical words
he used, pretty close. He said if we go in, we can't
get out. Incidentally, it's a good slogan.... Meaning, of course, if we go into confederation,
we got
to stay there. Now sir, that statement is just about
as true as a lot of others we've had flung at us in
this debate. What is the simple truth of the matter? If, when we go in, we find it
a good thing,
then we won't want to get out.... If we find it a
bad thing, we cannot be kept in. We cannot be
kept in against our will. There are nine provinces
in the Canadian union, four of them came in in
1867, one in 1869, one in 1871, another in 1873,
and two of them in 1905. Not one, not one of these
provinces has ever tried to get out. No province
can be forced into confederation and no province
can be forced to stay in against its will. All right,
let's look at that for a moment. It's quite important. Let us say that in the referendum
our people
vote for confederation and that we become a
province of Canada. Let us say that after ten or
15 years or 20 or 30 years we don't like it.... What
can we do about it? Can Canada force us to stay
in against our will? Can't we get out if we want
to get out? Of course we can get out. We've got
to want to get out. It's not enough for half a dozen
people to want to get out. You have in Nova
Scotia today one man, at least one man, who
thinks Nova Scotia should get out. And on July 1
every year, which is Dominion Day, the first day
of confederation, that one man flies his flag half-
mast. It's not enough for one man to want to get
out. It's not enough for ten men. It's not enough
for 50% of the people. But if the people of Newfoundland wanted to get out of confederation,
if
they really wanted to get out, nothing on earth, in
earth or out of it can keep us into confederation,
if we want to get out. Just in the same way that
nothing will keep us from responsible government if we really want it. Nothing will
keep us
from Commission government if we really want
it, but we must want it. We must want to get out
of confederation and if we do, nothing can keep
us in.
To go from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Maj or Cashin told us that we wouldn't be allowed
to import a fur coat from the United States. That,
sir, will be bad news to our fishermen and especially bad news to the thousands who
are on the
dole this winter. They won't be allowed, under
confederation, to import a fur coat from the USA;
if they import a fur coat it'll have to be from
Canada.
I want to take up a point made by Major
Cashin that Mr. Burry has touched upon here in
his speech today, when the Major said that the
1154 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Ottawa delegation went to Ottawa hat in hand —
those were his words — begging from Ottawa —
those were his words — hat in hand, begging
from Ottawa. Now nothing could be further from
the truth. The truth is the exact opposite of what
Major Cashin said. We went to Ottawa holding
our heads high. We gave Newfoundland the
highest kind of a name. We told Canada that
Newfoundland was sitting on top of the world. In
all our newspaper interviews, and there were
dozens of them, we kept up Newfoundland's
name. In his speech at the very opening session
of our conferences in Ottawa, our Chairman Mr.
Bradley said this, and I quote his exact words. He
said: "Should these talks produce an understanding between us, and that understanding
be
endorsed by the country in the forthcoming
referendum and Newfoundland becomes the
tenth province of your Canadian union, you will
be receiving a proud people eager and determined to pull their weight in generous
measure.
For make no mistake, union of Newfoundland
and Canada will never take place, while our
people have the decision, unless Newfoundlanders are convinced that they have a contribution
to make towards the general good of the
partnership in which they share.".... It was broadcast over the entire network of
the Canadian
Broadcasting Commission, and thousands of our
own people heard it that night here in Newfoundland. As for myself, as I go back over
the
clippings of the interviews I gave to the Canadian
newspapers, I find that I made this public statement and I quote my exact words: "Mr.
Smallwood termed Labrador the richest area in
the world today". Is that letting the country
down? Is that putting on the poor mouth? Is that
giving Newfoundland a bad name? "Mr.
Smallwood termed Labrador the richest area in
the world today", God forgive me, and though I
may not be so far off, I don't know. But I didn't
put on the poor mouth. Again I made this statement: "While we have survived for 450
years in
isolation and made tremendous progress, we will
never reach our maximum strength in isolation,
we must be part of North America." You might
take note, sir, of the words "while we have survived for 450 years in isolation and
made tremendous progress". Then again I said,
"Newfoundland is not bankrupt but blooming".
Sir, I could go on quoting dozens of statements
like that made by me to the newspapers of Canada
during our visit to that country. It may suit Major
Cashin to say that we went up there running the
country down or putting on the poor mouth or as
beggars, but it simply isn't true. The exact opposite is the truth.
Now sir, one thing I hardly expected was that
Major Cashin would trot out Premier Duplessis
again, but he did. He still professes to be afraid
that the Quebec fascist, I beg your pardon, the
Quebec premier will somehow or other manage
to rob us of our Labrador. And while Major
Cashin was discussing this matter of Labrador,
he gave utterance to what surely must be the
strangest remark ever heard in this building since
it was erected over 100 years ago, he said this,
what dependence can we place on a mere
decision of the Privy Council? What dependence
can we place on a mere decision of the Privy
Council? Was Major Cashin serious? Did he
mean that question to be taken seriously? Would
he, a former cabinet minister, a former minister
of the Crown, would he seriously suggest to the
people of this country that no dependence can be
placed on a decision of the Privy Council of Great
Britain? Can Major Cashin name any other court
in the whole world whose verdicts and judgments
merit and receive such universal respect and
which are so binding as those of the Privy Council? He cannot and no man can. But
he finds
himself straight up against what is for his argument a very awkward fact, the fact
that the Privy
Council has laid down the boundaries of our
Labrador. So what did he do? He makes the futile
and foolish attempt to throw doubt upon the
validity of that Privy Council award and makes
the extremely foolish statement that no dependence can be placed upon their famous
decision on
the Labrador boundary. And then he makes this
further statement. The only inducement, he says,
for Canada wanting Newfoundland is to get
Labrador's mineral wealth. In fact, he says that
when he was in Montreal the other day, some
businessmen he met told him so. I won't dignify
that statement with a reply, for any fifth form
schoolboy could tell Major Cashin that it's highly
unlikely that the petty businessmen that he met
in Montreal would be in the confidence of the
Government of Canada. Let's look at this matter
clearly and squarely. Is that why Canada wants
Newfoundland, to get the minerals of Labrador?
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1155
Who has the minerals of Labrador right now?
Isn't it the Labrador Mining and Exploration
Company? Isn't that company spending millions
of dollars to develop those mineral deposits? And
isn't this company a Canadian company with
American capital in with them? What more could
Canada want? They have Labrador's mineral
wealth right now tied up safe and secure. And our
Commission government gave it to them under
an act of parliament. Canada already has the
mineral wealth of Labrador. For goodness sake,
let's keep our feet on the ground and not be led
astray by such foolish statements.
Several times since this debate began it has
been hinted or bluntly stated that if we go into
confederation the Newfoundlanders working on
the American bases would lose their jobs. Major
Cashin apparently couldn't resist the temptation
to make the statement. If this were true, if those
2-3,000 Newfoundlanders now working on the
American bases were to lose their jobs because
of confederation, or if they could be made to
believe that they'd lose their jobs, that would
mean many thousands of votes against confederation. Now what's the truth? Every member
of the Ottawa delegation knows the truth, for the
matter was raised by me in our talks with the
Government of Canada, and every member of the
delegation remembers what happened. We were
told bluntly that the American bases would
remain here. Mr. St. Laurent told us bluntly that
the American bases would remain here as
American bases. They would not be disturbed,
and that the men would not lose their jobs through
confederation. More than that, we were assured
that an official statement would be made in Parliament this winter to this very effect.
And I see
that since then Mr. St. Laurent in a public announcement in Canada, sir, at a press
conference
has announced publicly to the world that the
American bases in Newfoundland will not be
disturbed by confederation. The American bases
will go right on as though nothing had happened.
And later this year there will be a statement in the
Parliament of Canada itself, an official statement
to that effect, saying that in plain words. The
Newfoundlanders working on the bases may become deceived on this matter for a short
while,
but they'll know the full truth before the referendum takes place.
Mr. Chairman, something of the same situa
tion exists with regard to the 4,000 men who are
employed on our railway system. A strong effort
has been made to persuade our railroaders that
some of them would lose their jobs under confederation. The cold-blooded truth of
course is
that their only hope of not losing their jobs is
confederation, their only hope. Sixty men have
lost their jobs in the last few days already in
Port-aux-Basques.... If we don't get confederation, if our transporation system is
not taken over
by the Canadian National Railways, then
hundreds of railroaders are doomed to layoffs and
wage cuts. Confederation is their only hope of
security, stability, steady wages and expanding
opportunities. When the matter came up early in
the debate, I said I would settle it once and for all.
I addressed the following question to the Government of Canada: "To ask His Excellency
the
Governor in Commission to ask the Government
of Canada to state whether in the event of union
and the consequent operation of the Newfoundland railway steamship system by Canada,
whether it would be the policy of the Government
of Canada to continue in their employment all the
employees of the system at the time of union,
with the rights and privileges with respect to
continuity of employment that are accorded to
employees of the Canadian National Railway."
Now I ask you to note carefully how I worded
that question, for you may be sure that the
Canadian government noted the wording very
carefully. I did not ask if it would be their policy
to hold on to some of the employees of the
Railway, but all the employees existing at the
date of union. That's why it breaks my heart to
see 60 men laid off today in Port-aux-Basques. I
want to see no railroader laid off until after this
referendum, not another man. Because all who
are employed on the railway at the date of union
will be kept on and it's a shame to see a man laid
off before that. I did not ask if it would be the
Canadian government's policy to hold on to some
of the employees, but all the employees existing
at the date of union.... My question was unmistakable in its meaning. And what was
the
Canadian government's answer? I'll read it to
you:
As provided in clause 17.1 of the proposed
arrangments, if the Canadian National Railways were to assume responsibility for the
operation of the Newfoundland Railway and
1156
NATIONAL CONVENTION
January 1948
its steamship services, employees of the
Newfoundland Railway system would be offered employment with the Canadian National
Railway with the rights and privileges with
respect to continuity of employment accorded to employees of the Canadian National
Railway.
Could words be plainer? If we enter confederation, our railroaders will be offered
employment
by the CNR, not some of them, not nearly all of
them, but all of them. Not only will they all be
employed, but employed with all the same rights
and privileges of permanent or continued
employment of other employees of the CNR. Mr.
Chairman, it will take some twisting to change
the meaning of that. There's no crowd of men
who will gain more from confederation than our
railroaders.... Their unions are all connected with
the railroad unions of Canada, and under confederation the Canadian National will
stretch all
the way from St. John's to Vancouver. And
they'll have the satisfaction of seeing passenger
rates, freight rates and express rates in Newfoundland brought down to the same rates
as in
Canada. They'll have the satisfaction of seeing
the wages of some of them brought up to the
Canadian level. Above all, their professional
pride in the railway will be pleased by a great
program of improvement and rehabilitation of
their railway system by the CNR, for we're told
by the CNR experts that $17 million will have to
be spent by Canada in the first ten years to put
our transportation system in satisfactory shape.
Sir, as we have only one stenographer, I think
the thought was that we might rise till tomorrow.
In that case sir, I move the adjournment of the
debate and that the committee rise, report
progress and beg leave to sit again on tomorrow.
[The committee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, speaking to
your motion to adjourn, I wonder in view of the
fact that the sands of time are running out not only
for the Convention in general but in particular for
this debate, would it not be possible to have a
night session tomorrow?...
Mr. Chairman ....I think that if the Convention
desires to continue tomorrow evening, I'll be
perfectly willing to sit if I get a quorum...
Mr. Smallwood Sir, having told us that, I would
like to say it's not my idea that I should occupy
all the remaining time of this debate in my reply.
There's no reason that I know of why any member desiring to speak to this debate shouldn't
do
so after I have completed. There's no thought in
my part of using up all the remaining time in this
debate. I believe there are a number of members
who do wish to speak... I have no intention
whatever of replying to any member who speaks
after I have finished. I don't guarantee that I
won't. I'm quite sincere about it. To the best of
my knowledge and belief, I will not speak any
more after I have finished this speech that I began
tonight. But if something outrageous comes up,
something that I think I absolutely must answer,
well then, I can't guarantee that I won't answer
it. But honestly sir, I have no intention of making
another speech beyond the one I'm making now.
Mr. Chairman Before I put the motion to adjourn the actual position is that the order paper
tomorrow will of necessity contain a closure motion. I've intimated already to the
House and I
reaffirm that ruling now, that I have a discretion
as to when that motion should be put. Unfortunately, a number of members have seen
fit to
quite improperly telephone me or communicate
with me in my private offices and at my home, to
make sure that I could guarantee them that they'd
be able to speak. Of course I can give no such
guarantee to any members, and I think Major
Cashin with his very wide parliamentary experience can quite sympathise and agree
with me
in this. I have to give the floor according to the
rules to any man that occupies the floor at any
given time. But in view of the fact that there is a
closure motion coming up, and in view of the fact
that some members have not been able to address
themselves on this matter and desire to address
themselves on the matter, I will have to consider
when that closure motion is to be put. In doing
so, I naturally want to facilitate members who
have not been able to address themselves on this
question, because I'd be very reluctant by prematurely putting a closure motion to
abridge or take
away the rights to speak that they would otherwise have had. Therefore the actual
position is
simply this. While this closure motion is coming
up tomorrow, I may conceivably not put it tomorrow. Not saying when, I'll have to
be guided by
the temperament and the assistance of the House
in trying to determine the time at which that
closure motion should be put. But meanwhile, to
facilitate the House and in particular members
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1157
who have not been able to address themselves on
the question, by and with the permission of the
house, if I get a quorum, it will be my endeavour
to go ahead tomorrow night...
[The Convention adjourned]
