Mr. Chairman Mr. Penney to move that this
National Convention appoint a delegation of
some six members, or less, forthwith to proceed
to Washington, if and when arrangements can be
made, for general trade discussions and other
relevant matters affecting the future economy of
Newfoundland with the Government of the
United States of America
You will recollect we had a resolution of a
somewhat similar character in the early part of
Febmary, made by Mr. Job.
[1] The motion itself
was for the purpose of acquiring a discussion with
the Commission of Government, for the purpose
of obtaining advice from them as to how to
proceed about the matter. I have a copy of that
resolution here:
What steps, if any, can be taken for establishing improved economic or fiscal relationships
between the United States of America
and Newfoundland particularly bearing in
mind the present occupation of certain Newfoundland territory by the said United States
of America and the fact that free entry is
accorded to the United States for its importations into Newfoundland....
Both these resolutions — that is Mr. Job's and
Mr. Penney's — concern trade and tariffs and
commercial agreements between the two
countries. At the conference which was held with
the government by the delegation from this Convention, the government expressed this
opinion:
"Upon the question raised in clause 1 of the
resolution respecting steps for establishing an
economic or fiscal relationship between the
United States and Newfoundland, your committee was informed that this question was
one for
negotiation between governments through the
regular diplomatic channels and that it was
doubtful whether the subject matter of the clause
came within the terms of reference of the National Convention".
[2]
That was the government's views on the matter. With their view I am not particularly
concerned this afternoon. I have to decide for myself
as to whether the resolution itself comes within
the terms of the National Convention. because
our powers must be confined to that Convention
Act. It is the act which gives us the powers we
have, whatever they may be. Unless I can find
words in that Convention Act which will enable
us to receive a motion of this kind or act upon it,
I shall have to rule against the resolution. I have
given considerable thought to the matter, and I
am unable to read into that Convention Act any
power to deal with matters of trade or matters of
tariffs. We are a fact-finding body, our activities
being confined to ascertaining the present position of the country, estimating her
future
prospects, and discussing forms of government,
but obviously we have no power to do anything
about trade concessions or tariff agreements.
That is within the jurisdiction of the government
only, and we are not a government. I must therefore mle out that resolution.... I
know that some
of the members of this Convention feel very
strongly on this subject, and in view of the fact
that this Convention is a rather extraordinary
body, I am inclined to think that perhaps in certain instances we may be justified
in taking extraordinary steps.
This Convention will presumably die sometime within the next few months, and I do
not
think it is ever likely to be resurrected. I do not
mean the individual members of the Convention
will pass beyond the pale, but the Convention
itself will go into history and remain there; I am
not disposed unduly to restrict the endeavours of
the Convention, and for that reason, while I am
570 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
bound, as Chairman, to rule that resolution out of
order, I would like to point out that there is a way
to overcome that point, if you so desire. It is
highly unusual for a House of Commons or
House of Assembly to challenge the ruling of the
Chairman, highly unusual, but it can be done. If
any members of this Convention feel sufficiently
strongly about the matter, I am quite content that
my ruling should be challenged. I shall not feel
offended if the ruling is not sustained.
Mr. Job Am I in order in speaking to that challenge? My feeling is we would like to challenge
your ruling if at all possible. It would not be
pleasant for this house to do that, although you
have been sporting, shall I say.
Mr. Chairman I will not have the slightest objection. I cannot allow you to argue the point.
You must raise the question whether the ruling of
the Chair must be sustained or not.
Mr. Job Can I not point out my reasons for
thinking that this has a great deal to do with the
economy of Newfoundland?
Mr. Chairman ... Is it the pleasure of the House
that the Chairman's decision be sustained? Those
in favour of the Chairman's decision being sustained please say "aye"; those against
it please
say "nay". Ithink the "nays" have it. I declare that
the ruling of the Chair has not been sustained.
Mr. Penney Mr. Chairman ... the United States
of America has everything that the people of
Newfoundland needs to live, holds immense
markets for all our products, is the richest and
most powerful nation on this side of the Atlantic
if not in the world, and is situated right at our
door. As a matter of fact she has already settled
on our soil to stay, and in these circumstances
would likely be very willing, through friendly
negotiations with an official delegation of this
elected National Convention, to allow Newfoundland something for our territory on
which
her bases are now permanently built, and for
which we did not receive any payment. She has
already given definite proof of her goodwill in
rushing to our aid in many emergencies. She has,
and is, giving our people a chance to earn good
wages, and in addition holds thousands of our
sons and daughters settled securely within her
bosom — who are in the main keen missionaries
for closer contact with a country they love so
well.
This Convention has already sent a delegation
to London, the result of which is now known to
all, and are sending a delegation to Ottawa in the
near future. It is my firm belief that we should
send a delegation to Washington also. In fact I
feel we should not fail to do so, looking to the
future prospects of Newfoundland, and with a
belief that the Government of the USA would
receive and welcome such a delegation warmly.
May I ask you, then, to arrange for a delegation
to proceed to Washington for trade discussions
and other relevant matters affecting the future
economy of Newfoundland.... I feel it to be my
humble duty in serving the interests of Newfoundland as a whole, no matter what may
be said
to the contrary. There is no disloyalty in this
move; no person dare say otherwise, nor is there
any party politics involved, for it does not run
contrary to any political party. It can, however,
affect materially the whole people of Newfoundland, no matter what form of government
they will eventually decide to support and elect;
so may I submit to you that we should obtain the
facts from Washington, as well as from England
and Canada....
Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I have very great
pleasure in seconding the motion. We have very
considerable trade with the United States, particularly in the export of paper, and
recently in
cod fillets and other fishery products. In connection with the export of cod fillets,
it is desirable
that we should be able to extend our market
substantially in that country. We have the
product, and we know that there is a very substantial market in the United States
for it. and it is a
matter for negotiation on a mutually beneficial
basis, in order that our fishermen may benefit
from having the very extensive market that is
there available, and that the people of the United
States may be able to get our product at a
reasonable price. We must reasonably expect that
if we hope to get our fishery products into the
United States free of duty, they will want to send
some of their products to this country either free
of duty or at a substantially reduced rate of duty,
and this is of great concern to the lower income
classes. We all realise that many of our working
people have a low standard of living due to the
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 571
fact that they are unable to get the things that are
being produced in the United States, because to
the original cost is added the many costs of handling, and then a very substantial
duty.... There
are many items from which we might completely
wipe out the duty in order that our working people
may be able to purchase things at a cheaper price.
This may involve the much bigger issue of creating a customs union between this country
and the
United States. Should such a proposition be
entertained, the Canadian government would
also be interested, and perhaps the discussions
which would take place might finally bring about
a customs union between the United States,
Canada and Newfoundland.
To do that, of course, it would be necessary
for us to give consideration to some other method
of taxation, but the one great benefit of such a
union would be that the standard of living of our
working people would be substantially raised, in
that they would be enabled to get many of the
things that today are entirely beyond their reach
because of the high prices. It is almost impossible
to envisage at this time all the results that may be
achieved by sending a delegation to Washington,
but I am quite sure that we have good grounds for
believing that if we are prepared to take a
reasonable attitude that we can extend the market
for our fishery products and at the same time
benefit all our people by reducing the tariff on our
imports from that country.
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, it has been a source
of wonder to me why it is that a motion of this
kind did not come before the House long ago.
One of the terms of reference of this Convention
is to inquire into and explore the economic possibilities that lie before our country.
In the early
days of this Convention, when our authority to
send a delegation to the USA to inquire into trade
and political relationships with that country was
brought up, it was referred to the late Chairman
and the constitutional authority, Professor
Wheare, and we were advised that it was within
the province of this Convention to send a delegation.
Mr. Chairman That is not correct. You were
never advised by the late Chairman or Professor
Wheare that you could send a trade delegation to
the United States of America.
Mr. Reddy I thought that was what he said, sir.
Mr. Chairman I am quite sure you are wrong.
What Professor Wheare and the late Justice Fox
did say, was that you could send a delegation to
the United States to discuss the question of
federal union, with the assent of the British
government and the United States government.
Mr. Reddy Thank you, sir. I hope this will be
with the consent of both governments. If there be
in this House all the sincerity for the people's
interest that some of the delegates wish us to
believe, and not forgetting that lone fisherman on
the bill of Cape St. George, and if the pussy-footing with respect to the people's
economic well-
being is to cease, then I think that a motion of this
kind should have been one of the first resolutions
dealt with and not one of the last.
It seems to me that there has been an utter lack
of frankness in dealing with this all-important
subject. Delegates adopt a hush-hush and "don't
wake the baby" attitude when this subject has
appeared likely to come up. The Chairman is
aware, and every other delegate is aware, that in
the two instances where a vote was taken with
respect to forms of government and other relations that this country should adopt,
the
preponderance of public opinion was in favour of
establishing relations with the USA over all other
forms of government. I refer to a poll that was
conducted about a year ago in the Western Star
published at Corner Brook, and a more recent poll
conducted by the Sunday Herald at St. John's.
Don't you think that it is about time that we
should cease trimming, and discuss our economic
and political relations with the country that year
after year buys a larger percentage of our exports
than any other country? Don't you think that our
relations with that country, which sends us from
our immigrant brothers and sisters several million dollars each year, ... which is
at present
employing at the bases here 3-4,000 Newfoundlanders, a country with which half the
world is trying to establish closer trade relations,
don't you think that if we are sincere to those who
sent us here, and if we are not to be known as a
conglomeration of pussy-footers and hypocrites,
don't you think it is about time that something be
done towards exploring every avenue of
economic and political approach in this connection?
My good friend from Bonavista Centre gets
his delegation for Canada. Our trade relations
with Canada may be summed up briefly as fol
572 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
lows: we buy five times as much from Canada as
Canada buys from us. The life savings of our
people, which amounts to eight or ten millions of
new life insurance yearly, goes to Canada, rather
than stays here to develop the industries of
Newfoundland. Possibly this may be a good
reason to send a delegation to Canada, but if it be,
what can be said of a delegation to a country that
each year buys from us more than we buy from
her, and in addition to which sends into this
country millions of dollars from our immigrants
living there?
It is not a one-way financial traffic that we
seek, as our relations with Canada happen to be,
and it is about time that something is done about
it. A lot of our economic uncertainty is because
of the fact that we are a milch cow for Canadian
business interests, and our economic prosperity
would be advanced if we were to decrease, rather
than increase the one-way business traffic with
Canada, and increase it with the USA.
In 1890, when Sir Robert Bond negotiated the
Bond-Blaine treaty, it was blocked by Canada
with the concurrence of the British government.
[1]
Later, about 15 years ago I believe, when our
government was negotiating an advantageous
trade agreement with the West Indies with
respect to our fish, this agreement too was blocked by Canada; and a few years later
the big
hearted Canadian government descended to
penny-pinching antics by discontinuing the few
dollars that they contributed as subsidy to the
steamer on the Cabot Strait. When Sir Robert
Bond tried to negotiate the Bond-Blaine treaty,
which would have meant the economic salvation
of Newfoundland, it was objected to by Canada,
and blocked by the interference of the British
government. The British government has now
told as that we can no longer expect financial
assistance. This is all right, but may I ask the
British government one favour, that if they are
not prepared to help us, will they please in future
do nothing to hinder us.
In 1775, I believe, a small body of poor,
hungry, ill-equipped Englishmen, and the sons of
Englishmen, who were settled along the New
England coast felt that their economic and political interests were being retarded
and blocked by
the English government. What did these Englishmen do? Did they say, "Hush, hush, don't
wake
the baby"? No, poor as they were, they had the
spirit of independence, which has made England
great and which has made Britishers the great
pioneers, fearless and forward-looking people
wherever they have gone. They said "No", and
out of that came the War of Independence, and
the USA. It was conceived in the hearts of
Englishmen and brought to fruition by Englishmen, and it was this same USA that four
or five
years ago sent her sons and daughters to
England's aid, and made it possible for England
to survive in her greatest struggle. Is it then
inopportune or improper for us to approach this
subject any less fearlessly than those poor
Englishmen did in 1775?....
Mr. Smallwood I am an unreformed, unregenerate and unrepentant free trader. If this
country could have free trade with the United
States, it would be a great thing. If we could have
free trade with the Dominion of Canada, it would
be a great thing. If we could have free trade with
every country in the world, it would be a great
thing for the people of this country. I believe in
abolishing every single cent of customs duties. I
am a believer in bringing down the cost of living.
The only way I can see to do that is by absolutely
free trade. Now, if this motion passes, we may get
a committee of this Convention going to
Washington. We may.... It may be received by
the Government of the United States. If it is, they
could talk about trade and tariffs, and maybe we
could get some trade with the United States. As
a free trader and only as a free trader — and
remember that cuts all ways, local industries,
protected industries that are an imposition on this
country, will be wiped out, and our people will
get a chance to live. I am all for our people getting
a chance to live, and I don't care if there are a
dozen or a hundred whose toes will be trod on. I
am only concerned with the people in this country
who have never had a break in the 450 years of
our history. Whenever they poked their head up
over the stage head, there was someone there to
kick them down again. Let's get free trade if we
are allowed to send a delegation and if they will
receive one I will not vote against it.
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 573
I don't believe for a single moment that there
will be a delegation going to Washington. Why
be hypocritical about it, or try to bluff about it?
Why say there will be one, when I don't believe
it? We may take a very dim View of the Commission government or the Dominions Office,
but
whether it is dim or bright, the fact is that they
both told us that negotiation of trade and tariff
agreements is a matter between governments. I
don't know whether they are right or wrong, but
they ought to know what they are talking about,
so I don't think this delegation will go. I will vote
for it to go, and I will be sorry if it does not go,
because I am a free trader. I can't make myself
any plainer than that....
Mr. Hillier ....I feel a bit unhappy over these
resolutions and negotiations, because, rightly or
wrongly, the feeling comes to me that negotiations on national matters such as trade
and tariffs
are matters for government with government, and
we definitely are not a government. Moreover, I
feel that we are somewhat confusing the people
of Newfoundland, and I am sure that we have no
desire to do that. Whether I am right or wrong, I
leave that to those who are better versed in public
life and politics than I am.
Mr. Cranford In rising in support of the motion
I do so with the feeling that I possess as good a
British spirit as the members of the British
government that made the base deal with the
United States for 99 years. I feel sure the British
government knew at the time they made that deal
for such a long time, which to us means forever,
that they were placing us in the front line of battle
in the event of the United States becoming involved in war, whether Britain would
be with
them or not, and in view of that knowledge, and
considering the United States to be on the most
friendly terms with Great Britain, it behoves us
to take advantage and endeavour to be placed in
the front line in securing markets for our
products, so we can enjoy a decent living....
Mr. Vardy While I am in full accord with the
spirit of the motion, I am also of the opinion that
you were within your rights in rejecting the motion at the beginning. You went strictly
by the
terms of reference. I think this will put the Com-
mission of Government to a test. They will be
given the privilege or otherwise of throwing it
out. I have always felt, particularly for the past
14 years, that Newfoundland, with our foreign
politics so much controlled by three great powers,
should have a government of its own, of a strictly
limited number, and within an international
group of three. In that I am in full accord with my
old friend Mr. Job. Now I cannot see eye to eye
with a lot that has been said, because I think we
are getting things confused. Some of the speakers
have confused matters pertaining to the sending
of a trade delegation, with a group that we may
or may not send to seek union with the United
States. Trade is a matter strictly between governments, and it is just as well to
face up to facts. But
I will be glad to see any delegation going there. I
have no hard feelings against anyone in the
United States. I am reminded of the fact that
George Washington's father was a great Englishman, and I think we have reached the
time in life
when, in the very near future, not only those in
Canada and America must come together more
closely, but Newfoundland must eventually
come into some kind of a union with these great
powers on this side of the Atlantic.
Some speakers have criticised the idea of
sending a delegation to Ottawa, but seem to
favour sending a delegation to Washington. I am
not in that group. I try to be fair towards every
subject brought before this Convention, and to be
fair to the people of this country we must give
sober thought to any resolution that's brought in.
We have been severely criticised for turning the
former resolution down, but I am of the opinion
that the time is premature for sending this delegation to Washington. This is a very
delicate matter,
and we could get ourselves embroiled into some
pretty hard feelings, because when it comes to
changing matters of this kind, it strikes very deep.
I know we need three meals a day, but I believe
these things could be settled around the table, and
a closer union than now exists could be brought
about between Canada, USA and Newfoundland, and that it would improve the future
standard ofliving for the people ofthis country....
I don't want to take up too much time over this
matter, but if it is possible to send a trade delegation — and I am firmly of the
opinion that it is
not — we won't be made a joke of; the joke will
be on them, because they are not willing to face
up to the grim realities. But I still believe, knowing them as I do, that the Commission
will turn
this resolution down. It is within their power to
do so.
574 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
Mr. Harrington I started the ball rolling this
afternoon in moving that you be overruled, because I want to vote for this motion.
I agree that
there is not much going to come out of it. We have
already been told off by the Secretary of State as
regards trade.... Ido not think the motion is going
to get anywhere, but if it gives the Commission
the privilege of turning it down, so much the
better.
Mr. Higgins I would like to draw your attention
to the first paragraph of the final memorandum
given to the delegation by Lord Addison:
I do not however regard it as me function of
this Delegation to debate with me questions
of the policy of the Newfoundland Government in current administrative and other issues,
or to seek to negotiate trade
arrangements between the United Kingdom
and the Government of Newfoundland. In
effect, the observations in your memorandum are criticisms of the conduct of the Commission
of Government and the United
Kingdom Government, and appear to me to
be outside the proper purpose of this Delegation, nor are they likely to assist the
National
Convention in arriving at conclusions for
their recommendations as to suitable forms
of future Government in Newfoundland.
I take it that is the basis of your not agreeing?
Mr. Chairman No. Lord Addison may hold
whatever views he likes. It was based on the
contents of the Convention Act as I interpreted it
— not as Lord Addison or anyone else told me.
Mr. Hollett I find myself on the horns of a
dilemma. I knew the bird would come home to
roost. I think it came home to roost when they
told us we could send a delegation to Canada. I
have never thought we had the right to send
delegations anywhere, more particularly when it
comes to affiliating us politically with some outside power. I want to refer you to
the document
of February 12, handed to the delegation which
interviewed the Commission of Government,
paragraph 4: "Upon the question raised in Clause
1 of the Resolution respecting steps for establishing economic or fiscal relationship
between
United States and Newfoundland, your Committee was informed that this question was
one between Governments through the regular
diplomatic channels." I think every man agrees
that that is perfectly normal and correct. In going
to Canada you cannot discuss terms of confederation without bringing up these matters,
or entering into negotiations with Canada relative to
economic matters. They say it is a matter between
governments. We all agree with that. That is one
of the bases on which I form my opinion that we
never had any right sending any delegation to
Canada with regard to political union, because
political union must be tied up with economic
discussions. Further, they say it was doubtful
whether the subject matter of the clause came
within the terms of reference. Even the Commission of Government had a doubt as to
whether or
not the matter of sending the delegation to the
USA came within the terms of reference. The
Convention Act, 1946, definitely describes the
duties of the Convention.... I hold that the exports
of this country are tied up with any recommendation which any reasonable man in this
Convention has to make in regard to forms of
government. If we knew we could export so
many tons of ore, or quintals of fish, to that or the
other country, it would have a bearing on the form
of government. We are to examine the position
of the country — that is a broad statement. You
cannot examine the position of the country if you
do not examine its relations with outside
countries. Now I am no longer on the horns of a
dilemma. I support Mr. Penney's motion, at least
it will afford the Commission of Government an
opportunity to make up their minds as to the
terms of reference.
Mr. Cashin I support Mr. Penney's motion and
I want to say a word or two with regard to the
future economy. When the delegation went to
London, and when we brought up the matter of
exports of fish and iron ore — which form the
basis of our exports, and consequently have an
effect on our economic position — we were told
that Great Britain could not guarantee to buy any
fish. They could not guarantee to buy any iron ore
next year, or any year. They also told us, when
we brought up the matter of the base deals, that
they were not in a position to go to the US to
make any deal regarding the taking of any fish in
the future. If that is so, how can they expect us as
a Convention to prepare an economic report on
the future of this country? If, in the first place,
they cannot guarantee to take any fish or iron ore,
how can they expect us to prepare an economic
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 575
report, when we know Great Britain is not in a
position to buy iron ore or fresh fish?.... The point
I am trying to make is this... that this matter comes
within the scope of the Convention for the simple
reason we are here to find out the economic
position of the country. Great Britain tells us they
cannot do anything with the US. The Dorninions
Office tells us they are not going to try Why not
let us try?.... The fish business is the livelihood
of 50% of the people. Consequently, as a Convention, even if we have no power, it
is our job,
even if we have to drive it down the throat of the
Commission of Government and the Dominions
Office.
There is another matter, the sale of iron ore to
the United States. We all know some of their
mines are worked out. It will be five to ten years
before Labrador produces. If Lake Superior is
worked out, there are millions of tons here on Bell
Island. That would be another trade agreement.
No effort has been made by the Commission or
the Dorninions Office to get trade agreements for
us. When they gave the bases away, the Commission and the Dominions Office forgot
all about
Newfoundland.... They tell us we got some
labour; we did, at restricted wages. They tell us
it was to protect us. Do they expect us to swallow
that? 300,000 people, and they are worried about
us! The island of Newfoundland is a fortress for
North America, and both the Canadian and
American governments are interested in Newfoundland for that reason. The Commission
betrayed their trusteeship. I think it was brought
up at a meeting with the Dominions Office, that
they were trustees, and we were told that the
bases were gone and that there was nothing they
could do about it. I am going to support this
motion whether it receives the consent of the
Commission of Government or not.
I want to compliment Mr. Reddy on his
speech. Today all our newsprint goes into the
United States.... We have to develop a fresh and
frozen fish market in the United States if this
country is going to live. We do not know whether
we are going to sell a ton of iron ore to Great
Britain orapound of fish. They tell us they cannot
approach the United States. If they cannot do
their job, then let them get out of here and let
someone else do it....
Mr. Miller We have a very peculiar situation
here. First we have your ruling; second we dig
back and find we have information from the
Commission that it was beyond our power to do
this; third, we have information supplied by the
delegation to London. We defy all that and go on
trying to press something. I would press just as
hard as anyone, if I found just the slightest chance
of getting it through.... What is the sense? I have
every respect for Mr. Penney and the effort he
made. I agree entirely that the future of Newfoundland lies with the United States,
but I do not
think we are going to get anywhere with this.... I
am going to introduce an amendment to
Mr. Penney's motion. I move that the words
beginning "for general trade..." be deleted, and
the following substituted: "to secure information
on matters affecting the future economy of Newfoundland in its relationship to the
United States
of America."
Mr. Hollett Is there any difference between that
and Mr. Penney's motion?
Mr. Higgins I presume you are going to rule
against it. I will second it.
Mr. Chairman One is for general trade discussions, the other is to secure information on matters
affecting the future economy of
Newfoundland. I cannot rule it out as being a
repetition of the other. On the same grounds as I
ruled out the original motion, I would have to rule
out the amendment. I still think you are entirely
wrong in your interpretation of the motion. I do
not intend to rule out the amendment.
Mr. Smallwood We do not want to look
ridiculous: a "delegation of six or less" — it
might be none.
Mr. Penney I am satisfied so long as this Convention is satisfied to send a delegation to
Washington: so long as the sense of my motion
is not disturbed.
Mr. Job I think it is probably generally known
that this resolution is after my own heart. I believe
in it, and I believe we may get somewhere if we
can get the delegation to go there. I think one of
the troubles may be to get the request passed by
the authorities. I see no harm whatsoever in
trying. I wonder how we can get it done quickly.
I do not see how the deputation can be of use to
this Convention unless it can be done quickly. I
always thought we had every right to make enquiry on this question of trade between
here and
576 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
the United States, which is the vital point. I have
stressed it on a good many occasions. I don't see
any reason for not endeavouring to get this interview, if you like to call it that,
to find out whether
it is possible to get formal discussions. I have
heard people who have come back from the USA
quite recently state that there is a feeling there in
business circles that, in view of connections here,
we are entitled to special consideration.
I would like to read if I have not lost it, an
extract from a letter from a gentleman who has
been living in the USA for the last 15 or 20 years,
and is connected with one of the universities. He
stresses that the great difficulty in the USA is that
we are not known there. The public has no conception of what Newfoundland was, what
it is,
and what it expects to be, so it is very difficult to
get any public interest in this question.... As you
know, I published a pamphlet which I circulated
among the members of the Convention a long
time ago, and I have had some communication
about it from the United States, they have been
favourably impressed, and I think something will
come if we can discuss matters with them. We
can do nothing by sitting here, we have to get
there. Difficulties will be raised by the authorities
here, I think. They will say it is not within our
terms of reference, and they can't agree to it. It
may be they will say, "Even if you pass this
resolution, you will have to provide your own
funds to go". In that case we might pass around
the hat.
Mr. Jackman Over a month ago I introduced a
resolution regarding a delegation to be sent to
Washington. It received such a chilling reception, and myself as well, that I am not
properly
thawed out yet. When I brought that resolution in
here I had one thing in mind, and I still have it....
I had the concern of the working people of Newfoundland, and I still have it. The
people are
looking for the wherewithal to live. I had that in
mind when I brought in the resolution. I feel as I
felt in the beginning, that I am a lone wolf in this
Convention. I came with preconceived ideas and
I have them today, and I am going to hold them
despite the political groups in this Convention. 1
have not said a word for the past while because,
as I said before, I was frozen.... I do not like the
attitude of the Convention itself. When I entered
this door I was not asking favours from anyone
— no personality. If I have to tread on a man's
toes, I will tread on them whether he like it or not.
I am here to do all in my power for the people of
Newfoundland. Personalities are outside the
question as far as I am concerned.
Regarding this resolution, I am going to back
it up, as it is similar to my resolution. I see in this
something of benefit, possibly we won't get
anywhere but you have got to knock on the door
before you get an answer. Scripture says, "Ask
and ye shall receive". We are going to ask. With
regards to my resolution, I want to say a few more
words.
Mr. Chairman If you will pardon me, we can't
discuss your resolution now. We are discussing
this resolution before the Chair, and you must
confine your remarks to that.
Mr. Jackman All right, I'm wholeheartedly behind it, and I am going to support it. This resolution
is after all dealing with a foreign people, so
we say. A foreign people — why? Why, outside
this House we have a foreign flag. We have three
flags in this country, and if we are not careful we
will have the fourth flag, the red flag, and I will
support that if we can't get something better than
we have got today....
Mr. Hollett I have not spoken to the amendment. That amendment is going to tangle things
up. They both mean the same thing, and it seems
rather silly to divide on a motion and an amendment which mean the same thing, so
I am going
to vote for the motion and we can make any
necessary alterations afterwards.
Mr. Miller ....The motion asks that we discuss
general trade discussions. We have been told that
we can't deal in trade discussions, but we have
not been told, and one thing they had better not
tell us, is that we can't go and seek information.
That's my point — it is seeking information
regarding the future of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman That's my ruling, gentlemen,
the amendment is an amendment. Those in
favour of the amendment please say "aye", those
against it say "nay". I think the "nays" have it. I
therefore declare the amendment lost. I will now
put the original motion. Those who are in favour
of this motion say "aye". Those who are against
the motion "nay". I think the "ayes" have it. I
declare the resolution carried.
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 577
Mr. Chairman Mr. Higgins to move that the
report of the Committee on Education be further
considered. I don't know what this means. Perhaps Mr. Higgins will be good enough
to explain.
Mr. Higgins The purpose of the motion is not to
discuss the Report of the Education Committee
in its entirety, but merely to direct your attention
to part of it — that dealing with the Memorial
University College. There is no reason why it
can't be disposed of this afternoon.
Ever since the Convention opened, I have
been approached by students and ex-students of
the Memorial University College asking me to
place before the Convention their wish that the
status of the college be raised to that of a degree-
conferring institution. I have not acceded to their
request until the present time, because I wished
to survey the position as carefully as possible, and
to give some consideration to the grounds upon
which such a claim is based.
I think one can take it for granted that there is
an increasing demand for university education.
The number of students at the Memorial University College this year is 432; of these,
181 are
teachers in training; the remainder, 251 persons,
is a body of students who can take the first two
years of their university course there, and will
then have to proceed elsewhere — if they can —
to complete it. Many of you have read the
numerous letters that have appeared in the daily
papers from students who are bitterly disappointed that this September they must either
terminate their university studies, or go to a
Canadian or American university. Their appeal
cannot remain unheeded. But I have come to the
conclusion that the need for a university is not
based upon the claims of these students alone, but
on a deeper, fundamental need. This country
needs a university. A university acts as a natural
co-ordinating centre of education, and at the
present time the need for this is a basic one. There
is no body of Newfoundlanders more sincere in
their work or devoted to their profession, than the
educationalists and teachers of this country, and
they themselves are acutely conscious that the
establishing of a university would polarise our
educational aims.
The heads of the different denominations —
the Conference of the United Church and the
Anglican Synod — have in their ecclesiastical
legislatures passed formal resolutions in favour
of a national university. His Grace the Archbishop, in an address delivered on the
occasion
of the presentation of the first Judge Higgins
Memorial Scholarships on February 27, 1945,
spoke as follows:
I am glad to know that the expansion and
development of the Memorial University
College to the status of a full-fledged Newfoundland university is under the consideration
of the educational authorities. This is a
move that will commend itself to, and will
have the approval of, all who have the best
interests of the country at heart. But it would
seem that there are one or two conditions
indispensable to its success. In the first place
it must be in personnel and equipment of such
a standard that it will command the recognition of outside universities, and secondly
it
must be a Newfoundland university in the
fullest sense of the word, with a Newfoundland atmosphere and background. To
be a Newfoundland university its charter and
constitutions should be such, after the model
of many universities abroad, as to embrace
within its scope and ambit those institutions
in our midst which have their roots deep in
the soil and the traditions of the country. Only
in this way can it become a genuine Newfoundland institution, which will have the
co-operation and support of all sections in the
country. In order that the advantages and
benefits of such a university be accessible to
all, the establishment of scholarships would
appear to be necessary both by the government and private philanthropy. We hope that
as the years go on, and the new university
develops to its full stature, many individual
societies and other agencies amongst us will
establish scholarships similar to those I have
the privilege of presenting to these pupils
today.
Various local organisations have passed
similar resolutions. Now in view of the numerous
petitions to the government, it is difficult to see
why it is that this university has not already been
established. I can hardly believe that it is on
account of the cost involved. I am informed, that,
578 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
in order to give the full four year course in arts
and in teacher training, the addition of one or two
professors and a small amount of extra equipment
is practically all that is necessary. While the cost
cannot be estimated, yet I understand that it might
entail perhaps an extra $15,000 a year. As the
vote to the college this year is say $50,000, surely
$65-70,000 is a very reasonable sum to pay for
the great advantages a university offers. At the
present time it costs us $50,000 a year to give
students a two years' course; surely the extra
amount required is proportionately a very modest
sum to pay for the great advantages that would
accrue from the establishing of a university. In
the nature of things, the first stages of growth of
a university would not be extensive, and it is only
sensible to assume that we can rely upon those in
whom the responsibility of the direction of the
university will vest, to shape the moulding of our
national university with caution and circumspection, and will have regard to the financial
capacity of this country to pay, and the merits of
the claims of the students of our country.
It is true that we assist a certain number of
students to go to Canada, but only to a small
proportion of students is assistance granted. Consequently we have a large body of
earnest students, whose educational and cultural
development is a matter of great importance,
frustrated at the most important time of their
lives. This country may well expect a valuable
return from the young people who avail of our
educational facilities If we fail to grant these
facilities, we may reasonably expect to pay for
our short-sightedness. In fact, I myself view the
existence of a large number of frustrated students
with apprehension. We do not want a disgruntled
semi-intelligensia.
The Memorial University College was
founded in 1924. By great good luck the first
President was an outstanding English
educationalist, John Lewis Paton, who was a man
not only of profound emdition but of extraordinary personality, and he has bequeathed
to the
college a valuable spirit and a fine tradition of
academic thoroughness and high personal aims.
This spirit has been developed through the last
two decades, and a university college can no
longer adequately foster the development of his
vision and accomplishment. The college itself
ranks high in the educational world and has won
a unique reputation, not only in Canadian and
American universities, but at Oxford as well.
The academic work of a college is not today
sufficient. The extension departments of universities in other countries constitute
an important
element in education. They cater to the needs of
those who wish to continue their education but
do not desire to graduate from a university. An
extension department would be particularly valuable to this country — it is one of
our most
pressing needs — and only a university can direct
it adequately.
I have asked several educationalists whether
or not they consider that education should begin
at the bottom or at the top, whether money would
not be spent more advantageously upon primary
schools, but they have uniformly assured me that
the idea that improvement starts at the bottom has
been exploded everywhere, and that it is universally recognised by educationalists
that the good
permeates downward.
We have in this country a very definite character of our own. One might call it the
Newfoundland character, and we have a culture of our
own; but a culture needs a home, it needs enrichment and development; only a university
can
adequately provide the necessary stimulation.
During the last ten years there has been considerable government activity in science,
agriculture and adult education, and I believe a great
deal of valuable work has been accomplished;
but how are these various activities to be co-ordinated except through a university?
Nothing
would be more valuable to the people of this
country than an understanding of our economic
and political problems. We must evolve our own
way of life in this country, a way of life based on
our national culture and our special traditions,
and the solving ofour educational problem is the
first essential. In the years that lie ahead these
problems may demand an immense national effort, an effort which can be made only by
a people
possessing a sound knowlege of the problems of
government.
I need not enlarge upon the cultural developments that would inevitably flow from
the establishment of a university, the stimulus it would
give to an, music, architecture and literature.
Newfoundland people are not devoid of talent,
and a university would be the most practical way
of giving these talents and interests a real chance
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 579
of development.
There are many who hold that this country has
suffered grievously by being tied down to the
system of education of other countries. They do
not believe that any system, no matter how excellent in its own country, is really
suited to our life
and problems. It is their belief that we must
evolve our own system of education completely
independently of other countries, so that Newfoundlanders may develop their own way
of life
with the enlightenment and enrichment that only
a sound educational system can provide, and in
my belief this system can only be developed from
the establishing of a cultural focus, such as a
university.
I now wish to move the following resolution:
I move that the report of the Committee on
Education be further considered.
[The motion carried.]
Mr. Higgins I ask leave to move the following
resolution:
Whereas it is the opinion of this Convention
that the status of the Memorial University
College should be raised to that of a degree-
conferring institution,
Be it therefore resolved that this Convention
places itself on record as being of opinion that
the necessary financial arrangements should
be made immediately by the Honourable the
Commission of Government for this purpose,
And be it further resolved that a copy of this
resolution be forwarded to the Honourable
the Commission of Government.
Mr. Chairman The situation is very awkward.
That is not an amendment to the Education
Report. It is an expression of opinion to be sent
to the Commission of Government. I cannot see
the connection. Frankly, I did not know what
your motion was to be. I thought there was something to be added to the Education
Report.
Mr. Higgins I understood the only way I could
bring it in was to move that the report be considered.
Mr. Chairman You have the report on the table
for further consideration; what do you propose to
do with it? I think it is unnecessary to touch the
report for the purpose of Mr. Higgins' making his
resolution. I am prepared to receive the resolution.
Mr. Hollett The Education Committee recommended that the Memorial College should be
extended to a degree conferring institution, but
they did not recommend that the government find
the money for it.
Mr. Chairman Why not let it stay at that? In
incorporating it in the report it does not go to the
government. The government has nothing to do
with our reports. Here is a recommendation to the
government. Some months ago we made a
recommendation that nothing further be done
with the assets of the country. That resolution was
adopted and sent to the Commission. Now
Mr. Higgins thinks we should send another expression of opinion, that the Memorial
University
College be given full university status. There is
no reason why we cannot do that and not disturb
the Education Report.
Mr. Smallwood The Education Report is now
before the House on motion of Mr. Higgins. I
move that the Education Report be re-adopted as
read.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Miller I would like to second Mr. Higgins'
resolution, and I propose to move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Smallwood If I move the adjournment of
the House, would I have lost my opportunity to
speak to the motion?
Mr. Chairman No. Moved and seconded that
the debate be adjourned until tomorrow.
[The motion carried, and the Convention adjourned]
