Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Newell proceeds
would it be in order to ask you, or alternatively Professor Wheare, to
express an opinion as to the propriety, or rather the authority of the
Convention's sending a delegation to confer with the Govemment of
Canada, assuming always that the Convention decided to send such a
delegation? I think perhaps it would be quite helpful to the gentlemen here
if we had some knowledge as to our authority, should the motion be
adopted, to proceed...
Mr. Chairman Do you refer your question to me as
Chairman, or to Professor Wheare, Mr.
Smallwood? I will answer if you like.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I would like an opinion
from both of you.
Mr. Chairman Insofar as my opinion is concerned, Mr. Smallwood, I think it is perfectly competent
for the
Convention, if it so desires, to send a delegation to Ottawa, if the
Canadian government is prepared to receive such a delegation, to elicit information
as to the terms and conditions upon the basis
of which the Canadian government may be prepared to consider the
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
105 federal union of Newfoundland with Canada. In that
way facts would be elicited, information obtained, as might be required in
regard to any other factual matter or circumstances.
Professor Wheare I concur entirely with what
the Chairman has said.
Mr. Newell Mr. Chairman, the question of whether or not
this country should become part of the federal union of Canada is not a new
one; though, until yesterday, it has not during the present century
been a very live issue. It is nevertheless a matter on which there
is a wide diversion of opinion; it is also, perhaps, inevitable that the
matter should come before this Convention. This country is in a state
of change. Sometime next year our people are going to be called upon to
vote for the form of government they desire. Many of us have not given
much thought to possible forms of government over the past decade.
Others have, and perhaps have already secured sufficient information to make
up their minds. Whatever conclusions these people have reached, and it
is no secret that we have delegates here who have definitely made up their
minds, we must see that they are given every opportunity to put their
case before the Convention and the country, and that they are given a
sympathetic hearing at the proper time.
Others among us, however, because we have
not had the same opportunity to study the political and economic situation of the
country, are not
in the happy position of being able to subscribe
without further study to this or that form of
government. It is imperative, and I speak of this
latter group, to assert our right to the consideration of our views however incomplete
they may
be; and further to make sure that we are guided
in our deliberations by sound judgement rather
than emotion, facts rather than sentiment.
The country has the right to expect certain
things of us. It has a decided right to expect that
we will get whatever facts — not propaganda - but whatever facts are necessary to
enable the
people of this country to choose wisely when
confronted with a final choice. The country has
the right to expect us to show some material
evidence of that open mind which many of us
claimed we had when we came here. It is not for
me to question any man's motives, much less sit
in judgement on him. It certainly is our privilege
and our duty to insist that the widest inquiries
possible be entered into before we make a final
recommendation.
I feel that the majority of us here, who subscribe to the open-mind school, will require
the
case for confederation to be examined just as
exhaustively as any other case. At the same time,
the question is greater than the personalities involved. We must try to see it in
that light. I feel,
Mr. Chairman, that we. are capable of objective
analysis, and just as objective decisions.
I have stated hitherto that I cannot conceive of
any political democracy succeeding unless it is
based on economic democracy. I hope to have an
opportunity of enlarging on that thesis. I am
therefore prejudiced, if you will, to the extent that
before any form of government is adopted by this
country, I want to see its economic implications
worked out first. And that applies to confederation, responsible government or any
other
government that you care to name. There are
businessmen here, representatives of labour and
others who will stand with me on that.
Whether or not we discuss the possibilities of
federal union with Canada now or later interests
me but little. The issue cannot be evaded, if only
because there are enough people in this country
who want it discussed. There are a great many
people in my own constituency who want it discussed — and they are as hardworking
and as
loyal Newfoundlanders as any in this country.
They want all the facts - and do not want anyone
to restrict their freedom of choice. That is the way
I feel about the matter. I can conceive of no
reasonable argument against having the matter
aired.
Meanwhile, my own view on the subject of
federal union has in no way been influenced by
the proposer of this motion, nor by its opponents.
Some may look on Canada through highly magnifying spectacles; others through dark
glasses. It
is for us to allow ourselves to be cajoled by none
— and equally important — to be intimidated by
none. But surely it is pertinent to observe that two
countries hitherto independent of each other, can
only, in the ordinary course of events, be expected to form a partnership for the
same reason
that two natural persons form a partnership m
each expects to be benefitted materially thereby.
May I state most strongly that I am against any
approach to Canada or any other country, that
places us in the position of the Cinderella appeal
106 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946ing to the fairy godmother. I would go so far as
to say that if that is the kind of people we are, I
don't think Canada would want us — I'm sure
she wouldn't respect us. Certainly, we couldn't
respect ourselves. The whole question of federal
union is bigger than that. It is my feeling the day
may soon come when the peoples of the entire
North American continent may find it even
necessary to let down their barriers and adopt a
common citizenship. Many people feel that day
is long overdue, and that it points the way to
eventual peace and prosperity for all men. Should
that day come, we will need to bring to bear on
the problem sound reasoning in minds free of
thought of personal aggrandisement or selfish
gain. Newfoundlanders are watching us, hoping,
praying that we have among us men equal to the
task. Can we produce men of the calibre of those
who did their duty in these chambers long ago?
If we can, we are saved. God help us if we can't.
Mr. Job I feel I should say a few words for or against the
resolution proposed by Mr. Smallwood, and somewhat half-heartedly
seconded by Mr. Higgins. It is probable that somebody at some time will
have to ascertain the terms obtainable for confederation, but
personally I doubt if this Convention is the body that should ask for
these terms. I think the request, if any, will have to come from a
government of Newfoundland which at least has some elected representatives
of Newfoundland in its body.
It is most unfortunate that Mr. Smallwood has
disturbed the even tenor of our way, by introducing this confederation issue when
we were all
working so well together to secure the information necessary for our decisions. No
one will
approve of Mr. Smallwood's tactics in seeking to
destroy the independent views of members of this
Convention by enticing them with promises of
seats on the proposed delegation, senatorships,
etc. This savors very much of the old petty
politics and is not conducive to the smooth working of this Convention.
I am opposed to the resolution for the following reasons: firstly, I think it is premature
for this
Convention to broach the subject of confederation at a time when we are bending our
energies
to solving the question of our self-supporting
status. Secondly, because I consider that the
resolution as worded is not at all adequate. Previous speakers, especially Mr. Harrington,
have
stressed the first point and I cannot add anything
of value to their remarks. As regards the second
point, my feeling is that if any Newfoundland
delegation is sent to Ottawa, its objects should
range further than a discussion of terms for confederation, and that there should
also be discussed the general policy of Canada towards
Newfoundland if confederation is not adopted.
I have previously stated that Canada has an
important interest in the future welfare of Newfoundland on account of the great value
of Newfoundland's strategic position, as evidenced
during the recent war. It might conceivably be to
the interest of both Canada and Newfoundland to
take down entirely their tariff and immigration
barriers without any actual federal relationship,
and I take the liberty of quoting from a most
interesting address by our very highly respected
fellow citizen, Raymond Gushue, which was
made before the Canadian Club in Ottawa on
February 13, 1945. In this address Mr. Gushue
said in part:
I have referred more than once to the fact
that Newfoundland is indissolubly a part of a
larger continental unit. North America is in
many ways one geographic and economic
entity. Would it not accrue to the benefit and
well-being of the whole continent if that large
fact were more fully realised? We are all
North Americans - more alike in our thinking and ways of living than perhaps any other
similar collection of contiguous people, in an
area of great resources and in which we can
all contribute something to the others. Is not
this a situation which favours the adoption
and practical expression of a broad principle
relating, among other things, to commerce
among the three countries? Where for example there is an exchange of food — that
most essential of all articles of commerce - should we not examine the merits of
free or
freer interchange? If, in this greater
geographic and economic entity there are
regions favoured by nature for the most efficient, and therefore most economical production
of a commodity, why should we try to
offset that gift, and make living harder, not
only for producers within such regions, but
also for consumers within the larger unit? It
is not only possible but probable, that if the
governments concerned sat down together
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
107
with an eye first to the soundness or otherwise of the principle, then to its implementation
as fully as possible, the results could be
of lasting benefit to all the co-partners. I am
aware of the wider implications of this suggestion, but feel they merely add force
to it.
If we are really serious about the part which
a freer flow of trade can play in improving
world conditions, if all the recommendations
of international conferences and the admonitions of policy-makers mean anything, I
can
think of no better spring-board from which
this policy can be launched than the entity of
which I speak, where physically, economically and idea-logically, conditions are so
encouraging. If the ripple created spreads out
into a wider circle, we shall have made a real
contribution to the practical exemplification
of the high principles which have been so
convincingly stated at conference tables and
elsewhere, and which can be so easily submerged in the welter of post-war controversy.
You will observe the bold suggestion that
tariff barriers on foodstuffs not only between
Canada and Newfoundland but also between
Canada, Newfoundland and the United States of
America, might be dropped.
The point might be discussed at the same time
as the confederation terms by a delegation, if any
is sent, and the effect of some such arrangements
so far as all these countries are concerned might
prove to be very much more beneficial than any
confederation arrangements, under which neither
Newfoundlanders nor Canadians would be very
happy.
I don't agree with Mr. Smallwood's idea that
there is any need to hasten the request for
Canada's confederation terms, and believe that
he has done himself and this Convention a disservice by introducing the subject at
the present
time. I have not seen in Mr. Smallwood's address
of yesterday, nor in his newspaper correspondence anything to convince me that the
standard
of living of our people would be improved by
confederation, though my mind is open to conviction.
I hope that some day the confederation issue
and our general relations with Canada will be
discussed by this Convention in a calm and
reasonable atmosphere, and the pros and cons
carefully debated in an unprejudiced spirit.
One thing is certain, and that is that we must
endeavour to live on close and friendly terms
with our neighbours in Canada and try to remember their many kind acts towards us,
as well as to
forget the occasions upon which they have
crossed our path in the past.
I strongly favour the amendment proposed by
Mr. Penney to postpone further discussion of
Mr. Smallwood's resolution, and intend to vote
for the amendment.
Mr. Burry I rise to make a few remarks on this question
before the House. I was hoping that today we would get around to the debate
on the report of the Education Committee, and that would give us a
chance to cool off from yesterday. I find myself regretting that
the issue yesterday was on the level that it was, not in the spirit of
condemnation of any member who took part, because I can assure those who did
take part and raised their voices towards the end and if I may say, got
a little hot under the collar, had no more attentive listener in this House
than myself. Not because I agreed with what they said or how they said
it, but because I know how interested they are in the issue, and I feel they
were sincere in the attitude they took towards it... I have found
myself, and will find myself, in a position such as these men were yesterday,
and get excited over some of the issues that will be raised; but if I
do, I assure you I will call upon all the powers that I have to control
myself and to conform to the rules of procedure, and to carry on the debate
as quietly, or as near to the rules of procedure, as possible. I do not
wish to have this Convention resolved into a boys' Sunday school class....
We have this matter before us and we have to
do something about it... We are working assiduously in committee meetings, getting
information in various ways. That will inform us on
forms of government, such as responsible
government of the past and Commission of
Government of the present, and I may say that
when these committee reports are brought into
the house, all the information will not be on the
debit side of those who favour responsible
government or Commission government. I feel
that when we have discovered all the facts, those
who sponsor these forms of government will
have very fine creditable arguments to bring forward. Some feel there are other forms
of government... Of these, confederation with Canada is
108 NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
one; there are others but I am not prepared to
make any other suggestions. I do say that there
are other forms coming up for discussion when
the time comes. I am not prepared and may not
then be prepared... I do not know enough about
constitutional government and about confederation with Canada, and just how we would
come
out if we decided to get into confederation. I
would like to know more and have an opportunity
of thinking it over.... Personally I do not feel I
could progress as willingly with the work of the
Convention if I did not feel that I would have the
information which would enable me to discuss
confederation with Canada. I know there is a
majority of people in this country and in Labrador
who are thinking that this matter of confederation
with Canada is a possible way out of our apparent
difficulties and in getting a decent living for our
people. They may be wrong in that; but there is a
considerable number of such people in Newfoundland and Labrador and we should satisfy
them by bringing in intelligent observations on
that form of government. I feel that I must vote
for the resolution in order to get information
about other forms of government. I do not feel
any member of this Convention would want to
deny the people this information. If the
machinery is not set up it will delay the Convention, and I do not want to be here
longer than I
have to be. It is unfair to us if the Convention
votes down this motion; other men are getting
information about other forms of government; I
feel that I should get this information and the
machinery should be set up to get it.
Mr. Vincent After listening to yesterday's stormy debate on the resolution submitted by Mr.
Smallwood, I felt rather
disillusioned, for I had thought that, with only a very small faction of
this assembly schooled in the ways of old time politics, the
days of personal recriminations and unpleasant invective hurled
back and forth with almost atomic energy had well passed into
oblivion. I am not I trust departing from the usual and expected courtesies
when I say that not only was much of yesterday's discussion pointless,
but it was not all conducive to the future wise deliberations of this body.
Basically the resolution was sound, the timing definitely right,
and as to the attitude of the public to its reception, I affirm with
some authority, and a reasonable cross-section of opinion on the northeast
coast,
that confederation is fast becoming a live issue.
I divert with your kind permission to make a
bow to the gentlemen of the press, over-anxious
I believe to know the political leanings of the men
who comprise this assembly. They did dig up a
left-wing socialist. So now I'll make a definite
statement for their benefit. I am not and will not
be a confederate until and unless the terms of
union are obtained and are found to be in the best
interest of Newfoundland as a whole. I say
without any apology and with no hesitation that
with the facts at present at my command, if a
referendum were held tomorrow, I would vote for
a retention of Commission of Government. I
make no apology for saying that.
It is my opinion that the terms of reference
setting up this Convention provide an adequate
procedure for full examination of all the issues,
and naturally in the light of present-day events,
these should include the terms of union with
Canada — unlike Mr. Harrington I am not greatly
concerned with the legal fabric constituting such
procedure, and am well content to leave that to
the legal minds actively associated with this assembly. What does concern me as the
representative of a district very genuinely interested in
the status of our government — a district that
does not expect me to be biased in my view or
narrow in my approach to the vital problem confronting this Convention, a district
which invested me with the power to investigate and
explore every issue, is to see that there be no
restriction of the free choice of the people or
abrogation of their rights to express their
franchise.
This resolution is not at all premature; machinery can be set up to arrange for securing
the
terms and now is the proper and opportune time
to set about it. It is of little moment what my
political sympathies are, whether I stand a con
firmed supporter of the present administration or
an avowed hater of old-time politics. It would be
foolhardy for me to assert a superior knowledge,
to say "I know what's best for my district and for
Newfoundland and I will fight confederation or
responsible government to the last ditch" - what's more, to my mind it's positively
dangerous. The Newfoundland electorate will not be
treated with impunity after giving their approval
to the setting up of this Convention. They have
reserved the right to decide, in the last analysis,
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
109
just what kind of government they want, not what
the Convention thinks is best for them. Will one
of us then, mistakenly identifying himself as a
Daniel Webster and an Abe Lincoln rolled into
one, and falsely assuming an authority that was
never vested on him, get up and say, "You can't
vote for Commission, I positively hate it, and I
am going to ensure you don't get a chance to vote
for union with Canada." To me its very obvious
that a few of us have improperly imagined that
we are the be-all and the end-all here. I won't
repeat that much-quoted text from the terms of
reference, Mr. Chairman, for your lucid explanation of said terms at the outset of
the Convention
made it clear beyond a doubt that this assembly
has no right to restrict the choice of the people of
this country or limit the issues. For my part, I
know nothing that might even remotely suggest
confederation would be an extremely good or
definitely bad issue to put on the ballot in the
forthcoming referendum. I am not going to
believe, nor will I be convinced that any member
of this assembly is in the least cognisant with the
text of the terms that may be offered us, apart
from the outmoded BNA Act which does give us
recognition in sections 146-147.
Some of us may be concerned about narrow
nationalism, I am not; others may be worrying
about their place in that administration of tomorrow, but that doesn't worry me in
the least; but I
am deeply concerned that the boys and girls of
tomorrow grow up in an environment that is
much better than that of their forebears. I am
concerned that the government that will help
shape our future be a government that will work
in the best interest of Newfoundlanders everywhere, north, south, east and west. The
people
who sent us here are looking to this Convention
for something constructive. They do not expect
that we will revert to the days of useless
recrimination and name-calling; they expect
some definite recommendations. We must justify
our existence, but we must not seek to unnecessarily lengthen the life of this assembly,
or it
might well be that this costly experiment may
cause our fellow-countrymen to lose their
patience. We were given a definite assignment a
clear-cut assignment, so let's forget our petty
bickerings and go straight to our objective.
Mr. Chairman, as the voice of the men and
women of Bonavista North, who are intelligently
watching the outcome of this Convention, who
hold to the undeniable rights of free men and free
women to choose for themselves, I support the
resolution.
Mr. Roberts This being my first time to address this
assembly, I hope you will be patient if I do not stick strictly to
parliamentary procedure. In seconding the amendment I did not do so with
any intimation of not getting Canada's terms for Newfoundland. I
considered the time inopportune; when all committee work is
finished and we have a picture of the financial state of the country,
then will come the time to approach Canada. I was elected by acclamation and
did not have to canvass my district for any political plank. But,
contrary to the admissions of some of the members, I did come here
with an idea of the form of government I would like to see in this country.
I am not going to disclose it at this time. But I may say I am not an
advocate for confederation. This does not necessarily mean I would not
favour confederation or any other form of government, if it can be
shown me that it would be better for the country. So in due time I hope the
proper authorities will find out for us what Canada's terms are. After
all, as Mr. MacDonald said, we have a large number of people in this island
who are sympathetic to the idea of confederation, why not give them a
chance to learn more about it?
It was said by a member of this Convention
that Canada's terms would be so favourable we
would become confederates overnight. I am inclined to take this with a grain of salt.
When we
read the history of. this country and see the raw
deals we have always received, confederation
may be another one of those deals. If we approach
Canada as Mr. Smallwood would have us, saying
we are a poor, ignorant, ill-clad, diseased, starving people, do you suppose we can
expect
generous terms? I would say "No".
I resent the expression that we are such a
people; it's true we have some cases as he has
described. I have seen people in such dilapidated
shacks here in this city, that it's unbelievable they
could live there, especially during the winter
months. I never saw the like in an outport — as
bad as we are supposed to live. But the same
exists in the city of Ottawa with all its fabulous
wealth. A relative of mine, a Newfoundland
woman who became the matron of a large hospital in Quebec province, had many an argument
110
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
with Canadians about living conditions in Newfoundland. She often told them they had
only to
slip outside of their back doors to see far worse
than she ever saw in Newfoundland. These
people never saw Newfoundland. They got their
information from propaganda such as
Mr. Smallwood delivered here yesterday. Some
time ago I saw a comparison of Newfoundland
and Canadian prices in our daily papers. There
were some very important omissions. A relative
of mine living in western Canada paid for Newfoundland dry cod — and for our worst
quality
— 50 cents a pound or $6 a quintal. Our firm
packed herring this spring for which we received
$15.75 a barrel, a good price. This person paid 25
cents each for Newfoundland split herring or
$ 125 a barrel. Our lobster fishermen received the
equivalent of $1 a pound for lobster meal. A
friend of mine in Montreal paid $5.25 for it. I
could tell you of other things, but this will suffice
to show you that Canadians are also gypped on
some prices as well as Newfoundlanders.
I am a Newfoundlander, first, last and always;
and if I am poor, I am proud. I am of middle age
and am not worrying about my future, but I want
my family to get as good a living in Newfoundland as I have had, and I don't see why
we
cannot find good men to look after the affairs of
state. Why should we run whining to Canada or
some other country to take us in?
During the years of responsible government I
mentioned to a learned friend of mine that I was
alarmed at the borrowing of our government. He
laughed. "Don't worry about that", said he,
"there will always be money for the country to
borrow." But alas, the time came when we could
not borrow and the government collapsed. I look
at the borrowings of our wealthy neighbour
Canada with the same alarm, and feel sure the
time will come when her borrowings will come
to an end in spite of all her reputed wealth. I don't
want this country to be a part of Canada and have
to face another period of financial stress such as
was witnessed in this country in the 1930s,
brought about by the borrowings of her governments.
During the war England's national debt increased by millions. Her people had to tighten
their belts and the standard of living was down.
When the war ended her people said, "Now we
will begin to live", but the Labour government,
said, "No, we have a debt to pay. Haul in your
belts a bit tighter. Pay our bills, then you can have
eggs and bread, motor cars, etc." The standard of
living in England today is lower than in
Newfoundland. They are now putting their house
in order. They are doing a lot of grumbling, but
they are tackling the job, and here are we in the
height of prosperity afraid to tackle the future - wanting someone else to do our
job. Nevertheless, the least we can do is to examine Canada's
terms when we are ready, and I hope the people
who go for these terms will be proud and upright
citizens of Newfoundland, not snivellers and
whiners.
Mr. Fowler I feel at this time in duty bound to express
my opinion on the motion now before the Chair. My opinion, will not
influence this Convention to any great extent, yet before the bar
of history I wish to leave no shadow of doubt regarding my position in
this issue, regardless of whether the judgment will be favourable to me or
otherwise.
I consider Mr. Smallwood's motion premature, poorly timed and badly presented, and
his
unwarranted attack upon our island home could
elicit nothing but resentment from a loyal and
ancient people conscious of their heritage. I disagree entirely with Mr. Smallwood
when he says
our outlook is darker than it was a century ago. It
is only now that we are becoming conscious of
our strategic position at the crossroads of the
world, the bastion of the North Atlantic, a position which has been proved vital to
the very
existence of the Empire, and particularly to Mr.
Smallwood's paradise.
I cannot understand how this Convention,
with no constitutional rights, can go empty-
handed to the Canadian government and ask for
terms of federal union. We have no terms to offer
them, nor the right to discuss them, and has not
the Canadian prime minister himself said that
Canada would only discuss confederation at the
request of the Newfoundland people through
their duly elected government? Many speakers
have expressed doubt as to the whole issue, and
Mr. Smallwood himself, by the very wording of
his resolution showed he was as much at sea
regarding the proper approach as any of us. Surely somebody knows the answer. If so
they should
advance it, and enable us to discuss the whole
matter intelligently.
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
111
I contend that this resolution should not have
been brought in at this time, firstly because it has
sown the seed of distrust and misunderstanding
among the members of this Convention when
they should be working in harmony toward the
completion of the first and most vital task, the
reports of the various committees; secondly because in the ears and eyes of the public
it will
eclipse the facts that should be given careful
study at this time. I feel that if there are people in
this country interested in confederation, and if we
believe in democracy, we must at the proper time
give them the opportunity to express their desires.
I think that had Mr. Smallwood awaited a more
opportune time, and introduced his resolution in
a different spirit, there could have been little
reasonable opposition.
I must confess I was not invited to the alleged
confederation "conference", nor did Mr. Smallwood as yet make any overture to me.
I suggest we define once and for all our position, and with confidence pursue our
tasks to a
successful conclusion with equal rights for all
and privileges for none.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman and members of the Convention,
contrary to the expressed opinions of a great many, we have already reached
the stage when the subject matter before us calls for alert thinking and
lively debate. I came to this Convention with an open mind, and I still
maintain it in spite of what anyone may guess or think. My
mind is closed only on the form of government that I do not think
for a moment any member of this Convention, elected under strictly
democratic principles, would tolerate, that being a continued
dictatorship for this country.
Before we have had a real opportunity of even
weighing the pros and cons of our terms of reference, in order to soberly tackle the
tremendous
task before us, some of the Newfoundland and
Canadian papers have chosen the future leaders
of our country. To these people I would say,
"Judge not that ye be not judged", unless your
judgment shows some semblance of intelligence.
Who knows, from the little ground we have
covered, but what the real leaders of Newfoundland may have scarcely spoken at this
Convention. In fact they may not be here at all....
I have not been offered any job. No one has
attempted to bribe me to vote for or against the
resolution and if they had it would not influence
me in the least. I am prepared to sink or swim on
the dictates of my own conscience. My district
gave me a clear mandate to vote according to the
facts as I saw them. I went through that same
district in 1932 as a strictly independent candidate after refusing a party ticket
with expenses
paid, and polled 820 votes or 100 over the party
candidate. This time in the same district I had
about the same number as the whole of my five
opponents put together, and I never had a single
interruption or a sarcastic question in my whole
campaign. My people generally want to know
what the best terms for confederation would be,
and to know what the chances are of continuing
on our own, as there are many erroneous statements in the air for and against, and
it is our duty
to clarify the issue and enlighten the public as far
as possible on the matter. It is solely with this
motive in view that I support the resolution.
I wish to make it clear I had never seen or
discussed it with anyone except as a casual
remark among the members. As far as getting the
terms for confederation with Canada is concerned, it is our bounden duty to get them
and see
just what they are. We would be failing in our
obligation to the people if we were to terminate
our deliberations without making a fair and
proper analysis in minute detail covering every
phase of their offer as far as it would affect the
future economy of this country. What we must
eventually decide to recommend is what in our
opinion would be the greatest good for the
greatest number. I do regret that it has entered the
discussion stage so early in our proceedings, and
it devolves on us the responsibility of holding our
heads, controlling our language and avoiding as
far as possible any real debate on what might be
the ultimate outcome of a matter so vitally affecting the future of Newfoundland.
I do not propose to suggest any particular form
of government for our country at this juncture as
it would be premature. All forms of government
should be left out of our deliberations as far as
possible until the basic facts of our peculiar
economic set-up are fully explored. At the proper
time this important part of our duty will be
properly taken care of and every phase of our case
will be fully covered. Gentlemen, what you say
or do here will go down in history and your names
will be blazoned in future text books for the
principles you support. What such a member or
112
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
paper said in criticism of your language or in
contempt for disloyal politicians will be forgotten; but the contribution we make
toward lifting
our country from this shameful abyss, to re-establishing our civic pride and independence
as a
free people, either on our own or as proportionately equal partners within the framework
of
the British Commonwealth, will live forever.
We are now, or should be, all working
together for one common goal, that being a
thorough study of our assets and liabilities, with
a view to deciding whether or not we are self-supporting... We all have certain pet
ideas on forms
of government; but many of these corners will be
brushed off when the basic facts of our true
position and most peculiar economic structure
are fully understood by the members as a whole.
I am most conscious and deeply concerned over
every aspect of our case, and I shall under all
circumstances base my recommendations on the
facts and the results of our findings.
What we have learned already calls for brave
men, with big hearts, gifted with a clear unbiased
understanding of the many broader issues at
stake. We should not be influenced by mere
oratory, anyone can write a speech; but, it is the
cold-blooded undeniable facts alone that should
influence our decisions. We are all very conscious of the disgraceful manner in which
our
unfortunate country has been exploited in the
past, and how it is still the victim of soulless
individuals, to whom suffering, liberty, the
people's fear of want or respect for the rights of
others, mean nothing. Therefore the future form
of government must be the people's choice, but
from this elected body must emanate a true unbiased picture of the real facts as we
know them,
in order to assist our people to vote intelligently
at the polls. There is only one commitment I will
make and there is no limit to which I would not
go to defend it — that any future form of government for Newfoundland should be fully
democratic in principle We have earned it, paid
for it in blood, and we must have it.
Mr. Banfield Mr. Chairman, whether we are confederates
or anti-confederates, I don't see that it enters into the picture when it
comes to voting on this motion. It is not a motion that makes
confederates of us, nor anti-confederates of us, that takes any stand in the
matter — it is not a pro-confederation motion, nor an anti-con
federation motion. If I were the strongest and bitterest
anti-confederate in this Convention, I would vote to get the terms of
confederation, even if it was only for the purpose of attacking the
terms. I cannot see that this Convention has any moral right to vote against
the resolution, because it means voting against getting information that the people
want. The people are expecting us to be fair and
square, to get all the facts about confederation or any other form of
government. There will be precious little respect for us if we close our
ears and our minds to any proposal that may be for the good of the people.
Who knows? Confederation may turn out to be the best thing that ever
happened to us. It may also turn out to be the worst thing. We don't know
which it would be, because we don't know what we're talking about. We
can't be confederates today, any more than we can be anti-confederates. The first
thing to do is get the facts, and that's all the
resolution asks. I am one of the many Newfoundlanders anxious to get at the
facts. I want to make up my mind on this confederation question that
has been kicked about in this country as long as I can remember as a
political football. We were never told the truth — we were never given
the facts about it. We all want to do the best possible thing for the
country. When we know the terms and conditions, then we can form a
sensible opinion. We will know if it is worth recommending, and the people
will know if it's worth voting for. I am not afraid of the people, of
their fairness or common sense. I trust their sound judgment. It is not for
this Convention to say whether we shall have confederation or not, that
is not our job. That is up to the people. It is for them to decide
whether we'll have confederation or any other form of government. This
resolution asks us to agree that we want the facts about
confederation. I agree and if Mr. Smallwood had not moved this resolution I
would have moved it myself, because I think it is our duty. I think we
owe it to our Newfoundland people so I am going to vote for this resolution
when the vote is taken.
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, I had not any intenx tion of
discussing the present question, nor do I consider it calls for any lengthy
debate; therefore I shall be as brief as possible. I will refer to a
remark made by Mr. Butt earlier. He said: "We don't seem to be quite
clear on many things", and I would say that we don't seem to know where
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
113 we are going, and are inclined to drift. This
certainly applies to the question now being discussed. To my mind
we must establish certain things first One of these is whether or not the
Convention can, and if so, will, discuss this point has not been
continued beyond any doubt. If the answer is no, then let's put it in the
attic; if yes, then we might as well recognise it as part of our work
and drop the parley. The possible forms of government to be discussed should
be listed, and this should have been done long ago. In this respect I
claim we are drifting. By not doing this we rest on the haphazard manner of
having the issues introduced by ardent supporters — would-
be leaders — who in their turn win the antagonism of the
proponents and would-be leaders of some other form, and so we get a
succession of blind rushes accompanied by invective which is
unnecessary here. Surely we can discuss this matter without adopting the low
methods of attack resorted to by some delegates. I have heard
it said and read in both the local and foreign press, that
Newfoundland, and the world, looks to the men of the National Convention to
supply at least in part material for future governments. How
disappointing it is then, and sad, to hear these men fall back on low
methods of attack. Surely it is a poor recommendation for local autonomy.
Further still, these blind rushes show always a leniency towards some particular form
of government desired by the
speaker, as well as a move to crush any contrary opinion. This is a definite
shortcoming. I and others like me, would be content to hear
propositions from all the major powers, England, Canada, etc.... Yet
there are those so confirmed in their opinion that they would narrow the
field of survey. Had we not then better end this Convention
in view of the predominance of this confirmed opinion? No, we had
better go right on with our programme, because sitting before me are
delegates willing to give a fair hearing to all issues. To these delegates,
and I hold it an honour to be one of them, I say stand firm. Not through
high oratory or low invective is the real issue found, but rather in
the cool calculated decisions I know you are so capable of making. Mr. Job,
speaking to an earlier meeting and referring to the St. John's
merchants, said the old suspicion still exists. I will, if I may, make a
similar remark about the outport members... We read in the press and
hear in everyday conversation how
these outport men are being talked over, yea bought over, by the
would-be leaders. Since this opinion has been stated on the floor of the
house I deem it my unpleasant duty to tell any delegates who might
have short-sighted opinions of the outport men, that these men are here with
a knowledge born of realism; that they are Newfoundlanders
and have just as much patriotism as any member here.
As I have said, these discussions disclose a
leniency towards whichever form of government
a particular speaker closely guards as his secret,
or, as in some cases, openly declares as his platform, both to my mind equally harmful.
We have
as a result a wall of suspicion and jealousy building up, so much so that name-calling
is just
around the comer, so that the question is not
discussed, but rather the personalities behind the
question. I fear that our decisions will not be in
the best interest of Newfoundland. We have in
this Convention no Hitlers, no Quislings, no
Judases, nor do we expect to give to the world a
new demon or God. Why then discuss personalities? Why stand on that philosophical
pedestal on which some members try so hard to
balance? There have been instances in the world
of some born philosophers, but they have been
rare. Let's be content with the fact that we are a
bunch of ordinary Newfoundlanders....
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with considerable interest to these addresses
of
yesterday and today, and I have given quite a lot of thought to this
question, as it is one of the most important to come before us up to now. I
think from what I can gather that the majority of the members here,
perhaps all of them, are in favour of the motion as put by Mr. Smallwood. I
myself subscribe to the motion, but I cannot subscribe to the
immediate rush of having this submitted at the present time. Some people
want the Convention to be finished before Christmas, some finished by
January, and there must be an election, according to Mr. Smallwood by May.
This job is probably one of the most important in the history of the
country, and the few months or a year we may take to thoroughly go into this
question and arrive at a conclusion should not interfere. It may be
for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland for the next 100 years or
more, and what's a year in that? I think we are rushing too much.... I
have a feeling that even the reports
114
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946 have been rushed. It is not a matter of
short investigation on something small. It is even bigger
than some of the delegates realise... We should carry on as we are until we
come to some definite conclusions; there will be plenty of time to get
the terms of confederation. There is lots to do before we get round to
discussing it. After earnest consideration, I cannot do anything but
support the amendment Mr. Penney put forward yesterday.
Mr. Keough ....At this moment, Mr. Chairman,
I hold no brief for confederation. At this moment
I am not convinced that we should come to enjoy
a more spacious tomorrow as the tenth province
of Canada, than we should enjoy should we
undertake to carry on crosshanded. I should like
that to be quite clear. I should also like it to be
remembered that I said "at this moment". For
when we come to the working out of the equation,
the answer I arrive at may well make me a confirmed confederate. It may make me exactly
the
opposite. For the moment I am more concerned
to probe for the identity of several as yet unknown quantities — among them the terms
of
confederation.
I wish to speak in support of the motion moved
by Mr. Smallwood because I consider that there
is a matter of principle involved. The principle is
this: the right of the people of Newfoundland to
know all the facts, to see both sides of the story
to be shown all the angles. When the people of
this island finally come to determine upon the
form of government they desire I want them to
be in a position to determine, if they so desire,
upon that form of government that will admit of
a higher standard of living than any other. They
may well determine upon that form of government that will just enable them to make
both ends
meet — they hope. But they should be in a
position then, among the several forms that may
be available to their discretion, to determine upon
that calculated to mean the most in terms of better
living.
When we read our terms of reference we find
that we are here, in the first instance, to examine
into the economic and financial condition of
Newfoundland.
In interpretation of those terms a not inconsiderable number of people would subscribe
to
the view that we here should endeavour, in the
first instance, to answer the question, "Just how
much of what is enough?" — meaning enough to
get along, or enough to make both ends meet and
have a little to spare that could be tied into a little
bow of security. I am not satisfied that it is
"enough" to know where one's next meal is coming from. I see no reason for subscribing
to any
lesser dimension of "enough" than a standard of
living for our people comparable with that en~
joyed by other western peoples. Whether we can
ever rise to such material apexes is another matter. But I see no good and sufficient
reason for
being satisfied with anything less. "Enough", as
far as I am concerned, is not less than the most
that may be had. I hate to say anything so original,
but the best is none too good. And, whilst I do not
wish to imply that confederation is the best that
may be had, I do wish to affirm that we must not
fail to search out all information that will enable
the people of this island to judge wherein the best
may be achieved.
There are some who are prepared to settle for
less than that. Thus we hear much mention of the
irreducible minimum cost of government. I do
not like that yardstick. A mere 36 inches of ability
to make both ends meet at this moment would
seem to me too meagre a measure of our ability
to be sufficient unto ourselves tomorrow. I cannot see that it would be the wisest
thing to decide
the constitutional issue on our ability to meet the
irreducible minimum cost of government at this
moment. For given an economic reversal of any
magnitude we might easily find ourselves below
that level.
With regard to the motion before the House, I
am not going to be greatly moved by any who
may care to point the finger of constitutional
scorn. I am not an expert in constitutional law.
Thus was I shocked in the beginning to hear this
Convention in which I sat termed illegal. I did
subsequently console myself with the thought
that perhaps the Parliament of Britain did also
know something about what was constitutional
and what was not, that whilst that Parliament
might often do things of which many did not
approve, it was unlikely to do that which was
constitutionally improper. So I sit here quite content that it is legal to sit here.
It may be immoral,
even fattening, but I am quite convinced that it is
not illegal to sit here. Similarly if the appropriate
authorities act now as requested, then I feel that
we shall have every assurance that the act en
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
115visioned by the motion is in order.
I am not going to be greatly moved either by
the argument that we must restore intact our
island sovereignty or there will be those who will
turn over in their graves. If my great-grandfather
wants to turn over in his grave because we want
to hear both sides of the story, that's entirely the
business of his revered shade. If those who were
giants in his day and theirs want to join in his
macabre gymnastics, that is entirely their own
business. It is our business in this day and generation to endeavour to provide for
the future so that
our children, and their children after them, will
not have to stumble down into early graves on
beri-beried legs.
It might be just as well if we were to face up
to a few facts concerning sovereignty. It is something that has intimate relations
with economics.
Sovereignty must be based upon an economic
structure that will admit of being sovereign unto
itself. One reason why, let us say Bell Island,
would not be granted responsible government
tomorrow would be the economic inability of
Bell Island to be sovereign unto itself in all
things. I have often wondered if it was not lack
of an adequate economic basis for sovereignty
that was the main cause of our failure in responsible government. It is a fact of
our history that
we have depended, for the most part, upon our
fisheries to finance our sovereignty. It is a fact
also that most every time the fisheries failed a
large number of Newfoundlanders have nearly
starved to death. I am by no means an old man,
and in my own time I have known more than one
man who did not know where his next meal was
coming from. And as far as the man who does not
know where his next meal is coming from is
concerned, sovereignty is not enough. And there
will subscribe to that opinion, all those Newfoundlanders who in the years that were
rotted
with depression sought to walk the world with
dignity, as sovereign men should, on six cents a day.
Mr. Chairman, Abraham Lincoln once
warned his people that they could not escape
history. We might as well now come to realise
that we cannot escape the 20th century. And the
lives of men in this mid-20th century are
dominated by two desires of such dimension as
to make them the predominant passions. There is,
first of all, the fierce passion to be free. Within
the days of all of us here, men have fought two
titanic wars to be free. The generals and the
politicians and the financiers may have had other
ideas. But the ordinary man who fought at
Beaumont Hamel and at Ypres, who stormed the
heights of Cassino and who closed the Falaise
Gap — he fought to be free. Second, there is the
passion, equally fierce, to be secure — for three
square meals a day, a decent suit of clothes and a
tight roof that I have already made mention of in
this house. The proletariat has mastered the three
Rs. It has come even to understand a little of the
language of economics. It has read all the assurances that have been given that the
historic
problem of production has been solved. It is
convinced that the affairs of men can be so ordered as to make it possible for all
men to earn
from an honest effort a decent living. And the
mass of men everywhere are in a mood for the
establishment of such controls as will achieve
that desideratum.
Those two things the men of this mid-20th
century demand. Liberty! Security! One of them
they're going to have. Which one? Or need it be
which one? Must men choose between the mastery of their own destinies and three square
meals
a day? There are those who answer that they
must; those who assert that civic liberty and
economic security are two such disparate entities
as may no more be fused into a satisfactory social
order than water and hot lead may be fused into
an amalgam. I am not one who subscribes to such
dark pessimism. I have every confidence in the
ability of that Christian intelligence, which has
proven equal to every challenge of two millennia,
yet to arrive at the reconciliation of civic liberty
and economic security into a social order to
which the Christian conscience can subscribe. If
that can be done, then will the future offer men
some chance of happiness and dignity. If it cannot
be done, then will the future be dark and heavy
with a new and a more monstrous Gethsemene
than has ever come upon the face of the earth.
Every man of goodwill has a contribution to
make to the achieving of that satisfactory social
order for the lack of which civilisation itself may
well go by default. The immediate contribution
the men of this Convention have to make is to
indicate, as well as we may, the way the people
of this island should go to a more spacious destiny. We have consequently, and among
other
things, to seek out the terms of confederation. For
116 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
that knowledge is necessary for the people that
they may be the better able to judge of what will
be best for them. They have a right to that
knowledge in justice. We owe it to them in conscience. We may not seek to deny it
to them
without doing injury to the integrity of this Convention.
"'The time has come,' the Walrus said,' to
speak of many things,' Of shoes, and ships, and
sealing wax, and cabbages, and kings.'" I am
quite prepared to leave the sealing wax to those
adroit in its manipulation — the agents of government. I am quite prepared to leave
all the kings
there ever were, or will be, to the verdict of
history. I am concerned to search out as soon as
possible that form of government which, other
things being equal, would seem the more to offer
Newfoundland an adequacy of ships and shoes
and cabbages. And that I may the better be able
to do that I will, for the moment, vote against the
amendment and for the motion. We must be equal
to tomorrow, or beware of it.
Mr. Cashin This Convention met on September 11, and a
week later we formed ourselves into nine committees for the purpose of
ascertaining certain facts relative to the present financial and
economic position of the country. Two reports were presented yesterday and
immediately these reports had been presented, something upset the
applecart. Yesterday afternoon I listened very attentively to Mr.
Smallwood's abuse, so to speak, of our country, and our people. Following
which I listened to my friend, Mr. Harrington, who is a colleague of
mine for the district of St. John's City West, and following which I had
the pleasure of listening to Mr. Hollett. Mr. Smallwood has not
repudiated the statements made by Mr. Harrington or Mr. Hollett and I
want to know, what is behind the idea of offering senatorships and trips to
Ottawa to try and influence delegates? On whose authority is that
being done? Is it on Mr. Smallwood's authority alone? Is it on the
Commission of Govemment's authority? Is it on the Canadian government's
authority? Is it on the Dominions Office's authority? Or whom? That is
the thing that should be cleaned up now before we vote on this. If there
are influences outside of this House about which we know nothing,
offering positions, emoluments and trips all over the country to
certain individuals if they vote certain ways, the time is
right now to put an end to it. I would like to have Mr. Smallwood,
before we go any further with this debate, either to deny or affirm those
statements that he made offers or suggestions to either
Mr. Harrington and/or Mr. Hollett. I understand one has been offered the job
of Lieutenant- Governor when this place becomes a province.
Mr. Smallwood is now gone out of this house and I would ask that he be
brought back and settle it once and for all. I have lived in Canada ... I
have liked Canada, it is a great country, but I love Newfoundland and
I am not going to have it railroaded up the St. Lawrence, as expressed by
my friend here. Here he comes! Mr. Chairman, I never said anything
outside of this House which I am not prepared to say inside and I want an
explanation here right now. The idea of Mr. Smallwood or any other
member of this Convention offering or suggesting senatorships and
trips to Ottawa provided they vote a certain way for a certain
resolution — I want an explanation of that before this thing goes any
further, and before I vote we are going to get it.
Mr. Chairman Please, gentlemen, I want this debate
conducted without the interchange of personalities. I laid that
down as a primary rule, and there is no reason why the motion before the
Chair cannot be discussed without the introduction of
personalities. Personalities can have only one result, and that is disorder.
It is my duty to prevent disorder, and I propose to carry out that
duty. Major Cashin, please discuss this without interchange of
personalities.
Mr. Cashin I am entitled to an explanation, the country
is entitled to it. The statement was made here yesterday in my hearing. This
gentleman here, a young man, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Hollett, two reputable members
of this Convention, one stating he was offered
a trip to Ottawa as a member of the delegation, the other offered a
senatorship. I am not out of order and I am not being personal. I am asking
Mr. Smallwood to tell us on whose authority he made such offers if he
made them. I am asking that question and I await his reply.
Mr. Chairman If you await his reply someone will take
up the debate. Once you sit down you have spoken once to the motion. You
have to confine yourself to the motion.
Mr. Cashin We cannot get away from the fact
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
117 that these statements were made here by members of the Convention and I draw the
attention of the members and the
country to it... I make the statement that only two years ago the Prime
Minister of Quebec made a statement in the legislature of Quebec that Newfoundland
should hand over Labrador to
Canada; and, incidentally, to the Province of Quebec because they had sent
Canadian troops down here to defend Newfoundland and the
troops, or a lot of them were zombies, and our own boys had to be sent to
Italy. I resent it as a returned soldier of two wars. Big corporations
in Canada are now making efforts to steal the Labrador from Newfoundland. I
do not know whether these same individuals offered senatorships and
trips to Ottawa, but I know that it is going on. Confederation has been an
issue in this country since the inception of responsible government
nearly 100 years ago. We had it in 1865, again later, and in 1895, and now
confederation is being brought up again. From 1923 on,
someone was up spouting off that the other chap was a confederate, and here
we have it again. Now we are discussing the possibility of sending a
delegation to Ottawa. The Chairman has given his decision that the
Convention has power to send a delegation. Certainly the Convention has power to
send a delegation provided the Ottawa government
receives them. But I want to draw the attention of this assembly to this
fact, that even if they go to Ottawa, we have no guarantee
that we are going to have even a plebiscite under this Convention Act. If
there is I want someone to show it to me. We are told that we are here
to dig out facts and figures, and recommend certain forms of government to
the United Kingdom, which will be submitted to the people. When?
Whenever they feel like it. That's the answer.
Now what is the actual situation? In 1933 a
resolution was passed in this House requesting
the British government to take over Newfoundland because of its financial situation.
I hold that
our people should have defaulted and not have
handed over our constitution. But they did make
one provision, that when this country became
self-supporting, responsible government would
be restored at the request of the people. Well, we
represent the people here this afternoon, and if
anyone goes to Ottawa tomorrow and brings back
the terms of confederation, and it is submitted to
the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom cannot
amend that original act of 1933, because there is
no House of Assembly here to guarantee that
amendment. It would have to be adopted by our
Newfoundland government if an amendment to
that 1933 act has to be made. Is the United
Kingdom government going to break the law it
passed in 1933? Certainly not. Then there are
only two forms of government we have to consider in this country, Commission of Government
and responsible government. There is no
such thing in this act as confederation, or representative government, or commission.
There are
people in this country who are Communistic. I
had just as much right, if I was a Communist, to
get a delegation to go to Moscow and ask Joseph
Stalin what kind of government or terms he
would give us. I can't understand how young
Newfoundlanders can come here and say they
want terms from another country. I cannot understand it.
The facts are in the Auditor General's report
for 1944-45, and all the reports that are going to
be brought in here won't alter the fact. The longer
we are going on here the less money we will have.
The treasury is being cleaned out, gentlemen. I
make the bold statement that the treasury of Newfoundland is being looted, and I defy
any man in
the country to contradict that statement. The idea
is, to loot her until the last dollar is gone, and then
it will be confederation or Commission or something else. That's the programme, and
Mr.
Smallwood knows it is. Now in 1895 a delegation
went to Ottawa to talk confederation with the
Dominion of Canada, and our debt at that time
was some $15 million. The Dominion of Canada
came back to that delegation and said, "Look, our
debt is $50 per head (that's Canada's debt, ours
was $10 per head). We will allow you $50 per
head of your debt (at that time our population was
not anything like it is today). Our debt will then
amount to $10 million, and the other $5 million
you will have to carry as a provincial debt."
Naturally the Newfoundland people turned it
down cold. But Canada balked at $5 million at
that time. What is the situation today? The situation today is that our per capita
debt is less than
$150, that is when you take the sinking fund and
our cash on hand at the present time, which I hold
should have been cancelled in 1940-41, but
granted that it was not cancelled, our total nation
118
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946al debt is less that $150 per head. What is the
national debt of Canada? It is $1,200 per head.
You bring up the agreement of 51 years ago — if
they were prepared to settle on that it means $300
million for the Canadian government to hand
over to Newfoundland. But, Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to sit down here and be a party to what
I feel in my soul is a policy to sell out this country
to Canada. I lived in Canada longer than any man
in this House, and I like Canada, but I love
Newfoundland. I know what happened in the
Canadian provinces, in the eastern provinces. I
have also lived in British Columbia. I heard
Mr. Smallwood here yesterday state that our
people were 50 years behind the times. I think our
friend Mr. Brown brought him up on that. I have
been on Queen Charlotte Islands, and I would
like to bring Mr. Smallwood there and show him
conditions, and also to the city of Montreal and
let him look at the conditions that exist there, and
then come back and make a comparison with our
people. I never heard of any Newfoundlander
who would come in here and blacken his people
as this gentleman did. I want to say, as a man who
went over in 1914 and did my bit at that time - I did not see him over there though!...
Mr. Chairman I told you, Major Cashin, not to indulge
in personalities. You will kindly refrain from indulging in personalities. I
don't want it to happen again.
Mr. Cashin I have stated that there is an ulterior
motive behind this whole motion. I grant you that the gentlemen who are
supporting it don't realise it. I believe that the Commission of Government,
directly or indirectly, and the Dominions Office, are behind it. Why
do I make that statement? On the 18th of September of this year I gave a
short talk in this House, and was severely criticised by some people.
In that talk I made a short quotation taken from a speech delivered in the
British House of Commons by Prime Minister Attlee: "It is important
that a series of reconstruction measures which the Commission of Government
are planning to introduce should proceed without interruption, and
these will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible. The Commission have a
full programme to meet during the next two or three years." What is
the interpretation to be placed on
these remarks?.... I would analyse it like this, that Mr. Attlee, when
he made that talk on December 11 last, stated that we are going to hold
Commission of Government in Newfoundland for two or three
years because they have a definite program which has got to go forward
without interruption. If that is true, what are we doing here? I have
asked for a statement by someone who knows what they mean by that, and I
think I am entitled to an answer. I got a letter from the Secretary to
this effect: "With reference to your question submitted to the
Information Committee to be submitted to Mr. Attlee and the House
of Commons, 1 am directed by the Information Committee to inform you
that it needs further consideration, and that it would be reviewed at a
later date". Reviewed by whom — the Information Committee?
That question should have gone to the government, and from there to the
Dominions Office and back here. It has been held up by the Information
Committee, and they are going to review it later. It was merely a question
asking for an explanation, and it has not been explained....
If my construction is right ...and if this Commission of Government is going to stay
here for
two or three years, what are we doing here wasting $800 or $1,000 a day?.... If I
can get a
seconder I am going to move that this Convention
adjourn until such time as that question is properly answered. Someone may say that
I am holding
up the progress of the Convention. No, I am
trying to get that important question explained to
Newfoundland, whether it is a fact that we are
going to have Commission of Government
regardless of whether or not this Convention
votes for confederation. What is the three year
programme of work referred to, and does this
mean that the Commission of Government are
going to be retained in office until such
programme is carried out? I don't think anyone
can say that's not a fair question... Surely we are
entitled, before we take these steps of sending a
delegation off on, a wild goose chase, to know
where we stand...
It's no use for us to discuss responsible
government, or confederation or even annexation
to the United States... Mr. Chairman, if I can get
a seconder to that motion 1 will take my seat.
Mr. Smallwood Will that motion be put in writ
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
119ing, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman That motion can only be put with the
consent of the Chairman and of the Convention.
Mr. Chairman Subject to a further rule that all
questions on the order paper have to be concluded. The question
now before the Chair has not yet been finalised. Therefore under the rules
I am forced to withhold my consent.
Mr. Cashin Thank you. I will bring this in tomorrow
afternoon.
Mr. Chairman If you will confine yourself to the motion
before the Chair.
Mr. Cashin Returning to the original motion, of whether
or not we send a delegation to Ottawa to get the terms of confederation, I
am going to support Mr. Penney's amendment, We started off getting
various particulars regarding the administration of government
during the past several years. We arrived at a point where we were
making fair progress, and the main reports have got to come in here yet....
In view of this I consider that the present resolution now before the
house, regarding sending a delegation to Ottawa, comes at a most
inopportune moment... Let us get our facts ready. Supposing the Prime Minister of
Canada telegraphed tonight that he would receive a
delegation of the Convention (and I doubt it very much), what are you going
to take up there with you? You have no facts and figures to take.
Surely if this thing is going to be one of the forms of government that are
going to be put to the people, then the least they might do is wait
until these reports are completed. That's not unreasonable to ask,
its only logical.... I don't intend to hold up this but I want to register
my support in favour of the amendment by Mr. Penney that this
resolution be deferred until such time as all reports are submitted to the
House and the Convention, and let us discuss it then.
Mr. Chairman Is the Convention ready for the question?
I will put the question first and then the amendment.
Mr. Ashbourne I would like to say a very few words on
the motion. There is absolutely nothing wrong in ascertaining from Canada
the terms she might be prepared to give any delegation. I have not
been promised any position on that delega
tion, or even a
senatorship. However, I realise the matter of confederation can hardly be
discussed intelligently unless we have these terms. I furthermore understand that
it is the policy of the present Government of
Canada to give these terms on request, but not unless they are requested... I am
going to vote on the motion; I am going to
vote that the facts be given to this House — the terms; because it is up to
us to get the terms. I have spent some time in Canada. I happen to be
a graduate of the University of Toronto, one of the biggest in the British
Empire. While I have an open mind about the matter of confederation, yet
I consider thatI would like to know something of the terms which
Canada is prepared to give to Newfoundland. I realise there have been great
peoples who have come together in union, and our very flag is
emblematic of that union, The question as to whether or not Newfoundland
might perhaps join up with the United Kingdom has also been mentioned
in my hearing. I, to a certain extent, agree with the arguments which
have been advanced by those who have spoken in favour of the amendment and I
can appreciate their point of view. However, in the desire to get on
with the business and to get through with it as quickly as possible. I feel
that delays are dangerous. However, I feel that when the facts of our
economic position are known they may reveal the ability to paddle our own
canoe. However, I am conscious of the fact that there is a
desire on the part of a lot of people to study the matter of confederation.
Unless there are further arguments advanced by other members, I intend
at the present time to support it and I further believe we cannot decide
about the matter of confederation until we have these terms. I hope no
one thinks I am a confederate, but I am prepared to study the terms, if they
are given to us. However, unless we are blessed with the right kind of
statesmen who are dedicated to their task of conducting the government of
our country in the interests of Newfoundland, I fear very much that
the time may come when we may have to go to some other country, to Canada or
perhaps to the old country and, maybe, with our finger in our mouth.
Mr. Watton I move the adjournment of the debate until
tomorrow.
[The Convention adjourned]
