Mr. Cashin Before the debate is proceed with, I would
like to take up a matter of procedure.
Mr. Cashin If I understand your ruling correctly, this Convention has power to send a delegation,
and that
ruling was confirmed by Mr. Wheare. I am not competent to contest your
ruling, there are others more capable of doing that, yet I would like to
draw your attention to an extract from His Excellency the Govemor's address
[2] given before the Convention,
and I quote:
These forty-six Newfoundlanders gather
together to consider, and here in the interest
of accuracy quote from the official terms of
reference "to consider and discuss amongst
themselves as elected representatives of the
Newfoundland people, the changes that have
taken place in the financial and economic
situation of the Island since 1934, and bearing in mind the extent to which the high
revenue of recent years have been due to
wartime conditions, to examine the position
of the country, and to make recommendations to His Majesty's Government as to possible
forms of future Government to be put
before the people at a national referendum.
Though these terms of reference do not permit of a roving commission, they do provide
ample scope for the members of the Convention to ventilate their views on the possible
forms of future Government.
He says the terms of reference do not permit of a
roving commission. I do not know whether we
consider a delegation to Ottawa or anywhere else
as a roving commission; I would like a ruling on
that...
Mr. Chairman I do not think, Major Cashin, that His
Excellency had in mind when he used that expression, the competency or
otherwise of the Convention in sending a delegation to Ottawa; nor do I consider
that the expression which you have quoted is
germane to the ruling which I gave yesterday.
Mr. Cashin The point I am making, His Excellency
says, "the terms of reference do not permit a roving commission."
Mr. Chairman You want an interpretation of "roving
commission"?
Mr. Chairman I do not think you want to construe
that expression too literally. It means what it says. I would say what His
Excellency perhaps had in mind was that we were confined within certain
definite limits by virtue of the terms of reference. We have to regard those
terms of reference in ascertaining what our powers are... I
confirm my ruling of yesterday, that I think it is perfectly competent
for this Convention, if it so desires, to send a delegation to Ottawa, if the
Canadian government is prepared to receive such a delegation, to
ascertain the terms and the basis of which the Canadian government would be
prepared to consider federal union with Canada; in the same way, it is
perfectly competent for this Convention to ascertain any other fact. It
really amounts to the eliciting of information, and one of the primary
duties as well as the patent authority and right of this Convention is to
elicit information on basic facts. Is that clear, Major Cashin?
Mr. Cashin Quite clear, but I have not gotten the
definition of a "roving commission" yet. As
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
121 I understand it, a roving commission is one meant to
go around and get facts.
Mr. Chairman I am not saying what His Excellency meant; that would be impertinence on my part.
All I can do is to
construe the words.
Mr. Hollett That is a point that has also been
troubling me. It has been insinuated here that we might possibly send a
delegation to Timbuctoo. Where are we going to draw the line about this
roving commission? I would like to refer you to paragraph 2 of this
White Paper:
Accordingly, His Majesty's Government
in the United Kingdom, having considered
the changed financial and economic position
of Newfoundland, it was announced by the
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in
the House of Lords on the 11th December,
1945, that steps would be taken as soon as
possible to provide machinery whereby the
Newfoundland people would be enabled to
examine the future of the Island and to express their considered views as to the form
of
Government they desire, having regard to the
financial and economic conditions prevailing
at the time.
In Newfoundland, not in Canada or Timbuctoo. Whilst I am not in a position of disputing
your ruling, sir, or the distinguished constitutional historian who has been sent
out here by the
Dominions Office, yet my mind is not satisfied
that we, as a Convention, have the right to send a
delegation to Canada, to England or even to
Timbuctoo; and I would like to have that position
fully clarified, at least as far as my mind is concerned, and I would like to have
clarification on
the point which Major Cashin raised.
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, I have listened with varying
emotions to the several speakers on the resolution now before this House.
Some with profound interest, to others with disgust.
As I have stated before in this House, I came
to this Convention with an open mind, and I want
to make it clear that no one either inside or outside
this Convention has succeeded in altering my
opinion. I have not been offered any senatorships,
neither have I been offered a trip to Ottawa; I also
want it to be understood that I am not a confederate, not that it will make any difference
to
me what people think of me. As far as this motion
now before the Chair is concerned I am going to
support it. The people of this country, whom we
represent, the people of Fogo district, whom I
personally represent, expect when the time
comes to be given the real facts, they want to
know if this country is self-supporting at this
moment, if it is likely to be so in the future. In
short they want to know just where we stand as a
country. They also want to know about forms of
government, whether it be Commission government, responsible government, confederation
or
any other form, and we have got to give it to them.
Whether we like it or not, there are thousands of
people who think that confederation is the best
thing that could ever happen in this country.
Perhaps it is, I don't know, nobody knows, and I
therefore consider it our duty to find out. When
the terms of confederation are made known those
who are now favouring it may be turned against
it; on the other hand, the terms may be such that
every man and woman in this country may
demand it. Who are we to dictate to these people
whose servants we are? There are people who say
they are Newfoundlanders and will not be a party
to selling this country up the St. Lawrence River.
It's not a question of selling the country to
anyone, it's just a matter of doing a job we were
sent here to do. I am also a Newfoundlander, and
when I say that, I am proud of it — I mean it.
Together with thousands of others I freely gave
six of the best years of my life in the service of
my country. I am not going to lower myself by
asking somebody where they were in the last war
or any other war; it's none of my business, I leave
that to the dictates of their own consciences. But
that is beside the point.
It has been stated that there is some ulterior
motive in bringing in this resolution. Be that as it
may, I am beginning to believe that there is some
ulterior motive behind those opposing it. Is it
possible that those who are opposing the seeking
of the terms of confederation are afraid that the
terms are going to be so good it will upset their
political castle of dreams and bring it tumbling
around their ears? The people of this country
have been bluffed and hoodwinked long enough,
it's about time they were given some of the cold
hard facts, whether it suits our own personal,
selfish desires or not. The people have never had
a chance to live half-decent lives, but in spite of
that there are those who would have us believe
that we are living in prosperous times, that we are
122
self-supporting. I would like to take these
gentlemen to some of the little outports, to the
little fishing villages to see how the fisherman
and his family lives. Even in these so-called
prosperous times he and his family have half
enough to eat, half enough to wear, and they may
have a tight roof over their heads and they may
not. Are we, this National Convention, sent here
by these very people who are at this moment
suffering untold hardships, are we going to deny
them the facts concerning confederation, or anything else for that matter? If I did
such a thing I
would consider myself a traitor to the cause I
have taken up. If I became a party to such a
dishonourable act, could I in all sincerity still
stand on my feel and call myself a true Newfoundlander? I think not. At this time
we have to
be realistic, we have to face the facts, however
distasteful they may appear. We have to acquit
ourselves like men, and be strong; we must not
allow our own petty desires and selfish interests
to have an overriding influence over our better
judgement.
I am not a politician, and I don't know that I
have any desire to be. But I do say I have the
interest of this country really and truly at heart;
not from any selfish motives, but from an intense
desire to see that this land of ours has a fighting
chance, that our people have a chance to live
decent lives. And in that spirit, I support the
motion now before the Chair.
Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman, I am in accord with the principle
embodied in this resolution although I am not in accord with the
method, that of sending a delegation to Ottawa. What could a delegation
possibly accomplish except to confer with the government officials of that
country? Whatever is done will have to be reduced to writing and
presented to this Convention. Could not the terms of confederation be
ascertained in another way? Is it not possible for this Convention to find out those
terms by transmitting its enquiry to the Canadian
government through the regular diplomatic channels which exist between
the governments of both countries? If that is possible then, why send a
delegation at all?
As regards the time of ascertaining the terms,
in my opinion it does not matter whether those
terms arrive now or in January. We have the
ruling of the Chair that it is within the scope of
this Convention to find out those terms. But we
have yet to decide whether confederation could
be a recommendation of this Convention or not.
So it really does not matter when we receive
them, the question can be laid aside until we are
ready to deal with any form of government which
may be introduced in this assembly.
I did not come here with a definite opinion in
support of any particular form of government.
But I did come here with the opinion that Commission of Government must go and an
elected
government be restored; we should never have
lost the rights of responsible government. Before
I close l would like to make an observation. Since
I sat in this House I have not said very much, but
a couple of weeks ago I did object to some words
which were embodied in a report that was
presented here, and for my objection I was associated with radicalism by someone who
probably does not know the meaning of the word
"radical". I was born and reared in Newfoundland and have lived all my life in the
City
of St. John's, and during that time I have worked
for the period of 29 years, and in that 29 years I
have been fortunate to enjoy six weeks vacation
with pay. If that is a definition of a radical then I
should be proud to be a radical, and I would think
that there are many more people of the same
category in this country who would think in the
same terms as I.
In conclusion, and I hope I am right in saying
this, I believe the question of federating with the
Dominion of Canada is a question that must be
left to a duly elected government of this country,
and they should have a clear mandate from the
people of Newfoundland before any steps are
taken to implement any terms of union that may
be considered.
Mr. Jones Mr. Chairman, in the opening days of this
Convention when the Chadwick-Jones report was up for discussion, I said that
all forms of government should be set aside until the desired facts
had been collected and examined. I am sorry that suggestion has not been
adhered to. I saw then, as some of us see now, that it was bad policy
to introduce a discussion on the different forms of government before the
facts had been ascertained. At the present time we know very little of
the economic conditions of this country, and I think it is a mistake to send
a delegation to Ottawa from this Convention until we know its
financial condition. I would not wish to be one of
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
123 the delegates to approach the Canadian government with what little information we
have at present in this
Convention on our economic and financial life. I am not a confederate, never
was, and have never given it five minutes consideration. I
believe in my own country — Newfoundland for Newfoundlanders -
until I am convinced otherwise. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman,
I am in favour of finding out what the Canadian government has to offer us,
should confederation become a live question in this country. Many of
the previous speakers have already said that we owe it to the people of this
country, no difference what our own individual views may be.
This Convention is only in its infancy; it has
not yet emerged from its committee stage. Until
we have passed that milestone let the different
forms of government sleep peacefully, and when
we are strong enough, wake them up, and then we
shall see what we shall see. Mr. Chairman, we are
growing up too fast; let us get back to our com
mittee stage and finish that job first. When that
work has been completed and discussed we shall
be in a much better position to talk about the
different forms of government most suitable for
this country. We may find that our own house,
with a little window cleaning, may not be so bad
to live in after all.
I have listened to the previous speakers for and
against the motion now under fire, and I find that
a big majority of the members is in favour of
finding out what terms Canada would offer this
country should confederation become a live
issue. The chief obstacle seems to be the time of
approach. I too think that the motion is a bit
premature, and therefore favour the amendment
brought in by Mr. Penny on Monday afternoon.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Fudge was interrupted in his address the
other afternoon and unwittingly sat down. I feel quite sure that none of us
wants to deprive Mr. Fudge of his liberty of completing his remarks.
Mr. Fudge On the introduction of these resolutions before the House, I rose and objected to
the statement made by Mr.
Smallwood, wherein he stated that Newfoundland was 50 to 100 years
behind the times. I want to say that I did not believe it then and do
not believe it now.
It appears to me that the sole aim of the resolution at this stage of our proceedings
was to divide
us, so that we may not be able to enquire and to
examine the condition of our country, being the
first order and may I add the first duty to do so.
I have listened to the debate on this question
and I recall the introduction of the Chadwick-
Jones report by Major Cashin. You will remember also that in later addresses made
by other
delegates Major Cashin was attacked viciously.
No point was raised then regarding personalities,
or that attack was not the proper procedure. But
during discussion on this resolution, which in my
opinion came before it was sent for, Major
Cashin, in my opinion at any rate, was not treated
fairly. And it appears to me that the whole thing
was unfair. Mr. Cashin merely asked for an explanation from the introducer of these
resolutions
on whose authority he was suggesting the appointment of senators and delegates to
Ottawa.
This I certainly would have asked myself, and I
want to ask it now and to go on record that I have
asked, not only for my own information but for
the information of the people who comprise the
second-largest district in the country. I feel that
we are entitled to such information. I consider
that if the statements made by Mr. Hollett and
Mr. Harrington are not denied, then there is nothing else left for us to do but accept
them as the
truth.
Right at this particular moment, one of the
most important reports was to be discussed,
namely the Forestry Report, which was full of
hope and encouragement and would have had an
important bearing on the final findings of this
Convention. This report in my opinion was too
optimistic for the advocates of confederation.
They only want the dark and gloomy picture to
come before the people of our country. I am sick
and tired of hearing some of our delegates stating
that we have not got the men in our country
capable of looking after our own affairs. Let me
recall one of the most important boards set up in
this country during the war. I refer to the Woods
Labour Board, and I am not alone in this when I
say that the members on that board from its very
beginning were highly capable of looking after
their own affairs. The results show this and they
were Newfoundlanders. And I further state, Mr.
Chairman, that at the head of that board was
another Newfoundlander, namely yourself, who
succeeded the late Judge Higgins.
I want to put myself definitely on record as
124
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
supporting the amendment to this resolution, and
I do so feeling that I am carrying out the duties
entrusted to me to defend with all the power at
my command the rights and liberties of our
people. I am one who has confidence in the future
of our country and our people, and I do not
believe for a moment that this good old ship of
state is at all leaky, and I am not prepared to send
out an SOS to the Canadian rescue tug.
Mr. Brown A few days ago I spoke briefly in
connection with the resolution now before this house. I felt at that time,
as I do today, that that resolution was premature. It was brought in
before the receipt of committee reports which would show just what the
financial and economic position of this country is. I have been wondering
to myself the reason why Canada has not sent a delegation here,
instead of this Convention sending a delegation to Canada, if
Canada wants Newfoundland, and there is no doubt she does want to
annex Newfoundland...
I remember quite well, sir, and so do you when
members from the government of the day went
to Quebec, trying to sell the Labrador to the
Quebec government. I can name the men if
necessary; I think the Prime Minister was one of
them, and they, in the final analysis, offered to
sell Labrador to the Quebec government for $15
million, and the Quebec government turned it
down, thinking that in the final analysis the Privy
Council of England would award Labrador to
Quebec, or to Canada. They would not take over
Labrador, or what we claimed we owned of it, for
$15 million. Now we have a resolution before
this House asking us to send a delegation to
Canada to get the terms, and I presume if necessary become part and parcel of Canada.
Canada
wants Labrador, and she wants Newfoundland.
Perhaps the Dominion government is not so interested, or the people at Ottawa, but
the Quebec
government is, and wants Newfoundland, and
thinks today, Mr. Chairman, that Labrador
should never have been ceded to Newfoundland.
I have seen a lot happen in this assembly, and so
have you, sir, and I don't know today who is the
father of this House, whether it is you or myself.
You were elected in 1919, 1923, 1924, and I was
elected in 1923, 1924, 1928, 1932 and 1946
without a defeat, and I have seen many hard and
rough times in this House. This is a famous
chamber. Famous sometimes for what it did not
do, and famous for what it did do as well. I was
in the House and saw some of the hardest fights
across this floor and took part of it myself. I have
been here till 7 o'clock in the morning in an
all-night session, and my friend Mr. Cashin was
here as well, and also Mr. Bradley.
There is so much said about crooked politicians and graft and everything else, but
I want
to tell this House that I was not one of them. I left
politics after all these years associated with the
public life of the country a shade worse off than
when I entered it. I defy any department of the
government in Newfoundland to turn up a piece
of paper that I had black-leaded in my name and
to say that I spent a dollar in my life of government money. I never have, although
I had
authority to spend up to $40,000 and got licked
after all. I have never done it, Mr. Speaker, and I
feel that I have been a fairly honourable member
of this House. At times I was unruly and had to
take my seat. I submitted to your ruling, sir, but
once I remember distinctly when I balked for a
little while and you told me you would have me
removed from the House, and I asked you, Mr.
Speaker, what man in the House could remove
me, and you told me you would have me removed. I looked down at my old friend the
late
Robert Walsh, and he was about 90 years old, and
I said, "Would you like to take that job on Mr.
Walsh?", and he said, "No". I have seen times in
this House when men could have got money and
plenty of it, and I distinctly remember on one
occasion when there was a bill on the table before
this House, and I, with three others, when all the
other members of the opposition were against us,
we stood our ground and defied this House on
every corner, and three of these members are here
today. Mr. Bradley, Mr. Ashbourne and myself,
and another man that's not in this House today.
Am I right or wrong, Mr. Bradley?
Then some of us have been called political
grafters. I defy any man in this country to call me
one. There is no one here who can call me such,
Mr. Chairman. We have before this House a
resolution. It is a different resolution from what
was brought before the Steering Committee, sir,
and you know it, and we passed this resolution,
but when brought into this House it was a different resolution entirely. It may have
meant the
same thing, but the wording was different entirely. I am not against getting terms
from Canada,
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
125
and seeing what these terms are, but it is premature, sir. We have not yet got for
the people of this
country what we were sent here to get. Therefore
I am in duty bound to vote against the resolution
and to vote for the amendment. Nobody,
Mr. Smallwood or anybody else, has ever approached me or offered me a senatorship
or a trip
to Ottawa or anything else. As perhaps the oldest
member here I say here that nobody apart from
God Almighty directs my course. I have a mind
of my own.
While men in this House today may come to
the chamber for the first time, I know even more
about what I speak than people whose fathers
before them have spent their lifetime in connection with the fisheries of this country.
I am not
one of those. I feel that we came here to do a duty
to the people. I don't feel as Mr. Watton felt this
afternoon that some are here with an ulterior
motive. I have no ulterior motive. I was elected
by acclamation. I was called out by the people in
my own district, and not only one crowd but
several. I never intended to run as a delegate to
this Convention, but I did intend, if I was spared,
to run in whatever election might come forward
at a later date. I was called by my people, like it
was said of me one time when I was called for
another district. My reply was that it was not that
I can't go there, I was not afraid to go there. I have
never feared a political election or a political
fight. I loved it, and I love it today. Therefore,
when we come down to supporting this motion I
feel that I can't do it in sincerity.
I have been practically 30 years representing labour in this country. My
younger days were spent in the Pacific coast fishery business in
Alaska. I know all about fishing — more than many who have had so much prate
on it. I was there with frozen fingers, on the Banks and in the dory.
I have gone through the mill as much as the average man in this House has
gone. Yet I don't come here pretending that I know it all. I have
handled labour in this country for 29 years. I have led strikes and settled
strikes, and got wages increased, and I have done many things for the
people of this country, and I am not ashamed of it today.
Mr. Fudge referred to the Woods Labour Board. I am a
member of that Woods Labour Board, and it has done a lot for this country,
and is still doing it. That Woods Labour Board is showing to this
country that we don't want anybody else to come in and run our own affairs.
That Woods Labour Board, under the chairmanship of the late
revered and honoured Judge Higgins, and of the present Mr. Justice
Fox, has done work that perhaps few others could do. We have
experienced people on that board, and it has done a good job; therefore I
join with my friend, Mr. Fudge, in saying that we can handle our own
affairs and we don't have to go to Canada.
You will find today in Canada places where
people are just as backward as they are in Newfoundland. I have a piece of paper in
my pocket
now, I won't read it, but if I did I doubt if there
would be ten men in this House who would vote
for this resolution. Let it go. I will not read it now,
I will leave it to some other time. I am not jumping
to any conclusions, I know where I stand.
Some get up and make flowery speeches,
Mr. Chairman. I have never read a speech in this
assembly from the first day up to the present day,
and you know sir, that the rules of the House of
Assembly would not allow members to read their
speeches. You had to get up and spit it out of you
and have no hesitation in doing it. I have done it
for years, and I hope I am doing it now. In the
meantime, Mr. Chairman, I am not sorry to see
that this is allowed now to the new members in
this House. The only thing about it, are the
speeches that the members read all written by
themselves or by someone else? I don't have to
write a speech to get up and express my opinion,
I can get up and speak my mind without a written
speech.
I have never met Mr. Penney before coming
here to this Convention, and I have not spoken 20
words to you since you have been here, but I hold
you in the highest esteem. Thank you for seeing
fit to bring in this amendment. I think that in
doing so you are doing no injustice...
[Mr. Brown collapsed at this point. The Convention adjourned]
