Mr. Crosbie It is not my intention to take up
much of your time and the time of the Convention. But I feel that certain statements
made here
must and should be corrected in order that our
people may judge for themselves the merits and
demerits of confederation. It is not my idea to go
into the many questions involved, but to deal with
only one which I consider of major importance.
As you all know, a country's growth and expansion depend on the supply of raw materials
and
of these we have more than sufficient; however,
if the development and exploitation of these
resources are interfered with or harmed in any
way, there is nothing left but disaster and privation for the people. I can see a
very real danger to
our fishery under the proposed terms of union
with Canada. For a few moments let us look at
Mr. Smallwood's estimate of expenditure if
Newfoundland were a province of Canada. What
would we find in the Department of Natural
Resources?....
[1] The expenditure is given at approximately $112,000, a mere pittance, or as Mr.
Smallwood would say, chicken-feed. He's quite
right; $112,000 is chicken-feed. Of course his
explanation is that the federal government takes
over where the province leaves off...
[2]
Mr. Smallwood, they want an explanation.
Mr. Chairman, I'm here to inform you and the
Convention, this is not so. And to prove my point,
here are the actual facts that I know. I would ask
you to look at note four of Mr. Smallwood's
budget under the Department of Natural Resources.
[3] According to Mr. Smallwood, items numbered l, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, of the estimates
of 1947
and 1948 would be present. Gentlemen, this is not
so. Items 1, 2 and 3 refer to the maintenance of
bait depots and the supply of bait and the operation of the
Malakoff[4] for freezing and transfering
[4] The S.S. Malakoff was a small government vessel used in the bait service.
1190 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
bait for fishing, which services we agree meet the
real need in this country and which I am afraid
are threatened. The actual position is that the
federal government does not operate or maintain
any bait depot in Canada, or supply bait. Wishing
to be sure on this point, I sought and obtained this
information from two of Canada's largest fishing
provinces — namely British Columbia and Nova
Scotia. And I am sure Mr. Smallwood will agree,
what the federal government does for one
province, it must do for all. If the federal government is not supplying bait for
British Columbia
and Nova Scotia, the federal government will not
supply bait for the Province of Newfoundland.
Both in Nova Scotia and British Columbia the
fishermen have to buy their own bait from private
operators, or catch and store it themselves. Those
items mentioned in 1947-48, $238,000. Now let
us turn to item 9 — erection of new bait depots.
This is not paid for by the federal government in
any province, and cost in 1947-48, $294,000.
Item 11 — alteration and extension to existing
bait depots, $30,000. This also is not a federal
charge. In other words, we have roughly
$562,000 excluded in this preposterous budget.
Our fishermen are to do without free services.
Can they afford to do without them? The answer
is clear — no. The position therefore is this: we
actually have expenses in these items alone totalling $562,000, for which nothing
has been
provided in Mr. Smallwood's budget. So either
we have a deficit of $562,000 or we go without
fish services. Such a thought to me is fantastic
and unthinkable under any form of government
this country might have. Mr. Chairman, if the
record of figures, and the estimates of expenditure and revenue of the provincial
budget, are as
far astray as these are, then it follows the figures
of other estimates of the same sort are just as
unreliable.
Some months ago I made the statement that
sooner or later our American friends would be
obliged to come to this country for their fish
supply. Many people, I know, did not believe
this. But today, much sooner then suspected, my
forecast has come true. Last Monday, two
trawlers ... with a crew of 18 men each sailed
from St. John's on their first fishing voyage from
Newfoundland — under the flag of the United
Kingdom. Until a very short time ago, these
splendid boats were sailing from the United
States under the flag of Atlantic coast fishermen.
But due to many circumstances with which I am
not familiar, they are now here. And in my
opinion, they are the forerunners of many more
— if, and I say if, this country is permitted to run
her own affairs. Now you might say, what do I
mean by this? Well, in a nutshell it is this. Let us
turn again to the federal government. In Nova
Scotia and other provinces, a licence is required
before trawlers can be used. To obtain these
licences, application must be made to the federal
Minister of Fisheries himself at Ottawa. Now the
Minister of Fisheries in Ottawa is a very busy
man and has many pressing problems for his
attention. He may not have time to consider immediately a request from Newfoundland
for a
licence to operate trawlers and draggers, and
unintentionally the opportunity to progress is
gone or delayed indefinitely. Again, we all know
New England interests are already coming to
Newfoundland in preference to Canada. Now is
it likely that the Minister of Fisheries at Ottawa
is going to issue licences to Newfoundland to
operate trawlers etc., if pressure is brought to bear
by Nova Scotia to have the business placed there?
Of course he won't, in my opinion. Nova Scotia
is far more important politically then we are. So
right away we run the risk of losing to one of our
keenest competitors. Gentlemen, it is neither
feasible or sensible for this country to have
remote control. We have it now under Commission of Government. Are we to trade one
remote
control system for another? It has taken Nova
Scotia a lifetime, practically, to obtain a licence
to operate six trawlers and eight draggers, which
is all that operates from there today. Dr. Douglas
I. Cooper, Director of Fisheries for the Department of Industry for Nova Scotia asked
if they
were going to expand to the limit of exploitation
and were they going to modernise to the limit, or
were they going to perish? Gentlemen, Nova
Scotia is now a case of progress or failure. There
are three reasons for this situation. One, failure to
recognise the fishery as a whole was changing
from saltfish to fresh. Two, high taxation resulting from the war. Three, the McLean
Commission decision condemning the use of modern
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1191
trawlers except in restricted areas.
[1] Nova Scotia
today is rectifying this decision, but it is admitted
Newfoundland has far outstripped Nova Scotia in
modernisation and expansion.
We have the Fisheries Board which administers inspection and control of exports to
all
our great markets in Europe and the West Indies.
Under this set-up, inspection is compulsory and
fish cannot be shipped without an inspection
certificate. If we enter confederation, this will be
a federal function. Canada has no compulsory
inspection, with the result that the quality of her
fish has gone down during the war years, while
ours has improved and we have held our market
against Canadian competition. Is it likely that the
federal government will permit Newfoundland as
a province to control these exports which will be
Canadian under confederation? The answer is no.
Would a federal government allow Newfoundland to refuse to export fish to another
province, say Nova Scotia, if it were found necessary in order to maintain prices
in our markets to do so? Certainly they wouldn't. As you all know, Halifax used to
depend on Newfoundland to supply fish for re-export. And they used this fish to compete
with our own, until under the present system this was stopped to the great advantage
of Newfoundland. For some years Canada, and Nova Scotia particularly, had a large
share of the European market and produced as much if not more saltfish for these markets
than we do, But over a period of years she lost those markets while we held them.
She also lost the West Indies markets to a great extent, which at one time were exclusively
Canadian and which today are ours. I wonder why these markets were lost? And I wonder
if under confederation we'll find ourselves in the same position as Nova Scotia? During
the last quarter of a century we have been able, with the help of England, to sell
to Spain, Italy, and Greece while Canada was unable to make the same exchange agreement
and consequently could not ship. High officials of the federal government have made
statements that our marketing system is far ahead of Canada's. In fact, it is so far
ahead that last year a Canadian delegation came here to study our system and Went
away amazed at the strides we had made. Is
a federal government going to permit Newfoundland as a province to exercise federal
rights
by permitting the Newfoundland Fisheries Board
to control exports? Certainly it won't. At any rate
I see nothing in all the terms presented to us, in
either the Grey Book or the Black Book, indicating that she will. I for one would
like assurance
on this matter before I could mark my vote for
confederation. It must be remembered that
Canadian provinces are our keenest competitors,
and under confederation we will not sell one
pound of fish more to Canada than we do today.
It is quite evident that our salt codfish trade will
suffer practically the same fate as that of Nova
Scotia and the Gaspé coast.
Our present system, and the Fisheries Board,
will be demolished overnight. And if you think
this is not so under confederation, all you have to
do is turn to Mr. Smallwood's budget.
[2] "Of the
total expenditures of $282,800 by the Fisheries
Board, $158,358 would be federal. Reduction of
function should produce a saving of $12,000 on
Board expenditure." The cost of operating the
Fisheries Board is cut from approximately
$282,000 to $158,000, or $125,000 roughly is
deducted. And they visualise, mind you, a further
saving of $12,000 because the Board's functions
are going to be reduced — not increased, or any
further assistance given, but reduced. What functions of the Board do you think they
intend to
reduce? Perhaps members of the Fishery Committee on the delegation to Ottawa can tell
us,
although I understand that only one meeting was
held, attended by only two members of the Newfoundland delegation. Mr. Chairman, one
of our
chief industries took the time of one meeting and
the attention of two of our delegates, and we're
expected to vote on a referendum for confederation. That committee should have had
with them
Mr. Raymond Gushue, who in my opinion knows
more about trade agreements and what's best for
our fishery then any member of the Ottawa
delegation. And if this is correct, that it was only
attended by two members, all I can say is that they
had very little interest in their country and the
most important branch of its economy. Just in
case they can't tell us what functions are to be
reduced, to me it is quite obvious that these
1192 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
functions are those that encroach on federal
rights, mainly the controlling of exports.
Another alarming result of union with Canada
is the statement contained in section 9, subsection
3 of the Grey Book. I'll read it, it's a honey: "No
part of the surplus shall be used to subsidise
production or sale of Newfoundland's products
in unfair competition with similar products of
other provinces, it being understood that this
proviso does not preclude assistance to industry
by such means as developmental loans on
reasonable conditions or by ordinary provincial
administrative services." Now Mr. Chairman, the
substance of this particular section conveys to me
at least that the Canadian government will do
everything it possibly can to prevent any serious
competition from our fishing industry. This is not
the first time that Canada has shown its feelings
with regard to our fishery. The Bond-Blaine
treaty has been dealt with many times in this
chamber and outside, so it's not necessary for me
to go into further details on it. I only wanted to
point out that it has been one of our fondest hopes
that our fishery should be developed along
modern and scientific lines, and there are many
cases where government assistance would be of
the utmost value. But the Canadian government,
in these proposals, tells us that we will not be
permitted with our own money to further develop
our industry. I would like to take your minds back
to last September and October, when it was
necessary for our government to use approximately $7 million in order to obtain foreign
exchange to pay for Newfoundland fish production of 1947. I wonder would this be called
a
subsidy? Or would it have another name?
Mr. Crosbie It's all according how you look at
it, Mr. Smallwood, and I'm not in the Canadian
government. I know what I'd do if I was there.
I'd call it a subsidy.
Gentlemen, I'm not interested in baby bonuses.
They may be good, they may be bad, but they are
something for which our people must pay. I am
only interested in the life-blood of this country,
which permits individuals to make a living. Let's
assume that a fisherman with four children under
16 receives $288 baby bonus. What good is it to
him if our marketing system is gone? The price
of fish falls, and he receives only $5 a quintal
where he might have received $10 on say 100
quintals of fish. I am confident that at the moment
we enter confederation our Fisheries Board, our
whole system of marketing that has been built up
at considerable cost by the government, will be
demolished overnight, and that we will have the
chaotic experience of the early twenties and the
early thirties, when so many of our people are
depending on this for a livelihood. Let's go back
again to last September and October. The catch
for 1947 was roughly 1.1 million quintals, and I
am sure that if the $7 million had not been used
to make exchange available, and if we hadn't had
the system of marketing that we have today, the
price of fish would have fallen at least $5 and
might have been on sale. Let's assume it dropped
$5 — $5.5 million, gentlemen, that was our baby
bonus gone overboard right away.
All this being so, I cannot see what we can
possibly gain from federal union with Canada.
We may even lose many of the advantages we
now have. To summarise, gentlemen, it is my
firm and considered opinion that under union
with Canada we will bring about the following:
the abolition of the Newfoundland Fisheries
Board; two, the abolition of compulsory inspection and control of exports which have
been so
beneficial in the last few years; three, the bait
system as a government facility, as the province
could not afford to maintain the cost; four, we
would be under the dictates of Ottawa with regard
to the export of our fresh fish; five, we would be
deprived of the power to negotiate our own trade
agreements with any country, and particularly
with the USA which could be so essential to our
economy today; six, we would lose assistance
from England in our current fish arrangements,
thus running a great risk of losing our European
markets; seven, the loss of the use of our surplus
for anything by way of subsidy, particularly if we
wish to use it for subsidising exchange as was
done last fall. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in
view of this I say honestly, I feel this very
definitely, I say to you all and to the country,
think and think well before we vote to enter union
with Canada.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make
a few remarks on the proposals now before the
Chair. Having had the honour of being a member
of the Ottawa delegation I think that with the
knowledge gained during our stay in Canada I
can speak with a certain degree of assurance and
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1193
confidence on these proposals. I'd like to say that
during my recent visit to Twillingate, and during
1947 I was there about three weeks of the year, I
found in the minds of some of the people a certain
amount of confusion. I hope that I shall be able
in some way to bring some order to the minds of
those who were confused. Personally I consider
these proposed arrangements good, and do not
see how we can afford to turn them down. I am a
pro-confederate. If we turn down these arrangements that the Canadian government has
submitted to us, what have we to substitute for them?
Canada is enjoying a marked degree of
prosperity, has a record of savings accounts,
plentiful employment there and business is
booming. It is, as has already been said, one of
the most fortunate countries in the world. And if
we cannot manage to do it with Canada at our
back, however are we going to do it by ourselves?
There are people today who question our ability
to stand alone. They remember the time was
when we had to look for somebody to assist us.
At that time Great Britain came to our help — for
which we should never be too thankful, and
which we should never forget.... Mr. Chairman,
unless we have Great Britain or Canada at our
back, how long shall we be able to go alone? That
is the question that is uppermost in the minds of
some of the people today. They realise as I do that
we are a small number of people, a small number
of producers in a large area, and with a considerable amount of our area cut off during
the winter
months with consequent loss of employment. I
know on the other hand that our geographical
position is a strategic one, and Canada realises
that as well. There are people who live in the
outports, and the life is quite different than here
in the city. I represent an outport district, and I
know the conditions under which our people out
there had to live. I do not think that the British
government made any mistake when they had a
proviso in electing members to this Convention
that they had to reside in the district for which
they were elected. I hope that when we get back
our government there will be some such proviso,
so that the majority of outport districts will not be
represented by people who live in St. John's and
the Avalon Peninsula. How do you think the
people in St. John's would like to be represented
by a man living down in White Bay? It is
preposterous to think of it....
Our economy is a limited economy. Our gross
national earning power is far lower than the
Canadian earning power. And I wonder how long
our surplus is going to last us. I don't think any
member of this Convention has prophesied how
long our surplus is going to last, and what we're
going to do when that surplus is gone. In my
opinion, we just can't do for the great majority of
our people what we would like to do, and give
them the things that we would like to give them.
We can't close our eyes to economic factors. My
advice to the members of this Convention is to
examine these terms dispassionately, cooly and
in the light of economics. We are a small number
of people, yet we are a proud and sturdy race. But
on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I do not see why
we should always want to remain independent
and isolated, particularly when there is a neighbour that's been good to us, Canada,
these last
few years — what would we have done if we
hadn't got them? Only last fall, as far as I understand we wanted 60,000 sacks of
flour. We sent
up to Canada; the request was granted.
Mr. Cashin They charged us double what they
should have.
Mr. Ashbourne Well, they've given to England
what England certainly deserved after what she's
gone through.... Canada has certainly backed her
up, and certainly has done her share in order to
help out the old country, that has been
demolished and bore the brunt, and marched to
victory for civilisation. Now surely the 12 million
people in Canada can't be wrong in the nine
provinces when they joined up together. And as
far as I'm concerned, the form of government
which worked for 12 million people will work for
12,327,000, if the people of Newfoundland
decide to go in there. We would then have a
country where our young men could go when the
fishery was over in the fall of the year, particularly if the fishery was poor; they
could go from
Halifax to Vancouver and earn other monies
rather than be unemployed. The whole range of
Canadian cities would be open for them. And if
some of them want to go there and settle down,
and make homes like a lot of Newfoundlanders
have, who are we to say that they shouldn't? ....
Now we are dependent on Great Britain and
Canada to help to defend our shores. We haven't
got a submarine or a warship of our own. But we
have the men, and the men in the past have played
1194 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
their part nobly for defence of empire. It has been
said by some member here that we may have a
war at any time. Perhaps we may. And we realise
that these countries have recognised the strategic
position of Newfoundland; and not only that, the
great United States of America has bases here in
Newfoundland. These bases are part of a plan of
defense for the western hemisphere. I don't think
that Canada is going to make any move as regards
these American bases, particularly as it works in
with their scheme of defense....
Now I know that time is running short, and it
is not my intention to go through all these terms
which have been fully explained by Mr.
Smallwood. Members have had as much explanation on these terms as probably they want.
But there are a few points that I would like to
touch on, such as the slight change in our form of
taxation, and in the manner of raising taxes,
which may have to be made if we become a
province of Canada. But we must not assume that
because we have been accustomed to a certain
way of taxation for 100 years of so, that that way
is according to the law of the Medes and Persians
and cannot be changed. If it is in the interest of
the masses of the people for a change to be made,
then certainly it should be made. Very few people
know exactly how much taxes they're paying. I
doubt it.... Personally I can't say what taxes I'm
paying. All I know, according to the last budget
speech that was delivered, is that 54% of our
revenue was collected through the Customs,
something over $20 million. Under these terms
it's estimated that we shall be paying $2 million.
According to that, there would be a saving of $18
million. Well, suppose we do have to find ... new
taxation of $5-6 million. Well, aren't we saving
a considerable amount then?
Mr. Ashbourne Yes that's right, there is a profit
on the duty. Now the people who have to go to
the bank and get the money to pay into the
government chest, they're not going to get that
money from the bank without interest. And if
they have money of their own, well, their money
is generally able to earn some interest. That's
how the world is run. These people can't really
be expected to take their money and pay the
government without getting a certain profit on it.
But if they don't have to make that outlay on
government duties, then they can't make a profit
on it. And it's quite clear that the cost of living
will come down, and people will have then more
money to spend.
Now so far as I am aware, no province has
seceded from the Canadian confederation. There
are nine provinces and not one of them has
seceded. If things were so bad in Canada why
is it that one of the provinces has not left? During
my stay in Canada I questioned a captain of one
of the boats in which I was travelling, and I asked,
"What about all this talk we hear down in Newfoundland sometimes, that you people,
not being
satisfied with confederation, would like to get out
of it?" "Sir," he said, "I never heard talk of it." ....
Do you think that Canada would send an army
down here to keep us in confederation if we
wanted to get out of it? I think it would be the
other way around.... In union is strength. I believe
that some real and marked increases in the money
that the people would have in their pockets would
ensue as a result of confederation. And if Newfoundland, after her surplus was used
up ...
[1]
naturally, being a part of Canada, we would know
where to look in order to get help. We have a
tremendous overhead in Newfoundland. We
have the trappings of an elephant and the back of
a cat.
Somebody has remarked that the terms might
be improved. But I read here in Prime Minister
King's letter that the government could not readily contemplate any change in these
arrangements
which would impose larger financial burdens on
Canada. We know that the economy of a country
can change very quickly. We have been very
fortunate in Newfoundland these last few years,
in that millions of dollars have come in here from
Canada and from the United States of America.
We have had good prices for our fish, and the
result is that we have built up a surplus. But let
us not forget that we are spending this year about
$40 million. How long can we go on spending
such a sum of money as that? It is only for the
price of fish to drop and of certain other basic
commodities, for the beginnings of a depression
to start again. We are dependent upon world
markets and dependent upon countries overseas
to take our products, in Europe and the West
Indies as regards the fishery, and America to take
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1195
our paper — we are very fortunate in being able
to sell America paper, because it gives us a lot of
American dollars. We know that Canada has a
shortage of American dollars, that does not
reflect any weakness in Canada, nor would it
reflect any particular strength in Newfoundland
because she happened to have a surplus of
American dollars. It's only a matter of having
goods available which America wants and can
take. How do we know that we can get these
terms extended, if we turn them down now? If
there's any doubt about being able to get better
terms, then why not ask our government? There's
been a lot of talk about governments negotiating
instead of members of a delegation, so why not
ask the Commission of Government to inquire
and see whether or not Canada can improve upon
the terms, and then we'd know for sure.
We would be part of a bigger country should
we join up with Canada, and it is thought by some
that within five years there may be economic
union between Canada and America I am not one
who thinks that Newfoundland would stand
much of a chance of getting economic terms from
America separately from Canada. The Bond-
Blaine treaty proved that to us.... Is it reasonable
to think that America would do for Newfoundland and her people what she wouldn't be
prepared to do with her largest customer —
Canada? How far could Newfoundland get with
the Bond-Blaine treaty when Canada stepped in
and said, "What about our fishermen? What are
you going to do for our fishermen?" And surely
she had had as much right to look after the rights
of her fishermen as the Newfoundland government had to look after the rights of hers?
If there
is any economic union coming between Canada
and the States, we, if we were part of Canada,
would certainly come in under it at that time.
Now, sir, if we can now barely balance our
budget, what are we to expect except deficits and
borrowing when the sunny days are over and our
surplus reduced, and economic storms and world
depressions beset our path? If our people now,
with high revenues and high prices for paper, fish
and minerals, can only moderately get along, how
are they going to get along unless we can reduce
taxation by ourselves? We have in Labrador
tremendous resources, but unfortunately we in
Newfoundland haven't the capital to develop
them. Look at the three big companies which
operate in Newfoundland now — the AND Company, Bowaters and the Buchans Mining Company,
how much of their capital came from
outside? We have to look for outside capital to
come in and help to develop these great natural
resources. Some people consider that confederation is inevitable in time, but I say
why not now?
It has been said by Mr. Smallwood that we're
about the size of a small city, split up into 1,300
communities. We have to find the communications, transport and facilities to run Newfoundland
and give our people as good services
as we possibly can. As I said before, if we can't
do it with the millions that Canada is prepared to
give us, however are we going to do it by ourselves? Some people are just waiting
for the time to
come to mark their ballots for confederation.
Now, sir, as regards provincial government
taxes. We realise that if we become a province
we shall have a smaller revenue then we have at
the present time. But what will that mean? That
will mean of necessity a closer watch on how
these taxes are expended. We have had to cut the
garment according to the cloth. And if taxes were
raised clearly and squarely, no doubt they will be
well spent because the people will take an interest
in how they are being spent when they know
exactly what taxes they are paying. I maintain the
people do not know exactly how much taxes they
are paying, except as a gross sum when we get
the budget at the end of the fiscal year. I have
reason to believe that a closer scrutiny will be
exercised by our people and a closer watch on
expenditure. If fairly applied and wisely spent,
true value will be received by our people.... The
government is put in the saddle by the people but
the people are the final masters.
It has been said here that it would be criminal
to accept these proposals. I can't understand that
reasoning. Do members think ... that Canada
would submit anything to us that would be
criminal to accept? Nonsense! Now, if we join up
with Canada, we would be within the great
British Empire. I believe that we would make a
tremendous amount of progress with Canada.
The difference in the per capita debt of Canada
and Newfoundland has been spoken of: yes, there
is quite a difference. But look at the resources of
the two countries, see them as you come across
them, the broad expanse of Canada from the
Atlantic to the Pacific. Look at her resources. The
1196 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
United States with a population of almost ten
times that of Canada has a greater per capita debt;
and England has a bigger per capita debt than
either Canada or the United States. But does that
say they'll ever default as we did? They can raise
their loans and get along. We know that in
England there had to be an austerity programme.
but we know something of the great fight she
put up and what she's gone through. I believe that
if we join up with Canada that there will be more
Canadian tourists coming down here. That is a
thing we want — more tourists. We have a
wonderful climate here. Those of us who were
members of the Ottawa delegation know something of the heat that is experienced up
there, and
what a relief it would be to get out and get down
to a place like Newfoundland in the summer time;
and these people have the money. We saw their
cars up there, cars from the States coming down
through Canada — tourists spending their
American money. I believe that they'd come to
Newfoundland too, enjoy our climate, our natural
beauty and our fishing. But we want a road joined
up with the Humber valley, and if we become a
province of Canada, we can make a national park
over there somewhere, and Canada keeps up the
roads in national parks. I believe that with this
ferry that the Canadian government will put on
the Gulf to bring across the cars to Newfoundland, that there will be a lot of Canadian
and
American money coming into Newfoundland....
[1]
Now the question is can we do that ourselves?
Mr. Crosbie this afternoon has spoken about
the fisheries. I would like to refer to the fisheries
as well. It was a very sad thing that happened
when we were in Ottawa this year, the death of
the Hon. Frank Bridges, who was Minister of
Fisheries for Canada.... It was certainly very
pleasant to meet such a man.... I believe that we
would have had quite a bit more information
about the fisheries if it hadn't been for the death
of Mr. Bridges. I would like to read from information that has been placed on the
desks of
members.... It says here that the "Deputy Minister
of Fisheries pointed out that there was in Canada
a growing movement in support of regulatory
measures of the type enforced in Newfoundland.
The establishment of the Canadian Fisheries
Price Support Board which would be set up shortly (by the way, sir, that has now been
set up)
would have considerable influence and it might
be expected that federal policy would evolve in
the direction of the measures already adopted in
Newfoundland. Mr. St. Laurent stated that it
could be provided in the terms of union that
fisheries legislation presently enforced in Newfoundland would remain in force until
amended
or repealed by the appropriate legislative
authority." I understand that all laws that are on
the statute book in Newfoundland at the time of
union remain operative and are still the laws of
the province until they are repealed or amended,
"The federal government," it goes on to say,
"would not be disposed to interfere with the
system presently in effect in Newfoundland, unless it proposed to introduce legislation
which
would represent an improvement over present
regulations, and therefore would not be likely to
repeal Newfoundland legislation in order to
remove a regulatory system which had proven
beneficial. The Newfoundland fishing industry
must reasonably be informed that it need anticipate nothing prejudicial in this respect
as a
result of union with Canada."
Mr. Ashbourne This was Mr. St. Laurent in one
of the plenary sessions at our conferences in
Ottawa this summer.
Mr. Chairman Well, I thought you might be
able to read that...
Mr. Smallwood Yes there is a clause and I'll
point it out to you.... Here it is, section 23, subsection 2, the continuation of
Newfoundland
laws, courts, commissions, authorities such as the
Fisheries Board, etc., until altered by the appropriate authority and as to altering
them...what
did Mr. St. Laurent say?
Mr. Ashbourne "The Newfoundland fishing
industry might reasonably be informed that it
need anticipate nothing prejudicial in this respect
as a result of union with Canada."
Mr. Chairman What does section 4 of these
comments say, Mr. Ashbourne?
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1197
Mr. Crosbie As I have it here, sir, Mr. St.
Laurent stated that it could be provided in terms
of union, that the fishery legislation in force in
Newfoundland remain in force.
Mr. Smallwood Well it's not only that law, but
all laws stay as they are until altered. And as to
altering them, we have the statement there that
the fisheries trade can be reassured, the Fishery
Board and the fishery regulations will not be
abolished. Clear as daylight... Maybe for Mr.
Crosbie's benefit, Mr. Ashbourne wouldn't mind
reading the whole minute, it's a minute of a
plenary session.
Mr. Ashbourne "Mr. St. Laurent stated that it
could be provided in the terms of union that
fisheries legislation presently enforced in Newfoundland would remain in force until
amended
or repealed by the appropriate legislative
authorities. The federal government would not be
disposed to interfere with the system presently in
effect in Newfoundland unless it proposed to
introduce legislation which would represent an
improvement over present regulation; and therefore would not be likely to repeal Newfoundland
legislation in order to remove a regulatory system
which has proven beneficial. The Newfoundland
fishing industry might reasonably be informed
that it need anticipate nothing prejudicial in this
respect as a result of union with Canada."
Now, sir, I would like to read certain excerpts
from ... the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944....
There shall be under the direction of the
Minister a Fisheries Prices Support Board
consisting of not more than five members...
The powers of the Board: (a) for the purpose
of this act the Board shall, subject to and in
accordance with the regulations of the
Governor in Council, have authority to
prescribe from time to time prices at which
the Board may purchase fisheries products;
(b) to purchase directly or by means of agents
at such prices any fishery product, if such
product on inspection meets standards as to
the grade and policy prescribed....; (c) pay to
the producer of the fisheries product directly,
or through such agents as the board may
determine the difference between the price
prescribed by the Board ... and the average as
determined by the Board ...
[1] store, ship,
transport or export directly or by means of
agents any fisheries product; (f) to enter into
contracts, or appoint agents to do anything
authorised under this act; (g) to purchase at
market or at contract prices and export any
fisheries product under any contract or agreement between His Majesty in right Canada
and any other government or agency thereof...; (h) to purchase at the request of any
department of the Government of Canada
any fisheries product required by such
department; (i) to appoint commodity boards
or other agents to undertake the purchase and
the disposition of fisheries products provided
that any boards appointed under this paragraph shall include representatives of the
primary producers; (j) to appoint a committee
or committees...
Mr. Smallwood I wonder if Mr. Ashbourne
would permit me just for a moment. Does Mr.
Ashbourne, and do the other members of the
delegation, recall how it was pointed out that
under that very subsection that Mr. Ashbourne
has just read, where the Fish Prices Support
Board of Canada may set up commodity boards,
that the Newfoundland Fisheries Board might
well be a commodity board of the Fish Prices
Support board?
Mr. Cashin If it is changed to a fish prices
commodity board, it won't be allowed to function
like it does now.
Mr. Smallwood Function, actually function as
now within the Fish Prices Support Board.
Mr. Ashbourne Yes, Mr. Chairman, I maintain
that that is the idea.
Mr. Smallwood The Fish Prices Support Board
is federal and it may appoint other boards
throughout Canada. In the case of Newfoundland, we already have a board, the Fisheries
Board could be the commodity board for Newfoundland under the Fish Prices Support
Board
of Canada.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, as far as I can
gather in Canada they are most favourably impressed by what the Newfoundland Fisheries
Board has accomplished. And as has already
been related by Mr. Crosbie, they sent a delega
1198 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1984
tion here from some of the fish producing provinces, probably two of them, Nova Scotia
I know
was represented...
Mr. Ashbourne Four of them last fall, to confer
with the Fisheries Board and certain others and I
believe that they may possibly be taking our
Board as a pattern. I believe the Fisheries Board
has done a good job, and taking that as a pattern,
there will be evolved everything necessary for the
orderly marketing of the fish catches of Nova
Scotia and the other provinces. This, as I would
like to explain, is an act which was drawn up in
order to stabilise prices if the need arose, and to
give the primary producer reasonable and proper
return for his fishery product. If on account of
conditions in the markets the catch couldn't be
disposed of, they would see that the fishermen
did not suffer. The Board has the power to go in
and buy the fish and then dispose of it and if
necessary deficits can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Someone asked
me a
question, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the
Canadian government marketed the apple crop
from Canada and put certain prices on it at which
they paid the man who got the apples. And then
they went and they marketed them, and I believe
gave some of them to England.
Mr. Ashbourne They gave some of them, and
saw to it that the man who produced them didn't
suffer. That is the idea behind this Fisheries Support Act. That rather than the producers
should
suffer, they would buy the whole catch if necessary...
Mr. Ashbourne And if they couldn't market it
properly they could go to work and dispose of it
and any deficit would be paid out of the consolidated revenue account.
The Board may use money appropriated
by Parliament for the purpose to pay all
necessary administrative expenses... Expenditures for the purposes of this Act, other
than
administrative expenses, shall be paid by the
Minister of Finance on the requisition of the
Board out of unappropriated monies in the
Consolidated Revenue Fund... There shall
be kept by the Minister of Finance an account
called the Fisheries Prices Support Act, to
which shall be charged all expenditures by
the Board other then the aforesaid administrative expenditures, and to which shall
be credited all proceeds of sales of fisheries
products...
Such, Mr. Chairman, is a gist of the act for the
support of the prices of fishery products during
the transition from war to peace. It was passed in
1944 and it became operative I believe in September, 1947....
I feel that there are a lot of Newfoundlanders
living in Canada who would like to see us join up
with Canada. That was the sentiment that was
expressed to me by quite a few that I met during
the past summer. We realise that if we go into
Canada we shall have those social benefits which
Canada is giving her people — the family allowances, which to my mind are good and
very
beneficial. It puts the money right in the hands of
the people who need it most, and I certainly can't
see anything wrong about that. It would give our
aged people, to whom Newfoundland doesn't
give the old age pension now until they get 75 ...
the pension at the age of 70. We would be able to
participate in these benefits.
Now, sir, it has been mentioned here about the
sales tax. I believe that the income tax has been
already reduced a couple of times
Mr. Ashbourne Three times in Canada. And it
is currently thought that the sales tax will be the
next tax to be cut. At present it is 8%. We realise
that at the present time prices are inflated. A few
years ago, when I had the honour to have a seat
in the Assembly, we were trying to run the
country on about $9 million and of course it
couldn't be done. We just had to go out and
borrow money, year after year. There were a
good many deficits, and after a while, when our
credit gave out and we couldn't borrow anymore,
we lost our government. These family allowances alone are estimated to bring in about
$8
million, over 50 years, $400 million.
Mr. Cashin But are we assured that they're not
going to cut that out?
Mr. Ashbourne We have no assurance that
they're not going to cut it out...
Mr. Cashin You are so sure that they are going
to reduce taxation, but you have no assurance
they won't.
Mr. Ashbourne ....We know that $8 million for
50 years is $400 million, and that's been practi
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1199
cally our total revenue according to Finance
Committee, $400 million in the last 50 years.
Mr. Cashin Suppose they cut it out in two years'
time.
Mr. Ashbourne If they cut it out then the taxes
will be less, and our people will benefit that way.
But there's no evidence that family allowances
will be cut out.
Mr. Smallwood Family allowances, cut them
out? Why, the government that tried would cut its
own throat from ear to ear. They're not going to
do it with their eyes open.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, if we go into
confederation we shall be transferring certain
powers to Canada, but we shall be reserving
others to ourselves. There can be no fear of our
losing the Labrador. The responsible government
of Newfoundland one time offered to sell the
Labrador, twice. I hope they don't try it again....
We want the tremendous wealth of Labrador, but
we in Newfoundland haven't got the capital ourselves to develop it.
Mr. Ashbourne Canada and the States can help
to develop the Labrador. That's what I maintain.... And I believe that were we to
join up with
Canada and become a province more Canadian
money would be forthcoming to help develop
Labrador. There can be no doubt at all of our
ownership of Labrador.
I would like to refer briefly to the benefits
which war veterans would receive. I've already
enumerated them. The great benefit is the war
veterans' allowance, by which a qualified veteran
when he attains the age of 60 may get an allowance for himself and for his wife, and
for the
widow of a war veteran at the age of 55. If he is
incapacitated and unable to earn before he
reaches the age of 60, he may be able to get
something then. This is a great thing for the war
veterans of Newfoundland.... We know that the
benefits extended to veterans by Canada were
extra good. Provision was given for fishermen on
provincial lands, whereby they would get a grant,
which they didn't have to repay, of $2,320. We
in Newfoundland allowed them $700.
We're told that within eight years ... we'll
have a royal commission to assess the whole
picture of Newfoundland. It seems to me that
Canada might have made a mistake in the premature withdrawal of price controls. We
know that
when controls and rationing are removed, there
generally follows inflationary pressure. Rapid
spending sometimes is the result when controls
come off. The shortage of American dollars does
not mean that Canada is financially or fundamentally weak. We recognise that the trend
of the
times is for greater union. Look at the British
West Indies at the present time, see how they are
beginning to confederate, how they are joining up
and seeing how they can pool their resources and
work together. We in Newfoundland have no
control over export markets. Years ago, and in the
depression, our exports dropped from about $39
million to $23 million, and our fish exports
dropped from $15 million to $6 million. Some
people wonder when this economic recession
may start again. The ebb and flow of trade is after
all — trade is a two-way street so to speak. It's a
one-way street going backwards with traffic
going and coming on it. And we know that over
in Europe they want our fish and they must
naturally be able to give us something that we can
use to convert into the means of buying what we
require This was amply provided this fall when
the difficulty of sterling exchange became most
acute. Fortunately, we had the money on the other
side and the Commission negotiated and the
result has been a great thing for our fishermen.
We have other years ahead to look forward to,
and we have to realise that in this matter of trade
we are, so to speak, one world. We are dependent
one upon the other. This was amply exemplified
this year when it was explained that our sale of
fish in Spain depends upon the United Kingdom
taking Spanish oranges. For awhile the sales were
held up but finally, when Great Britain bought
these oranges from Spain, it gave the Spanish
some sterling in order to buy our fish. While we
are dependent upon these markets in Europe and
elsewhere, we realise what a great economic
question is before us. We realise how these
economic forces work, and that they, when not
properly controlled, are the means of starting
depressions. We are benefitting from the result of
war prices. The inflated prices of the war are still
in effect, they've not yet subsided. Peoples of the
world are trying to settle down in a changing
world, and we know that after the last war a sharp
collapse in prices resulted in many failures. Export prices for fish were cut in half
between 1920
and 1923.... Relief was required in quite a few
1200 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
places. I maintain that when prices get back to
normal, we can't reasonably expect 325,000
people to keep on raising $40 million in taxes.
The progress of a country is limited to the amount
of money the people can earn. As a government
we shall want to balance our budget, or as near
as possible. We realise that the amount of money
that Canada is prepared to give us over the first
12 years of union will be a help in trying to get
the provincial form of government operative,
providing that the Newfoundland people decide
to enter into confederation. Our surplus can be
used if necessary for certain things which would
help our province. There is a provision that a
certain amount of it has to be put on interest. This
surplus will be a great help to Newfoundland
because there are certain things which we need
to have done. We want a further extension of our
road programme. We shall have certain other
needs which will be evident from time to time. I
don't fear any great difficulty to arise from the
change in taxation if we enter the Canadian confederation. We're going in with a country
which
is a big and wealthy country. The fact that Canada
has got a seat on the United Nations Security
Council this year proves that it is not immature
politically; but that it is attaining full maturity
amongst nations. I had the honour myself of
attending one of the sessions last fall when I
happened to be in New York. I went to the United
Nations meeting. It was quite an experience. I
found that the afternoon when I was there the
committee on Palestine was meeting for its first
session, and all the seats which were ordinarily
available for visitors had been occupied....
Mr. Cashin I don't think the United Nations
Council has anything to do with this discussion,
and there are other speakers to comment.
Mr. Chairman Which is a point well taken, Mr.
Ashboume. Frankly, I can't see what possible
connection there can be between the meeting on
Palestine affairs to which you refer and the business before the Chair.
Mr. Ashbourne Sir, I was just going to say that
I was at that meeting of the United Nations in
order to counteract the remark that Canada was
immature politically. Canada today is the third
largest trading nation.... Her aid to Europe has
been greater than even that of the great United
States itself.
It has been mentioned here about the duty
that's put on pork and beef coming into Canada
from the States. Does any member think here that
the cows that grow in the States are better then
the cows that grow in Canada? Or the pigs that
grow in the States are better then the pigs that
grow in Canada? No. Years gone by, sir, I saw
some of these animals slaughtered myself in the
Canada Packers plant in Toronto, put out in huge
quarters, some of them put out in cuts for the
Royal York Hotel. Now it's only reasonable to
think that there would be some protection granted
to Canada on pork and beef coming in there, and
I think ... that if we could get all the beef that we
want in Canada, there won't be very much coming in from the States at a duty of $4
a barrel.
Flour is being subsidised to a certain extent in
Canada, with the result that the Canadian people
are paying less for flour than we are. Flour at $20
a barrel in Newfoundland, it's quite an item, quite
an item. I believe also that they're paying a
subsidy on soap. You can buy a cake of soap in
Canada for 8 cents.... Somebody said the other
day there was 126 taxes on a pair of shoes...
[1]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Ashbourne, I'd like to address myself to members generally on two points.
One is, I would like members to be as brief as
they possibly can. The time is running out and
I'm not going to permit a filibuster. I'll stop that,
if I have to put the closure motion... I've withheld this motion for 48 hours in order
to permit
members who had not had the opportunity of
addressing themselves on the matter to be afforded the opportunity of so doing....
I have to ask
members, will they please at this stage make their
remarks as terse and as brief as possible, bearing
in mind the fact that there are a number of members who have not had the opportunity
of speaking, and again bearing in mind that my purpose
in deferring this motion is going to be defeated if
one member is going to occupy the floor to the
exclusion of other members who are entitled to
equal treatment.
The next point, is a request that I want to make,
and it arises out of some remarks made by Mr.
Smallwood before we went into committee this
afternoon, when he directed my attention to the
fact that the Hon. R.B. Job would like to speak in
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1201
the matter.... My position is simply this, and I
have to appeal to the generosity of members. Mr.
Job has been very ill, and I know what I'm talking
about because his doctor brought the question
before me since Mr. Job insisted that he was
going to come into this House contrary to his
doctor's instructions, when he shouldn't attempt
to walk across the sueet. I called on Mr. Job and
pointed out to him what a great risk he was
taking.... I felt it my duty to communicate with
him as a result of the remarks that were made by
Mr. Smallwood this afternoon, and Mr. Job intimated that his doctor may allow him
to appear
for a few minutes when the evening session
begins. As far as I'm concerned, I'm prepared to
sit here until 3 or 4 o'clock tomorrow morning on
condition that Mr. Job should be permitted to
speak. He isn't going to speak very long, and it's
my intention to ask him to remain in his seat. I
think having regard to all the attendant circumstances the House will endorse my action.
I
have no power, of course, to take the floor away
from the speaker. But I would appeal to your
good nature, gentlemen, and ask you that should
it develop that the Hon. Mr. Job is permitted by
his doctor to attend the evening session for a few
minutes, would the member who then has the
floor be good enough to yield it for a few moments, so that Mr. Job may be able to
express
himself briefly on the question.... It may very well
be that we would be doing a great kindness in
enabling Mr. Job to discharge a duty which has
been troubling him now for some two weeks.
Therefore I ask the member who may be occupying the floor at 8 o'clock, would he kindly
consider yielding to Mr. Job when he comes.... I
assure you the circumstances are very urgent....
Would you be good enough to go ahead, Mr.
Ashboume.
Mr. Ashbourne Mr. Chairman, I want it distinctly understood that I am not a party to any
filibuster. I don't believe in any such tactics.... I
think that you will admit, and members will
admit, that I haven't taken up a very great amount
of time in this Convention.
Mr. Ashbourne Others have come in here, and
for days have gone on. I've sat here and listened
to them, and any day that I've been in my seat
here I haven't left, with the exception of answering three phone calls, not for a
minute.
Mr. Chairman That's perfectly true Mr. Ashbourne, perfectly true.
Mr. Ashbourne I've been speaking a little over
an hour. I realise that members probably would
like to have some explanation from me as regards
the fact that I was a member of this Ottawa
delegation. Sir, I don't intend to take up much
more time. I shall be a happy man when it's over
and done with, and when our work is finished and
I can go back to settle down to some real work. I
am fond of Newfoundland and of its people, the
men and women and the boys and girls. For our
children we want to plan what we consider the
best. Our people deserve the very best, and nothing short of this can adequately satisfy
their
aspirations or bring them prosperity and lasting
happiness.
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, for a great many days
and weeks we have been listening to the arguments in favour of confederation by the
member
for Bonavista Centre, which arguments have
been based on the offer contained in the books
sent here by the Canadian government. I want to
congratulate the member for Bonavista Centre,
who in his own masterly manner has explained
the meaning and the application of these terms. I
must confess that to me Mr. Smallwood is a
magician with words, and I have listened to him
repeating and repeating the points that he wanted
to stress and to be remembered by the radio
audience. And he has shown the same ability to
side-step and gloss over the shaded and dark spots
that for his purpose might best remain hidden and
ignored. Mr. Smallwood, by his ability to outtalk
and outguess any member here, has usually had
the last word time and again. He has drawn one
or other of us away from our point that he did not
wish to discuss, and then having his opponent in
deep water, so to speak, he has proceeded to
drown him by something irrelevant to the case in
point. Mr. Smallwood has reminded me of a
French chef who, with a few scraps of leftovers,
can combine them and with a little flavour make
it appear a dish for a king. But unfortunately, in
this instance, it is not the appearance that matters,
much less Mr. Smallwood's ability to debate it.
We cannot live in a beautiful picture or a fantastic
dream, because we do not live in a land of make-
believe. We live in a hard world, where facts and
not debates are the most important things.
A few days ago in the papers, there was an
1202 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
account of a trial of a famous Dutch painter. This
man was on trial for collaboration with the Germans when they were in Holland. He
was accused of selling to them some of the world's
famed Dutch paintings. His defense was that the
paintings were not genuine, but were all fake.
Experts were called in, not Canadian experts, to
express their opinion, and experts agreed that the
paintings in question were genuine, 200 to 300
years old. The accused Dutchman was in a tough
spot. In order to clear himself he dumbfounded
the experts by showing how he did it; how he
mixed the paint to make them seem 100 years old,
and how he prepared the canvas to give it an aged
appearance. And before the eyes of the experts
he showed that the pictures, supposed to be
genuine, were really fake pictures; and while he
himself was a faker, that those who believed the
pictures were genuine fools to have been taken
in.
I am not insinuating in any way that our good
member for Bonavista Centre is a faker — far
from it. But I do think that the picture is comparable inasmuch as what seems to be
a genuine
thing to many people, when closely examined is
not genuine at all. There have been times since
this Canadian business has been debated and as I
listened to Mr. Smallwood's description of
Canada, I have wondered if it were not some
never-never land that he was talking about, or the
lost Atlantis that some of the poets have written
about. Mr. Smallwood's description of that
country leaves an overall picture of a present-day
Utopia, where the sun shines every day and
where everyone goes singing on his way. One is
reminded of Mr. Macaulay's rhyme that we
learned in our school books:
Where the rich men help the poor,
And the poor men loved the great,
Where the spoils were fairly portioned,
And the lands were fairly sold,
And all men lived like brothers,
In the great days of old.
But unfortunately we are not living in the great
days of old. We are living in an age that can best
be described in terms of dollars and cents rather
then in poems. And the issue before us here in
Newfoundland is whether we want to have
another country take us over, or whether we want
to go on being Newfoundlanders.
There are certain indisputable facts which I
did not manufacture. They are published by the
Canadian government, and these facts we must
bear in mind in connection with this confederation, because they have a most serious
impact on
our position as part of Canada. In 1945,
2,365,000 people paid income tax in Canada. On
a per capita basis, an average of one person in
every family in Canada, that amounts to $288 per
person. A single person earning $750 a year up
and pays income tax...
Mr. Reddy A single person earning $750 per
year.
Mr. Reddy I didn't say any year. You can go to
your books...
Mr. Smallwood No, you were quoting some
figures for some year, what year?
Mr. Reddy In this country a single person has
to earn $1,000 before he's subject to income tax.
According to the Canadian index from which I
give these figures, in 1945 the federal government collected in taxes an average of
$142 per
capita. This you will please note does not include
the various provincial and town taxes, which are
numerous and add up to a large figure per person.
In Newfoundland in 1945, the per capita tax
collected by our government amounted to $115
per person, or just about a quarter of the amount
collected by the Candian federal government.
And please bear in mind, that outside of St.
John's and the other places where there are town
councils, there are no additional taxes in Newfoundland. Now apart from the federal
tax in
Canada the provinces imposed additional taxes,
and there are I believe eight of these taxes, the
most important ones being gasoline tax, liquor
tax, corporation tax, public domain tax and the
Dominion of Canada subsidies system. Referring
to the liquor tax, I am very much afraid that under
confederation our good old Newfoundland
screech would even be taxed. During the past
year I have been meeting and talking to quite a
few Canadian businessmen and others here in St.
John's, and I have been inquiring about the tax
situation in Canada. They relate a long litany of
taxes, some of which I never have heard before,
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1203
such as school tax, road tax, stock tax, sales tax,
so by the time they are finished they leave me
wondering if they are talking about the same
country that my good friend the member for
Bonavista Centre has been telling us about.
Maybe these Canadians to whom I have been
talking are all wrong, and maybe they only think
they are being taxed, and maybe Mr. Smallwood
is right, but I am satisfied that they can't both be
right. That is something you have to decide for
yourselves. The gentleman for Bonavista Centre
reminds me of a tourist who visits another town
or country and then comes back and tells the local
boys of the marvellous sights he has seen, and the
beautiful things he has encountered, and how
everything is so much better than in the old home
town. It reminds me of an old saying, the grass is
always greener in the other fellow's yard.
The good member is like an individual who is
called a barker, who stands in front of a tent at a
circus and has a very convincing story to tell you.
He tells you that for 25 cents, if you will just step
inside, you will see some wonderful things. I
don't mind admitting that I visited Coney Island
once and I was hypnotised by this barker. I parted
with 50 cents which I could illafford to spend, but
which I thought was little for what I was going to
see. But I don't mind telling you, and I use a
common but explicit word, I was a sucker. And
since then I am inclined to be very suspicious of
any gentleman who says in effect, "Will you walk
into my parlour, said the spider to the fly." Fortunately for me, I was able to get
out of the
circumstance. But in this instance the tent we are
invited to enter has no exit, and over the door
might well be written, "Abandon hope all ye who
enter here."
I want to compliment the gentleman from
Bonavista Centre for the resourcefulness that he
has shown whenever this subject of Canadian
taxes has been brought up. In effect he's brushed
it of by saying, "Oh don't worry about this tax,
don't worry about that tax, because the federal
government will pay them for you. It does not
come out of your pocket at all. It comes out of the
pocket of the federal government." The good old
fairy godmother the federal government, whose
sole purpose of existing is apparently to throw out
gratuitously, to all her offspring, including the
Newfies, big hunks of confederate money every
time they go crying to her door. Yes, Mr. Chair
man, that is the picture that the good member for
Bonavista Centre has endeavoured to create in
the minds of the people. And I believe that he has
done a very good job. I will now digress a moment to pay a tribute to Mr. Smallwood's
ability
in this respect. I believe if it were possible for that
gentleman to descend into the inferno that the
poet Dante speaks about, and then come back
again and write and distribute his prospectus, I
am convinced that he would describe that inferno
in such glowing terms that they would be
swamped with applications for ringside seats.
Seriously, Mr. Chairman, while I am on the subject, I recommend now that if we do
not go into
confederation, that the member for Bonavista
Centre be appointed head of our tourist bureau,
because I think that a man with his imagination
can write such a glowing account of this country
that he will bring sufficient tourists here from
Canada to pay off our national debt, and convince
even Mr. Smallwood himself that we are self-
supporting.
From the Canadian people whom I have met
and talked with, and there have been many during
the past year, I know that it is not a dream world
that Mr. Smallwood would have us believe. It has
a bright side and a dark side and I think I might
glance at a few figures. Canada's population in
the last census, 1941, was 11.5 million. Most
Newfoundlanders have a hazy idea that if we
would join Canada we would be joining up with
much the same kind of people as we have in
Newfoundland, that is English, Irish, and Scotch
descendants. If you think that, you are wrong.
Fifty percent of all Canada's population are of
English, Irish and Scotch descents, and the other
fifty are French, Polish, Russian, Italian, and so
on. So that we would be really joining a foreign
power, in more ways than one. And if in the years
ahead the foreign population outgrows the people
of the British Isles, which could happen, and
these people take charge of Canada, a lot of
trouble that we never dreamed about we could be
letting ourselves and our descendants in for.
Mr. Smallwood Have you looked up the landed
immigrants in the USA?
Mr. Reddy The national debt of Canada is now
about $14 billion. The national debt of Newfoundland is about $65 million. This means
that
1204 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
every man, woman and child in Newfoundland is
liable for $220, and that every man, woman and
child in Canada is liable for $932. So that if we
join Canada we cease to have this burden of $220
around our necks, and we take on a new burden
of $922 instead. I was surprised some time ago to
hear the good member for Twillingate attempt to
say that a change from $220 to $932 was really
nothing to worry about. Since this Convention
began I have noted that no man here has shown
a more scrupulous regard for clearing expenditure, watching our surpluses and our
resources.
But suddenly the good gentleman blossoms forth
and goes on a bus, so to speak... Oh, that is a mere
bagatelle, a per capita tax of $932. Mr. Ashbourne attempted to justify it by stating
that to a
big man, or a big business, a big debt is no more
then a small debt to a small man. That may or may
not be so. But it is not so if the people of Newfoundland become bigger men, if we
enter into
confederation We will have to fish on the French
Shore, on the Labrador, or if Mr. Ashbourne
wants it nearer home, Twillingate Long Point.
And the fact that these fishermen are into confederation is not going to put any more
fish in
their traps. They are still the same fishermen,
doing the same things as before, and I doubt if
Mr. Ashbourne or anybody else will pay them
any more for a quintal fish in order to pay this
additional burden.
And now with respect to the famous baby
bonus that we've heard so much about. The
Canadian trade index says that it cost Canadians
annually $25 million in taxes to meet this allowance. This means that there is on
average a
tax of $20 per person on each man, woman and
child. If the tax were raised by taking from the
rich, it might have a Robin Hood justification.
But it is raised as part of the general revenue and
is collected in part as import duties. The poor pay
as well as the rich. This baby bonus has good
features, but like a lot of these things, we would
find out in time it has a hurtful effect as well, and
all is not gold that glitters. I could go on much
further with respect to what we would have to pay
in the shape of taxes if we became part of Canada.
As I said before, every Canadian I talked to reeled
off taxes that they have to pay. Every Canadian
government statistical book I take up is a story of
taxes and more taxes. I have come to the conclusion that as far as I can learn, compared
with
Canadians we don't know what taxation is. I am
willing to admit that in Canada they have generally better schools, better trains,
better hotels and
better public services all around. But don't let
anyone tell you that these come like manna that
fall from heaven. In a recent issue of Maclean's
Magazine, there was quite an article giving the
statistics of the number of immigrants from
Europe entering Canada. They are many
thousands annually. But the article also shows
that there are more Canadian immigrants entering the USA from Canada annually than
there are
people coming into Canada. If it is the promised
land that has been described to us, why is it that
they are leaving Canada in the thousands each
year?
Mr. Smallwood They'll be back now. It's too
dear to live in the States, prices are too high.
They're coming back.
Mr. Reddy You know, Mr. Chairman, most of
us in Newfoundland have been born and brought
up in small harbours, and a mile or so behind the
harbour are the wide open spaces. All of us during
our young days have gone into the woods and
roamed the hills and valleys, picked berries,
snared rabbits, and caught trout in the ponds. All
of us that felt that this was our country, our own
ponds, valleys and rivers. We did not have a fence
around it, and it was ours to use when we wanted.
It is a part of that freedom that we have been
brought up to in Newfoundland. If confederation
comes, my guess is that all that will change. We
will have the surveyors from Ottawa who will
have the boundary lines marked, and like you see
in Canada, there will be "No Trespassing" signs
all over the country. The laws governing what
you can and what you can't do will be far different from what they used to be, and
what they
are today. Then you will know that Newfoundland is ours no longer. I know quite well
that you cannot put a money value on this sort of
a thing. Maybe it does not feed a hungry man, but
nevertheless it is worth a lot. It is well worthwhile
holding on to. The value of this freedom that we
have known so long is something that has to be
decided by the heart and conscience of each of
us.
As we have read in the papers recently,
Canada has just had to borrow $300 million from
the USA. The chief advocate of confederation
said here some time ago that Canada was borrow
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1205
ing money because she is prosperous. This
gentleman gave a very clever explanation as to
why that is, but Mr. Chairman, you know and I
know and even the simplest child knows, that one
usually borrows money because one hasn't got it.
In this connection I read an article in the financial
section of the New York Times a couple of weeks
ago, which says that the financial position that
Canada finds herself in today is not, as Mr.
Smallwood says, because the Canadians have
been spending money lavishly, but the Canadian
government (the article says) has been on a
spending spree, and careless of public interest, so
that the government is now in the embarrassing
position of trying to find some US dollars, and is
forced to go to the USA and borrow them. That
is the financial section of the New York Times,
Mr. Smallwood to the contrary. In the Geneva
conference recently there were certain reductions
made on goods coming from the USA to Canada
to lighten the financial burden of the Canadian
taxpayer. But the same day that these tax reductions were announced, an embargo came
into
effect in Canada on various other facets of US
merchandise. So that according to the Canadian
papers, the advantages of the reductions brought
about by the Geneva conference were completely
wiped out overnight...
The Canadian terms of union have been
presented to us with the implication that they are
something that are permanent and unchangeable
and everlasting. In my own lifetime I have seen
terms and agreements among the biggest nations
amended, watered down, and even torn up when
it suited the strongest of the contracting parties.
We all know that the famous Atlantic Charter,
agreed to only six years ago by Mr. Churchill and
the late President Roosevelt at Argentia, is now
not only forgotten, but its terms are being
honoured in their breach and not in their observance. So that is were we in confederation;
when
it suited Canada, she could place a new interpretation on any clause of the agreement
that she
wanted to, and we could do nothing about it.
There would be loopholes in the agreement big
enough, as the lawyers say, to drive a horse and
buggy through. There is an old saying that
promises are made to be broken, and if we have
learned anything. we know that agreements like
promises are made to be broken. There is nothing
permanent in this world except death and taxes.
For instance, the well-known Yalta agreement
between Britain, the USA, and Russia. It was
signed by all three, and all three were agreed. But
hardly was the ink dry when they started arguing
about the meaning of this clause and that clause,
and it is generally understood now that they will
never agree on what the words of this treaty
meant. Britain and the USA say it meant one
thing, and the Russians say it meant something
entirely different. And the men who made this
treaty were, all of them, experts. And yet we are
asked to believe that seven inexperienced Newfoundlanders went to Ottawa to confer
with some
of the cleverest, keenest, financial experts, and
that our delegation was a match for the clever,
able, and political men that they met in Canada.
Surely no one can be so simple as to believe this.
And while I haven't a great deal of intelligence,
the little experience I have tells me that an
amateur is no match for a professional.
There has been, Mr. Chairman, some debate
with respect to the Privy Council decision on the
Labrador boundary. I think I'll leave that till after
I come back. It's a quarter to six.
[The committee recessed until 8 pm]
Mr. Reddy I have much pleasure, sir, in complying with your request and yielding to the Hon.
R.B. Job. I will speak after Mr. Job.
Mr. Job Mr. Chairman, I really feel very embarrassed and appreciative. I don't know what
to say,
because it was a very nice gesture indeed. I've
been confined to the house, as you know, sir,
threatened by my doctor, and I have got to obey
him. I've been listening in to everything that's
been going along, and naturally I've felt very
much out of it. I certainly didn't expect to come
back to such a sympathetic and kindly welcome,
and I very much appreciate it from both from you,
sir, and especially from Mr. Reddy who so gracefully has given me the floor.
Mr. Chairman Thank you, Mr. Job. I too would
associate myself with the enthusiastic welcome
so properly given you by members here this
evening, and I'm sure that I express the hopes of
all members, when we hope that your convalescence will be speedy and permanent. In
giving
you the floor, sir, may I respectfully suggest that
you remain seated, because it might very well
make too great a demand upon your strength
where you should speak standing up. I'd be very
1206 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
happy and pleased to hear you sitting in your seat.
Mr. Job That's very kind and thoughtful, sir,
and I think I'll probably avail myself of your
suggestion, if I may.
Mr. Job I desire to make a few remarks with
regard to the Ottawa proposals. I wish first of all
to make it absolutely clear that I'm not in principle against confederation, nor am
I an anticonfederate, as suggested since by Mr. Smallwood
to the Canadian press. I don't want to be unkind,
but that's the fact. In order to avoid any
misunderstanding as to the position I take in
connection with the confederation issue, let me
say that it was my view that unless the advantages
and disadvantages of confederation with Canada
are very clearly set forth, the electorate will not
be placed in a position to fairly weigh the issue.
And the outcome of the decision is so far-reaching and irretrievable that a snap judgement
might
be fatal for the future of our country. I doubt very
much whether the disjointed debate which has
gone out over the air from the Convention has
conveyed any idea of the true position on this
issue. In spite of the voluminous, valuable but
still very incomplete information contained in the
so-called Black Books compiled as the result of
three months' discussions in Ottawa, the situation is far from clear. I'd like to
say in that
connection, that I'm not at all sure that those
gentlemen who wired suggesting the return of the
delegation from Ottawa should not have advised
them to stop there for another six months; because they could not in the time be expected
to
bring about a thorough, clear picture. The position is very far from being clear,
and it is evident
that it cannot possibly be made clear to the Convention delegates or to the electorate
prior to the
termination of the Convention's proceedings, assuming that our deliberations are to
end this
month and that the referendum will be held in
May. The question therefore arises as to whether
or not this Convention is justified in recommending that such incomplete information
should be
placed before the people of Newfoundland for an
irrevocable decision at the present time.
The very ardent advocate and/or advocates of
confederation may contend that this is merely an
attempt to shelve forever the question of confederation. But I cannot accept that
idea, as it is
perfectly clear that should a referendum covering
responsible government or Commission government result in favour of responsible government,
a general election would then be held. And there
would then be an opportunity for those who
favour confederation to form a party and contest
the issue. If the confederation party were elected,
they would then be in a position to pursue
negotiations for confederation. It must be kept in
mind that up to the present time there have been
no negotiations, but merely a statement of
Ottawa's views as to a fair and equitable basis.
Newfoundland's views as to a fair and equitable
basis has not yet been formulated. It may be
argued that in the case of the choice being Commission instead of responsible government
there
would not be a chance of considering the confederation issue. I do not think that
is necessarily
correct. Presumably the continuation of Commission government, if placed on the paper,
will be
with a limit of perhaps three or four years. And if
that is the case, the government might be asked
to set up a royal commission to endeavour to set
forth more clearly the advantages and disadvantages to Newfoundland of union with
Canada.
As an alternative to a royal commission, the idea
expressed by Mr. Pratt, chairman of the Newfoundland Industrial Board, might be adopted
and the government might arrange for an expert
economic survey of our position which would
include details on the impact of confederation
with Canada on our future prosperity. There
should be no hurry to decide such an irretrievable
step as the confederation issue. The electorate
must be absolutely clear as to its effect before
voting on it. We have not yet got all the facts by
a very long way.
Now, sir, I wish to emphasise that Mr.
Smallwood must have been aware of the views I
have just expressed before he sent that despatch
to the Canadian newspapers. I made them clear
on 6 December last through the local press. I do
not take it lightly that Mr. Smallwood would let
anything of importance go in the newspaper.
However, I will forgive this indiscretion and call
it a politician's license to discourage an opponent. There is probably no one in this
assembly
who takes a more independent view than I do
upon the subject which we have been sent here to
discuss. I offered myself as candidate without
any expectation of future political associations,
which is easily imaginable in view of my age and
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1207
the fact that within less than four weeks I shall be
in my seventy-sixth year. My sole reason for
offering myself as a candidate was that after a
family business connection of over 180 years
with this charming and fascinating country, and
after 50 years of personal residence here myself,
I felt that in this great crisis I would like to do
something to assist in improving the living conditions of our people, and especially
of our fishermen. This was, and is still my sole objective. I
only give these facts in the hope that they will
remove the impression created by Mr.
Smallwood's propaganda, indicating that my
views on confederation are prejudiced and unworthy of consideration.
I am not going to enter into a long argument
for or against the Ottawa proposal. I think the
pros and cons have been thoroughly dealt with by
previous speakers during the recent debates. Although I have been absent during the
past ten days
due to temporary illness, I have listened in to the
broadcasts with very much interest. I was particularly struck by the fine argument
of my co-
member for St. John's East, Mr. Higgins, and
especially with the strength laid by him upon the
enormous value of the strategic position of Newfoundland. The point overlooked by
many is that
we have a very strong bargaining card in the
undoubted fact that the use of Newfoundland's
strategic position is vital for the welfare and
protection of not only Canada, but also of the
United States of America and of Great Britain. I
entirely agree with Mr. Higgins that much better
terms than those offered should be obtained by
reason of our strategic position. I feel quite certain that with skillful negotiation
by properly
authorised authorities, better terms would have
been finally, and perhaps grudgingly given by
Canada.
Mr. Smallwood and his supporters appear to
think that it would be sound business to jump at
this offer from Canada. Mr. Smallwood himself
is very able and willing to utilise his ready tongue
and quick and fertile brain to induce the people
of Newfoundland to accept these terms without
any attempt to better them. Don't let us be led into
grabbing the elusive bait in the shape of a s-—
called baby bonus without first considering the
full impact of the confederation issue. It is to my
mind so obviously unreasonable to urge the im
mediate acceptance of these unnegotiated terms,
that I earnestly appeal to those members who are
inclined to support Mr. Smallwood to reconsider
their viewpoint...
[1] Mr. Smallwood has to stop
being a very strong supporter of confederation.
He has already influenced thousands of voters in
this small country to share his extreme views,
even before any indication was received as to the
basis upon which, in Canada's view, we should
accept confederacy. I have small hope of influencing Mr. Smallwood. I hope I may have
some influence with a few others. From the start
of this Convention and probably for many
months before, he has been advocating confederation without even knowing what terms
were available. Above all things, this conception
of confederation is a matter of terms. Are we
going to barter away our valuable strategic position without endeavouring to obtain
something
really worthwhile? I ask you sir, when a fisherman wants to sell his fish, what does
he do? Does
he sell it to the first bidder? Or if there's only one
bidder, does he accept the first offer that comes?
In my experience he is shrewd enough to try very
hard to secure a better price, and he uses every
argument he can think of to do so. Mr. Smallwood
and his supporters, however, appear to think it is
sound business to jump at this unnegotiated and
undiscussed offer.
Now, sir, there are several good reasons for
deferring this question of confederation until we
have our own elected government. One of these
is that, in my opinion, there is a strong tendency
in the country for a trusted relationship with the
United States of America, and the possibility
should be carefully and closely investigated
before the country is projected into the irretrievable step of confederation with
Canada. Our future prosperity, and particularly the prosperity of
our fishermen, is mainly dependent upon reciprocal trade with the United States of
America, and
this would receive its death blow by our entering
into confederation. Some people, including my
friend Mr. Bradley, who I'm sorry to see is absent, apparently believe that the prospects
of obtaining anything by approaching to the United
States of America are unfounded. But surely to
goodness this cannot be ascertained until some
approach is made. The recent arrangement dealt
with the Geneva conference has made very little
1208
NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
improvement so far as Newfoundland is concerned in our trading relation with the United
States of America, because the arrangements
have merely stabilised for the time being the
current duties on our fresh fish, and the result
from other concessions is negligible. It is true that
the duty and processing tax against our seal oil
and whale oil entering the United States of
America has been reduced by 50%, but the existing tax is still a prohibitive duty.
As you know,
sir, I have been a steady advocate of the idea that
a so-called partly internationalised position, or
what has been termed the position of a condominium, might be the better solution for
the
future of Newfoundland. My reason for this is
that I believe we are dependent for our future
prosperity not only upon our trade with the USA,
and with Canada to a small extent, but also upon
our relation with the mother country, without
whose assistance in various ways our trade in salt
codfish with European countries would be cut
short, and our fishermen would then indeed have
a hard time. Anyone who imagines for one moment that the old country is permanently
down
and out, and will not be in a position to assist us,
is making a grave mistake and they will find that
her recovery will be very much quicker than they
imagine. As heretofore, Newfoundland will be
able to rely upon the mother country, whether
under Commission government or not, not only
for assistance in marketing our fish in the
European countries and providing exchange for
it, but also for a market for a great many of our
products which found a market there prior to the
recent war. This question of fostering a joint
interest by Great Britain, the United States of
America and Canada in our future development,
in terms of giving them the right to use our
strategically placed country for their own
defence and the defence of democracy
everywhere, should be carefully investigated
before confederation is placed before the people
of Newfoundland in any form. All opportunity of
making Newfoundland a prosperous country
reliant upon its own resources may be entirely
lost if we act too quickly; and instead of enjoying
a development of our own resources, we may be
in the humiliating position of living upon a
Canadian government with a much reduced
population. It is my considered opinion that if
Great Britain is sensible, and I believe she will be
if we make our viewpoint clear, she will help us
to obtain our goals, and at the same time give us
back, if we wanted, a useful form of government
with proper representation by our people. If she
does not help us to do this, I do not hesitate to say
that in my opinion the strength of our people will
be towards political as well as economical and
fiscal relations with the great and wealthy
republic to whom Great Britain has already given
a footing in this island without the consent of our
people.
In closing this address I will ask Mr.
Smallwood and his supporters to reply to one
single, simple question. That question is this,
does Mr. Smallwood, and do those who apparently think as he does, really and honestly
believe
that it is right and proper that the terms indicated,
not offered by Canada, which have not resulted
from any negotiations, and which many people
confidently believe could be improved upon,
should be placed before the people of Newfoundland now, for an irreversible or irretrievable
decision? Or is it not reasonable that such a
question should be deferred for a specifically
limited period until there have been proper
negotiations by an authorised government after
very thorough investigation? I would like this
question clearly answered without any equivocation. That is all I've got to say.
Mr. Reddy First I must congratulate the Hon.
R.B. Job for his intelligent address.
When I left to go home to tea, sir, I was
discussing the Labrador boundary situation.
There has been some debate with respect to the
Privy Council decision on the Labrador boundary. Mr. Cashin said that this decision
would be
upset, and Mr. Smallwood said that such an idea
was fantastic, and that the only way that Quebec
could take over Labrador was by raising an army.
I know that Mr. Smallwood is not quite as naive
as that. Mr. Cashin said he knew of three different
ways by which Quebec might get Newfoundland-Labrador, perhaps the biggest asset we
possess today. There will be produced there 10
million tons of iron ore annually when they get
going, four or five years from now. Mining experts in Canada and the USA say that
it is the
biggest thing of its kind in the world, that its
richness is beyond financial calculation. One of
the officials of the American government publicly recommended to the US Senate that
the USA
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1209
should get a slice of this iron ore body in return
for American aid to Britain under the Marshall
Plan. This iron ore body extends right close to the
border between Newfoundland-Labrador and
Quebec — it crosses the border in several places.
As there is nothing else like it in the world, we
have no doubt that Quebec wants it. As a matter
of fact. the French Canadian people are living
right up close to this border now. If the mine
develops, as we are given to understand it will, I
imagine that Mr. Duplessis or his successor will
take care to see that 300,000-400,000 French
Canadians are settled in Newfoundland-
Labrador in the course of 20 or 25 years. And
when this happens there is no need to upset the
Privy Council decision; no need for Mr.
Smallwood's army. A major portion of the people
in Newfoundland and Newfoundland-Labrador
may well be French Canadian, and by popular
vote they can vote and change the boundary
between the two provinces. Do you know that
famous Grand Falls
[1] at Labrador, with all its
tremendous water-power resources is not 20
miles from the Quebec border? The population of
Quebec now is something over four million, and
is increasing at the highest rate. One does not
have to be a prophet to see that in 20 years from
now the number of French Canadians in Newfoundland-Labrador, provided the mine
develops, will exceed the population of all of us
here on the island of Newfoundland. Mr.
Smallwood tried to convince us that French
Canadians would not be allowed into the
province of Newfoundland-Labrador.
Mr. Reddy Or something to that effect. That
may be quite true at the present time and under
the present agreement with the Hollinger Corporation, but if we become a part of Canada,
just
as a Newfoundlander is entitled to go to live and
work in the city of Montreal, so also those French
Canadians now living close to the Quebec-
Labrador border may, if they want, come and take
up residence on the Newfoundland-Labrador
side. Anyone who says anything to the contrary
is either talking nonsense or trying to deceive.
The late Sir Wilfred Laurier, a French Canadian,
was Prime Minister of Canada for 16 years. It is
now generally expected that Mr. St. Laurent,
another French Canadian, is likely to succeed Mr.
King next year. If Mr. St. Laurent holds the office
of Prime Minister as long as Sir Wilfred Laurier
did, I have no doubt but that several ways will be
found to get around the decision of the Privy
Council. I feel sure that Mr. Smallwood is sincere
and means well, but Mr. Smallwood is a idealist.
He dreams dreams and he sees visions, and wants
everybody else to do as he does. But we do not
believe in a world of dreams. In a few years, both
Mr. Smallwood and myself will be pushing up
the daisies ... but the people of Quebec, like Old
Man River, will keep on rolling over the border
into Labrador, as they are doing now in every
province in Canada. And when a sufficient number of them have gone into Labrador,
there will
be another referendum and at that time Mr.
Smallwood will not be here to protest. Our valuable territory will be passed over
to Quebec by
the new method, which dentists call painless extraction.
A lovely picture has been painted with respect
to all the money that Canada is going to pour into
Newfoundland to develop our resources once we
become a province. I agree that what we want in
this country is more employment and more industry, rather then more baby bonuses.
A country
will never become prosperous by getting its income from this sort of a thing. In a
sense it is like
dole. It gives relief, but the kind of industry it
encourages is not the kind best calculated to put
us on the road to prosperity. It is a matter of record
that all the premiums and earnings of our $100
million in life insurance are in Canadian companies. Also there is an additional $40-50
million
of our savings on deposit with the Canadian
banks and trust companies in Newfoundland. The
total of these monies, I suppose, is not less then
$50-60 million. And so it has been for years, that
the bulk of our people's accumulated savings is
in the hands of Canadian banks, trust companies
and insurance companies. What have these
Canadian financial institutions done with these
monies, and what industries have they started and
developed in Newfoundland with these monies?
The Corner Brook paper mill is all English capital. The Buchans Mining Company is,
I understand, 52% English and 48% American capital.
The AND Company at Grand Falls is all English
capital. The St. Lawrence Mining Company is all
American capital. The salt codfishery is all New
1210 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
foundland capital with the exception of some
American capital that is invested by the
Gloucester interest in our saltbulk fish industry.
The frozen fillet fish industry is mostly Newfoundland capital, with I believe some
American
capital in North Atlantic Fisheries Ltd., in which
the Hon. R.B. Job, I understand, has a good deal
of money invested. Fishery Products Ltd, which
operates a large filleting industry on the south
coast, particularly in Burin and Burgeo, owned
by Mr. Monroe, is Newfoundland capital — plus,
and I am subject to correction on this, some
American capital. As for the herring industry, we
know that this is all Newfoundland capital with
the exception of Mr. Crosbie's herring oil and
meal plant at Bay of Islands, in which I understand there is some American capital.
As for the
lobster fishery, seal fishery, squid fishery, there
is not as far as I know one single Canadian dollar
invested in one of these enterprises. A few
months ago a small Canadian fishing venture was
under way in Bay of Islands, but that is only a
year or so old, and it is too early to say how it is
going to develop. The only Canadian dollar that
I know that is invested in the way of industry that
is giving work to Newfoundlanders, is in the iron
ore mines of Bell Island. This mining company
agreed, I believe, in the beginning, to pay an
export tax on ore if they exported from Newfoundland. We know that with the exception
of a
very few years this tax was never paid, and the
story behind it is not very complimentary to that
particular company. It is a matter of public record
that the Hollis Walker inquiry unveiled some of
the manoeuvres of this company, and that is one
of the darkest pages in our history....
[1] It was a
dirty, despicable deal, where reputations were
ruined but where this company still continued
merrily on its way. So we see, gentlemen, that all
the money that we have invested in Newfoundland today for starting new industries
and
developing old ones is either Newfoundland,
English or American capital.
Yet we have people saying, wait until Canada
takes us over and develops our resources. Why?
For the past 50 years every dollar that we have
had has been in Canadian hands, and any
development that has been done has either been
the development of the Prairies or the factories in
Ontario. None of it has been used to develop
anything in Newfoundland. And yet there are
people foolish enough to think that Canada will
be different in the years to come than she has been
in the years that are gone. I ask any one of you
who has visited the paper towns of Corner Brook
and Grand Falls, or even the mining town of
Buchans, and seen the lovely homes, gardens,
and trees, to contrast and compare those homes
with the houses built at Bell Island. You know
there is no comparison.
....The man who is going to send a schooner
fishing on the Grand Bank searches around and
gets an experienced captain to take charge. Then
he selects for his crew experienced men who have
fished on the Grand Bank before, and he spends
some considerable time and money in fitting out
his schooner and checking to replace any equipment. He knows that unless he has good
equipment and a good crew he is going to wind up in
the hole, and his year is going to result in a loss.
If you ask that man to select men who would
determine his economic welfare not for one year,
but for his lifetime, and for all time, don't you
think he would take considerable time, and exercise extreme care in selecting the
men that he
would give this reponsibility to? Now, as for
those who went as a delegation to Ottawa —
Messrs. Bradley, Higgins, Ashbourne, Crummey, Ballam, Smallwood and Rev. Burry — all
these gentlemen are friends of mine, very fine
men and I have nothing against them... But they
were no better qualified to go to Canada on that
mission than I was, and I know I am not qualified.
The selection of these gentlemen was done in a
matter of minutes on an afternoon 12 months ago.
Off they went to Canada with little or no equipment, and to expect these men to come
back here
with the best terms is expecting miracles. In
short, the men we sent, through no fault of their
own, were not qualified to do the job for which
they were sent. Would you send them on the
Grand Bank in your fishing schooner? No. They
were as qualified to engage in the Grand Bank
fishery as they were to engage with the financial
and political experts in Canada. If we could send
a delegation to Ottawa comprised of such men as
Mr. John Power of Carbonear, Mr. Harry
Fletcher of Grand Falls, Mr. Aaron Buffett of
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1211
Grand Bank, Mr. Cal Pratt of St. John's, Mr.
Gerald S. Doyle of St. John's, Mr. F. Moores of
Carbonear, Mr. George Kennedy of Avondale
and our worthy Chairman, J.B. McEvoy, to interpret the legal points and to keep our
delegates out
of Canadian goal, I think that a delegation such
as this could come back with any juice that
might be extracted from the Canadian apple. In
other words, I think that the gentlemen I have
mentioned could drive the hardest and best possible bargain, and would extract everything
in the
way of advantages for Newfoundland before they
said adieu to Mr. St. Laurent. I do not think that
the men who went to Ottawa were capable of
driving a hard bargain. As for Mr. Smallwood, I
do not think mat there is a more sincere man in
this House than he is. I have known Mr. Smallwood long enough to know that he is utterly
sincere and honest in his convictions. He is a very
kindly gentleman, and possesses all the virtues
and none of the vices. As they say, to know him
is to love him. But one quality Mr. Smallwood
does not possess. With all his virtues he is not the
kind of a man thatI would hire to drive a financial
bargain; and unfortunately that was the kind of a
bargain that was laid in Mr. Smallwood's lap.
The men to do this kind of thing are keen, experienced, hard-headed businessmen, merchants,
which Mr. Smallwood is not, and which he does
not want to be. It is nothing against Mr. Smallwood to say this. In a sense it is
to his credit. But
in dealing with our Canadian cousins, the quality
of the bargaining and horse trading is very necessary for a man to have.
We all know how much the USA is interested
in this country. I think if we were wise enough to
take advantage of the rivalry between Canada amd
the USA, we could get almost any concession
from either of these two countries. If we had our
own government, and sent a good delegation to
the USA, I am inclined to think that we would get
a trade treaty, and that country would take all the
fishery products that we might produce in the
years ahead. It is in the USA that our economic
welfare lies. They want the things that we have.
Canada does not want the things that we have.
And we can only prosper by exporting what we
produce. I have no wish for a political union with
the USA. I think as Newfoundlanders we have
more freedom, and a lot of other good things that
we would lose by joining politically with either
Canada or the USA. But our economic welfare
lies in the direction of the USA, and with our own
government we will have very little difficulty in
finding the USA very much interested in giving
us fair economic terms. We have reached the
point where our mineral resources on the
Labrador are beginning to bear fruit, and are
wanted by the USA; ourfresh fish industry is only
in its infancy, and is finding a ready market in the
USA. And since the USA recognises our immense strategic importance, we are, so to
speak,
on the threshhold of a brighter economic era. It
would be a form of madness to throw all of this
away by giving it to Canada, with nothing in
return. I hope that when the time comes to vote
our Newfoundlanders will not be hypnotised by
the pied piper. Do not listen to his tune, because
if you do, you will do as the pied piper of old did,
and if you follow him you will drown in the Cabot
Strait. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have had our ups
and downs, and our way has been hard and the
struggle long. But we have enjoyed some things
that we had, and there is more freedom in Newfoundland than anywhere. We are all one
big
happy family, so to speak. And I think you will
agree with me, that neither you not I want to be
living in a time when we cannot sing as our
forefathers did, that good old come all ye, "We'll
rant and we'll roar like true Newfoundlanders."
Mr. Fudge Now, I do not object to any member making speeches in reason, or when he has
something to say that is worth listening to. In such
cases I can overlook even the most enthusiastic
Windjammer. For the same reason I could approve of Mr. Smallwood's efforts, if at
the same
time he had given us some real facts about this
confederation business. I find myself in the dark
on many matters on which he should have thrown
light. I feel that other members of the Convention
and the people of the country feel as I do in this
respect. Of course, he said many things and made
many statements. But in my opinion, for every
thing he did tell us, there are at least two others
that he did not tell us. He handed out to us in
plentiful supply his homemade forecasts and
prophecies. He gazed long into the crystal ball
and told us of the bright new world that was to
be. But while that might be of value to him as an
_ advertising stunt in the event of his opening a
fortune teller's parlour, I am afraid that it is not
much use to me, because I gave up going to
1212 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
fortune tellers long ago. I was too often put on the
wrong track. So, Mr. Chairman, I came to the
conclusion that if I wanted to find out the facts of
this confederation issue, I should have to forget
Mr. Smallwood and have recourse to other sources, and to facts which would enable
me to come
to some common sense conclusions on this whole
matter.
When I first came here it was in the fond hope
that this gathering of Newfoundlanders could
function as an impartial body of examiners of the
condition and prospects of our country; that in
friendliness and co-operation we would pursue
our labours and within a matter of months we
would be able to present a report of our deliberations to the country. But what happened?
Before
we could get settled down to our job at all, we
had this issue of confederation shoved across the
table. At that time it struck me that it seemed
strange, strange indeed, for this matter to come
before us, seeing that we had neither examined
nor reported on the matter of our own country, or
whether it would be necessary for us to consider
going in with any other country. It was obvious
to me then that the parties responsible for introducing this confederation issue were
not concerned with what this Convention thought was
best for the country, or what its final decisions
might be. They apparently did not care what a
survey of our accounts would show. Whether we
were prosperous or insolvent did not seem to
matter anything to them, because they acted
without waiting for these things to be decided. In
effect their actions seem to say, no matter what
the findings of the Convention might be, no matter whether we wanted confederation
or not, they
were there for the express purpose of hanging it
around our necks... Talk about your closed
minds, Mr. Chairman. Here is a case where we
seem to have the mind which has never been
anything else. We all know the unhappy results
of this misguided action on the part of the confederates. It destroyed the efficiency
of this Convention before it could get down to business. It
did away with any possibility of harmony or
co-operation. It set the seed of political misguidance. In a word it sabotaged this
Convention,
and at the same time any hope which we might
have entertained of obtaining beneficial results
for our people. It is quite plain now that these
people have placed their political aspirations
before the interest of the country. Can we wonder
then, can we be surprised at the state of things
which resulted? Some outsiders are inclined to
blame all of us for the unsatisfactory manner in
which this Convention has conducted its sessions. But I ask, how could it be otherwise?
Did
they expect the delegates to allow this confederation issue to be shoved down their
throats without
making their judgement known? Refusing to accept the high pressure sales talk which
the agents
of our bartering of our country rained on them?
The main reason we are here at all as a group is
the desire of Newfoundlanders to live in freedom,
to resolve the future in their own way. Yet before
they had hardly taken their seats, we find them
subject to this four-speeding Canadian pact. For
myself, I can only congratulate my fellow members on their tolerance and forbearance
in the face
of the threat of dictatorship.
Mr. Chairman, as one who was born in this
country, who is proud of the name Newfoundlander, whose lifetime has been spent in
her
forests and on her sea, and who loves every inch
of her soil as such a one I find it difficult to
understand the mentality and the outlook of those
who call themselves Newfoundlanders, yet are
working for the end that Newfoundland shall no
longer be Newfoundland, who are prepared to see
her and all that she stands for passed into the
hands of strangers, who are ready to make those
who share its blood and toil servants in the house
of another, instead of being masters in their own.
To me at least there seems to be something wrong
about it. It seems to violate some law of happiness. It seems to be a sin against
morality itself.
Yet that is the spectacle which I am witnessing
here day after day.
Now let me say that in spite of anything which
I may have said, I am capable of viewing things
fairly, and in the present instance I have tried to
apply my sense of fairness to the present matter
of the transfer of our sovereignty. Perhaps, I ask
myself, we Newfoundlanders are a country that
cannot stand alone, perhaps we are too small to
survive as a country. But when the Financial
Report was presented, what did I find? I found
that every page in that report gave the lie to the
questions I had asked. There I found undeniable
figures and inescapable conclusions which
proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt that
my country is not only solvent, but is one of the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1213
best—off countries in the entire world for its size
and population. Next I considered the possibility
that even though we were well-off now, what
about the future? Could we stand up to the future?
Can we carry on? I got my answer to that when
the Economic Report was read. I saw that report
viciously attacked with all the resources of the
opposition. I heard a Newfoundlander many
times run down his country to the dirt. I saw every
effort being made to create despair and blue ruin.
But I also saw the report stand up to all its
attackers, and when the smoke cleared away its
findings were just as staunch and undeniable as
when it first came before us. [found that not alone
was our future bright with hope, but that hope was
also accompanied with a definite assurance that,
as far as human vision and foresight can
reasonably expect to go, the future for Newfoundland looms up as the brightest in
its entire
history. These were the facts presented to me.
These were the facts which as a sane logical
person I have to accept, and which for the same
reason all our people have accepted unless we are
afraid to face the truth. Having then accepted the
facts of our present prosperity and our hopeful
outlook, I began to ask myself, if these things are
so, what is all this talk about out having to have
someone else to take us in? Why should we think
that someone would think of rescuing the perishing, caring for the dying Newfoundlanders?
What is the reason for all this confederate
propaganda which I see around me? I have asked
that question to myself many times, and I have
gotten no answer. I ask it again today, and I still
get no answers. Day after day, week after week,
month after month, you and I have listened to the
endless speeches of the confederates, waiting to
see if they would give us the explanation we
wanted. Waiting, waiting to see if they would
give us some sane reason why we, the people of
this country, should sell our sovereignty, bury our
national heritage forever in an obscure corner of
the Canadian backyard...
[1] But I repeat, we have
never been given the answer and the reason is
simply this — they have no good reason to give
us.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
Mr. Fudge can't look into people's hearts, he
can't tell why they do what they do. He's attributing motives and not very good motives.
The
debate is nearly over. It's all been friendly the last
few days. I think if we don't get vicious about it
now, everybody would be a lot better off.
Mr. Chairman Well, that is a matter open to
question. The fact is that conclusions have been
drawn by members of this House on every conceivable question... Who am I to decide
whether
the conclusion drawn by one person, and not
shared by any other person or persons, is incorrect?
Mr. Smallwood ....My point of order is that he
has drawn the conclusion that the motives of the
confederates are bad. Is he entitled to draw that
conclusion and make that imputation?
Mr. Chairman ....If the language employed is
calculated to impute a design or motive, then Mr.
Fudge had no right to use that language.
Mr. Fudge No such a thing, Mr. Chairman.
Before interruption I said they had no good
reasons to give us. I state now we either buy their
pig in a poke, sight unseen, or we do no business.
Now Mr. Vincent, yesterday I believe, made
some reference to the difference in the price of
hay in Canada and here in Newfoundland. I
believe he stated that the price of hay in Canada
was $30 a ton and that it was $60 a ton in
Newfoundland. New surely Mr. Vincent, who is
a businessman, is not trying to impress upon the
people that he has $30 profit on a ton of hay. I
don't think he intended to do that. I did expect
Mr. Vincent to explain the difference between the
$20 and the $30. I understand that the cost of
transportation on hay is around $20. The duty on
the hay is approximately $5. And he knows, as I
find the figures, there's about a profit of $2 on the
sale of hay. I want to impress upon the delegates
that no matter whether we went into confederation or not, the cost of transportation
will be the
same, whether in or out, unless somebody in this
country is prepared, or Mr. Smallwood might be
able, to go up and bring it down for nothing.
Mr. Smallwood 20% off.
Mr. Fudge I'm talking about the freight rate.
Mr. Smallwood The freight is 20% off.
Mr. Fudge They're looking for an increase up
1214 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
there now of ...
Mr. Smallwood No matter what it is, it's still
20% less under confederation, you know that.
The hay that comes by rail is 20% off.
Mr. Chairman I don't want any arguments at
all. Mr. Fudge has the floor, and unless and until
any member arises to a point of order or a question of privilege, he is not to be
interrupted...
Mr. Fudge We've been told that under confederation the cost of living would be reduced.
We have been told this repeatedly. I fail to see to
what extent. We must not forget that we are living
on an island. In Canada, where rail haul is short,
and consequently tranSportation and delivery
costs low, the position is quite different to what
it would be in this country. No such benefits
would accrue to our people. We would still have
to pay the regular freight direct from western
Canada to the eastern seaboard — Montreal,
Halifax, Sydney or Prince Edward Island to Newfoundland —— marine insurance, wharfage,
and
distribution costs. Many of the items coming into
this country from Canada pay little or no customs
duty at the present time. All importations from
the United States and the United Kingdom will
be subject to customs duty under confederation,
and these are no small amounts of our total
volume of imports.
Another matter I wish to refer to is a statement
made by Premier Jones of Prince Edward Island
the other day, when he said, in substance, that
with Newfoundland coming into confederation
with Canada, his island province could expect to
market an additional amount of its produce. This
would mean, according to Premier Jones, that an
air transport service would be inaugurated with
the west coast of our island. Let my constituency
businessmen of Corner Brook and the Codroy
Valley, the latter represented by Mr. Keough,
take note that Premier Jones says that potatoes,
vegetables of all kinds, livestock, meat, eggs and
grain, should find a substantial market in Newfoundland and Labrador — Labrador's
mine
development especially, Premier Jones said,
when the Labrador railway is completed. When
Newfoundland joins Canada, Frontier Jones said,
a weekly service would be developed by steamer,
and if the Harmon airfield in the vicinity of
Stephenville could be operated for commercial
freight planes, commodities such as milk, etc.,
would be carried by air freight to the west coast.
Air traffic would also be developed with
Labrador through Goose Bay, and all commodities from PEI would be flown in there and
to Newfoundland. Commodities such as milk,
eggs, fruit, butter, pork, cheese, and other goods
would gain a market now served partly by our
farmers of the Codroy Valley. I wonder what
does my friend Mr. Keough, who so ably represents the district of St. George's and
the Codroy
Valley, think of this.
Mr. Smallwood presented his budget some
time ago showing that he would require some $15
million or$16 million to run the province, should
we become one. When asked how he proposed
getting this revenue, he stated that as in other
provinces in Canada, the industrial towns would
be taxed to pay for the poor ones. He
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. Mr. Chairman,
I made no such statement. I'm not going to be
misstated, and I said nothing even like that, nothing.
Mr. Chairman I have no recollection of his
having said that.
Mr. Smallwood Complete misrepresentation.
Mr. Fudge I understood that Mr. Smallwood, in
pointing out about raising taxes, referred to the
industrial centres in Canada which were paying
the high taxes.
Mr. Chairman His statement was that 89% of
the total revenue derived by the federal government was obtained from the three provinces
of
Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and the
remaining six provinces paid the remaining 11%.
That was the statement Mr. Smallwood made.
Mr. Fudge If that is so, Mr. Chairman, the industrial towns in Newfoundland such as
Corner
Brook, Buchans, Grand Falls, Bell Island, St.
John's and some of our largest outport towns will
be trimmed to balance Mr. Smallwood's budget.
When I look at this confederation in such alight,
the whole thing seems so silly and extravagant
and stupid, that I ask myself how this crazy issue
ever got into this chamber. And how did he
manage to get us to take it seriously? And he can
tie up our work for over three months. But it
seems we have to face reality. The absurd thing
has been foisted on us. It has destroyed the work
of this Convention. It has to all sensible Newfoundlanders become an actual fact,
and whether
we like it or not we have to deal with it. The
records of our proceedings indicate that we did
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1215
not receive the report of the Ottawa delegation
with any great amount of enthusiasm. Even more
significantly, people outside this chamber have
not allowed themselves to be carried away by its
rosy contents. The answer to this is not hard to
find. Newfoundlanders are as a whole a realistic
and common sense people. They know by hard
experience that pennies don't fall from heaven.
They look with suspicion on anyone who tells
them they are going to get something for nothing.
In spite of all the high pressure sales talk, in spite
of all the hour-long speeches our people are still
suspicious. In the meantime this Canadian
prospect is being stripped down to its frame and
the stuffing has been taken out. In short the thing
is being debunked and Santa Claus is having his
whiskers pulled off. If I were to give credit to any
one man for his valuable service in showing up
this confederation issue, it would be Mr.
Smallwood. His over-eagerness to convince us
showed us that we should not allow ourselves to
be convinced, and above all, he is the one who
impressed it indelibly on our minds, that we
should not for a moment consider anything that
would be of sound presumption. We remember
how, when the Economic Report was brought in
with its modest three year forecast, he denounced
the committee for daring to make any forecast.
Such things, he said, were not worth the paper
they were written on. Mr. Smallwood told us it
was neglect for us to work on the basis of
presumption. And this same gentleman, this hater
of presumption and forecast, came in here and
coolly asked us to accept his budget based on no
less than an eight year forecast. Well, we knew
then just what we were up against. We knew just
how much value we could place on all that he had
said before. I at least am duly grateful to Mr.
Smallwood for his distinguished service in helping me to see the real meaning of this
confederation issue.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to waste the
time of this Convention by dealing in detail with
the report before the Chair. Other members have
already dealt with the figures contained in it.
They have dealt with them as they deserved, and
it is not worthwhile kicking a dead horse We
know that they are unreliable. I feel sure that all
intelligent Newfoundlanders already know this,
but there are doubtless many who have not the
means of getting in touch with our deliberations,
and they are still under a delusion. It should be
the prime duty of all of us to get the truth to these
people. I heard a lot of talk about taxes. But I note
that when Mr. Smallwood is asked about certain
taxes, he tells us that the Canadians won't put that
tax on us, that will be the matter for the provincial
government. Is he trying to give us the impression
that since the federal government won't impose
a particular tax, it won't be imposed at all? We
know too well that every tax necessary to balance
our budget will be placed on our people. What
does it matter who takes our taxes, so long as we
have to shell out our dollars? This is one point
you will not hear Mr. Smallwood talking about.
All he has told us are the good things. For instance, they say that every Newfoundland
child
under a certain age will be entitled to a baby
bonus. But why not say that the same child after
he comes of age will spend the rest of his life
paying back the baby bonus in taxes? They tell
us all of all the benefits which will come to our
workers under confederation. But they do not tell
us that under confederation every small industry
and factory in the island will be put out of business and its workmen out of jobs.
In St. John's
alone, Mr. Chairman, and throughout the country
in a few years those industries will be reduced
and our people out of work and forced to go and
make a living elsewhere. In time, all we will have
in this country will be the very young and the very
old. Why not tell about the Canadian tax collector
who will go around selling our people's property? Why not tell our people that no
government
on earth gives its people something for nothing;
that for every dollar the Canadian government
gives us, it will demand a dollar, perhaps more in
return? We will be taxed here, there and
everywhere. We will be taxed from the cradle to
the grave. This report is only a reminder of the
saying that figures sometime lie, that it is easy to
put a bright coat of paint over an old rotten skiff
and pass it off as something good. I suggest
therefore, that in the matter of this Ottawa report
we accept Mr. Smallwood's own advice and accept nothing which is not based on facts,
and that
we throw his eight year budget, with all its
presumptions, into the waste basket where they
belong.
If we want to find out about living conditions
in Canada, let us ask the man who lives there.
Does he shout about Canada like this advocate of
1216 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
confederation? Not at all. He is quite sober about
the whole thing. I have talked to many of them
lately. I have been talking to a Newfoundlander
who sold his home in Canada, gave up his job and
returned here because he could not pay his income tax. I have heard from Canadians
who say
that Newfoundlanders would be crazy to enter
union with Canada. And by the way, Mr. Chairman, I've heard of some of the Canadian
politicians who say how generous Canada is in
taking over our national debt. Why don't some of
our Ottawa delegation tell us how foolish we are
to take over Canada's huge and ever increasing
public debt? Only this morning I came across the
following in the Financial Post dated January 3,
1948.
Mr. Fudge I'm not quoting, but Vancouver in
November had 1,000 jobs opened and 12,000
applications — 12,000 applicants. Since then
things are believed to have gotten worse. The
same thing is true in the Maritimes and to a lesser
degree in other provinces. There is a flash message to you from Mr, Smallwood's Garden
of
Eden... The proof of the pudding they say is in
the eating, and the best voice is the voice of
experience. In this case the voice of the people
who live in Canada.
Just one other point. It seems to be forgotten
that Canada's present position financially and
economically is the offshoot of a war boom. It is
not a solid peace-time economy, and we must
also bear in mind that the recent surplus announced by the Canadian government is
not
earned revenue. As you have heard Major Cashin
say, Canada is at present a hard-up country. She
is short of dollars and is even talking about holding a sweepstake to obtain American
dollars. Her
people are entering on the road of austerity,
which is only a more polite term for poverty. That
is the position now. What might it be this time
next year? By then Canadian taxes and Canadian
prices may be gone sky high. The baby bonus
may be a thing of the past. What consolation will
it be for us to say then that that was not what they
told us in the Grey Book or the Black Book?
These are the things which we must consider, not
financial statements and the like. It is time we put
dreams of Santa Claus aside. Christmas is over.
When it is all boiled down, we will find that this
Black Book and the Grey Book are nothing more
than an empty gesture which can disappear like
a bubble overnight. Is that the sort of thing they
want us to base the future of this country and its
people on?
Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks in the
full confidence that when the people of this
country realise what this proposal of confederation means to them in their everyday
life, when
they realise the rain of taxes which will descend
on them from every direction, when they realise
the overlying plan which has as its object the
swallowing up of this country, then I have confidence they will know how to deal with
the
situation — just as I trust the members of this
Convention will know how to deal with this
costly and worthless Ottawa report when the time
comes for voting on it. At the very opening of this
Convention I said that this good old ship, a ship
of state in my opinion, was not in a position to
send out an SOS to a Canadian rescue tug. She is
still in that position. She is awaiting her Newfoundland crew to sail her into her
home port. I
say to you, and to my fellow countrymen, get on
board, sail her over.
[Short recess]
Mr. Keough Before I begin to address this Convention I wish to pay a word of tribute to the
Hon.
Mr. Job upon the action that he has taken this
evening. All my own life I have been considered
somewhat of an extremist, and in consequence I
can appreciate the gesture of a man who is
prepared practically to risk his life in order to
have his say upon a matter so vital to his country,
that is now before us. And whilst I'm afraid that
I cannot quite concur with the Hon. Mr. Job in all
that he has said, I nevertheless wish to avail
myself of this opportunity to pay my tribute to a
gallant gentleman, and one who I have always
credited with being perfectly sincere according
to his own lights, as I hope, when this Convention
is all over and done with, I will be credited with
being sincere according to mine.
"'I know what you are thinking about,' said
Tweedledum, 'but it isn't so, no how.' 'Contrary
wise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so it
might be, and if it were so, it would be. But as it
isn't, it ain't. That's logic." I wonder if by any
chance Lewis Carroll was vouchsafed a vision of
this great debate that is now drawing to its close,
and drew therefrom his inspiration for those
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1217
lines. Certain I am that Tweedledee and Tweedledum would both have felt very much
at home
in this chamber during the past several weeks. Up
until as late as only yesterday I had no intention
of risking my reputation, such as that may be, by
becoming involved in this great floundering
around the Canadian mulberry bush that has been
going on here for some time. When at this late
moment I do so, it is against my better judgement,
and because I have been unable to resist the
temptation to have a final word upon a matter that
I have been at pains to stress throughout this
Convention. I have kept out of this debate so far
for a great many reasons, and by no means the
least of these has been that I had a very inadequate
training for effective participation in the genesis
and genius of such debate that has been going on
in this chamber of immortals. You see, sometime
when I was very young I had the very great
misfortune of being taught that two and two make
four, and I have believed that all my life. But
whenever during this Convention I have tried to
put two and two together, I have found that my
argument has been misinterpreted as adding up
to 3.999 or 4.111, or what is undoubtedly held in
some quarters to be the final treachery of all, an
argument for confederation. Or again, I have to
be of the mind that what matters most to the
average man, once he is free in the practice of his
religion, is three square meals a day. And that
granted that, he doesn't worry very much about
who sits in the seat of government and gets the
grant. But I have found that to say as much in this
Convention, has been to invite condemnation as
a materialist. This I have found to be strange logic
indeed, particularly when I remember that in
1933 the only answer of some of our best minds
to all who took a stand against the surrender of
our constitution was, "And how do you propose
to feed this people?" I have failed completely to
understand how it could be patriotism to worry
about three square meals a day for all in 1933, but
merely materialism to worry about three square
meals a day for all in 1948. In consequence Ihave
preferred to stay out of this debate by distortion.
That, in my opinion, is exactly What it has been,
and I will content myself with the statement that
during this debate statements have been made,
and many of them, calculated merely so to distort
the whole confederation issue as to leave the
Newfoundland people completely confused.
On the one hand I have heard everything conceivable thrown at the idea of union. All the old
arguments, all the skeletons of ancient bogies that
have been dangling in the closet since 1869, have
been given a new coat of whitewash and brought
out for further service — all, that is, with one
exception. I have heard no mention as yet of that
most effective propaganda piece of 1869, that
Canadians shoot babies out of cannons. I suggest
that that is something not to be overlooked. For
after all, it would be just as logical to expect
people to believe that as to expect them to believe
some of the things that I have heard in this chamber during the past weeks. On the
other hand, it
is not impossible that some of our people may
have been left with the impression that with confederation, we should come into the
inheritance
of a new Jerusalem flowing with milk and with
honey and with maple leafs. I have no objection
to the coming of the millennium except, perhaps,
that I think that I should find it dreadfully boring.
But I don't expect to see it come to pass in my
time, and I very much doubt that my son will see
it come to pass in his time. Being a reasonable
man, I am quite prepared to think that Mr.
Smallwood is not inclined to tell us that the
millennium will come upon us in consequence of
confederation.
It is not my intention at this late date to try to
sift for you the proof from the propaganda. But
for the satisfaction of my own conscience, I have
tried to keep in View the point that this debate was
supposed to be about in the first place, namely
whether or not a fair and equitable basis may exist
for federal union of Newfoundland and Canada.
That is what the delegation was sent to Ottawa to
investigate, and that is what each of us has to
decide for himself upon the basis of the documents submitted to us. The only alternative
is to
play it safe, and to avoid the issue and take refuge
in a confession of inability to complete the work
that in standing for election we undertook to do.
I have no intention of going into the decision that
I have come to in this matter. I shall get around
to that in the great final debates that will follow
immediately. For the moment, I want merely to
relate my concept of what confederation would
mean, as formulated from the documents before
us, to that matter upon which I have been so
insistent throughout this Convention — namely,
that for the future the ordinary man of this island
1218 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
must have a greater portion than has been his
historic portion. We have been witness in our
time to a great movement of the minds of men
that's already come to have some effect upon the
economics we live by and that cannot but have
further considerable effect upon the shape of
things economic in this land. But before I go on
to relate these proposed arrangements for the
entry of Newfoundland into confederation to all
that, let me say this.
During all the days of this Convention, Mr.
Newell and myself have gone out of our way at
times to emphasise and italicise and reiterate the
economics. We have hammered away at the
theme of three square meals a day, and a decent
suit of clothes on the back, and a tight roof over
the head, every time that we have had our mouths
open. Maybe we've overdone it, But I doubt that
in this land such a theme can be overdone. I know
that more often than not we have not said the
proper things. But then, the thoughts that one has
had holed up for the night in a tilt on the trail to
Flower's Cove, or wallowing around the bill of
Cape St. George in a lobster smack, have not been
particularly proper thoughts either. And the mere
shift of scene to the National Convention has not
been anything like enough to stifle that. We have
had a long association, Mr. Newell and I, with the
men of this island whose overalls reek with the
salt of the fish flakes, the manure of the barnyard,
and the resin of the pulpwoods, and it has not
been particularly conducive to the mouthing of
platitudes. If at times we have sounded somewhat
bitter, I hope that we haven't, but if we have, then
that has been because we have sometimes seen
such sights as a whole family curled up for a
winter's night in a circle around the fire, or on the
floor of a tar-paper shack; or a mother cooking
for her children a dinner of pancakes of sourdough on top of a sawed-off oil drum
that served
as a stove, or because, to quote Mr. Newell, "I
saw death and hunger on a barren coastline/The
empty cupboard and the lean winter — /But
deeper than all the beaten look of despair/W as the
dumb and impotent fury/In a man's eyes as he
tumed/To the thing that had to be done."
[1] So if
we said things that have rankled, don't think that
they were dreamed up in an easy chair before a
comfortable fire, because they weren't; and don't
think we're sorry if by any chance we've disturbed somebody's peace of mind, because
we're
not. We may have had some hard things to say,
but if we have, then it's been because we've felt
that at this moment of historic decision, a few
hard sayings wouldn't go amiss.
Now, the great movement of the minds of men
to which I refer has been a movement ofthe
minds of men to the left; and this movement has
had repercussions in the economies of most
countries, including our own. All the days of all
our lives, this movement of the mass of men to
the left has been going on. Sometimes it has been
a dribble, sometimes a torrent. With some it has
been a matter of honest, intellectual conviction
that that is the way that they should go; with most,
it has been merely a matter of hoping to be cut in
for a larger slice of the cake to be divided among
the numbers of the nation. Indeed, irrespective of
what may have driven the pundits to the left, it
has been the hope of more bread and more lavish
circuses that has enticed the people. Inevitably
there has been class conflict over the division of
the cake. In some countries this has led to bitter
class warfare resulting in the elimination of the
older aristocracies and the setting up of a new
aristocracy ruling in the name of the proletariat.
Just how much of the cake the proletariat has
come to be cut in for in consequence of all this,
however, seems rather problematic. Every now
and then there are disquieting rumours out of
Russia, for instance. Other peoples have settled
for less than the dictatorship of the proletariat and
are content, for the moment at any rate, with
social security legislation calculated to improve
the economic condition of low income groups.
Scarcely a country but has in our own time made
provision for a wider distribution of the cake.
That is why you have workmen's compensation,
minimum wage legislation, unemployment insurance, widows' pensions, family allowances
and all the rest of it. These are things that
everyone has come to take for granted in the
countries where they have them, or to look for in
the countries where they haven' t. So I say that the
whole consciousness of mankind has moved a
little left of centre. Even your arch- conservative
today is more social-minded than was his
grandfather. At any rate, if he be eligible for old
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1219
age pension, you won't find him turning it down.
Most people don't give a second thought to social
legislation which, a generation ago, would have
been damned as rank socialism. Indeed, right, left
and centre may hardly be said to be positions in
politics and economics, forever fixed by immutable law, but are instead fluid positions
determined from time to time, and we're witness that
what is held to be extreme by one generation is
often held to be conservative by another. Therefore, it may be said that the centre
itself has lately
come to be a little left of centre.
In our own land one doesn't have to go very
far out of one's way to observe what has come of
the movement of men's minds to the left. There
was first of all the organised attempt to secure a
wider distribution of the cake to the various
unions of fishermen, loggers, labourers, clerks
and so forth....
[1] Now I grant you that the cake we
have to cut in this island is no Christmas cake;
rather it is mostly a fishcake'. But I am ready to
agree with Mr. Newell, that cut into such slices
as social justice would dictate, it could provide a
frugal living for our people, and in that the labour
and co-operative movements apparently concur.
Otherwise they would merely be engaged in the
rather futile endeavour of butting their heads
against the stone wall. And there has come of the
desire of men in this island to achieve a wider
handing out of the cake some social legislation,
but not nearly enough of it, and some admission
by management of the common man into a
greater return from the increment of production.
In evidence of the same, witness old age pensions, workmen's compensation, minimum
wage
legislation, improved public health services and
so on, and many union working agreements,
higher wages and improved working conditions.
But as Mr. Newell has already pointed out,
social legislation is not enough. Social legislation
is merely stop-gap legislation. Family allowances are merely something that a man
must have,
because the character of the economy is not such
as enables him to provide adequately for his
family out of his own efforts. Old age pensions
are something that the aged must have, because
the character of the economy in which they lived
was not such as to permit them in their youth to
provide adequately for their old age. Unemployment insurance is something all modern
men
need, because they can never be certain at what
moment the economy will put them out of a job
and out of a livelihood. Minimum wage legislation becomes necessary when the economic
organisation of society tends to deprive the labourer
of his just hire. Not that I'm against social legislation — at this juncture it is
most necessary. But
at its best, what it attempts is to make the best of
a bad bargain. What men everywhere, and in this
island, have been seeking in edging to the left, in
demanding the wider distribution of the cake, has
been simply this — the opportunity from an
honest effort to make a decent living, the opportunity to come by such return from
their labour
as will enable them to provide their families with
adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attention, recreation, and yet
enable them to
put aside something for their old age. Only within
an economy that admits of as much can Mr.
Newell's fisherman hope to come by sufficient to
send his son to Memorial College to study Greek
if he wants to, and can my last forgotten fisherman on the bill of Cape St. George
come to have,
in addition to his three square meals a day, his
mug-up going to bed. And if any delegate is still
of the opinion that not all men can have that
much, maybe he will undertake to answer the
question thatI asked way back at the beginning
of this Convention — what men are you going to
require to be satisfied with just exactly how much
less?
The common man of this island now has ideas
about a larger slice of the cake. He will likely
become insistent, beyond the point of merely
pounding the table, as time goes on. I know of but
two methods of approach to the resolution of that
difficulty, without running the risk of strife and
unrest, which we want to avoid at all costs. I have
been at pains in my examination of the Grey
Book and the Black Books... and in listening to
this debate, to seek to determine if confederation
would provide a third formula for a redistribution
of the cake. I am convinced that to a not inconsiderable extent it will. It will go
as far as family
allowances go, which is no little way. It will go
as far as unemployment insurance and augmented old age pensions go, which is no mean
distance. It will go as far as taxation related to
capacity to pay will go, which is a considerable
distance. But I am not completely convinced that
1220 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
confederation per se and in itself will set to rights
the basic economic maladjustments from which
arises the necessity for a wider distribution of the
cake. Not that that is anything to confederation's
detriment. To adjust those maladjustments you
have to do more than change the form of government, you have to change the economics
that men
live by. In other words, as far as I can honestly
and in conscience go at this moment is to say this:
that I think that confederation is part of the
answer that I am looking for, for Newfoundland,
but that it is still not the complete and final
answer. No form of government can be that. The
complete and final answer to a more spacious
destiny can come only from among the people
themselves.
I look in the first instance to the co-operative
movement to set to rights the basic economic
maladjustments of this land. Someone, in a rather
obvious attempt to smear the movement, called
the co-operative movement communist. It happens to be the very antithesis. The co-operative
movement is private enterprise carried to its logical conclusion, for the aim of private
enterprise
is ownership, and what the co-operative movement seeks is the widest ownership for
the
greatest number. I am convinced that Newfoundland cannot afford not to have a largely
co-operative economy, but I know that such an
economy is not going to emerge next year, or the
year after, or the year after that. All we have to
show for ten years of effort is a few hundred
organisations from the first 10,000 disciples.
That is a creditable showing. But I nevertheless
doubt that the co-operative movement can take
up the slack in our economic and social system
fast enough.
That leaves only one other acceptable formula
immediately available that could be employed to
achieve a more equitable division of the cake;
that is participation by labour, through ownership, in that margin of return from
commerce and
industry up till now earmarked for the recompense of capital and management. Various
labour
and protective unions have done much to have
the cake and pass it around more generously, by
securing a greater return to the labourer for his
hire and to the producer for his produce. But there
are real economic limits to just how far that can
be carried, particularly in a country of primary
production whose industries must endeavour to
hold their own in the rough and tumble of world
competition. There is just so far that collective
bargaining and mutual assistance associations
can go to achieve wage increases for the labourer,
and price increases for the primary producer, and
thereby increase the common man's share in the
national income. Some unions and associations
are well along toward that point of just-so-far
already. But even if further increases could be
achieved, they would not alter the basic insecurity that attaches to the lives of
the wage-
earning class, would not guarantee them
permanently a larger slice of the cake. That can
come only in consequence of ownership.
It could very easily be that we shall shortly
witness a great translation of most of our people
into wage earners in consequence of an industrial
revolution in our fishing industry. Predominantly, our people have always been and
still are of
considerable personal independence in industry.
That independence has been founded upon their
ownership of their own instruments of production, upon their ownership of their own
fishing
boats, their own fishing gear and their own fishing rooms. But we have now come to
the point
where a considerable mechanisation and
centralisation of our fishing industry is inevitable; either we shall have that, or
we shall
have no fishing industry. It is easy to foresee how
such mechanisation and centralisation could lead
to the creation of a large fishing proletariat
employed as wage earners on draggers, at
processing plants, at central curing stations and
canneries, but not participating in the ownership
and earnings of those new fish enterprises. The
creation of such a fishing proletariat is something
to guard against at all costs It could lead only to
great dissatisfaction, great unrest, maybe even
strife. I am convinced that it can be avoided only
if some formula be worked out to provide participation for fishermen in the ownership
and
earnings of such new fishing structures as may
emerge.
It is not for me here to indicate in what fashion
all that may be brought about. But for the peace
and the happiness of this land, the effort had
better be made to bring it about, and not only in
the fishing industry.... We have to have for the
future a more even distribution of the national
income than we have had in the past. We can
achieve such results if we are willing to make the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1221
effort, without disorder, without upheaval,
without injury to the essential character of our
national institutions. But if we won't try it, don't
be surprised if some arise in our midst who want
to try it another way. I hope I haven't been
sounding like Jeremiah helping Cassandra with
her homework. It has not been my intention to try
to put the fear of God into somebody by
scaremongering. It's been my intention merely to
indicate a significant phenomenon of our times,
in consequence of which our economy will come
to be changed. In that regard there is this that I
can say in favour of these proposed arrangements
for union. They meet the inevitable half-way. I
hope that the change that must come will be
accomplished without class conflict and social
unrest. It can be, given the will. Economic
security and political liberty are not incompatible. I think that a satisfactory synthesis
of the
two can be achieved, to which the Christian conscience can subscribe. In our instance,
the cause
of peace and happiness, and the dignity of life in
this land, will best be served if we go forward into
the future prepared and ready to put in the way of
the common man a larger slice of the cake that is
ours to share. Indeed, only if the like be done all
over the world, can mankind hope to see restored
and kept inviolate the temple of human freedom
and dignity.
Now, gentlemen of the National Convention,
we go on to the last theme of all, to the recommendation of forms of government to
appear
upon the ballot, and a page of history is waiting
to be written. A page of history is waiting to be
written by the people of Newfoundland too. As
they turn to face the greatest challenge that has
ever been theirs to face, as they come to the
making of the greatest decision that has ever been
theirs to make, I should like to repeat for their
guidance and their consolation the words with
which His Majesty the King concluded his first
wartime Christmas broadcast: "And I said to the
man who stood at the gate of the year, 'Give me
a light, that going forth into the darkness I may
know whither it is I go. And he said to me, 'Go
out into the unknown and put your hand into the
hand of God, and that shall be to you better than
a light, and safer than the known way.'"
Mr. Ballam Mr. Chairman, I have said nothing
so far in this debate because I did not see the need
of saying anything. The piloting of the debate has
been in good hands, and my feeling has been that
too many cooks might spoil the broth... This
debate is now drawing to a close, and I want to
say a few words just so that my silence might not
be misunderstood. I want to go on record as being
deeply impressed, as one of the Ottawa delegation, by the warm and sincere reception
we got in
Canada. From the time we stepped ashore in
North Sydney, all we met was kindness and sincerity. It was very plain to see that
the Government of Canada was very glad to have us visit
them, as I know they will be glad to have Newfoundland. It is very plain that they
would welcome Newfoundland into their family of
provinces. This feeling was not confined to members of the government, all the public
men of all
political parties were very glad to see us and to
make us welcome. I'm sure that my friend Mr.
Higgins will remember the delightful evenings
we spent at the home of the leader of the opposition, Mr. Bracken... In every way
possible the
people and the Government of Canada made us
welcome. Before we left Ottawa, we had all come
to feel that we were among friends. There was no
gulf between us, except for the Cabot Strait of
course, just friendly and sincere understanding
all the time. Whatever the people may do in the
referendum this spring, the members of the Ottawa delegation, that clever and austere
body of
men, will always remember the kind friendships
that we met in Ottawa. 1 think I can also say, Mr.
Chairman, that we were surprised almost every
day by the knowledge that these Canadians
showed of Newfoundland. I can assure you that
we didn't have to go up to Ottawa to tell them
anything about Newfoundland, because they
knew all about it before we went. This book on
Newfoundland by Dr. MacKay is a masterpiece... They had studied our country, our trade
and industries, and they certainly had an excellent knowledge of the country.
This Ottawa delegation, this famous delegation that will go down in history, was sent
to
Ottawa by this Convention for a special purpose.
We knew what we were going for. We were going
there to ascertain what fair and equitable basis
there might be for federal union. That was our job
— what we sometimes call the terms of federal
union or confederation. We never lost sight of
that for one moment. Mr. Higgins might have, but
the rest of us didn't. It is quite true that we did not
1222 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
bring those terms back with us, but they were sent
down through the Governor. Nobody can deny
that it was our visit to Ottawa and our work in
Ottawa that secured these terms. It was not until
they were read out in this chamber that we really
knew for sure just what the terms would be. But
it was impossible for us to be there all that time,
and to be meeting almost every day with the
Canadian ministers or officials, without getting a
pretty shrewd idea of what the terms were going
to be like. But we held our peace... We wouldn't
say a word until they came here in writing...
I think these terms are pretty fair. We were
told by these gentlemen in Ottawa that no other
body, even an elected government, or the Commission of Government, could not get better
terms: that these were the best terms available at
this particular time. There's no reason that they
can't be sort of added to at some future time.... If
you look at the thing fairly and squarely, I think
that even the Major ... knows in his heart and soul
that they're very good, and that it would be the
best thing for the people in this country. I do not
think that everything would be perfect if we
became a province, it could not be, but there
would be a great many improvements. The bulk
of our people would be better off, and that is the
most important thing. I think most family men
would find it easier to bring up their families, and
our younger generation would have a better
chance in life. I think the working man would
have a better chance, although our working men
are doing very well, I must say....
It was not my first visit to Canada, Mr. Chairman, but while we were there last summer
we
were given every opportunity to see a very large
section of it. We certainly saw enough ... to see
what a great country Canada really is. I'm sure
that there's nobody can deny that Canada is a
really great country... By joining with Canada
we're still going to be Newfoundlanders. You
can't take that out of us. I think we were patriotic,
although we were told that we weren't patriotic,
we were called Judas Iscariot and God knows
else. I and my three brothers served overseas in
the first war and I had two people serving in this
war. That is a patriotism of one form, and there's
another form of patriotism, and that's being truthful and sincere and honest with
your fellow man.
If I really think in my heart, and I do, that con
federation is the better thing for most people in
this country, then I think I'm being patriotic, and
I'm being sincere and honest with the people of
the country.... We never went back on our
country, I can guarantee you that.... But at the
same time, we were all very deeply impressed by
Canada's greatness, by her progressive methods,
by her wide-awake system of doing things.
There's one thing that strikes my mind very
much, Mr. Chairman, and that is the fact that if
we decide to tie on with that great country, things
will have to fall pretty low indeed for Newfoundland to go under. If we become a province
of Canada, all that big country will have to fail
for us to fail. That's a very important thing, and
it doesn't seem that Canada is going to fail very
soon. Although Canada may not always be
blessed by the wonderful prosperity they have
right now, I find it impossible to believe that she
will ever go under. I look to see her go onward
and upward to ever greater things in the future. I
regard Canada as one of the coming powers of
the world, and I honestly believe that if we link
our fortunes with hers, we'll go up with her.
There's one thing about Canada more then anything else that impresses my mind, and
that is the
wonderful way in which she backed the old
country in this last war, and since the war ended.
There's no country in the world doing better....
There's one thing about confederation that satisfies my mind, and that is the fact
that Canada is
a great British nation — don't forget. It's true that
there is great friendship between Canada and the
United States... But Canada is still British and
proud of it. If we do decide to join up with
Canada, it's a British nation we'd be joining.
There are many things about confederation
that we would be a while getting used to. Canada
is something like the United States in her form of
government, she is a federal union. She's really
nine countries in one, and she'd be ten countries
in one if we get in, only they don't call themselves
countries, they call themselves provinces...
[1] It is
very much like the Newfoundland Federation of
Labour, which is a federation of unions, or a
federal union in itself. This union runs its own
show. There are certain matters that are too big
for an individual union to run, and that's why they
associate with the federal union. That's how it is
with the Canadian federal union. Each province
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1223
runs its own show in so many things, and the
federal government runs the rest. I suppose it
would take us all a little while to get used to it,
but I don't doubt that we would get used to it. We
Newfoundlanders are famous for being able to
adapt ourselves pretty quickly. We're a smart
bunch of people. When it was proposed to change
the rule of the road in Newfoundland last year,
and make all the cars and trucks drive to the right,
some people prophesised all kinds of accidents
and deaths. But it turned out all right. And although we've only been a short year
driving to
the right, and we drove to the left for over half a
century, we're so used to it now that we never
even think of it. That's how it would be with
confederation. It looks like a pretty big jump for
us to take right now, but we'd get used to it....
The way I look at this confederation idea, Mr.
Chairman, is simply you have to think of the
majority. It's not what would suit a few but what
would suit the many. I suppose some people
might be hurt a little by confederation — I see my
friend Mr. Hickman smiling over there — especially at the start. I would not be glad
to see
anybody hurt. But what comes first is the welfare
of the many, and perhaps a very few would be
hurt anyway... There's another thing I like about
this confederation idea, and that's the fact that it
will give us political democracy. We mustn't
forget that. It would give us political democracy,
just the same as responsible government would
give it. I can see Major Cashin now up in the
Houses of Parliament up in Ottawa, the Minister
of Finance of that great big Dominion of Canada,
not a little place like this.
I suppose all of us would be inclined to give
the Commission government system credit where
they deserve it, and they do deserve some credit.
We've said some very hard things here about the
Commission of Government, but we must admit
that they have done some good and they're
deserving of a little credit. I'm not swinging on
the Commission government gate either.... But
I'm ready to give praise where praise is due. But
we've all got to be sensible about these things. In
the spring we'll all be going in to vote for a form
of government we want, for the form of government we want for our country in the future.
And
I think most thinking men know very well that we
can't decide that we'll have the Commission of
Government here forever. It was never meant to
stay here. Commission government gives us no
voice at all in our public affairs, while confederation at least will give us better
democratic
government. We'll not only elect our seven members to the House of Commons in Ottawa,
but
we'll also elect our own House of Assembly. It is
true that our House of Assembly wouldn't have
the whole show to run, but still it will have plenty
to do. We will be electing our own government
and we'll also be helping to elect a government
for the whole federal union. I won't go any further, Mr. Chairman, with this line
of argument,
because you'll probably have to rule me out of
order. Anyway, one of the things I noticed about
this confederation idea is that it will bring back
to us a democratic form of government after a
long and perhaps painful absence. Mr. Chairman,
I have purposely kept away from discussing
details of these confederation terms because they
have been drawn over so often by everybody that
I'm sure they've been worn out. And we don't
want the people in the country to forget about it
just yet. I can assure you that we all appreciate
the fact that they were handled very ably by Mr.
Smallwood.... So there's nothing further that I
would add just now. For about five weeks we've
been debating these details and I guess the Convention and the country have a fair
idea of them
by this time. I regard the terms as fair and attractive. I think that under confederation
we would
get a square deal. I think our country would go
ahead. I think our people would be better off and
I think most of our families would live better and
that, like Mr. Keough said, is the most important
thing of all. That is the thing which we're to
decide. I think the people will know how to
decide this fact. One last thing I want to emphasise. We may decide to join up with
Canada.
If we do, we would become Canadian citizens,
and Canada would be one great nation stretching
from St. John's right out to Vancouver. We'd
become Canadian citizens, but we'd never cease
to be Newfoundlanders. That would be impossible. To us Newfoundland will always be
home.
To us Newfoundlanders it will always come first.
And if in the referendum I cast my vote for
confederation, it will not be for Canada's sake but
for the sake of the generations yet unborn here in
our own island home.
Mr. Fowler I have listened long and patiently to
the confederates and the anticonfederates express
1224 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
their beliefs with varying degrees of ardour and
ability. And with Mr. Hollett's closure motion
hovering over this debate, I assure you that I will
not occupy much of your valuable time. I realise
that there are matters of great importance yet
demanding the consideration of this Convention.
Mr. Chairman, at first I had not intended to say
anything in this debate, because I considered too
much had already been said. But as it has been
my custom since this Convention opened to briefly comment on matters before the Chair
and to
make my position clear regarding them, I decided
to make a few general observations on this issue.
They are as follows. First, I contend that the
matter of confederation should never have been
the business of this Convention and that responsible government should have been restored
in
accordance with the agreement of 1934.
Mr. Chairman You can't do anything about
that. You have no jurisdiction over that matter at
all. In the first place if the matter is to be debated
at all it comes within the purview of the different
forms of government, which is not yet before the
Chair. You must confine yourself to business
before the Chair, the terms of union.
Mr. Fowler That's what I'm trying to do — just
following out my arguments, sir.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Higgins, there's no need for
you to prompt the speaker, I've just ruled that this
matter isn't debatable.
Mr. Fowler If confederation is to be a live issue,
let the people interested form a party, go to the
country, preach their doctrine and if given a
mandate from the people, go as honourable men
and negotiate the terms of union on equal footing
with the Canadian government. Gentlemen, I
contend that in contrast to this, we should look at
what really happened. Mr. Smallwood asked this
Convention to send somebody, anybody to
Canada to discuss terms of union. First we said
no. Then sometime later some of us got softhearted and by a scant majority agreed
to send
seven individuals to Ottawa. No qualifications
were required, and as we all know that delegation
consisted of every type of gentleman with the
notable exception of an expert. And it must be
borne in mind that the people of Newfoundland
were not asked if they wanted a delegation to go
to Ottawa or not. Much less were they asked to
select the members of this delegation. It is doubtful if any delegation would have
been wined and
dined in Ottawa for that 100 days had the people
of Newfoundland been asked to decide. Secondly, we have these one-sided terms or proposals
here. They are one-sided. That must be evident
to all, because scores of questions of prime importance to Newfoundland have been
asked and
the answers could not be found in these costly
documents we have before us. Mr. Smallwood
has attempted to explain them. But with all due
respect to Mr. Smallwood, what right has he to
speak for the Canadian government? What
authority has he? How does he know what any
government of Canada may or may not do in the
future? Mr. Chairman, we know only what is
contained in the Grey Book. And that document,
sir, will be longer remembered for what it does
not contain than it will for what it does contain.
Gentlemen, one of the things our people want
to learn is the truth about this burning question of
taxation. All I can say is that it is like the truth
about the next world: we hear a lot about it, but
we will never know the real truth until we go
there. We will never know the real truth about
taxes under confederation until we become the
tenth province of Canada. But always remember,
that if things do not turn out as you expected, you
will never be able to do anything about it. Thirdly, people should disabuse their
minds of the idea
of getting something for nothing, and realise that
whatever form of government you have, you pay
for what you get in one way or another. If you
don't pay indirect taxes, you will pay direct taxes.
If the federal government does not collect them,
the provincial government will. If the provincial
government does not collect them then the
municipal government will. And remember, that
under confederation we will be subject to all three
forms of taxation — federal, provincial and
municipal. The other nine provinces have them,
how can we expect to escape them? Mr.
Smallwood labours the point that we will not be
compelled to have land taxes, property taxes and
the like. He tells us that it will be entirely up to
the province. But that is the point. Nobody compels me to eat, but I must eat in order
to exist. And
in order for Newfoundland to exist at all as the
tenth province of Canada, it will be necessary for
her to avail of every known means of taxation.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why we should
join Canada or any other country at this time. It
is common knowledge that the eyes of the North
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1225
American continent are focussed on us, because
of our strategic importance and because of the
natural resources of both Labrador and Newfoundland. Can we not hold on to this a
little
longer and find out what it will really mean to us?
After all, only yesterday, through the efforts of
Mr. Fudge, we learned officially that somebody
had offered $150 million for Labrador.
Mr. Smallwood No, no, no — no such thing...
No one has made any offer at all, no one.
Mr. Chairman The position is that the offer
was allegedly made by an undisclosed principal.
Mr. Chairman You read the letter, but the name
of the person was not made known.
Mr. Smallwood The letter merely said that
somebody wrote the department suggesting that
it be sold. The one who wrote it wasn't offering
to buy it. He didn't say that anyone was offering
to buy it. He merely up and said it should be sold
for $150 million. That's what's in the letter...
Mr. Chairman If it's important I'll make a
decision, so we'll all see what the letter contains.
Mr. Fudge I said before, Mr. Chairman, I read
that letter.
The Department of Natural Resources
St. John's
January 13, 1948
Sir:
With reference to your letter of 9th
January, 1948, I am directed to inform you
that in a letter to the Department of Natural
Resources dated the 15th October, 1947, the
suggestion was made that Labrador should be
sold for $150,000,000. The letter did not
indicate who was the prospective purchaser
and there were no further developments.
I am sir, your obedient servant
J.J. Carter
Secretary for Natural Resources
Secretary, National Convention.
The answer is, my interpretation of that letter
is it was not an offer. You can't do business with
a man who doesn't disclose himself. The letter is
plain and clear... The suggestion was made that
Labrador should be sold for $150 million. The
letter did not indicate who was the prospective
purchaser. And there were no further developments.
Mr. Chairman Not at all. It's incapable of that
interpretation... Go ahead, Mr. Fowler, please.
Mr. Fowler I really brought it up because I knew
there were some doubts about it, and I think it's
very good to have it cleared up. Gentlemen, even
though we have been dead politically for the past
14 years, let us bestir ourselves, awake to the
importance of our inheritance, and if any advantages are to be had, let us as Newfoundlanders
reap the benefits, and if Canada or the United
States are interested, we will be in a position to
do business with them as friendly neighbours. For
these reasons then, it is my opinion that responsible government, the goal of all
civilised people,
should be restored to Newfoundland so that the
people should be free to do business with the
United States as well as Canada, if they so desire.
And in any event, they would be free to act
according to the dictates of the country. Thank
you.
Mr. Crummey Mr. Chairman, it's a pity almost
to spoil that happy relationship we had in Canada,
so ably demonstrated by our friend Senator
Prospective. I did not intend at this juncture to
take any part, but seeing I'm the lone bird of the
Ottawa delegation, I thought that possibly it
might be thought that I was in accord with the
majority of the delegation that returned from
Ottawa. I want to say without any shadow of a
doubt that I am anticonfederate on the terms that
have been brought down here. Mr. Burry, I think,
hinted yesterday that if we had had some Newfoundland experts up there we would have
been
back in possibly three weeks. I'm half inclined to
disagree with him on the grounds that if we had
had all the experts in Newfoundland and elsewhere, it was not possible to get back
before we
did. I doubt very much, Major, that we would
have been back by the time we did arrive, had not
that famous message been sent up and a copy sent
to the Prime Minister of Canada.
We went there and we discovered...that we
came a little ahead of the time that they would
have liked for us to come. True, they said come
around June or the lst of July. But they discovered politically that we arrived a
little too
early. The suggestion was made that we go home
and come back again in September. But
we...thought that if we came back the possibilities
were that we wouldn't get back again in Septem
1226 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
ber. Now what delayed us? ....There's an election
on in Halifax. The government had a seat there
that they had to win. We couldn't make very
much progress until that election was decided.
Mr. Chairman, what I'm doing now is trying to
show you why I'm anticonfederate. Then the next
thing turns up is the Dominion-provincial tax
agreement down in Nova Scotia that has to be
signed That comes up the 20th of August, I
believe — couldn't release any terms up to that
time. Nova Scotia had to sign those tax agreements. And then we were making progress,
but
unfortunately the Minister of Fisheries, the Hon.
Mr. Bridges died. That created a by-election
down in New Brunswick. We couldn't come
home then, because if they'd released those
generous terms, the opposition in New
Brunswick would play on them. Finally, up
comes this message. It came before the plenary
session, and I'd say they were a little bit tormented. They thought the best thing
they could
do was get the Black Books ready — give us the
Black Books, and after the election in New
Brunswick they'd send us down what now has
been termed the Grey Book. Now as a member
of that delegation, I thought that there was too
much politics in the whole game. I went there
with an open mind. I went there to get hard facts,
and I am of that nature that I've got to be convinced before I really agree. And I've
been
charged with being cantankerous. You can call it
that if you will. But there's the position.
Now then, I notice in that Grey Book that there
is no mention whatever of the matter of divorce.
Why? Take up your Black Book and it says that
the whole matter is a matter for the province.
How many provinces in Canada have no divorce
laws? ....In Quebec there are no divorce laws —
look what happened. Parties have to go before the
Senate. They have to have all the evidence
without belabouring the question. The position
now is there's a movement afoot that it will not
be necessary to go to Ottawa, that the evidence
will be taken in the courts of Quebec. If you have
all the provinces except Quebec with divorce
laws, if you go in as a tenth province, what chance
have you got in Newfoundland for being driven
into divorce? Look at it in the common sense
way. I would like to say that overtures were made
in Ottawa so that it would be possible to have
some clause in that Grey Book regarding divorce.
I'm inclined to think too that there were some
overtures made here in Newfoundland since we
came back along the same lines, but nothing
became of it and you have no reference whatever.
Same thing applies to education. Mr. Small-
wood said last night that I was an ex-school-
teacher. In the old days, when I was a
schoolteacher, in the early days of high school
teaching, I was public school minded. I've had
some experience in Canada and in the United
States regarding education. I followed the whole
situation and I completely changed my mind, and
decided that the best form of education for Newfoundland, as the settlements are divided,
is the
system that you have. Again, they tell you in the
Black Book that education is a matter for the
provinces. How many provinces in Canada have
denominational schools? Can't you see that if
you go into confederation, there is always a possibility that your educational system
will be
upset? It's one of the reasons why I'm not
prepared to take the chance. I don't know, sir,
whether the time limit is up or not....
Mr. Crummey Mr. Crosbie mentioned it this
afternoon, he talked about the Fishery Board in
Newfoundland. I know of a certainty that the
Fishery Board under confederation has got to go
out of existence, irrespective of the opinion of
any other of the members of the delegation. They
searched around everywhere in the statutes, laws
of Canada and they couldn't find any place where
they could allow Newfoundland to keep that
Board in existence. You can look in the Black
Book and you'll find very nice phraseology
covering up the situation. The next one and I'll
soon be finished. That is the deficit that's going
to be created by going into confederation.
There's definitely going to be a deficit on the
terms in that Grey Book. It was pointed out to the
Canadians and asked how we were going to get
around that situation. Put on more taxation or
take your surplus, and in the Grey Book they've
made provision by taking one third of your
surplus to cover up any deficits that you'll incur.
I could go on a bit longer, but I don't feel like
keeping people here any longer. What I'm trying
to say is that I am opposed to confederation on
the terms presented in that Grey Book. I am not
against going into confederation if the terms suit
me, being a Newfoundlander first.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1227
Mr. Smallwood No sir, that is not the motion
that Mr. Higgins was about to make.
Mr. Higgins That the committee rise, report that
they have considered the matter to them referred
and recommend that it lie on the table of the
House for future reference. That's the motion that
I would make, sir. That would dispose of the
debate. The adoption of that motion would be the
end of this debate.
Mr. Smallwood I wonder, we've all been especially fair the last few days, and I want to be
extremely fair. I wonder if I could have one
minute — just one minute. I just ask one minute
on one point only.
Mr. Smallwood And that is one point referred
to by Mr. Crummey. I'm sorry he referred to it.
When he says that overtures were made in Ottawa
and in St. John's on the question of divorce, I'm
sorry he said it. That is true, overtures have been
made.
Mr. Crummey Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Smallwood is going to raise that, it's going to create a
discussion.
Mr. Crummey He is not going to have one
minute and then I'm not going to have a reply to
it.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I move that the
committee rise now.
Mr. Smallwood No, it's my motion and I have
the floor. I'm speaking to the motion.
Mr. Higgins I'm going to a point of order now.
You can bring in a motion to rise and...
Mr. Chairman I've allowed him one minute,
Mr. Higgins, and I've just allowed him one. Now
please, Mr. Smallwood, everything has been very
harmonious here, just get it off your chest.
Mr. Smallwood No, a very serious statement
has been made in the closing moments of the
debate. A very serious statement and I know why,
but I'll leave that out.
Mr. Crummey It's an insinuation, and I think I
know why.
Mr. Smallwood The statement was made by
Mr. Crummey that overtures were made in Ottawa and in St. John's with regard to the
question
of divorce. I say that that is true. And I say this,
that whatever Newfoundland wants, whatever it
be, the proper authorities, whatever they want in
a matter of divorce, they can have. I say so, and
I know what I'm talking about. Whatever the
proper authorities of Newfoundland want in the
matter of divorce, they've only got to ask. I say
that, and I'm sorry the matter has been mentioned
here at all. Sorry.
Mr. Chairman Now just a moment, Mr. Higgins, before Iput your motion. Is there at this time
any member who hasn't spoken on this question,
and who feels that he would like to address himself on the question, because I'm going
to put the
closure motion to the House tomorrow afternoon.
I don't want it to be said that there was anything
improper I did, that certain members were allowed to speak to their heart's content
and other
people weren't allowed to speak at all. I don't
want that situation to arise. If there's any member
who hasn't addressed himself to this question and
feels like doing so, now is the time.
Mr. Chairman Sir, I don't have to leave here at
all, if I decided I could stay here till nine tomorrow morning if I like. If you don't
like it, it's your
right to walk out of the House. I'm not going to
take the right of Mr. MacDonald to speak when
he hasn't had the opportunity to address himself
on this question at all, and other people have been
able to address themselves tonight. There's a case
of discrimination that I could be probably
charged with that I'm not going to be charged
with. Please go ahead, Mr. MacDonald.
1228 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Mr. MacDonald I wouldn't have asked, Mr.
Chairman, only the invitation was put to any
person who wished to rise. I could have very well
left it alone for that matter. But it's not my
intention to address the Convention at any length
on the subject matter now before the Chair, as it
is more than probable that most of it will be
repeated again when the question of recommendations arises. We have heard various
opinions
and many contradictions on the subject of the
proposals for union with Canada. What results as
far as the members of this Convention and the
people of the country are concerned is a matter
of opinion. I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the idea
of holding our sessions in public, and that of
installing the microphones in this chamber, was
for the purpose of acquainting our people as to
what was going on and informing them as to the
economic and financial position of this country
of ours and giving them the facts. I repeat, Mr.
Chairman, the facts... I submit that a good many
of our thinking people are more bewildered than
they were when we started 16 months ago. We
have disagreed and wrangled about every point
that has been brought forward in our various
debates, often descending to tactics more worthy
of a gathering in a pub or the oft-quoted beer
parties than that of a body of men gathered
together to consider the future of our country. We
have individually criticised and abused almost
everything from the British Dominions Office
down to the Commission of Government to the
Convention itself and the members thereof, I
might add. Now do not let us forget this part. That
whatever our individual opinions may be of the
necessity of this Convention, we must realise that
the people who voted in the election of 1946 did
so in all good faith, and sent their respective
delegates to this Convention not only to make
recommendations as to possible forms of government, but also to get information for
them so that
when the time came for the referendum they
would be a position to decide intelligently as to
the type of government which in their opinion
would be the best in the interests of Newfoundland. Have we succeeded in this? Or
has
our time been more occupied in using this Convention as a forum from which to preach
our own
particular form of political ideology? In this very
important matter of the Ottawa proposals for
confederation ... we are faced with something
that may well mean the future welfare or otherwise of Newfoundland to generations
yet unborn.
We have heard these proposals very ably, if
somewhat heatedly at various times, supported
by Mr. Smallwood. We have heard them also
very ably and sometimes heatedly criticised by
Major Cashin and other speakers. We have heard
a lot about sales taxes, excise taxes, etc., even
hidden taxes such as shoe taxes and gasoline
taxes and so on. But we have not stopped to
explain that outside of local sales tax, we are
possibly paying all these taxes every time we buy
these goods from Canada at the present time...
Mr. Chairman, we are nearing the end of our
deliberations as a National Convention. In the
course of our work we have accumulated a great
quantity of information, both essential and nonessential, and in what way are we to
present all
the facts to the people is the question which
concerns me considerably. I doubt that the members of this Convention can even agree
on facts.
I do not know yet what choices of government
will be placed on the ballot papers. But whatever
they may be, the people are entitled to know the
pros and cons of each form of government placed
before them. If this is not done, then we have
failed miserably in our efforts of the past 16
months. The people want to know whether confederation will lower their cost of living
and thus
raise their standard of living. And I don't think it
can be contradicted, and I state this on very good
authority, Mr. Chairman, that the cost of a
month's groceries in New Brunswick is considerably less then one half of that in Newfoundland
at the present time in spite of the austerity
programme. And I state that on good authority.
They will also want to know as to whether it is to
their advantage to have the whole Dominion of
Canada open to their sons and daughters when
they are unable to get renumerative positions at
home. That's another matter that's never been
brought up. Of if they wish to advance themselves more quickly in their chosen trades
or professions and not as at the present time be treated as
foreigners and be admitted on a quota. These
things and scores of others they will want to
know. I agree with Mr. Higgins that the proposals
are good as a fair and equitable basis on which to
work, and undoubtedly the proper authorities
who would finalise the deal, if the people so wish,
would recognise this and possibly get further
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1229
concessions if that is possible. In conclusion, I
think our delegation to Ottawa did a fairly good
job under the circumstances, and that their report
as contained in the Black Books shows they did
the best they could and most decidedly as good
as any delegation we might have sent. I thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your forbearance and
wish to say that any further remarks I may make
on this matter now before the Chair may be left
until the question of recommendations comes up.
Mr. Penney May I ask you, if in case the motion
is adopted, will the delegates be allowed to comment on confederation under the heading
of
forms of government?
Mr. Chairman Yes, Mr. Penney, I've given
considerable thought to the question. Mr. Higgins
has a motion on the order paper, covering responsible government or Commission government.
As far as Mr. Higgins' motion is concerned, it
follows that discussion will have to be confined
to the two forms of government. In addition to
this, Mr. Smallwood has given notice of motion
covering three forms of government including
confederation with Canada... In other words, the
position is that under Mr. Higgins' motion, re
sponsible government and Commission of
Government would be disposed off. Once Mr.
Higgins' motion is disposed off by the House,
you will not be able to re-introduce discussion on
either of the two forms of government covered by
Mr. Higgins' motion because it's
res judicata.
It's been disposed of by the House and that's the
end of it. It will therefore mean that the confederation matter will have to be dealt
with by the
Convention on Mr. Smallwood's motion. Therefore to answer your question in a roundabout
way, yes, you will have an opportunity of expressing your opinion on the confederation
question after and when Mr. Higgins' motion has been
disposed of by the House.
Mr. Penney Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intended to say something on about confederation
and forms of government, and I wouldn't like to
be deprived of that privilege...
Mr. Chairman ....The motion is that the committee rise, report that they considered the matter
to them referred, and recommend that it lie on the
table of the House for future reference...
[The motion carried. The committee rose, the
Convention approved the report, and adjourned]
