Mr. Chairman Orders of the day. Mr. Hollett to
give notice that he will on tomorrow move the
adoption of the following detailed statement of
the questions to be submitted to His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom as set out in
the resolution of Mr. Hollett passed on February
28, 1947....
[1]
[At Mr. Hollett's request, the Convention agreed to proceed with discussion of the
motion immediately]
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, the motion before
the House this afternoon arises out of the final
paragraph in the motion made by me on the 28th
day of February, 1947.... These matters had to be
considered by the Steering Committee before
being submitted to the Convention. We have had
several meetings, and the result is the motion now
before this House. I would like to draw attention
to a slight difference between the matters raised
by my previous motion and the one now before
this House. The only items previously mentioned
were:
1. National debt;
2. Military, naval and air bases in this
country;
3. Gander airport;
4. Interest-free loans;
5. Any matters relating to the future
economic position of Newfoundland.
The motion today contains seven items,
whereas the original motion contained only five:
1. The public debt;
2. The interest-free loans;
3. Development loans;
4. The position arising out of the various
base deals;
5. The financing and control of Newfoundland airports;
6. Trade and tariffs;
7. Any other matters relative to Newfoundland affairs which the delegation may
raise and His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom be willing to discuss.
Two sections have been added, namely
development loans and trade and tariffs. There is
no discrepancy between this motion today and
the original motion, in that section five of the
original motion reads: "Any matters relating to
the future economic position of Newfoundland."
....
This really is not my motion. It is the motion
of the Steering Committee, but I was asked by the
Chairman to bring the matter before you as it
arose out of a motion which came before you on
the 28th, and which was unanimously passed.
May I refer you back again to the last clause of
the original motion, which states "that the Steering Committee be requested to prepare
a detailed
statement". I think the Committee will agree that
it would have been very difficult to make such a
detailed statement....
I feel, and I think the Steering Committee
agrees, that one reason why we did not detail
these various headings is probably this: that there
are questions in these various headings here
which concern only this Convention and His
Majesty's Government in England. At the moment they concern no other country. They
do, I
grant you, concern the people of this country,
whom we represent, but I am quite sure that the
people of this country do not want us to disclose
to the world at large the various questions that
will have to be asked under the various headings
in the motion before you. There will be pertinent
questions asked His Majesty's Government by
any delegation that may proceed from here and
I am sure that every member will agree that the
very questions which we are to put to His
Majesty's Government should not be public to
the world at large at the present time. The answers
to these questions which the delegation will bring
back will, in due course, be published to the
people of this country....
I make these explanations so that you may not
be under any misapprehension, and think that the
Steering Committee, or myself, in any way attempted to keep from you the detailed
questions
which are mentioned in the original motion, and
which, as I may point out to you, arise out of the
report of the committee which interviewed the
Commission of Government here in Newfoundland.
[2] I hope and trust that you will take that
explanation in good faith. If there are any questions which you would like to present
to us you
will have an opportunity now. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to move that these questions be sub
366 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
mitted to this house for their approval.
Mr. Chairman It has been moved and seconded
that the motion by Mr. Hollett be adopted. It has
been seconded by Mr. Fudge.
Mr. MacDonald I am afraid I can't accept Mr.
Hollett's explanation. This motion distinctly
gave permission to the Steering Committee to
prepare a detailed statement of the questions to
be submitted to His Majesty's Government. Here
we have a report practically the same as the
motion, without any other explanation than that
which was included in the motion itself. If there
is an explanation I am afraid I can't accept it. The
point is, if we are to appoint a delegation to go to
the United Kingdom, is not this Convention and
the people of the country entitled to know just
what the delegation is going for? They are going
over to consult the home government on the
public debt. Now the public debt includes quite a
number of questions. Are you going to the old
country to say that we would like to have this
public debt cancelled? All sorts of questions arise
out of that. I am disappointed that the Steering
Committee did not go into the questions raised in
the original motion, and give us some information as to what they are about to do.
It looks as if
the Steering Committee are asking us to appoint
a delegation of six and practically give them a
blank cheque. I think the Convention is entitled
to know at least the main questions in regard to
the public debt, or the interest-free loans, or the
development loans, and the various base deals. Is
there any information to give this Convention? I
am very disappointed in this report. They have
had somewhere around ten days to discuss this,
and I think we should have the information
Mr. Newell I support the stand taken by Mr.
MacDonald. I can appreciate the reticence of the
Steering Committee to broadcast to the world at
large questions which they do not want everyone
to know about, but there are a great many questions in connection with some of these
items that
have already been talked about so much, and
broadcast to the world so often, that if the world
has chosen to listen, it must by now know as
much about these things as we do. However, the
main criticism I have is this: if this were a report
back to this Convention from the Steering Com
mittee listing the various headings for the discussion with the Dominions Office,
and it were to go
no further than that, and we were to accept it for
further preparation ofa brief, I think I should be
prepared to accept it; but I wonder what sort of
reception we would get from the Dominions Office if we forwarded a communication stating
that
we should like to discuss the public debt, interest-free loans, development loans,
etc. One of the
members from Grand Falls said that a delegation
going to England will have to be briefed. Of
course it will. Presumably the delegation meeting
us on the other side will also have to be briefed.
ldon't imagine they would turn over the Cabinet
to us for a week or ten days. It is only reasonable
to suppose that we should know more details
about the things they are to discuss. I wish to
register my disappointment with this report.
Mr. Keough Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly agree
with what Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Newell have
said. This thing here is a hopelessly inadequate
briefing. As far as I am concerned the leading
question I want to see asked, the leading question
as far as Newfoundlanders are concerned is this:
is the British government prepared to entertain
the idea of a return of Commission of Govern ment as it is now, or a modification
of it, if a
number of people in Newfoundland express a
desire to have it retained? I have no guarantee that
this question is going to be asked. I want the
delegation to be able to answer "Yes" or "No" to
that question, and under what circumstances.
Mr. Chairman I would like to draw the attention of members to the fact that you have to read
this detailed statement of matters to be discussed
with the British government with the resolution
itself. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, I hope it is not getting
fashionable, but I really want to offer my word of
dissatisfaction with the report too. After eight or
ten days of the Steering Committee working on
a report, sent out expressly to bring us back a
detailed report, they come back with a curtailed
report. Practically the only change in it is when
they break up one clause and make two out of it,
and the two clauses have less scope than the first
one, and that particular clause was a very important one as well. The whole thing,
as I see it, is
the consummation of all the findings of the Convention. I don't agree with Mr. Hollett
when he
says that those who will proceed to England will
March 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 367
have to enter into a study period. We entered into
that last September.
Mr. Miller Well you did, Mr. Hollett, and I
think it is about time we got it over and not spend
any further time in study on the matter. In
presenting this report today without the least bit
of information, I can only say that I can't think so
highly of the Steering Committee. It is as well to
be frank. It does not appear that our opinion on
this thing is worth anything. As members, must
look at it in this way: we know the Steering
Committee has met several times and what did
they do? Bring back the same thing as they went
out with. As far as I can see they threw a smokescreen around the whole thing. I don't
think this
should go through this afternoon. I think we
would be very foolish to make a snap judgement.
As I see it the thing is not even plain. "Interest-
free loans" — what loans, those that we are going
to look for in the future free of interest, or loans
in the past? "Development loans" — what do we
want them for? If we have no particular thing in
mind we don't want it. Surely we are not going
to go out and ask the world to support us. "The
position arising out of the base deals." What can
we gather out of that? Perhaps something, perhaps nothing. I would like to ask if
there is a
supplementary lease being applied for. I don't
think I would get an answer to that, because I
don't think the information is up to date. I don't
think we entered into the financing of any airport
except Gander, and I don't think the British
government is in a position to make a statement
on that even now. I don't intend to elaborate, I
think the Steering Committee should have done
that. The Steering Committee has presented this
with the attitude of "Here's something, and it will
go across without a word."
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to
delay the House on this, but I think perhaps the
key to the whole thing lies in a remark you made
a moment ago yourself. This list has got to be read
and considered in the light of Mr. Hollett's motion of a week ago. That motion said
that this
House desired to send a delegation to the United
Kingdom for the purpose of discussing what possible fiscal and financial relationships
there were
to be in the future between Britain and ourselves,
under:
1. Commission government (if we con
tinued under Commission government);
2. Under responsible govemment, if we
went back to that, or
3. Under some other form of government.
We want to send a delegation over to find out
what relationships, financial relationships, might
exist under these different forms of government.
The same resolution went on to say that a detailed
list of the points that the delegation would take
up with the British government should be drawn
up by the Steering Committee and brought into
the Convention for confirmation. This is the
detailed list. First, the public debt. Someone
wants to know what were they trying to find out
about that. This surely, that at the moment and
since 1934 the British government is guaranteeing our public debt, the principal and
the interest. Now the people of Newfoundland, before
they vote in the referendum, surely need to know
just what the position is and will be in regard to
the public debt. Britain is now behind the debt. If
we go back to responsible government will
Britain be behind our public debt as to principal
and interest? If we continue under Commission
government, will Great Britain be behind the
public debt? We do not know. Undoubtedly the
delegation retuming from London will know and
will pass the information on to the Convention,
and through the Convention to the people of
Newfoundland. That is all there would be about
the public debt.... The interest-free loans, that can
only refer to one thing, the loans made to Great
Britain in the last four or five years. They are over
there in England now, not paying us any interest,
what will happen to them? We know that there is
a terrible dollar situation. If they cannot pay the
loan in dollars, in what way will we get it back?
Development loans. Since Commission of
Government, Great Britain has made loans for
development purposes. What is the position in
regard to that? It may be that Britain cannot make
any more loans, but the population of Newfoundland has got to know. With regard to
the
position arising out of the base deals. If there are
some we are not concerned over, there is no harm
in getting the details anyhow. But about control
over Gander, let us have the story. There is no
need to go into details under the different headings. I do not care what the Convention
does, if
they wish they can make the list ten times longer,
but to my mind, the ground is covered. I believe
368 NATIONAL CONVENTION March 1947
the delegation will bring back the answers to all
the points under the different headings and we
will have a complete story. Of that I have no
doubt.
Mr. Figary Are we in a position to know
whether the Dominions Office will receive a
delegation?
Mr. Chairman We will not know until the request goes through.
Mr. Dawe One of the most important things is
trade; another is tariffs. What are we going to
develop? Where will we get the machinery?
Whatever form of government we have, men
must work to live.
Mr. Fogwill The Steering Committee was requested to bring in a detailed statement. The other
committees which brought in reports, brought in
details. I agree with the other speakers who object
to this report and I wish to register that objection.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Higgins I move the adjournment until the
call of the Chair.
Mr. Miller Before we go on to the adjournment,
there is one matter I would like to have your
ruling on. What manner will the Convention take
in its ending? In what way will the findings of the
different members or the different committees be
presented. In what way will the vote be taken?
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. There is a
motion before the Chair.
Mr. Chairman Under the circumstances, it is
always usual to allow a member to ask for information, even on a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Miller Ihave heard it put this way. After the
information is all concluded, some member rises
and proposes that Commission of Government
must go on the referendum, and if it passes in the
House it goes on the referendum, provided the
Dominions Office is willing. Someone else
proposes responsible government, and a third
party proposes confederation. These three are
placed on the referendum, the Convention is over
and we go home. I would like to be clear on what
the ending of the Convention would be like. I
think now is the opportune time to have the
question taken care of.
Mr. Chairman In reply to your enquiry, I am
not in a position at the moment to tell you what
resolutions may be introduced on the questions
of what possible forms of government are to be
placed on the ballot. It may be one, it may be two
or three, but it is impossible for me to tell you
that. That really lies in the hands of the 44 men
(or 43 men now, unfortunately) who sit on the
benches. It is in your own hands. The only thing
I can say, which may help you somewhat, is that
the Convention dies when its final recommendation has been sent to the British government;
it
has no further function after that.
Mr. Harrington I rise to a point of privilege. In
connection with the recent talk on the delegation
to Ottawa, there is an impression gone abroad
that two of my authorities whom I quoted in my
talk, had difference of opinion. I would like to
correct that. i chose to disagree with Professor
Wheare. l quoted from Professor Fraser who
dealt with the political wisdom of this country
going into confederation with Canada. I did not
imply that there was difference of opinion between Professor Wheare and Professor
Fraser. I
disagreed with the one and agreed with the other.
Mr. Chairman You fear you left the impression
they disagreed on the law, whereas the disagreement was perhaps on the facts.
[The Convention adjourned]
