Mr. Bradley I had no intention of delivering any
lengthy or prepared speech upon this resolution. It seemed so
clearly the right thing to do that the bitter opposition which it has
encountered appeared impossible. But, unfortunately, the debate has
wandered far afield. It has been made the occasion of confessions of
political faith and expressions of antagonism to this and that form of
government. It has even degenerated into an orgy of indecent imputation, low
insinuations, sour invective and what may perhaps be charitably described as plain
misrepresentation.
Some months ago, in a broadcast to the people
of this country, I offered the opinion that this
Convention was a bench of judges rather than a
body of partisans. I am more confirmed today that
my interpretation of its function was and is still
right. There is something incongruous in the association of either eloquence or tub-thumping
with matters and problems of finance and
economics, of addition and subtraction, multiplication and division. Figures do at
times speak
eloquently, but they speak quietly. We are concerned principally with figures. We
have to ascertain the financial and economic position and
prospects of this country, and whether under the
tutelage of Britain, as an autonomous state, or in
partnership with the provinces of Canada, lies the
greatest probability of relegating the six cent dole
of pre-war days into the realm of unpleasant and
eventually traditional memories. In the welter of
irrelevant and dubious eloquence the real issues
have sometimes been wholly submerged. Can we
not forget these confusing side-issues and confine ourselves strictly to the question
upon which
we have shortly to vote, bearing in mind that we
must vote as judges, cooly, impartially, and calmly, and not as partisans in heat
and in passion?
What is this question? Briefly, it is a proposal
that a delegation be sent to learn the terms and
conditions of the confederation of Newfoundland
with Canada. Obviously it is not a discussion of
the merits or demerits of confederation; and yet
we have been told of the allowance offered by
Canada in respect of our public debt in 1895, and
of a computation of what we should get in the
same connection today. The amount mentioned
was some $300 million. Again, we were informed of fabulous prices obtained for fishery
products in Canada. Were these gentlemen unconsciously advocating confederation?
Again it has been suggested that the delegation might explore the question of tariffs
and
other matters affecting the general relations between Canada and an independent Newfoundland.
Surely it is clear that such investigations are
wholly without the jurisdiction of this Convention and obviously beyond the scope
of any
delegation's activities. None of these things has
anything to do with the resolution before the
Chair. The proposal is simply that this delegation
endeavour to obtain facts, the terms or conditions
of union which would be acceptable to the
Government of Canada, if the people of Newfoundland approved of such union.
It is true that in the course of these explorations and inquiries much further, and
valuable,
information would be obtained — the normal
functioning of the Canadian system, the actual
relations existing between the federal and provincial authorities, and other matters
of which I
know little or nothing as yet. Nor is the delegation
in any sense entitled or empowered to negotiate
an agreement or in any way to bind even its own
members, much less the Convention, and least of
all, the people of Newfoundland.
Today I am neither Commissionite nor anti-
Commissionite, neither friend nor foe of responsible government, neither confederate
nor
anti-confederate. I have not the facts upon which
I may arrive at any reasoned and reasonable
conclusion. The facts of one of these forms of
government can only be obtained by sending a
delegation to discuss the matter with the
Canadian government. I want those facts. I
demand them. I refuse to offer any opinion on any
form of government till I get them. And even
more important is that the people of Newfoundland should have them. The people must
within the next few months decide their destinies
at the polls. Any recommendation we may make
is but advisory. Their decision is final and ir
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION 129revocable. It would be nothing short of a criminal
dereliction of duty on our part to leave any
avenue of information unexplored. And let me
say this: that not only do I approve of the sending
of this delegation to Canada, but that I am equally
insistent that steps should be taken to obtain from
the United Kingdom a statement as to what financial and other assistance they would
be prepared
to offer us in case of need. I do not suggest that
we should send a delegation to the United
Kingdom. I do not think that is necessary. The
United Kingdom government is the government
of Newfoundland and we can communicate with
them either through His Excellency the Governor
or through their agents, the Commission of
Government here. If the Government of the
United Kingdom should deem it proper that we
should then send a delegation to England, by all
means let us send that delegation; but I want it
clearly understood that should any resolution to
send a delegation be brought in here, I shall not
oppose it. I do not consider it the right way to
initiate the acquiring of this information from the
United Kingdom, but I shall take no steps to place
anything in the way of such a delegation going
immediately.
And now as to the timing of this delegation's
visit. There has been much nervousness and fear
expressed over the prematurity of this resolution.
Whether these fears arise out of lack of
knowledge of the real situation, or out of a panic-
stricken desire to exclude information about any
form of government which might endanger the
position of that form to which their closed minds
cling with fanatical tenacity, I do not know. But
it is clearly their desire to delay any examination
of confederation facts for a considerable period.
That attitude tends to create the impression that
the appointment of a delegation now would result
in an immediate rush to Ottawa by such a delegation. If anything even remotely approaching
a
resemblance to such a proceeding exists in the
mind of any delegate, the fact would not even be
humorous. It would be deplorable Nothing is
further from the truth. Conferences and discussions between governments and public
bodies are
not conducted in that way. Let us briefly review
the probable course of procedure. The resolution,
if adopted, would at once be sent to the Governor,
or to the Commission of Government, who in turn
would communicate with the Dominions Office.
The latter would then get in touch with the
Government of Canada. That government has
already indicated in the House of Commons that
it would be willing to meet a delegation of this
Convention. In all probability, the Canadian
government would either suggest a suitable time
or enquire what date would be agreeable to us.
Thus the timing of the delegation's departure
from Newfoundland would be delayed for a considerable period. Does anyone in this
Convention
imagine that any delegation of its members
would have the temerity, or even the discourtesy
to rush off to Ottawa at any time without first
advising this body? And is anyone here under the
impression that any sane body of delegates would
depart upon such a mission without much previous preparation right here in St. John's?
Their very method of approach to the subject
will have to be very carefully considered, for they
will have in their keeping the dignity of this land
of ours. Newfoundland must not be placed in the
position of a supplicant. They will have to compile a considerable amount of factual
material for
possible reference during their stay in Canada's
capital. They will have many conferences with
the departments of government here, for it is
elementary that, before leaving it will be imperative that they prepare figures estimating
closely:
1. The amount of public service expenditures
which will be lifted from our shoulders by the
Dominion govemment's assumption of responsibility for the Railway and its subsidiaries,
the
postal telegraph services, and other items for
which our revenue is now liable.
2. The sources and amounts of our present
revenue which will remain to us as a province
when the Dominion takes over customs, income
and other taxes.
3. The amount of revenue which will be required to carry on the remaining public services
which will still be our responsibility — education, public health and the like.
These are a few subjects upon which much
information must be carefully compiled and
many others will occupy many days of work in
close collaboration with the ablest officials of the
public service, some of whom, by reason of their
intimate knowledge of departmental affairs, will
have to accompany the delegation to Ottawa. The
early appointment of this delegation could not
possibly result in their arrival at Ottawa much
130 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1946
before the middle of December, and it might
easily be early in the New Year before they could
leave. So, it seems clear that if we are to arrive at
sound conclusions, based upon all the facts, and
communicate our recommendations to the
Dominions Office in time to enable the British
Parliament to deal with them before the Easter
recess of next year, we must act on this resolution
now. There is no advantage to be gained by delay.
There is a probability of serious harm. The
people, whether confederate or anti-confederate
(and there are many of the former in Newfoundland today), want this information. Many
are anxiously awaiting it. Shall we take the
responsibility of balking that desire? Shall we
refuse them that information, or even delay it?
Have we the right to place any obstacles in the
way of the disclosure of any truth to which the
people are entitled?
In 1933 the Amulree report was concealed
from the people until within a few days of the
opening of the legislature which destroyed their
freedom, and many knew little or nothing of the
scheme to degrade them for their misfortunes
until their liberties had passed into history. Shall
we be parties to even a temporary suppression of
the facts, whether of confederation or anything
else? If we destroy this motion, or even delay it,
we shall be guilty of just that. There are those in
this land, and perhaps in this House, who would
recklessly prevent the examination of every form
of government which lies outside the limits of
their own narrow notions, whose minds are firmly lashed to the chariot wheel of a
single political
system, whose judgement is impaired by the narrowness and restrictions of their mental
horizons,
who talk wildly that this or that form of government will only come to Newfoundland
over their
dead bodies Are these the men whose lead we
shall follow down the blind alley of obstruction
to the search for truth? Or shall we take the road
which leads to the facts, the evidence, the information which we, as representatives
of the
people, are bound to lay before them without
unnecessary delay, and upon which they must
ponder and decide their destinies? ....
In good faith, it has been suggested that this
matter should be deferred until we know the
details of our financial position. What connection
is there between the two? How is the determination of the one dependent upon the ascertainment
of the other? Early action upon this resolution
will not bring the terms of confederation to the
people before the last of January next, and that is
delay enough. In the final analysis, even if our
present financial position is found to be fairly
satisfactory, is that the last word? Is it suggested
that in such case no inquiries are to be made of
Canada, or of the United Kingdom or of anyone?
Are we then bound to walk this chaotic world
alone? Are the people to have no choice? That
would be a repetition of the vicious scheme of
1933. It would be a clear breach of fundamental
political morality. It would violate, nay, it would
defeat both the spirit and the letter of the Convention Act of 1946. It would be an
arrogant determination of the people's destinies in the dark, a
determination which would be bitterly resented
by them, for the supporters of responsible
government are not in an overwhelming majority
in this country today.
But I am not without sympathy for those who
fear precipitate action. I can understand their
desire to avoid mistakes. These fears are groundless. The delegation should be selected
at an early
date. Their early departure for Ottawa is definitely impossible. In any case it is
not essential. In
order to eliminate all uncertainty, I propose at the
proper stage in this debate to offer another
amendment which will ensure that the delegation
shall not leave St. John's before the first day of
January, 1947. That should, I think, meet the
views of all but the irreconcilables.
In conclusion, it is my earnest wish and sincere hope that before voting upon this
question
every member of this Convention will bring to
bear upon it the full strength of his intellect,
backed by an irresistible urge to seek the truth;
that we shall purge our minds of all passion and
prejudice, all party and personal allegiances, all
enthusiasms and all antagonisms. Let us discharge this solemn duty; let us reach a
decision
upon this, as upon all other questions, in cool,
impartial and reasoned judgement. Let us render
our decision upon the resolution now at our hands
as a bench of judges, and not as a body of partisans.
Mr. Kennedy This House was resolved into nine
committees with one main object in view, to produce for Convention members,
and the people, a detailed general summary of our country's standing
in such form as to avoid con
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
131fusion, and at the same time give us a general basis
on which to either form the groundwork for, or reach our decisions. Hitherto
these committees have worked both energetically and smoothly towards
their goal, without which any decisions cannot logically be even considered,
unless previous bias exists. Surely, should the ultimate
summary prove our beloved country to be financially and
economically independent, any delegation to anywhere would be both futile
and a further source of expense to a country which has already been
exploited to a disgusting extent.
Such interruption as this motion would inevitably entail is both untimely and at the
present
stage of procedure more than impracticable Indeed I go so far as to say such action
to my mind
strongly suggests sabotage — at whose instigation it is within my power to think,
butnot to state.
In consequence, as an ex-service Newfoundlander, whose one aim is the freedom of my
country for which I fought, I see no other possible
outlet than to support the amendment.
Mr. Hannon My first vote in this National Convention is not going to be a silent one. The introduction
of the
proposal brings back to my mind the old story — confederation, a bugaboo
which lies dormant in this country until rumour has it that an election
is in the offing. Since our last general election in 1932 up to 1946 the word
was seldom if every heard.
Some delegates have made the broad statement that confederation is a very live issue
over
the greater part of this country. I have no
authority to speak, except for a small section of
Newfoundland, the district which sent me here,
where I may say confederation is anything but a
live issue. However, I can speak from an experience gained by me when acting as employment
manager at Gander from 1940 to 1944.
During that time I passed through my hands
thousands of men coming to work from all over
the island, and not once did I hear one of these
men say anything in favour of confederation. But
after our men had lived with the Canadians and
had exchanged opinions, I found that whatever
sentiments they had had before, they were certainly unfavourable afterwards.
I am going to vote against the original motion
and for the amendment proposed by Mr. Penney,
for the following reasons: this is not the time to
send a delegation to Ottawa, or anywhere else
— our work as a fact-finding organisation has
only just begun. When the work which we were
sent here to do is accomplished, and we are ready
to submit our official reports to the country, then
will be time enough to send envoys to outside
nations, if indeed it is even then found necessary
to do so.
Mr. Jackman Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am
not in favour of confederation with Canada, nor with anyone. I am a
Newfoundlander, proud of my heritage, proud of my forebears. I believe in my country
and my countrymen. I am
satisfied with nothing less than that our country should be restored to its
former position, a self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth of Nations, the
cornerstone of the British Empire.
I had no intention at this time to state my mind
here in this House. I have already done so in
public, but because of this resolution I am forced
to partly state what I was sent here for. I am the
only delegate who was sent here on a definite
policy for Newfoundland. I am not going to talk
possible forms of government now. I merely wish
to say that I speak for the common people.... I
speak for a woman who came to my home shortly
before I came on this Convention, and asked me
to go into her house and view the circumstances
under which she had to live — a shack of about
18 feet by 24 feet, and there were in that shack 16
human beings, half of them with TB, living like
cattle. I speak for a man who worked 45 years for
a company, and is thrown onto the scrap heap and
has to take a net pension of $8 a month. I speak
for the countless numbers of young children in
my own district who are barred in from October
until the sun shines again next spring, because
they have not sufficient clothing to wear. These
are the people I speak for, and I have a definite
idea of what form of government Newfoundland
needs; but I feel Newfoundland must first get
back her responsible government before we can
go further.
I can continue talking on these lines, but I do
not wish to obstruct the proceedings of this
House. I said before I am not here to waste time,
notwithstanding that $15 a day is big money for
the labouring man. In conclusion I would like to
ask the advocates of confederation with Canada
this question, I would like to know the answer
from them, and the country would like to know
132 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1946
as well, why do 25,000 Canadians leave Canada
yearly to go to the United States? Mr. Chairman
and gentlemen I stand to support the amendment.
Mr. Figary ....I have followed the debate on the resolution
presented by Mr. Smallwood to this Convention, and I do not object to the
principle involved in the resolution; I feel we should have that
information, and all the information we can get on any form of government. I
and the people of my district want it, and we must get it, so we can be
in a position to decide what form of government will be best so as to give
our people a square deal. A government for all citizens of this country
and not for a few.
In the past a lot of our people were given a
rotten deal, they have been hungry and cold, and
there is no doubt about that; I have been in homes
and seen it. I have seen children crying for bread
and none to give them, seen children and even
adults use flour sacks in order to cover their
nakedness. These people did not endure this because they were too lazy to work; there
was no
work to be had, and those who did work were paid
a shamefully low wage, and the fishermen
received next to nothing for their fish, barely
enough for an existence. There was nothing that
could be done about it, as at that time organised
labour got little assistance or recognition from
any source, indeed it was frowned upon in many
places. Since Commission of Government has
controlled this country there has been a lot of
improvement as regards recognition of organised
labour. This does not mean that the government
has in all cases favoured the organisation of the
workers, there have been times when they opposed and actually fought against the right
of
workers to organise and bargain collectively. In
the main, however, they have generally encouraged the idea of collective bargaining
and
have set up machinery whereby employer and
employee can meet and discuss their difficulties.
At the present, I am somewhat in favour of the
present form of government until we can determine a better form for Newfoundland.
There has been considerable debate on the
resolution and I have the feeling the majority are
in favour of the amendment presented by Mr.
Penney.... I want to associate myself with previous speakers. I too came to this Convention
with an open mind, and I shall vote only for that
which I know will benefit the people of our
country. I do not intend to be carried away or
swayed by every wind and doctrine. I will vote
on the vital issues of this Convention according
to what I believe to be in the best interests of our
country. I agree with the principle of this resolution, and it's really too bad that
it had to come up
at this time. When the time is opportune, this
Convention will not overlook this matter, and
will obtain the terms on which Canada would
receive us, or should I say, on which we would
be willing for Canada to join us. A lot of time has
been wasted on this matter, and I do not see any
advantage in discussing it further....
No person can carry me beyond what I deem
advisable on this question. I can decide that when
we have received and studied the terms of confederation with Canada. I do not like
people
asking me how I am going to vote (I mean outside
of this chamber), that's my business, and I am
only going to be led by my own conscience,
whether it's voting for confederation or any other
form of government. I see no alternative but to
vote for the amendment...
Mr. Cranford Mr. Chairman. while listening to the debate on
the motion now before the House, it has given me cause to ask the question,
are we inconsistent? In other words, do we practise what we preach? The
vote now pending will decide my question.
When we had responsible government, it was
very often considered that spending money on
trips both local and foreign, together with other
similar acts, would lead to the financial collapse
of our country. That collapse did come. Responsible government was ousted from power
and
Commission of Government took its place, and
in the opinion of some of us the Commission has
not lived up to expectations. Hence a National
Convention has been inaugurated to investigate
our country's economic and financial condition,
and before we have got anywhere we are confronted with a resolution to send delegates
to
Canada to seek terms of confederation. In my
opinion we are asked to favour the pleasure of a
few gentlemen on ajoyride at the expense of the
taxpayers. Now why do the same thing that past
governments had done that we did not approve
of? And why send a delegation anywhere out of
the country at any time? Why not let our actions
be an example for any future government?
Let the terms of confederation be sought by all
November 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 133
means if we think it necessary, but do it in an
economic manner consistent with the impression
we gave our constituents when seeking election.
Let our wishes be known to the Commission of
Government, with the request that the government open negotiations immediately with
the
Canadian government with the aim of securing
the terms of confederation. Let it be done by mail
instead of selecting a band of globe trotters. Suppose some person brought in a resolution
advocating this country be made part of an
international zone comprising the three greatest
English-speaking nations of the world, namely
England, Canada and the United States of
America, would not that person have reason to
demand the same right and privilege as the person
who brought in the motion now before us? .... If
we mean what we say, that we will support every
movement that would be in the best interest of
our country, may I suggest we use a postage
stamp instead of a railway ticket when we can get
the same result. Do not let us be deceived in
thinking that Canada will give us any better terms
than the Maritime provinces received when they
threw in their lot with the federal government.
With all due consideration I will support the
amendment.
Mr. McCarthy I am not going to speak at any length to
the motion, and certainly not at all on confederation, which is not the
issue; too much has been said for and against that by some previous speakers. I
wish to make it clear that I am not supporting
confederation or any other form of government at this particular time, but
when the time comes however I shall favour the form of government
which I think will best serve Newfoundland and its people.
I know there are some Newfoundlanders, few
though they may be, who are favouring confederation and we owe it to them to obtain
all
information possible on the issue. Whether this is
sought now or later does not matter a great deal,
as long as it is available to the Convention when
committees are finished. Canada, knowing now
that we do not have to accept, will I think submit
her best offer. Then our confederates, knowing
this, will have a better idea whether or not it
would be wise to vote that way. Therefore, I
support the resolution.
Mr. Spencer Mr. Chairman, hitherto l have taken no
verbal part in the public sessions of this
House. Being one of the younger members of this Convention and
unaccustomed, as many of us are, to gatherings of this sort, I have chosen
rather to listen and learn. But having sat and listened for the last
two days to the comments and debate on the resolution now before the House,
I feel compelled to make some comment. I know, and many
gentlemen here have stated, that there are people in all the districts of
Newfoundland and Labrador who are expecting that confederation will be one
of the forms of government which will be presented to them at a future
referendum, and for that reason alone it was inevitable that the question of getting
terms from the Canadian government
should at some time have to come before this House. I think we agree on
that. The main point of the argument at the present time is, it seems
to me, the time of presenting the resolution, which some delegates
think was premature. But the fact remains that the motion is before the
House and we have spent three sessions in disputing and
debating it. Now what are we going to do about it? Are we going to shelve
this resolution at the present and bring it in at some future date? I
have come to the conclusion that I will support the motion, because if we
shelve the question now and have it brought in again at some future
date, we should have all our discussions and debates over again which to me
seems a waste of time, and l have no wish to see this Convention
prolonged more than is absolutely necessary. I would wish this Convention to
have the facts when they want them and not have to wait for them. In
making this decision I wish it to be clearly understood that I have not been
approached or influenced by any member of this
Convention. Let us get the question settled as quickly as possible and get
on with the real business of finding the facts about our own
country.
Mr. Ballam Mr. Chairman, 1 have not spoken on the
resolution before because I did not think it necessary to have so many
speeches made. If every resolution and question that is brought in is
going to have 45 speeches made on it we are going to be here for a very
long time yet. The resolution now before the Convention is not whether
we are going to back confederation or not. There is nothing in it about
confederation except to obtain the facts as to terms with Canada. Those
who spoke on the amendment want to get the facts too. The only point is to
decide whether
134
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 we should send a delegation now or in two
weeks or in two months time.... I feel that too much time has been
wasted on something that should have been finished many days ago. A
gentleman told me this afternoon that he was going to move an
amendment to the amendment. I hope he will soon get started and have 45
speeches made on it before it is too late. Personally I think this whole
thing should be shelved until January next, and for that reason I
support Mr. Bradley's amendment.... I am not a confederate and not
supporting any particular form of government; but in the interests of
the whole country I would like to see something definite done on this
question once and for all.
Mr. Reddy I would like to speak briefly on the motion
introduced by Mr. Smallwood. I am favourably impressed with the views of
previous speakers. The people of my district are friendly disposed to
confederation, and I would like to see all information available brought
before this house for consideration with regard to this question. Remember that
upon this the destiny of our country may depend, and
the weal or woe of 300,000 people may rest. Now the people who sent us
delegates here are watching us closely. I may say that the final reports of
two committees have been laid aside because of the time spent on these
resolutions. Even at that it is not lost time, because it is vitally
necessary to have this question explored to the fullest extent and
have all information ready at the proper time. If this Convention takes a year to
complete its work, what is a year to the life of a
country and its people? I was born in this country, lived in this country
and I hope to die in this country.... Therefore, with a sincere heart,
I will support the amendment.
Mr. Crosbie Mr. Chairman, when this resolution
was introduced I was away, unfortunately. However, I heard most of the
speeches over the radio and I would like to congratulate some people on
the job they did not do. I do not think the time opportune to discuss
confederation terms because we have not the facts and figures yet
concerning our own country. At the moment the idea of preparing to send a
delegation to Ottawa to discuss terms is ridiculous. For argument's
sake, I happen to own a business and Mr. Smallwood happens to own a business
and we are thinking of amalgamating. Then he asks
me what my assets are. My answer to him would be that I do not know,
but if he would not mind waiting a bit to discuss this thing I would let him
know at a later date. The same applies to this confederation business,
and I fail to see any sound reason for going into it in a hurry. I feel the
majority of delegates will view this matter in the same light.... I am
not an anti-confederate neither am I a confederate. I am not supporting any
particular form of government at the present time; but I am definitely
opposed to what has taken place within the past week or so. 1 will now
support the amendment.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, at this stage I am not going
to say much about sending a delegation to Ottawa, but I am sorry that such
an issue developed at this time because it smacks of old-
time politics.... I move that the resolution be put to a vote so that the
Convention will be able to move along on more important business matters.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Bradley made reference to the sounding of
the British government. That is a point I would like to be clear on, and
would you, sir, explain what possible effect that would have on a spring
referendum?
Mr. Chairman I will get the exact words used later, and
until then you might let the matter stand over. Is there any other member
who wishes to speak before the reply is made by the original mover of
the question? If not, the debate on the original question will finish with
the reply by the mover of the original question.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, before coming to the main
part of my remarks I would like to say how deeply grateful I am for the very
many words of encouragement I have received since I moved this
resolution on Monday last. By word of mouth, by telephone and by telegraph
from many parts of the country these encouraging messages have come,
enough to show me, if I had not known before, that this country wants the
resolution to pass. And now 1 reply to my friend Mr.
Harrington. I am deeply sorry to find that we are on opposite sides. I did
hope it would be otherwise. As he said himself, I was expecting
his support of this motion, for months ago he declared to me his
intention to do so. From the moment I first met him — that was when he
worked with me on the
Book of Newfoundland[1]
— I liked and admired him. I have followed his
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
135 career ever since, especially as my successor in the
Barrelman radio programme. I believe he is a patriot, and I believe he loves
this country every bit as much as I do. I am all the more sorry,
therefore, that he has marred his political career, which I thought was a
rather promising one, by his remarks aimed at me on Monday. I thought at
first that I should put them down to naivety, to lack of experience in
everyday affairs. I felt sorry that he should make such an almost
unforgiveable break. Yes, I told Mr. Harrington that I
thought he would make a very good member of any delegation that might go to
Canada to get the terms of confederation. I did not promise a seat on
any such delegation from this Convention to Ottawa. 1 shall not appoint it I
suppose I would be lucky to be on it myself. I did tell Mr. Harrington that he would
make a good member of the delegation,
and I would say now again that he would make a good member, if I could feel
sure that it was only an unfortunate break he made here on Monday
last, and not a deliberate piece of double-crossing treachery, if it was not
an unscrupulous attempt at political throat-cutting. Some day, I
trust, Mr. Harrington will learn that in the circles in which men move and
work and deliberate there is a line drawn, a well-known and
well-established line, which men do not cross. It's simply not done to rush
into a public assembly and blurt out what is said in private
conversation.... Mr. Harrington will learn all this if he
remains in the public life of our country. Maybe Mr. Harrington merely made
an unfortunate and immature break — if he did I forgive him, and there
are no hard feelings. Again, perhaps he fancied a perfectly sincere remark
to be a foul attack upon his political virtue. In that case I could be
sorry for his inexperience. But if it was a deliberate piece of
throat-cutting, if it was part and parcel of a planned campaign to rivet
responsible government on us, and to tune out everything but responsible government,
then it's another situation
altogether.
Now I turn to Mr. Hollett's remarks. I did not
offer him a senatorship for two very sound
reasons. First, because I have no senatorships to
offer. Secondly, because ifI were going to offer
him any job it would be something on a very
much lower level than a senatorship. I do Mr.
Hollett the credit of not having accused me
directly of offering him a senatorship.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order.
The present speaker is indulging in personalities and refers to me
as Mr. Hollett. I thought that was not allowed.
Mr. Chairman Do you rise to a point of parliamentary procedure?
Mr. Chairman During the House of Assembly era, members
when addressing the Chair did not refer to other members by name, but by the
districts they represented. But this Convention is not a
parliament. Under the circumstances, I think Mr. Smallwood has the right to
refer to you by name, rather than as the member for Grand Falls.
Mr. Smallwood And now I will refer to Mr. Hollett as the
junior member for Grand Falls. Again I say I did not offer him a senatorship
for the reasons I have already stated.
Mr. Chairman Here I have to call order. I do not
propose to have personalities introduced, and I do not want to have
aspersions cast upon any member of the Convention.
Mr. Smallwood [think that Mr. Hollett implied that it
was I who offered him a senatorship. I have never exchanged more than 50
words with Mr. Hollett in my life and I trust to his honour to make it
clear that it was not to me he referred. My friend Mr. Fudge's objection was
to the holding of a little "side Convention" in my room at the Newfoundland Hotel.
I notice that a local paper also referred to
these meetings, so-called. It is perfectly true that many
delegates — I might say two or three dozen delegates, have visited me in my
room at the hotel, some by my specific invitation, some without any
particular invitation. I have visited other delegates in their rooms. In my
room and in their rooms, and in committee rooms in this house, and
walking along the street, and in the streetcar, I have often discussed
public affairs with delegates and with non-delegates. I am quite sure
that other delegates have done likewise. It's a habit we have. It's a habit
all public men have. You can't stop it. It isn't even sensible to want to
stop it. It happens all over the world.... It's just the ordinary,
practical, every day procedure for men to talk things over, to try to
convince each other, or to try to find out what the other man is
thinking, to canvass the situation generally. There is nothing improper or
unusual about it... It is just simple inexperience, immature unsophistication, to
paint such meetings as sinister
136
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 or improper or unusual.
Now turning to Mr. Cashin. I like Mr. Cashin.
I enjoy him. He fascinates me. His arguments
fascinate me. His statements fascinate me. For
instance, that statement he made here that he
never said anything outside the House that he
wouldn't be prepared to say in the House. Most
men I'd hardly be willing to believe if they made
such a statement. I think I believe Mr. Cashin
when he makes it. And that other statement he
made, when he said there was an ulterior motive
behind this resolution. Mr. Cashin is not an easy
one to fool. We can trust him always to ferret out
ulterior motives and plots. He ferreted out an
ulterior motive behind this Convention itself - that it was just a bluff, a glorious
stall, dripping
with treachery, a clever stunt to keep Commission of Government in power. But he admits
that
the members of the Convention are not aware of
the ulterior motive behind this resolution to get
information for our people. And he fears that the
members do not see the ulterior motive behind
the setting up of this Convention. He is determined to protect the members of this
Convention,
and expose the ulterior motive behind the resolution and behind the Convention. He's
going to
see that the country gets the only kind of government that he thinks is fit for the
country, responsible government. He's against this resolution, on
the ground that he knows the country is self-supporting anyway, so why waste time
getting more
information? He knows the country is self-supporting, because it's all in the Auditor
General's
report. There it is, according to him, as clear as
mud, the clear proof that the country is self-supporting. We don't need to look any
further. And
yet, Mr. Chairman, one of his reasons for not
sending a delegation to Ottawa is that the delegation would have no information to
take with
them. Wasn't he overlooking that remarkable
piece of information about this country?
Mr. Cashin in one breath says that on the basis of
the 1895 confederation offer from Canada we'd
get $300 million cash from Canada if we
federated with her now. In the next breath he
speaks about selling the country. There's something wrong in this line of reasoning.
I fear there's
something wrong in a lot of his reasoning, for
example when he convinces himself that Prime
Minister Attlee's reference to the three-year
reconstruction programme of the Commission
government proves a deep plot on Mr. Attlee's
part to keep the Commission here another three
years. I'm afraid I'm not impressed any more by
Mr. Cashin's standing as an authority on constitutional theory, constitutional history
and
constitutional practice, than I am by his grasp of
financial matters. Before I leave Mr. Cashin for
the time being, I must say that it appears to me
that he is annoyed with me for not including him
in my list of senatorships. I hasten to repair that
blunder on my part. I have no more senatorships
to offer. I'm sorry, but I promise him faithfully
that if I should ever become prime minister of
Canada I'll see that he is taken care of. I'll see
that he is fixed up. I'll see that he gets a position
fully in keeping with his parliamentary background. I'll make him Gentleman Usher
of the
Black Rod. I'd give anything to see him all
togged off in those dinky black pantaloons and
three-cornered hat.
And now while I'm at it, I want to say a word
about The Sunday Herald newspaper. I want to
say emphatically that it's not true that I'm paying
that paper to attack me every week. There's not
a word of truth in it. I'm grateful to them for their
valuable attacks upon me. I hope they keep it up,
but I'm definitely not paying them one cent for
doing it.
Turning to more important aspects of this
question. I don't think that thoughtful Newfoundlanders are glad to see such silly
efforts
being made to take their attention away from the
main question in this resolution. The people of
our country want to know the truth and they have
a right to know the truth, the truth about Commission government, the truth about
responsible
government, the truth about confederation. They
would not thank me if I tried to keep the truth
about Commission government away from them
and I would not be so foolish as to try to keep it
from them; or the truth about responsible government either. And the people are not
thanking
anyone who is trying to keep the truth about
confederation from them. All they want the
people to hear about is responsible government,
all they can see, all they are willing to talk about
is responsible government. Their every thought
is about responsible government, they're not
satisfied for anything else to come before us. If
they could have their way this Convention would
close up right now after narrowing our people's
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
137
choice down to responsible government. It maddens them, it infuriates them, when I
introduce
this resolution, when many delegates support it.
It maddens them because it takes attention away
from the one thing that they want the people to
see, responsible government. But, sir, our people
are not blind. They see through this political
dodge. Our people know why this effort is being
made to block this resolution. Our people have
learned a lot in the past 20 years. They have their
eyes open today. Mr. Chairman, I am not at this
point referring to everyone who has spoken
against the resolution. I want to make myself
quite clear on this point. There are members who
have spoken very sincerely against the motion,
because they feared that it was trying to rush
them. Not to them do I refer, but to a certain
willful minority whose only policy is responsible
government or bust.
We have heard here some silly talk about
selling the country. Smallwood is trying to sell
the country, they say. Could political bankruptcy
go lower? The fanatical opponents of this motion
must be pretty hard-up for an argument when
they descend to such old-time political clap-trap,
the sort of tripe that brought responsible government into such contempt and disrepute
before.
Personal abuse, name-calling, charges of graft,
bribery and corruption, accusations of selling the
country and so forth, don't the gentlemen who
stoop to such tactics see, don't they realise, that
every time they get down to such depths, they're
only reminding the people of the bad old days of
responsible government? Don't they see that
every such remark only makes the people more
determined than ever never to touch responsible
government again? Those people have a very
poor opinion of our people's intelligence. They
are gambling on the hope that our people have
short memories. They are living in a world that is
dead and past, that bad old world of playing
politics, of playing politics as a game. Not ideas,
but personalities; not policies, but name-calling;
not great political principles, but accusations of
graft, bribery, treachery and all the rest of the old
time political ammunition-dump of trash and garbage. If you don't agree with a man,
smear him.
If you can't answer his arguments, try to draw
attention away from his arguments by blackening
his character. Accuse him of bribery, start a great
hullabaloo, a big noise, and maybe the public will
forget the solid things he said. It's an old game,
Mr. Chairman, but it doesn't work any more. Our
people are on to that old trick of the political
game.
But, sir, why should I complain because a few
people say that I'm trying to sell the country?
Better men than I, greater Newfoundlanders,
higher patriots, have had the same charge hurled
against them. That greatest patriot of all, the
Right Honourable Sir Robert Bond, who occupied a seat only two or three feet from
where I
stand today, had the same charge made against
him. Here's a printed pamphlet published in
1909, when he was prime minister. On the cover
of this pamphlet, in heavy black type, are the
words: "Bond's Awful Plot to Sell the Country."
And what is this pamphlet about? It tells how our
great Newfoundland patriot was a confederate
who wanted to get Canada's terms of confederation in 1909. For wanting to get the
terms of
confederation Sir Robert Bond was accused of
trying to sell his country, so why should I complain for having the same charge hurled
at me
when I propose to get the terms? Sir Edward
Morris not only tried to get the terms in 1914 but
got them — was he trying to sell the country?
Were Sir William Coaker and Sir Michael Cashin
traitors to Newfoundland because they were
anxious, in 1915, to get the terms of confederation? Were Sir William Whiteway and
Archbishop Howley traitors for believing in confederation? Was Sir Richard Squires,
were Sir
Ambrose Shea and Sir Frederick Carter? Were
those great Newfoundlanders all trying to sell the
country?
Mr. Chairman, someone said, I believe it was
Mr. Hollett, that he didn't believe that the
Government of Canada would receive a delegation from this Convention. In the House
of Commons, the prime minister of Canada made this
precise statement: "If the people of Newfoundland should ever decide that they wish
to
enter the Canadian federation and should make
that decision clear beyond all possibility of
misunderstanding, Canada would give most sympathetic consideration to the proposal."
[1] That
was in l943. Coming down to late June of this
present year, the Government of Canada made its
position again very clear, in the words of Mr. St.
138
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946
Laurent. Mr. St. Laurent, who is Canada's minister of justice, was then acting prime
minister of
Canada, Mr. King being in Paris. Mr. St. Laurent
was asked by a member of the Opposition if the
government would extend an invitation to Newfoundland to enter the Canadian federal
union.
Mr. St. Laurent replied for the government as
follows:
As the Hon. members know, just within
the past few days an election has been held
in Newfoundland for the purpose of constituting an assembly. The position of
Canada is still as it has been stated on more
than one occasion in this House. If the people
of Newfoundland come to the conclusion
that they would be happy to throw in their lot
with Canada, their representations will be
given most earnest and sympathetic consideration. But it has been said on more than
one occasion in this House that this is something concerning the inhabitants of the
old
colony of Newfoundland, and this Government would not wish to appear to be interfering
in the affairs of that colony. Their
delegates or representatives will be welcomed here as cordially as we can welcome
them. I believe there are many Canadians
who feel that it would be to the mutual advantage of Canada and Newfoundland to
come closer together.
Mr. St. Laurent was followed immediately by
Mr. John R. MacNichol, an Opposition member,
who said: "If and when Newfoundland should
send delegates to Canada to discuss the question
of the entry of Newfoundland to Confederation,
which I for one favour, I would strongly urge that
no effort be made or no suggestion advanced to
detach Labrador from Newfoundland." Mr. MacNichol said he had been in Newfoundland
and
knew how strongly Newfoundlanders felt on this
point. Mr. St. Laurent expressed his agreement. I
think, Mr. Chairman, we may feel quite sure that
Canada would receive a delegation from this
house and impart any terms that she was willing
to offer. Their only policy in this whole matter is
that it must be the Newfoundland people themselves who shall express a wish for confederation.
Canada simply won't accept Newfoundland
unless the Newfoundland people express a wish
for it. The Newfoundland people cannot express
a wish for it until they know the terms, and that's
what this resolution asks us to do, to get the terms
so that the Newfoundland people can judge for
themselves, as they have every right to do.
We also know the attitude of the Opposition
in Canada. At their annual conference last summer they passed a resolution calling
upon the
Government of Canada to extend an invitation to
Newfoundland to enter the federal union. And we
know the attitude of the Canadian people also. In
the Gallup poll held in Canada this summer a big
majority of them declared that they would welcome Newfoundland into their federal
union.
So now, Mr. Chairman, we know all the factors but one. We know that it is lawful for
the
Convention to send the delegation to Ottawa. We
know that Ottawa will receive the delegation, and
receive it cordially. We know that the opposition
party will not oppose it. We know that the
Canadian people will not oppose it. The only
thing we still don't know is what the Newfoundland people want. We don't know whether
they want confederation or not — and we're not
going to know until they vote in the referendum.
All we can do is get the terms and conditions and
that's all this resolution calls for. The rest can
very safely be left to the people; once they know
the terms, they'll know how to make up their
minds all right, never you fear.
I am sorry, in a way, that when the committees
were set up five weeks ago we didn't set up ten
committees instead of nine. While nine committees were getting the facts about Commission
government and responsible government, the
tenth committee could have been getting the facts
about confederation. However, it isn't too late by
any means. We can adopt this resolution and then
the machinery can start. Word will finally come
back to us saying very definitely whether Canada
will receive the delegation, and the delegation
itself could leave in December or early in
January, for Ottawa. They'd probably be back in
ten days or a fortnight, with the terms, and then
the terms will be before us when we come around
finally to discussing forms of government. If we
think the terms are good, we'll be able to recommend that confederation on those terms
be put
before the people in the referendum. If we don't
think they're worth putting before the people, We
don't have to put them before the people. It's the
people who'll decide. They'll have the last word,
and the only word that counts. If we ever enter
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
139
confederation it'll only be because our people
will want it, and they'll want it, if they do, only
because the terms will make this a better country
for them to live in. We owe it to the people to get
them the facts they need to make up their minds
on this question. We owe them that. It is our plain
duty to get the facts for them, and I do not see
how we can fail in that duty.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, let me repeat the
solemn pledge I have made to this House and to
the country: if the terms, when we get them, are
good for our people, then I shall support them. If
they are not good, then I shall oppose and condemn them as strongly as anyone. Let
us set the
machinery going now that will eventually, eight
or ten weeks from now, put the facts before us.
Let us decide to get the machinery going and then
forget about confederation until the facts are laid
before us by the delegation after their return from
Ottawa. Let us remember that it is the people of
Newfoundland we are here to serve, first, last and
all the time. Let us turn our backs upon nothing
that might be good for our Newfoundland people.
[The Chairman proposed a change in the wording of the motion which was accepted by
the
mover and seconder]
Mr. Chairman Now to that original question, moved by Mr.
Smallwood and seconded by Mr. Higgins K.C., the following amendment has
been moved by Mr. Penney and seconded by Mr. Roberts, namely: "That all
words after the words 'national referendum' in the preamble to the
motion be deleted, and the following substituted therefor; namely:
'But that the question of ascertaining the attitude of the Government of
Canada towards the possibility of federal union of Newfoundland with
Canada and the further question of sending a delegation to Ottawa to
ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government
of Canada consider that such union might be effected, be deferred for
consideration until the reports of the committees appointed pursuant to
the session of September 20 have been presented to this Convention, or
such earlier or other date as the Convention may determine.'"
The debate on the original question has
finished. The amendment submits a separate
question. To that question several members already have spoken, including Mr. Penney
who
moved it, Mr. Roberts who seconded it, Mr.
Smallwood and Mr. Brown. The other members
of the Convention if they so desire and see any
need for so doing, may speak to the amendment.
Mr. Hollett It is not my intention to delay the debate. I
am neither very much enamoured of the amendment, and certainly not of the
motion, but I believe I shall vote for the amendment. I regret there
seems to be from day to day a change in the manner of procedure. One day we
seem to be using parliamentary procedure, and some other day we seem to
be using some other form of procedure, so it makes it rather awkward when
one gets to his feet to make some remarks.
Mr. Chairman I have to correct you, Mr. Hollett. There is no variance in the procedure originally
laid down
whatsoever. Where the rules approved by this Convention are silent then
ordinary parliamentary procedure applies. If you refer to
the point relative to the naming of a member, I have explained that, and I
do not propose to let your comment pass either unchallenged
or unmarked that from day to day there is any variance in the procedure in
this assembly.
Mr. Hollett Please understand I am not casting any
aspersions at the Chair. That is the feeling which I have, maybe I am wrong.
Mr. Chairman Insofar as the Chairman controls
the procedure and regulates the conduct of business, I can't imagine that
your reference has any other inference than the one to which I now
call your attention and on which I challenge you.
Mr. Hollett Speaking just a word to that, Mr. Chairman, I
might say that in a debate a few days ago there was strong objection taken by
the Chair to what was then called personalities.
Mr. Hollett And if the mover of the motion in his reply
of a few moments ago did not use personalities and was upheld by the Chair,
then I must have heard wrongly.
Mr. Chairman You did hear wrongly. You did not hear my
interruption of Mr. Smallwood, and my direction to him that I do not allow
personalities to be indulged in, and that if he continued I would certainly have to
call him to order.
Mr. Hollett Thank you, sir. I do feel that both the
amendment and the motion are inopportune, premature, and I doubt the
legality, or the ability, of this Convention sending a delegation to consult with
the Dominion's House of Commons. Some reference has
been made to a remark which
140
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 I made a week ago today, to the effect that
even I was offered a senatorship, and the mover of the motion stated a
moment ago that he inferred that I was alluding to him. To that I will say
that I always have had a great regard for the reasoning powers of the
mover of the motion, and I suspect strongly that he analysed the whole
statement before he decided he arrived at a correct interpretation of the amendment.
Now, if, on Monday past, I set a sprat to
catch a herring, am I to be blamed if I caught a confederate cod? I noticed
the greediness with which the proposer grasped at the bait, and I feel
that he took the bait, the hook and all.
Getting back to the matter of sending a delegation to Canada, allow
me to refer you to section 146 of the British North America Act, which
makes provision for the entry of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada as
a tenth province. I shall read it, section 146: "It shall be lawful for
the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Privy Council, on
the addresses from the Houses of Parliament of Canada and the Houses
of the respective legislatures of the Commons of Newfoundland,
Prince Edward Island and British Columbia, to admit those Colonies or
Provinces, or any of them into the Union." Does that not presuppose that
before we can enter into any union with the Dominion of Canada that we
must have a legislature? Some people will say you have your Commission of
Government, and they have the authority of the legislature. That may
be correct or it may not. If it is, is it not therefore the bounden duty of
the Commission of Government, if they have the power of the legislature, and if
so many people in this country are so desirous
of confederation, to go to Canada and find out the terms? The Dominion of
Canada would then be negotiating with a legitimate government, not
with 45 men who were sent in here to appraise the resources of this country.
And, as Mr. Crosbie a moment ago pointed out, does it not look
ridiculous to you that these 45 men of this Convention should proceed to
Canada without even knowing the extent of our natural resources,
without even knowing just how our finances are? In what position are we to
ask Canada to lay her cards on the table if we ourselves are unable to
put ours down? I wish it to be clearly understood that I am not against
confederation and I am not for confederation, and
as Mr. Bradley from Bonavista said, I am not for or against
responsible government, and neither am I for or against Commission of
Government at this present juncture. What we are for, and what we are
not for, should have been left to the time when we had gotten those facts
which our people sent us here for. But when one member, whom I shall
now call the senior member for Bonavista, elects to get on his feet on the
floor of this house and make a political speech on the issue of
confederation one hour long, and then reply for another half hour, then I
submit that I or anyone else who did not get up and object to his
motion would be failing in our duty to the people who sent us here. I do not
wish to say anything more on confederation or responsible government or Commission
of Government at this present time. I do
think we are wasting an awful lot of time, and I submit that the quicker we
get down to a vote on this issue and have done with it the better.
Mr. Bradley As I said perhaps an hour ago, I can
sympathise with those members of this Convention who fear that we
may be acting too precipitately. I tried on that occasion to explain
to them that acting now did not mean an immediate delegation to
Canada... Obviously if we defer the passage of this resolution until some
later date, by an equal space of time will the departure of the
delegates be deferred. Why then should we defer the institution of these
inquiries until we have finished the inquiries upon which our various
committees are engaged today? If we do that it is perfectly obvious that
when we have the financial picture of the country before us we shall
not have the terms of confederation, and the same thing exactly applies to
any inquiries which may be directed to the United Kingdom...
Already in the press a rather indiscreet and
untimely reference has been made to adjournments of this Convention, in utter ignorance
of
the facts. There are few, if any, members of this
Convention who desire to prolong it any further
than necessary. It has been stated that this is
costing the country somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1,000 a day. I have never taken
the
trouble to compute the amount so I can neither
confirm or deny the correctness of that statement.
I have no desire to expend money belonging to
the people of this country, and I feel that every
member is of the same opinion, and if we are to
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
141
postpone all consideration of the question
whether we shall or shall not send a delegation to
Canada, whether we shall or shall not make any
inquiries of Britain, until we have all the facts in
connection with our financial position, then the
Convention has got to sit down and wait for
another couple of months until we can secure the
necessary information in connection with Confederation or financial assistance from
the United
Kingdom. My object is to get this delegation
appointed and working here in St John's now. I
want them to be ready to go at the opportune time,
and if we are to await our findings on the financial
position of this country as disclosed by the
various committees we have appointed, then we
will not be ready when that financial information
is at hand. We will then have to start in and get
this other information from Canada and from the
United Kingdom.
I quite understand Mr. Penncy's motion, and
have a great deal of sympathy with him, but it is
so utterly indefinite it leaves the whole thing in
the air. It means we shall simply spend two or
three days here debating this subject for exactly
nothing. It means that at some future unknown
date we may again introduce a resolution, and
discuss the question as to whether we shall send
a delegation to Canada or not, and I think that the
best way out of this is to pin down the situation
in a manner which I think can be objectionable to
nobody. The objection is to prematurity. It is, I
presume, contended, that this information which
it is proposed to obtain from the Canadian
government will not be of any avail to us or the
people until we have ascertained our own financial position. There may be something
in that
argument. It sounds as if it had some reason in it.
But the point that I want to make clear is that by
throwing this resolution in the air, as will happen
if Mr. Penney's amendment passes in its present
form, we shall still be nowhere When we have
the financial position we shall not be ready to
discuss it either in comparison with confederation or anything else, and it was for
that reason I
intimated an hour ago that unless somebody else
did it, and quickly, that I myself proposed to
introduce a resolution for the purpose of making
inquiries from the United Kingdom, because I
want the machinery put into action now. My only
object is to see that when we have all available
information collected, a delegation leaves here
perhaps during the latter part of January. And that
when we have that information, we also have the
necessary information about the confederation
question and about the assistance Britain will be
able to give in certain eventualities. For that
reason I propose to make a few observations on
the amendment.
First I would like to refer to Mr. Hollett's
quotation where he pointed out that section 146
of the British North America Act was defined in
a way which makes provision for Newfoundland
to become a province. You will notice I said "a
way" not "the way". There are several ways
usually of doing the same thing. It is perfectly
true that in 1867 when the British North America
Act was passed, section 146 was inserted setting
up the machinery by which Newfoundland might
be included as a province. But the conditions of
Newfoundland then and now are different and,
consequently, section 146 is inapplicable. Today
there is no House of Assembly and no Legislative
Council to pass any resolutions.
Mr. Chairman I must dispute your statement that there
is no legislature in Newfoundland. There is. There is no responsible
government in Newfoundland, but there is a legislature.
Mr. Bradley Yes, but not a legislature which would ever
undertake to do any such thing as to legislate this country into
confederation with Canada. Thus the position today is that whatever
method may be adopted to bring about confederation, if the people
so desire it, it will not be brought about by the British North America Act,
which is inapplicable and could not be utilised for the purpose. I
doubt if this country can go into confederation unless we get responsible
government back. But suppose we never get responsible
government back; are the people of this country to be precluded from voting
for confederation? Is it legally possible that this country cannot vote
for confederation simply because the people do not want responsible
government? Furthermore, I am prepared to stake whatever reputation I may
have as a lawyer in stating that the British government can,
if it so desires, legislate this country into the Dominion of Canada
tomorrow, with or without our consent. I feel sure she would not
without our consent; but with the consent of the people of Newfoundland she
would, provided always that Canada was an assenting party. It has been
said that the Commission government was
142
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 quite competent to handle this question. I
am not prepared to discuss that at the moment, though I am prepared to
state that Commission government will never legislate upon the
subject. There are few, if any, men today here who do not know that
Commission government is nothing more than the agent of the British
government, which is nothing more than the agent of Great Britain. Mr.
Chairman The present Commission of Government is not an agent of the British
government. It is functioning for and legislating the
affairs of Newfoundland and it does not act as agent for any person or
government outside of Newfoundland.
Mr. Bradley But at the same time the Commission government is in constant consultation with
the Dominions Office,
although I do not believe for one moment that Commission government
would attempt to impose confederation without the consent of the British
Parliament.
I tried this afternoon to point out to this assembly that political speeches had nothing
to do
with the question, and that the merits or demerits
of confederation had nothing to do with this
debate. The question was whether or not we
would go seeking information at an opportune
time... Should the motion be shelved, the Convention would have to start all over
again when
it had the facts concerning the financial and
economic condition of this country, and my effort
is for the purpose of clarification to try and pin
down the issue until we get something done and
find out where we are.... I propose the following
amendment: that the words after "That" in the
first line of Mr. Penney's amendment be stricken
out and that the words "and shall not proceed to
Ottawa before January I, 1947" be inserted in the
original motion after the word "Newfoundland"
at the end of the third paragraph.
This strikes out the indefiniteness which completely fills Mr. Penney's amendment
and it adds
to the original motion something which effects
what Mr. Penney desires — a reasonable delay
before the delegation goes to Ottawa. It means
that the machinery be put in motion at once so
that the facts would be available when required...
The whole object is to appoint a delegation and
allow it to work in Newfoundland until the time
would present itself to proceed to Canada. And
their departure is still a matter which lies in the
hands of this Convention. In the same way, I
propose to see to it that another resolution is
introduced and adopted in connection with enquiries with the United Kingdom. I feel
this
amendment should meet with the approval of all
those who want the facts... I move this amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Burry I rise to second this second amendment, because I think it is the right and proper
thing to do. I have been
informed and enlightened considerably by this debate this afternoon. At
first I thought it was a waste of time. Now I do not consider it such
and I have very much pleasure in supporting this second amendment.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, can you inform the Convention by
what date this House will have to finish its business in order to have a
referendum in the spring or a referendum in the fall?
Mr. Chairman I imagine that in order to have a
referendum in the spring of 1947 the business of this Convention would have
to finish by the end of January or sometime in February, 1947. If it is
desired to have a referendum in the autumn of 1947, then the business
of this Convention should finish by the end of May or early in June. It has
to be remembered that the recommendations from this Convention will
have to go to the United Kingdom government after having first been
considered by the Secretary for Dominions Affairs, and from the cabinet will
be presented to Parliament, say in the form of a White Paper, to be
considered by the House of Commons and then by the House of Lords. These are
opinions on my own part only and for which I have no actual authority
but, in view of the fact that we have the advantage of the presence of
Professor Wheare with us at the moment, I might ask him, on your
behalf, to give us his views on the question submitted by Mr.
Higgins.
Professor Wheare I would not like to add anything to what has been said by the Chairman
I
think the procedure outlined by the Chairman is
correct...
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, by what authority do we have
the right to send a delegation from this Convention to Canada? I fear that
if we send a delegation we might find ourselves in an awkward position
weeks or months hence by being told that we had no such authority. I think
there is something in Mr. Bradley's amendment.
Mr. Chairman There is no doubt in my mind
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
143 that it is perfectly competent for this Convention
to send a delegation to Ottawa or anywhere else seeking information that is
desired upon any basic fact.
Mr. Hollett What I cannot understand is this: when the
Dorninions Office through the Commission of Government, or vice
versa, set up this Convention, they also set up a commission of two,
two men from England to come out here and prepare a White Paper to guide us
in our deliberations. I searched through that and all I find are a
set of facts. I cannot find anything to suggest that we should go to
Canada and find out anything. Why did not the imperial authorities in that
White Paper state definitely that we were to find out the terms of
confederation? Why did they not say that was a form of government we should
talk about? They only speak of a form or forms of government
and it seems to me that at the time they only had in their minds a form of
government within the territorial boundary of this island. If they
meant "outside" why did they not supply us with facts, as they did about
this country?
Mr. Chairman What is contained or is not contained in that White Paper, to which you refer,
has nothing to do with the
question before the Chair or to my ruling on that question.... I am not
concerned with what is in the White Paper insofar as the construction
of the National Convention Act is concerned. It is totally irrelevant to the
question or my ruling thereon.
Mr. Fogwill In this debate, I am rather confused by the
question brought up by Mr. Hollett. We have your ruling that it is within the
limits of this Convention that we should seek the terms of
confederation, but we have yet to decide whether or not it would be
valid for this Convention to place on the ballot paper this form of
government. And what appeal has this assembly against your decision?
Mr. Chairman The assembly can overrule my decision or
ruling. That does not deal with the validity of your question, Mr. Fogwill.
It merely deals with the wish of the Convention either to be bound by my
ruling or not to be bound.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Higgins I hope I do not keep you too long. We have
been long enough on this unfortunate matter, much longer than it warrants. So
far, if my computations are correct (and I am no mathematician) the debate has cost
the country $8,000.
If so the debate on confederation will cost in the
vicinity of $40,000. But my reason for seconding
this motion was because I understood it to be the
wish of the majority of delegates that we have a
spring referendum. I do not know if that was
stated in the house or not. At all events it was
discussed on a number of occasions in private
sessions, and it was not the sessions of the "little
National Convention", but sessions of full
responsible parties. As you, sir, and the learned
Professor Wheare have outlined, in order to have
a spring referendum we must finish our business
by the end of January. That would mean that not
only must we have all of our facts in, but we must
have the debate on the forms of government
concluded and we must be ready at that time to
send our recommendations across to England. If
it is not the intention to have a spring referendum,
as so many members wished at first, then we have
to set our sights at a fall referendum. But even for
a fall referendum, we must be finished here by
the end of May. If it is the wish to have a fall
referendum, then I say that the motion we should
adopt here would be the amendment proposed by
Mr. Bradley. If we leave it indefinite, as in the
other amendment, we do not know when we will
be in a position to seek terms we all agree we must
have.... We have a big task ahead, but I am
confident that we can finish our fact gathering by
the end of January, if we really want to do it. It is
going to mean much harder work than we have
been putting in so far.... If you gentlemen are
prepared, and you think the necessity warrants,
then by all means let us wait until May. We
definitely have to be finished by May or we
cannot have the referendum until the following
spring. It is simply up to us to decide what we are
going to shoot for. It is a common agreement
among all of us that we have got to get these terms
otherwise we will be blackguarded out of the
country.
We are being blackguarded as it is by the very
unseemly conduct which has happened in this
House. I am sure Mr. Smallwood will probably
feel offended, but it is most unfortunate, and he
himself is responsible for that. I can understand
how Mr. Smallwood feels; he is ardent in his
advocacy, and he just had to get it off or blow up.
One thing we do not want, and that is to be
ridiculous in the sight of the country and this
debate has been making us ridiculous. I am sure
144 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1946
we all came into this House with one purpose
only, to do a job and to show to the people of
Newfoundland and the world that we can still
produce legislators in this country; and because
of that I say we have not done the country or
ourselves credit by some of the remarks made in
this debate. In future, please let us try and get our
minds a little above the old days that this House
had to put up with in the days of responsible
government. If we are going to be a board of
judges, we have to try and be impartial, without
heat, abuse, or personal scurrility. I am convinced
that we can do it and there is no necessity of our
going down to the gutter where we have been in
the past few days. We should do the job which
we were sent here to do. For that reason I do not
see why the decision should be delayed any
longer than tonight. Once the decision is made,
let us be finished with it entirely until the matter
has to come before us for final decision. I agree
with Mr. Fudge to the extent that it has meant
taking sides; it has meant bad committee work
and in a lot of cases, no committee work at all.
We should try in future to keep the discussions
on the level they should be and not let personalities come into it. Unfortunately,
Mr.
Smallwood has turned this House into a personal
debate against him. When we have such notices
in the paper as "They dug the grave but Joe was
not in it", it is getting beyond a joke. In view of
the indefiniteness of Mr. Penney's amendment
and the general wish of all the delegates to have
it examined, I am prepared to vote for the amendment put forward by Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Chairman You have spoken to that. You might speak
to the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Penney I introduced the amendment, but I did not make
any address in connection with it at the time.
Mr. Chairman Unfortunately a member doing as you did is
considered to have spoken to the subject matter of the motion. However, it
is a matter for the Convention to deal with. With the permission of
the Convention you may be allowed to speak to the amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. Penney My proper understanding was an amendment
contained very few words. The motion contained a lotof words and
the mover talked
half an hour to introduce it to this House and half an hour this
afternoon to reply; then the supporter addressed this House quite a lengthy
time. If it is in order, I would like to speak.
Mr. Chairman I take it for granted that Convention has no objection to your talking now.
Mr. Penney Before reading the remarks I have prepared, I
would like to say that I did not consult or confer with members of this
Convention, or with my sponsors or friends in Carbonear or with anyone,
and this is the only opportunity I may have of addressing this House before a
decision is made for or against the original amendment. I thank Mr.
Roberts, representing the district of St. Barbe for seconding the amendment
and the other gentlemen who have supported it, and especially
the representatives of labour in this House who through their organisations
have closer contact with the people of Newfoundland than perhaps anyone else here.
I have listened to the addresses this afternoon
of able speakers, and to the mover of the amendment to the amendment — an old politician,
an
able speaker, and a fine man. His amendment to
the amendment was put in a very subtle way; but
I say to members of this House, beware and think
before you act. Since introducing this amendment, 1 have been particularly interested
in the
debate which followed, more particularly the part
concerning the amendment itself. The amendment contained few words and that was in
striking contrast to the motion. Before deciding to
move an amendment, it seemed to me that there
was something fishy about the whole resolution
and I decided to Oppose it. Since then and after
listening to members' expressions of opinion,
and noting newspaper comments, I am more than
ever convinced that my sense of suspicion is
more than justified. Further I believe that there
was a political attempt to disrupt the feeling of
this Convention at a ume when it needed peace.
True, the wording of this attempt was
camouflaged in a fact-finding mission to Ottawa
at the expense of this country, but I may say that
my sponsors and friends in the district of Carbonear did not give a priority mandate
to study
the affairs of Canada first, they did give me a
mandate to study and examine the affairs of Newfoundland first and foremost. That
is how I understand it. If I am wrong, then I would say that
these level-headed men made a great mistake in
November 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 145
sending me over here to represent them in this
National Convention We had hardly begun to get
those facts concerning Newfoundland when a red
herring was thrown across our path to divert
attention and interest from the job we were sent
here to do. This attempt was made when so far
we have received only three reports in public
session; and with regard to these reports,
whatever may be said of them during discussion,
insofar as information will allow them, they are
a great credit to the committees concerned....
Several members supporting the motion stressed
the time factor, that is an important point. I may
say that there is no one in this building more
anxious to be through with his job and back home
to his own environment than I, but I submit there
is a better way of doing this. In view of the
expense to this country, we should try and hold
sessions mornings as well as afternoons.
Moreover, we must remember that Commission
of Government have been in control of this
country for 13 years and it is going to take time
to get acquainted with the problems, and if the
result of our findings will have a bearing on the
future welfare of Newfoundland for generations
to come, I submit the time factor is not so important as it may appear. Nor does it
matter materially if the Commission continues in office for
another year or two as long as it keeps within
budget estimates and does not give away
Labrador. May I say that there are some weighty
problems that affect the future and the economy
of Newfoundland more so than any others, the
national debt, and the entry of our fishery
products into the United States under fair trading
tariff conditions. If we could have concentrated
study and efforts to even partially solve these
fundamental things, then I would say emphatically any government of good honest men,
call it
what you may, will bring Newfoundland to a
place of happiness and prosperity for all its
people to a level yet unknown. God guard thee,
Newfoundland!
Mr. Hillier I have been listening to debates since last
Monday, and I am of the opinion that it has gone far enough. We are wasting
valuable time and getting nowhere. I am confident as far as the
district which I represent is concerned, that they want to learn facts about
any government and the motion before this House at the present time is
not a form of government, it is a fact
finding matter, it is to find out what Canada has to offer us for the
future of Newfoundland. Things have been said which were on the
boisterous side and that is not what we came here for. We came to go into
the economic conditions of Newfoundland and we are doing that to the
best of our ability. There would be nothing amiss in our getting from Canada
facts as to what she has to offer us for the future, and we can go on
with our work; and when we are finished we can go into those facts and I am
sure we will be none the worse off.... I do not want to delay the House,
I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment to
amendment to the motion made by Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Hickman I would like to refer first to the question
to which Mr. Higgins referred, the time of the referendum. There is nobody
in the House any more anxious than I am to get the job over, but I am
not worried about spring or fall or any referendum at all, until we are
ready for it. For that reason I feel as I did the other day on the
amendment made by Mr. Penney. I will not go into a repetition as we have
been long enough here now. I would like to refer to the amendment to
the amendment made by Mr. Bradley. That can be very confusing, I am not
suggesting that it was meant to be confusing. If I understood the motion
correctly, the amendment is practically identical to the original
motion in intent or in effect. The delegation when appointed would not leave
before the 1st of January. I cannot see the similarity to the
amendment of Mr. Penney's. Mr. Penney's amendment in part states the question of
ascertaining the attitude of Canada be deferred for
consideration until reports of committees are brought in. That is
absolutely different from the amendment to the amendment.
For that reason I do not see how I can vote for anything but the amendment
of Mr. Penney.
Mr. Jackman It makes one feel rather nervous because I
realise my inability to reply to the learned lawyers and learned politicians
who have spoken, but before this vote is taken I would like to say a few
words because I am very much concerned about the whole matter. As I stated
here on different occasions, I am here representing people,
the majority of whom are poor, and I feel it is my bounden duty to do
everything in my power to see their interests are best protected and
conserved. As a previous speaker
146
NATIONAL CONVENTION
NOVEMBER 1946 pointed out, if this amendment to the
amendment does not go through we might be here until May next.
Personally I would like to see it finished next week, if possible, because I
realise that the people who came here for this Convention are of the
ordinary common people like myself. It is not going to affect the
businessman how long we are here, and I do not say that with prejudice, but
any unnecessary delays will naturally come on the Bell Island miner or
the labourer of St. John's or the men in the woods, and for that reason I am
prepared to work night and day to get through with this Convention. I
have often worked harder. I know what it is to go in the mines and work
night and day. But I would like to be clear on this matter now before
the Chair before I vote. I am going to vote for this amendment, even if it
means we are to be here until next May or June, because I want to let
those who sent me here know that I am doing all in my power to protect their
interests and the interests of the people all over Newfoundland as well. Furthermore
I am voting for the amendment because I
realise that by being too hasty we might be doing harm instead of good. I
am opposed to confederation as I am a firm believer in the land of my
birth, and will not be satisfied until Newfoundland possesses a responsible form
of government, so as to make it a better place to
live in with the least expenditure....
Mr. Northcott Mr. Chairman, I want to vote for the
amendment because I think it will give the Convention time to put its own
House in order, and give the various committees time to assemble the
facts and present their reports and debate on them....
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I feel that we have allowed this debate to come down to too narrow
a vision, as some people are
thinking of the bit of heat it engendered. I think that, looking at the
problems of Newfoundland, the Convention should find out what is in
our own country before going to another for terms. I agree that some time
or other in the future we could find what the terms of confederation
would be, but there is no need of rushing this issue. I do not want it
thought that we are keeping valuable information from the people, but
with such an important issue as confederation with Canada or
anywhere else there should be nothing left undone to ascertain the true
facts, and we ought to have good terms ourselves to offer. I for one
will support the amendment.
Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an
explanation on the terms of reference contained in the act of 1946
regarding what forms of government should be placed before the people.
I think we should know whether confederation is included in the forms of
government to be placed upon the ballot paper if a national referendum is
recommended by this Convention. Frankly I do not know what the terms
of reference are or if this Convention is going to confine itself to any
specific number of forms of government to be balloted for.
Mr. Fudge I have listened very carefully to those who
have spoken and I am wondering what prompted me to come here, because the
whole matter is so confusing. I had an idea that our duty was to take
stock after doing business for a period of 13 years, and that after doing
that we should be able to find out as near exactly as possible what
our assets are. But, unfortunately, this matter of confederation
slipped in and the whole thing has been interrupted so far as stock-taking
is concerned. It appears to me, as a judge of all trades, that the
pro-confederates have a boat for sale and that boat is called the
Newfoundland, and before there is a bid on
it at all, it is pronounced 100 years behind the times, leaky and rotten.
How can you expect to make a sale and a good deal with it? In
supporting this amendment of Mr. Penney I wish to go on record that I am
prepared to defend this country to the best of my ability and I say
let us find out all the facts of our own country before taking it to another
to auction off.
Mr. Ballam Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken in this
debate, except for a few minutes this afternoon, but I still say
we have had too many speeches and too much time wasted. If we had less
pussy-footing the debate on this resolution would have been over long ago. I
think the whole issue has been made confusing, and I think that terms
from Canada should be obtained, otherwise the Convention will be remiss in
its duty. The only point I can see in prolonging the debate is to
decide when a delegation should be sent to Ottawa. That is why I
support the resolution. How ever, though I am not a politician, perhaps it
would be a good thing if this matter would be shelved until January
next and, with this in mind, I could vote for Mr. Bradley's amendment, as
the machinery must be put in motion and the facts
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
147 collected on all matters of interest to the country.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, I will support Mr. Bradley's
amendment to the amendment because it supplies the missing link to this
debate, and let us challenge this whole thing now until we are in a
position to talk about it intelligently. I am not a confederate at the
present time, but I would like to see all sides of the question brought out.
There is no harm in putting the machinery in order, and if the proper
machinery is set up I am sure we can make our own time as regards sending a
delegation. I do not like the idea of setting up a committee today and going off tomorrow.
I again say that I support
the amendment of Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Vardy I feel I would be unreasonably prolonging
this debate if I spoke lengthily, so my remarks shall be as brief as
possible. Up to the present I am not a confederate. On the contrary, I
have been accused very many times of being too much Newfoundland. But there
is one thing I shall make clear and that is that I have always been
big enough to avoid the use of personalities and to respect the opinions of
all persons, irrespective of their political affiliations,
although time and again I have been misquoted by some of my best
friends. I support in all earnestness Mr. Bradley's amendment to the
amendment.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Chairman, speaking to the original motion
here a few days ago I think I made a statement that I would support the
motion. Since then there have been amendments offered by Mr. Penney and
Mr. Bradley. The original motion made by Mr. Smallwood did not state any
particular time when all these things were about to happen. Mr. Penney's
amendment conveyed something like what was known in the old political days as giving
the question the six months' hoist. If that
amendment is carried there may never be a chance of getting this information
now sought and this whole debate may have to be gone over again... For
that reason I cannot support Mr. Penney's amendment. I understand from
some of the speeches that Mr. Bradley's amendment resembles
to a certain extent the original motion, and it means that this Convention
will still leave on record that it desires to be fully informed on all
matters and provides that a delegation shall not proceed to Ottawa before
January 1st, 1947. That gives us something definite and for that reason
I will support it.
Mr. Vincent I support whole-heartedly the
amendment so ably proposed by Mr. Bradley, and in so doing I am not
impugning any other person. I gave my support to Mr. Smallwood's
motion and my reason therefor. Now the majority of delegates have expressed
their willingness to have a delegation sent to Ottawa and the
delegates who supported Mr. Penney's amendment, without supporting
the main question, did so only because of the time factor provided;
others have supported Mr. Bradley's amendment because it offers a compromise
and because a definite time is set. It is highly desirable that we get
back to discussions of committees and that can only be achieved by a prompt
disposition of the whole subject matter now before the Chair, for my
opinion is that this Convention has no right to refuse to examine any issue
brought before it. Personally I am willing to explore every form of
government, including representative, responsible and confederation. The
people of Bonavista North want to know the terms, if any, that are
going to be made with Canada. I cannot conceive how any delegate can stand
on his feet and say we have no right to seek such and such terms from
Canada. I very much regret, however, that there was no trip to Ottawa
offered me. But this is not the time to discuss transportation or such
like matters and I reaffirm my obligation to the people who sent me here. I
am not prepared to say whether confederation is good or bad, and I
resent the statement made that we are 100 years behind the times. I am
prepared to examine any issue brought in here in the best interests of
Newfoundland and its people....
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I rise to agree with my
colleague from Grand Falls, and to show there is no collusion between us.
The debate no doubt is amusing. First we have a man proposing a motion
in which he already believed, in fact we know he believed in it because he
has been fighting for it for years, and he believes in the
principle of that motion which was foisted upon us. Mr. Higgins
seconded the motion and in the next breath he does not agree with it at all.
Then Mr. Burry stated last week that he agreed with the motion,
although it was a little premature. This afternoon he was supporting the
amendment to the amendment. My colleague supported Mr. Smallwood's
motion; now he is supporting Mr. Bradley's. Then we have Mr. Ballam altering his
mind. I think this issue is not one which
148
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 should at all be considered at the present
time as the facts relative to our own country's welfare should first
be sought. I just rose to make it plain that I am against the motion because
I feel there is something subtle in it, and I will vote for the
amendment.
Mr. Fowler Mr. Chairman, I contend that the amendment
to the amendment was a political move to further confuse the issue, split
the vote and thus assure a majority in favour of the original motion.
I therefore reaffirm my former intention to support the amendment, and I
would exhort all members to stick to their original decision to
support the amendment proposed by Mr. Penney, and not to be swayed by the
confusing amendment more confusingly presented by the
learned member for Bonavista East.... I am pleased to see that Mr. Bradley
confirms my opinion as expressed on Thursday last, when he says it
would be ridiculous to conceive of a delegation proceeding to Canada without
first being informed of our own financial and economic
position, a statement which should only further strengthen the argument in
favour of Mr. Penney's amendment, which in short just means waiting
until such time as this Convention may chose to send a delegation. 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 at a time when they should be
working in harmony towards the completion of the first and most
vital task, the reports of the various committees, and 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, and I think that had Mr. Smallwood awaited a more
opportune time and introduced his resolution in a different spirit there
could be little reasonable opposition. I must confess that I was not invited
to the alleged confederate conferences, nor did Mr. Smailwood as yet
make any overture to me. Probably I was considered too insignificant, or
more likely he was aware of my attitude towards the whole scheme. I
feel sure there is still some honour left, even at this Convention. I
suggest Mr. Chairman, that we define once and for all our
position, and then with confidence pursue our tasks to a successful
conclusion, with equal rights for all and privileges for none.
Mr. Newell Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to make any
lengthy remarks. As a matter of fact I have spoken only once, but I wish to
say that if one were not so closely involved in this question, and if
one were rather sitting in the gallery a great deal of the logic displayed
would cause some amusement. I must say that I do not understand the
confusion regarding the amendment....
Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman, I beg to move an amendment
that before we proceed further it is essential for us to know exactly what
the terms of reference of this Convention are.
Mr. Chairman There are four questions now before the
Chair. We have the original motion, the amendment, the amendment to the
amendment and now we have Mr. Fogwill's amendment, the terms of which I would like
for him to put in writing. It cannot
be a substantive motion. I might say in passing, without having the advantage of
seeing your motion in writing, that there is a
striking similarity in your motion to Mr. Penney's amendment.
Mr. Fogwill I did not have an opportunity of having it
prepared in writing.
Mr. Chairman Is it an amendment to the original motion
or an amendment to one of the amendments to the original motion? The question is
inexplicably confused.
Mr. Fogwill I move this resolution as an amendment to the original motion. It is unfortunate
that the question before
the Chair should be introduced at this time. The motion is that it
is essential, before we proceed further, to know exactly
what the terms of reference of this Convention are.
Mr. Chairman The terms of reference have been
considered and ruled upon. Perhaps now, insofar as the competency of the
Convention is concerned to recommend that among other forms of
government, confederation with Canada be placed upon the ballot, our expert
adviser might shorten this discussion and hasten the voting upon these
rather complicated questions if he would advise us and get rid of the
matter.
Professor Wheare I am willing to give an opinion on that without any reservations
at all; but
many questions raised, I think, would be very
doubtful ones to pronounce upon, If I understand
November 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 149
Mr. Fogwill's question, it is this: is the Convention competent to recommend to the
government
of the United Kingdom that the form of government, confederation with Canada, be placed
upon
the ballot? The answer, in my opinion, is Yes, the
Convention is competent to recommend the placing upon the ballot paper any form of
government
which, in their opinion, is worthwhile placing
before the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Butt Does that hold for union with the United
States?
Professor Wheare The opinion which I just
gave admitted of no qualifications, except that
the form of government is worthwhile, in their
opinion. That includes union with the United
States, but you know you have to get the consent
of the Government of the United States and, of
course, the consent of the Government of the
United Kingdom for all these forms. I see nothing
in the terms of reference which requires the Convention to consider or recommend only
forms of
government within the British Empire, there is
nothing here which excludes that.
Mr. Fogwill My question is now answered. I beg leave to
withdraw the motion, with the consent of my seconder.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if Mr.
Wheare at the outset of this Convention had given us a little talk
we might be further ahead, instead of floundering around in amendments and substantive
motions. However, when we started we
thought the best way to get at the facts was by breaking up into committees.
With regard to Mr. Smallwood's statement I see no reason to change my
stand from a week ago. I did not at any time tell Mr. Smallwood that I would
support his motion and I wish that to go into the record. I did always
lend a sympathetic ear to what he had to say. I am against the amendment
to the amendment. The way I feel about the whole thing now is to see
it thrown out. However, the position has been clarified somewhat, and there
is nothing we can do about it. I do not see why we should rush this
thing, which is premature anyway. We have been 14 years under one form
of government and surely we can stand to wait for another form for a
reasonable while. But I want to make it clear that I did not say at any time
that I would support Mr. Smallwood's motion.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, as the last speaker remarked, we
have been floundering along and I
am sure we can thank Mr. Fogwill and Professor Wheare for clarifying
the situation regarding our status as a Convention.
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, it is rather strange, but the
essence of the two questions before the Chair is simple. Do you or do you
not want terms from Canada and do you or do you not want them now? In
speaking thus I expect I am expressing the view of a great many people.
Personally I do not want them now and I am voting against the motion.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, just a few words in reply
to Mr. Harrington. He says he did not promise to vote for the motion I
introduced, and I do not think that I said this afternoon that he had
so promised. What I did say this afternoon is that months ago Mr. Harrington
told me that he would vote to get the terms of confederation, but he
did not promise me with regard to this particular motion of mine.
I would like to reply to other remarks made with regard to this rushing
business of getting the terms. I wonder if rushing is quite the right
term to use. For 13 years we have had Commission of Government; for 79 years
we have had responsible government and for 23 years we have had
representative government. Now the country has spent over 100 years under
those three forms of government and I fail to see how the Convention
would be rushing in this particular instance. It is true my motion had not
specified the time with regard to the sending of a delegation to
Canada but merely proposed that negotiations be held as soon as possible
with the Canadian government relative to the terms of federal union. I
realise some members voted against my motion as they were sincere in their
belief that to accept it would be to taking a premature step, and in
this connection Mr. Bradley's motion was for the primary purpose of
meeting the objections of those who claimed that the original resolution was
premature. Now my motion merely called for the accumulation of facts
regarding possible confederation, whilst the amendment suggested that the
collection of such facts be postponed for an indefinite period, so that
the acceptance of the amendment would only leave the matter open for
future and acrimonious debate which would not be the best interests of
the Convention. My resolution was simply to procure facts relevant to
confederation, but would in no way give a delegation power to
150 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1946 negotiate with the Canadian government in regard to possible federal
union. There are thousands of Newfoundlanders tonight who have a
strong desire for confederation and those people
have the right to request and receive all the facts pertaining to the
terms of confederation.
[The Convention adjourned]
