Mr. Keough Mr. Chairman, not to all men is it
given to stand at the barricades of decision in a
moment when destiny is about to decide the
future of a whole people, but to we who are
gathered here it is so given. We keep this night a
rendezvous with destiny. We keep this night an
assignation with history. We vote this night upon
a matter of supreme importance to the people of
this island. And when we have finished with that
business there will be no need for a verdict from
posterity upon our excellence or otherwise, for in
the very act of voting we shall have passed a
verdict for posterity upon ourselves. It will not be
necessary for posterity to judge us for we shall
have judged ourselves.
It may well be that this will be the last time in
my life that I shall speak in this storied chamber.
Certain I am that I shall have no further occasion
to speak during this Convention. And so, sir, I
must crave your indulgence for a moment, before
I address myself to the motion in order that I may
set the record straight on a matterin which I seem
to have been much misunderstood. For the
benefit of all those who have not been listening
to what I have said in this Convention, but who
may think that they have been, I wish to make the
categoric statement that I have never said that
what comes first and before all else in life is three
square meals a day. It just so happens that I
believe in God. And any man who believes in
God must, in consequence, admit to a hierarchy
of values in which the spiritual and moral take
precedence over the material. I am quite aware
that there are more important things in life than
three square meals a day. The causes for which
all generations of men have suffered persecution,
for which they have endured torture and death,
for which they have fought and gladly died, have
drawn not upon the stomach for inspiration. True
it is that men have fought and died and done
murder in their time for food. But to bear witness
to the good and the true and the beautiful — to
bear witness to these things, men have starved.
It will perhaps help to explain my insistence
upon the importance of three square meals a day
if I say that, in the first instance, I came into this
chamber fully determined to insist upon that very
thing. I knew in advance that we should hear
much of sacred heritage. I knew that there would
be much pointing to these hallowed walls. I knew
that we should hear much calling to witness of all
those who were giants in their day and generation. Indeed, I was afraid that we should
hear so
much of all these that we should hear of nothing
else. I was afraid that we should work ourselves
up into such ecstasies about the glories of our
land and past, as to completely forget that there
had gone into the making of that glory, in addition
to much blood, sweat and tears, much hunger,
much bitterness of spirit born of being out at the
elbows and down at the heels. And so I did
promise myself away back at the beginning to
remind this Convention every now and then that
sacred heritage is not enough — that it is also of
some importance that the people eat. And to keep
me reminded of my promise to myself, I brought
into this house with me a monitor to sit at my
elbow — a monitor whom I have called my last
forgotten fisherman on the bill of Cape St.
George.
Need I say it has notbeen a particular, specific,
solitary individual in whose name I have spoken
so frequently, but rather a symbolic figure, a
figure symbolic of all the fishermen in all the
harbours, on all the islands, on all the bills of all
the capes of this country. Time and again I have
undertaken to remind this Convention of that
symbolic forgotten fisherman whose shadow is
across all our history. I have spoken of the grim
Gethsemane he has endured, of how great has
been his historic difficulty in making ends meet,
of how it has not been easy for him to bring up
his children in the fear and love of God, and with
their bellies empty. I am satisfied that I have done
the most that I could in his name, and I am
satisfied that I have been right in doing so. For
the person of my last forgotten fisherman on the
bill of Cape St. George is just as sacred to me as
the person of the most revered statesman who
ever sat in this house. I am convinced that I have
not been in error in insisting upon three square
meals a day for my symbolic fisherman. And in
doing so I have thought that three square meals a
day for him are not without reference to the
spiritual. For I believe that other things being
equal, a man can the more easily save his immortal soul on a full stomach than on
an empty one.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of what
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1425
Christ had in mind when he enjoined us to feed
the hungry. And certain I am that that land is the
happier in which every man has a full stomach.
True it is that without vision the people perish;
but without three square meals a day, they perish
just as surely. And anyone who doesn't think so
might well try going without three square meals
a day for a little while. I say for a little while,
because I know that conviction will not long be
delayed.
I have no regrets about the pains I have been
at to emphasise the importance of three square
meals a day; and I am satisfied that I have done
so in a right spirit — in the spirit that, once
satisfied of the safeguard of the spiritual and
moral values that we all cherish, we should next
be concerned to resolve the question of the form
of government best suited to our needs, in terms
of what form will make for the greatest economic
advantage of the common man of this island. And
if it be sacrilege to have done as much, then I
suggest to you to make the most of it. But let me
assure you that when on Friday next I walk down
the steps outside for the last time, I shall have no
regret in my heart for this thing that I have done
here.
Now to turn to the motion before the Chair.
Mr. Smallwood, after making it quite clear
beyond a shadow of doubt that he has resolved
the problem of perpetual motion, has seen fit to
terminate his endeavours in this Convention by
asking us to recommend to His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom that among
the forms of government to be submitted to the
people in the forthcoming national referendum
should be confederation with Canada upon the
basis submitted to the National Convention on
November 6, 1947, by the Prime Minister of
Canada. Beyond a doubt, Mr. Smallwood in
moving this motion is seeking a result which a
great many people in this island desire. It may be
a matter of great surprise to some that any considerable body of people should desire
any such
thing. To many members of this Convention who
have undertaken to decide in their omniscience
to restrict the people's choice, and even to prefer
what they should vote for, it may well appear an
outrage that there should be any considerable
body of opinion to the contrary of their view. But
there is a considerable body of opinion to the
contrary of what is the majority opinion of this
Convention; and that makes the contrary opinion
a matter of legitimate concern for us. I take it that
this impartial body is still prepared to afford the
view, even of that which may be a minority, a
hearing, if not a chance.
What I have been at pains to try to decide for
myself in the whole matter of this motion has
been simply this: is there anything in the
proposed arrangements themselves that puts
them beyond and outside the pale of rightful
submission to the people of Newfoundland — in
other words is there something in them intrinsically evil? Personally, I have come
to the conclusion that it does not devolve upon me to seek
to determine here if the proposed arrangements
for union are fair and equitable, or even if they
are adequate. That is a decision for the people.
And time and time again throughout history the
collective common sense of the whole people has
proved more adequate than has the collective
common sense of the people's popular assemblies. And in this instance I am quite prepared
to leave this matter in the people's hands. And
what I am concerned with here, is to decide
whether there is any rightful impediment in the
way of endorsing these proposed arrangements
as a referendum alternate.
I have been listening for many weeks to the
Don Quixotes of the National Convention tilting
at the windmills of the proposed arrangements for
union. I must give them credit for supplying the
wind that drove the very windmills they were
tilting at. But as far as I am concerned, no
evidence has been adduced to indicate that the
proposed arrangements are not fair and equitable,
all the ranting and roaring like true Newfoundlanders notwithstanding. Indeed, it
is quite
apparent that the proposed arrangements do offer
some advantages in consequence of which the
lives of our people would be changed for the
better.
To put the matter in a nutshell, I have come to
conclude that there is nothing within the
proposed arrangements themselves that obliges
me in conscience not to recommend them to the
people for decision. And so I will recommend
them. And that will be all that is expected of me
here.
I say that advisedly. The way I see it, I am not
obligated to express here any preference for a
particular form of government. It was not so
1426 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
written in the bond. What was written in the bond
was that I should recommend possible forms of
future government to be put before the people at
a national referendum It was not mentioned that
I should express a personal preference. And indeed, the whole idea of expressing preference
is
repugnant to me. For by expressing preference,
this Convention will register a majority approval
of one form of government to the exclusion of all
others, and thereby influence the result of the
referendum. Little as we are thought of by all the
holier-than-thous who are so certain that they
could have done better, there are still many who
would likely be influenced by a majority vote of
the Convention. But for the Convention to take
advantage of that likelihood and register a
majority opinion, seems to me like a distortion of
its purpose; and consequently I will not be a party
to the expression of preference. For my part I
would prefer that the people should go to the
referendum with their minds unbiased by any
majority declaration of preference by this Convention.
As far as I am qualified to judge, I cannot see
why the issue of union with Canada upon the
basis of the proposed terms should not be put to
the people. That is as far as I feel called upon to
go in the matter at this moment. But I do have to
face the query as to whether or not it is fitting and
proper that our people should have the issue of
union put to them under such circumstances as
those of the national referendum that is to follow
in a little while; not to, brings up the whole
constitutional question...
To begin, let me say that I do not pretend to
be an expert, an authority, or even a novice in
constitutional law. To tell the truth, I don't know
the first thing about it. My concern most of the
days of my life has been with trying to help the
little fellow the better to make both ends meet,
and with his ideas of how things should go in this
island. In consequence I am quite prepared to
leave discussion of the constitutional position "at
law" involved in the confederation issue to those
in our midst who are eminent King's Counsellors, Doctors of the Law and Justices of
the
Peace. Being a simple soul, who thinks more in
the same terms as the singer out on the squid-jigging ground than in the terms in
which a Privy
Counsellor thinks, it seems to me that all this
current furor over the constitutional propriety of
confederation being placed on the ballot paper is
much ado about nothing. I am not prepared to
accept the argument that makes the placing of
confederation upon the referendum ballot a
constitutional issue. Actually it is no argument at
all to say that it is not constitutionally proper for
confederation to appear upon the referendum
paper, and that Commission of Government and
responsible government should be the only alternatives submitted to the people. The
way I see it,
all that is distortion of the realities of the matter.
To me such an argument makes as much sense as
it would to say that two and two make five —
therefore the grass is pink in summer.
I have said that in determining upon referendum alternatives we are bound in conscience,
by
tradition, and in fact and by right reason in all
things. I can find no cause therein to exclude
confederation from the consideration of the
people. It is not legitimate to contend to the
contrary, on the grounds that proper constitutional procedure requires return to responsible
government before the people are approached to
discover if they desire union with Canada. That
is not the case. It may be that we should have to
have some measure of restoration of responsible
government before the act of passing into the
Canadian confederation could be officially concluded. But that is a different matter,
and in no
way concerns the referendum.
The referendum, to my mind, is a device intended purely and simply to find out what
the
people desire in the way of government. No
considerations of constitutional propriety can
conceivably be involved. It's to be a simple matter of asking the people just what
they prefer in
the way of government — a matter every bit as
simple as asking them what they would prefer in
the way of pie. And there are no constitutional
strings attached to the act of ascertaining the
desired constitution, anymore than there would
be constitutional strings attached to the act of
ascertaining the desired pie — whether it be apple
pie or blueberry pie, or pie by and by from
Ottawa. Unless it can be shown that confederation per se is not a proper alternative, we may not
seek to exclude it from the referendum out of
consideration of constitutionality which do not
enter into the matter. What the proper procedure
would be to give effect to the preferred constitution would be something else; then
we would
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1427
become concerned with constitutional propriety.
But in the referendum we shall be concerned
merely with the interrogative mood.
There is one further matter that should give us
cause for concern in considering this whole matter of union, and that is whether union
would
prejudice the survival of a distinctive national
culture and civilisation that we should seek to
maintain. There are people in this island to whom
the whole confederation issue is like a red rag to
a bull, and for about much the same reason they
just don't like it no how. Mention confederation,
and they'll rant and they'll roar in the approved
grand manner about 30 pieces of silver, and niggers in the woodpile, and selling our
sacred
heritage up the St. Lawrence. Indeed, there has
been so much of that sort of thing going on both
within and without this Convention that one has
to pause to enquire if perhaps there might be a
modicum of truth in it all. I must confess that I
am not too clear as to just exactly what the poets
and the politicians have in mind when they take
to being sentimental over our sacred heritage. I
remember that I did one time see a fisherman's
wife shovel fish guts into a brin bag and spell it
on her back to her gardens a mile away. I feel
certain that that is not what they have in mind by
our sacred heritage. I remember that I did one
time spend February in a most picturesque little
cottage nailed to a cliff beside the sea. I didn't get
warm for a month, and I feel certain that the
people living there didn't get warm for the winter.
I feel that that is not the sacred heritage over
which our poets work themselves up into
ecstasies, and over which our politicians work
themselves into a lather. Indeed, it must be something altogether different than the
most of what
one comes across in making the rounds of this
country. But if by our sacred heritage the poets
and the politicians mean that we know in this
island a culture and civilisation so different, and
so much more advanced than the culture and
civilisation of the North American mainland that
they are worth any sacrifice to preserve them,
they had better stop wool-gathering on Mount
Olympus, and come down and walk among the
people and learn how the people live. You know,
it could be that the best authority on the
desirability of baby bonuses would be the people
who have the babies.
I have come to conclude that there would not
be involved in confederation any issue of the
preservation of a distinct national culture and
civilisation. Now that is not to say, mind you, that
we have not evolved our own customs, our own
institutions, our own peculiar way of life. We
have. It so happens that we are the inheritors of
what I have sometimes called a fish and brewis
culture, of which the apex in song is the "come-
all-ye" and of which as good an example in folk
custom as any other is a Codroy Valley "milling".
[1] Of that fish and brewis culture I am as
proud as any Newfoundlander. It is true that we
are the inheritors of a great national tradition of
bravery against the seas, of heroism defying the
sea to do its worst — bravery and heroism exemplified for all time on a bleak October
day on
the bleak Labrador coast when a man named
Jackman did 27 times head into the storm and 27
times come ashore with a human life on his back.
[2]
It is true that in this land we are the inheritors of
a great Christian tradition; that at the end of every
week, after we have braved the sea and dug the
land and cut the pulpwood, we do still after the
manner of our fathers land gather in a thousand
churches to pray as our fathers prayed... All these
things are true. It is true too that all these things
can remain to be so in the event of confederation.
The things dearest to our hearts in this land will
not in the event of union be at issue. I give it to
you as my considered opinion, for what it is
worth, that if the confederation alternate shall
come to confront us in the referendum, that there
shall be involved therein no issue involving our
distinct character as Newfoundlanders, no issue
involving our national honour, no issue involving
our distinct culture and way of life.
I come now to this final statement of my
position in this matter. To such extent as I am
qualified to judge, the proposed arrangements
appear to me to contain nothing that constitutes a
legitimate impediment in the way of their being
submitted to the Newfoundland people. I can say
in conscience I know of no good and sufficient
reason why the Newfoundland people should not
have the opportunity to vote upon the confederation issue if they so desire. I will
vote to give them
that opportunity. I will vote for the motion before
1428 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
the Chair. I could not do otherwise without seeking to abridge the rights of our people
and without
doing injury to my own integrity. My final conclusion in the whole matter is that
yet once again
must I agree with myself in something that I said
a long time ago — that in the great decision that
confronts us, even if there be but one man in all
this island who wishes to vote for return of
responsible government, he is entitled to have the
opportunity to do so — even if that one lone
individual should happen to be Major Peter
Cashin. Even if there be but one man in this island
who wishes to vote for union with Canada, he is
entitled to the opportunity to do so, even if that
one lone individual should happen to be Mr.
Joseph Smallwood. And even if there happens to
be but one man in this island who wants to vote
for retention of Commission of Government, he
is entitled to the opportunity to do so — even if
that one lone individual happens to be a person
of no more consequence than my last forgotten
fisherman on the bill of Cape St. George. I said
that first many months ago when the Convention
was still young. In the meantime I have come
upon nothing to convince me to the contrary, so
do I repeat it here at the end. I am still of that
opinion.
And now as we turn to the casting of our final
vote, as we address ourselves to the pinnacle of
our endeavour here, there is this that I would ask
the Convention to bear in mind: let us remember
in this hour, that all the days of our lives the mark
of this Convention will be upon us. We can never
be free of it, though we flee it down the nights
and down the days and down the labyrinthine
ways of our own souls. It will remain with us
always. We are committed here to the serving of
a great purpose in conscience and in honour. And
our own conscience will judge us all the days of
our lives if we fail in conscience, and history will
judge us if we fail in honour. And we shall know
no peace of mind again if in this historic hour we
fail this land and this people. As, then, we apply
ourselves to the final act of recommending the
alternatives of government to be submitted to the
people's choice, let us bear constantly in mind
that it is a matter involving our conscience and
our honour to recommend all legitimate alternatives consistent with right reason.
In consequence
let us at this moment have somewhat more than
the courage of our connections. Let us be decided
instead by the courage of our convictions. Let us
remember that we shall leave no footprints in the
sands of time with feet of clay.
The mark of this Convention will be upon us
always in this too. We who are gathered here
were by our election to this Convention in some
measure set apart. We have the high honour of
being the men to whom Newfoundland, at a
moment of supreme decision, has turned for
guidance. We have had full opportunity to study
the elements of the issue that confronts us. We
have had greater opportunity than most of our
fellows to take the measure of this land and the
measure of its necessity. And there has come
upon us in consequence responsibility and
dedication that will not end with this Convention.
To whom much is given, of him much will be
expected. And it will surely be expected of us
after we have gone forth from here, that we shall
serve with greater diligence than most the cause
of human dignity and social justice in this land;
for we have had greater opportunity than most to
see wherein we could come to serve with advantage. Indeed, there devolves upon us
the plain
duty to go forth from this Convention determined
in our hearts and resolved in our souls that we
shall leave no stone unturned, that we shall move
whatever mountains must be moved, that we
shall labour from dawn till dusk, that we shall
cease not from argument or action, that we shall
know no peace or no rest in our time until —
come what form of government there may — we
have made the fullest contribution that we may
in our own time to the making of this land that
we all do love: a land in which there will be peace
and happiness and dignity, and enough for all.
Mr. Vincent Mr. Chairman, I am not at the
moment concerned with the nebulous conception
of economic justice, nor am I greatly concerned
with what my friend, Mr. Newell called
"economic politics". The case as I see it is simply
a motion to put on the ballot in the coming
referendum this spring, confederation on the
basis of the proposals submitted by the King
government to this Convention. Anticipating
this, of course, I previously recommended the
terms to my constituents and to the country
generally when I spoke to Mr. Bradley's motion
introducing the proposals some weeks ago.
Mr. Chairman, as odd and strange as it may
seem, there are some here who would, after a
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1429
debate of six weeks on this issue of confederation, deny the people a chance to choose
for
themselves. It has been made abundantly clear by
you, sir, and by many other speakers, that this
Convention was elected to make recommendations on form or forms of government, and
in my
opinion any member of this assembly relegating
to himself the right to think for another is assuming a prerogative that never was
his. Mr. Higgins
said the terms were fair; that is the opinion of a
legal mind. Mr. Bradley approves and recommends them; again the opinion of a keen,
legal
brain. Great sections of the island have given
their moral support to this issue, and yet we have
members who will get up and say, "No, confederation has no right to be on the ballot."
Mr.
Chairman and gentlemen, I can assure you in all
sincerity, to make such a statement in my district
would not only be sheer folly, but it would be
positively dangerous, and as the elected representative for Bonavista North I demand
that confederation be placed on the ballot. I have also
supported the other forms being put there as well.
Critics have been trying hard to build up a case
against the people having a choice. They have,
with great forcefulness, invoked the almost
sacred covenant of letters patent, the act suspending responsible government. They
might as well
have read themselves a chapter out of Charles
Dickens' Oliver Twist, it would have been more
entertaining and much more humourous. The ordinary man, the fisherman, the common
man (and
he will swing the big stick next May), cares as
much about that as he does about the value of a
row of beans. What concerns him at the moment
— and it is very important — is his freedom of
choice, the right to make his own decisions.
Mr. Chairman, I am giving my unqualified
support to the motion. I am giving it my unqualified support because I feel there
are tens of
thousands of intelligent Newfoundlanders who
honestly want to see confederation on the ballot
this spring. I support it because I am convinced
that the terms offered by the government of Prime
Minister Mackenzie King are the best we can
reasonably expect, bearing in mind that the nine
other provinces of Canada entered confederation
under less favourable arrangements. I support the
motion wholeheartedly since, I am a pro-confederate.
The future of this island lies within the orbit
of the western hemisphere. Today Canada and
her great and powerful neighbour, the United
States, probably have more in common than any
other two nations in the world. No powerful
machines of war patrol their lines of demarcation.
No military barriers restrict the influx of citizenry
of Canada into the United States. Our destiny
must be with our western neighbours, not as an
isolated unit assuming a false sense of independence that never was ours, but as a
component
of an economic interdependent union of the great
western bloc of nations called North America.
Somebody talked of sentiment. If I were asked to
interpret Newfoundland, I would assert without
fear of contradiction that for both realistic and
sentimental reasons, our future lies with Canada.
Our racial strains are the same as hers; our pride
in the old order of British institutions is the same;
our traditions, the age-old tradition of freedom
for which our sons and hers have fought and died,
will not change or be changed under union, and
I, for one, would not wish them to. For I want the
memories of the upsurge of British nationhood,
of the growth through pain and peril of our Commonwealth, to remain as real and as
strong as they
are today.
Canada, occupying the third largest national
space in the world, exceeded only by Russia and
China, with a population of only 12 million, still
has a long way to go. Does the future look black
for Canada? I do not think so. Only today, I read
in a very reliable journal mat United States
citizens have more than $5 billion invested in the
Dominion. Does that infer her future is dark?
Canada is a creditor nation. Since the end of the
war she has loaned England $1,250,000,000 and
a further $750 million for export credits to Europe
and Asia.
The terms of union are attractive — old age
pensions and family allowances offer much to
our people. I very earnestly recommend them to
my constituents and to the country generally, for,
Mr. Chairman, I am fully convinced that in concert with the nine other provinces,
and with the
friendliness of our big southern confederacy the
United States, our people will advance into a
brighter era, and in the world of tomorrow will
find a still more honourable and effective role to
play.
Mr. Chairman, by way of concluding, and I
shall be very brief, I would like to pay my respects
1430 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
to the Chair. Your task, sir, has been a very
onerous one, but the wise judgement, cool
decisions and great consideration which you
have shown have added still more lustre to your
already well-known abilities, and a greater admiration for one of Newfoundland's greatest
sons. To your immediate predecessor, my learned
associate from Bonavista Centre, I would say that
when and if the records of this Convention are
written, history will accord no mean place to the
name of F. Gordon Bradley, K.C. I would also,
pay tribute to the memory of that great and good
man, the late Mr. Justice Fox; to me (and I knew
him but a short time), his demise represented a
personal tragedy, and I shall treasure memories
of that kindly gentleman long after Conventions
are forgotten. To members generally, I express a
deep sense of gratitude. As far as I am concerned,
this Convention has been a great lesson in political democracy at work, even though
it may have
been a very expensive one. Here the managing
directors of the big vested interests were called
by their first names by the ex-schoolteacher, the
outport merchant. Here the ex-policeman from
the west coast talked over his people's problems
with the co-op worker from White Bay. Forty;
five men with divergent views did much toward
enlightening public opinion and awakening a
sense of political responsibility among our
people. If I may be permitted to be personal on a
final note, and I trust it is not in bad taste, I would
express my sincere thanks to my good friend, Mr.
Hickman, He probably more than any other has
gone out of his way at times to extend those little
courtesies that mean so much. Also to Mr. Crosbie, the Hon. R.B. Job, Mr. Smallwood
and to my
great friend, Arch Northcott, and to members
generally; and I make my final bow by saying,
"Thank you, gentlemen."
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, I hesitated when this
subject was being discussed in committee of the
whole to engage in the debate. I felt it was being
buffeted around the house, and that the discussion on it was being rendered in extremes
on both
sides. And so I mostly sat it out. However, in view
of the bigness of the question, and in view of the
fact that I, on both occasions, voted in favour of
the motion to send a delegation to Ottawa to
request the terms of union, I feel I should make
some comment at this time.
If I were asked why I supported getting the
terms of union, I would say, yes, I would honestly
swear that my first and perhaps only reason was
a psychological one. We were called together to
consider forms of government. The question of
confederation had been up before. True, it has
failed, but on its merits or demerits as the case
may be. But it had become an object of continuous curiosity and many unfounded arguments
had, down through the years, been
advanced in its favour. This old flame had been
rapidly fanned in the interim between the announcement of the holding of this Convention
and its opening date, September 11, 1946. A
glowing picture of union with Canada was laid
before the people. It was not to be wondered at
then, that since we were dealing with such questions, that curiosity was further aroused
and
being aroused, had to be satisfied. It is not my
intention now to comment on the methods
adopted by the pro-confederates as to their fairness or otherwise, and I say but one
thing, that
they are, to my mind, not based on sound national
principles and consequently could not be considered as bait. A further remark is that
its
progress through this assembly has provided the
means of passing on the bait.
And so I voted for the motion to send a delegation to Ottawa. That decision was against
my
feeling, for in the autonomous sovereign integrity
of our country I had a strong belief. But my
feelings, I felt, should be set aside for the moment, and should yield to a proven
case: a case in
which all the evidence should be submitted and
considered. And there a great shadow came over
our subject, our inability to negotiate. I do not
pass reflections on those who gave us this job to
do, and who set the limits wherein we work. No
part of this is unwittingly planned, and it is well
that it is so.
I voted to get the terms. That covered that.
There was at one time a possibility of our having
to consider what is still only a word, a condominion. The idea of investigating government
of the North of Ireland status was hinted at, as
was also a present-day application of representative government. All these, I believe,
were
possible forms of future government and one
would act in a restrictive manner not to favour
their being looked into. But having investigated
these forms of government, it does not necessarily follow that one would recommend
any or all
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1431
of them for submission to the people in the referendum. For these forms would unquestionably
apply with greater or lesser merit under different
circumstances. To state my position clearly, I
would not recommend a form of government for
which I would not vote in a referendum. I would,
Ifeel, be very lax in my duty and indeed, it would
be plain deceit to do other than that. Sixteen
months ago I might have said I think the people
of Newfoundland are desirous of voting on certain forms of government. Today I can
only say
the same, nor am I under duty to find out. But I
am under duty to recommend what in my opinion
should be put before the people. Obviously, to
determine the wishes of the people was a purely
mechanical matter; but to secure a recommendation necessitated study, hence the Convention
and its undertaking, and surely now, after all its
cost to the country, our recommendation will
have foundation on the facts as we saw them. Mr.
Chairman, are we shirking the first call of duty?
Are we seeing enacted before our very eyes the
first scene in the further degradation of our
country? Must our way be still harder? Given the
task to do, will history record us as having discharged that duty faithfully, or will
it relate a
gruesome story of putrefaction and prostitution
of a great obligation? Sometimes I fear it has
happened.
This country of ours has fought a hard fight
down through the years, and progress and
development were greatly retarded by outside
forces. Despite all this, the great courage of its
people and their determination to establish here
a country fashioned to their own liking, made the
task, though a difficult one, a desire of the heart.
Here in the quiet though frugal comfort of their
homes, they planned their undertakings — undertakings that would undoubtedly bring
them great
dangers. But danger to them created a more
colourful existence. In this and many similar
ways, a way of life was born. Meanwhile, what
of our leaders? We hear, from those who would
tear down the whole structure of our national life
and culture, repeated attempts made to blacken
our Newfoundland leaders of the past. The dark
spots of our history are always held to the front,
for fear can be instilled in our hearts by such a
policy. Mr. Chairman, we had great men as
judged in the age in which they lived. These men
laid the foundation of the trade and commerce of
the country which is still sound in many ways,
though greatly distorted in others. I am not prone
to dwell for long in history's pages. What of our
trade and commerce? What of our leaders in this
field? Notice, I make no mention of the producer,
the fisherman, farmer, logger, miner. I want to
deal, if possible, with those influences of government which may help or harm the
producer. I am
fully aware and quite willing to believe that our
producers will do their part, and thus I dispose of
that part of the subject. Time does not permit me
to deal with more than one of our primary industries, and I shall refer only to the
fishing
industry which is and will continue to be the chief
industry of that section of Newfoundland from
where I come.
The fishing industry emerged from the war
period without any great shock. It could ill afford
a shock — let that be fully appreciated. The war
period, no one need be reminded, was abnormal
in its demands both in quantity and price, and a
serious falling off could have easily been the
order of the day. This did not happen, and it was
no accident that it did not — neither was it just
good luck. It was, let there be no mistake about
it, due to the vision, the constructive policy of our
leaders in that field. True, we had an exchange
problem, but even in this matter local suggestions
capable of solving the problems of the day were
readily forthcoming. We have gone a long way
in the development of our fishing industry and in
our marketing methods, and the future gives even
further encouragement, for our next move
promises to be the solving in part at least of that
exchange of currency problem. If that can be once
taken care of, then the Newfoundland producer
will have considerably less to worry about. This
is our problem. We have to have it solved in
particular reference to this country; we should
trust it to no other country to do it for us.
And now I feel I should dwell for a few
moments on the effect of union with Canada on
this industry. The first and perhaps the all-condemning feature is that the control
of all trade and
commerce would rest in the hands of the federal
government, as it is today in Canada. Newfoundland is small in comparison with Canada;
we are always reminded of that, but what we are
not asked to be mindful of is that in the competitive market which exists, we are
taking care of
ourselves well. Union with Canada, as I see it,
1432 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
would seriously affect this. Those who would
alarm us on our local matters endeavour to console us on this question, and the ordinary
word of
caution they try to kill in an avalanche of words.
They would be as helpless as you orl in the face
of events that would follow union. Poor hope for
our people, if they have to trust themselves
forever to the charity and goodwill of a foreign
master. We are the masters here; division of our
people cannot be weighed in terms of supposedly
improved services. We can and we rapidly are
improving these services. The extent to which
they shall progress will bear relation to capacity
to pay.
I might be expected to comment on the manner in which we were told that in respect
to local
government we could please ourselves. That is
largely true, but the truth was not fully presented.
Local or municipal government in Canada is
obliged to render greater and more costly services
to the communities where they exist than they are
in Newfoundland. For instance, half the cost of
public relief, half the cost of education is thrown
by the provincial government into the hands of
local governments or councils as we know them.
I do not grumble about the possibility of having
to do this; what concerns me is the ability or
inability of a council to take care of these added
obligations. I can see in such a possibility the loss
of the ground we have already gained, and a great
and lasting injury done our people. But even
these matters are secondary and could be
sacrificed to great national principles if such
could be served. Judged in this light, this union
with Canada falls short again. For this is not a
division; it is not a partition, it is absorption, it is
the swallowing of a little country that was once
called Newfoundland, and many of the
privileges, many of the advantages which we
now enjoy may cause indigestion to the Canadian
appetite.
The coming referendum and the few remaining months prior thereto will be a most important
time and event in the history of our country.
There and then we shall go on record as a people,
and the eyes of the world shall judge us accordingly for long years to come, for this
is an irrevocable decision, even as they today still judge
Esau of old, who said to his brother, "Give me of
thy red pottage for I am exceeding faint"; and
Jacob the brother replied, "Sell me thy
birthright." And Esau answering said, "Lo, if I
die what will my birthright avail me?" Thus he
would lose forever the birthright for which he had
so little account, and all for a mess of pottage.
Mr. Figary Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
motion which is now before the Chair. In listening to addresses of members of this
Convention
at this time and at other times, I have come to this
conclusion: that there have been too many long-
winded addresses which have been corrupting
and confusing the minds of the people.
We are here, Mr. Chairman, with this in mind:
after considering the changes that have taken
place in this country since 1934, to recommend
to His Majesty's Government in Great Britain
suitable forms of government to be placed before
the people in a national referendum, who will
decide as to the future set-up, and I will not try to
block any form of government going on the ballot
paper, and I do not think it advisable for any other
member to try and do so. We have thousands and
thousands of people who favour confederation
with Canada, and I do not think it right and
reasonable for us, as members of this Convention, to try and deprive them of that
privilege. In
speaking of the terms offered by the Canadian
government, some I cannot accept but to a large
extent, to my mind, they are quite favourable.
The people of this country are looking for something better than what they have been
getting, and
let us all hope that when the ballot is taken, a
decision will be made in the right direction.
Now, I am not at all sure that this country is
so wonderfully prosperous today as we have been
asked to believe. I will admit some people are
prosperous, but there are thousands of fishermen
and labourers who are still looking for this
prosperity that they hear so much about. There
are thousands of our people who are struggling
day by day and week by week with the terrible
high cost of living, a cost of living that seems to
climb higher and higher month by month. It takes
pretty high wages today for a working man to
support a family. And what about the thousands
who don't get high wages in Newfoundland? I
have noticed for a long time that the cost of living
has an ugly habit of rising much faster than wages
ever do. The fishermen and workers get hit every
time. This Convention must not run away with
the idea that all our people in this country are so
wonderfully prosperous. I can tell you plainly
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1433
that there are people who are half-fed, half-
clothed, and a lot unemployed. And unemployment is going to increase in the near future.
This
being so, let us extend some of this prosperity to
these people.
Mr. Chairman, I am not greatly interested in
all the long tables of figures that have been
presented to this Convention, nor do I think the
people are interested in them. I am much more
interested in the broad outline of the situation,
and I am not too sure that everything is bright for
the future in this country. There are too many
signs of something altogether different, our
people have long memories. There are thousands
in this country who can remember back before
the first world war. They remember how the price
of fish and everything else went up when that war
broke out. They remember very well the
prosperity that came to Newfoundland in the first
world war. Yes, and they remember the depression and hard times and dole and poverty
that
came after the war. They remember that with very
few exceptions that depression lasted all the time
from the end of that war almost to the start of this
war. And they remember also that when this war
came, prices began to jump just as they did in the
first world war. Now, Mr. Chairman, this second
world war is over — or at least the actual fighting
is over — and can you blame people for wondering what is going to happen in the near
future?
I am a plain working man, a trade unionist.
And I do know something about our Newfoundland workers, and how they live and bring
up their families. I know something of their struggles to live, I know something of
their struggles
to make both ends meet, and I know something
of the hard years before the war, and the suffering
our people endured. So Mr. Chairman, I must tell
you frankly that I am a bit hard to convince when
I am told that everything is all right and our future
assured. My mind is not a bit romantic, and the
hard facts of our people's struggle to live make a
deeper impression on my mind than all the talk
in the world about the glorious traditions and all
sorts of things. I am not going to be carried away
by any comforting assurances about our future,
for when I remember the past I am still the more
determined to keep my feet planted firmly on the
ground.
We have heard a lot said in this Convention of
the conditions existing in Canada. But, Mr.
Chairman, it can't be so bad after all, as thousands
of our people have gone there, obtained good
positions and have made wonderful progress. I
know lots of them, have been in their homes in
cities such as Toronto and Montreal and other
cities, and their positions are very encouraging. I
will admit that there are people in Canada similar
to those in Newfoundland to whom I have
referred, but that exists in every country. Therefore, I say to the people of this
country, don't be
swayed by every wind and doctrine. Vote as your
mind leads you, which I will do when the time
comes.
Mr. Northcott Mr. Chairman, I want to say first
of all just why I cannot vote for confederation,
why I cannot suppon it. First, our fisheries are of
paramount importance to me. Our people, a great
many of them, live by the fisheries, and under the
act we have no gilt-edge security that the federal
government will take care of our fisheries. Our
Fisheries Board may not function as heretofore.
This is a thing the fishermen in Newfoundland
will want to bear in mind. Every fisherman will
want to know the facts, the real facts, and the truth
in connection with our fisheries and what will
happen to the Fisheries Board. Gentlemen, we
must export or perish. That is a very important
thing. That is one of the reasons why I cannot
support the motion now before the Chair.
I am also of opinion that there are people in
Newfoundland today who just cannot understand
the terms of taxation and how they are going to
be applied. You will remember that we have all
been confused and bewildered. One person will
tell you there is no taxation on a certain thing;
another person will tell you there is taxation. Our
people listening to the radio night after night are
really confused over that issue, and I do not want
to be a party to or in any way connected with
anything that may lead them astray. I do not want
the people to make a leap in the dark. This is a
serious issue, and our people will want a long
time to consider it before marking their vote. That
is another reason why I am not prepared to support the motion.
I am not altogether opposed to confederation.
I think it is a good thing. It is a new thing, and to
us it may be a different way of life and we want
to be careful of the path we trend and go slow
before we mark our "x".
In closing I may say that I, too, was hurt in
1434 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
connection with the words used by Mr.
Smallwood just recently about the wealthy
people. I am not one of these wealthy people. I
know we have some wealthy people in this
country, and they have done a good job and
invested their money in many ways, giving many
hundreds of people work, and I really feel hurt
about that. I would like to say to Mr. Smallwood,
"Let him that hath no sin cast the first stone." I
am sorry, but I cannot support the motion.
Mr. Fogwill Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in
speaking to this motion, this question of federal
union of Newfoundland with the Dominion of
Canada, to say the least, Mr. Smallwood's explanation of the Black Books and the Grey
Book
have, so far as I am concerned, been very unsatisfactory. These Black Books do give
a good
general outline of the Dominion federal services,
and also a description of Dominion federal services, and also a description of Dominion-
provincial relations, but for one to appreciate
properly these services and their application to
Newfoundland as a province, the explanations of
Mr. Smallwood have been worse than useless.
Take, for example, the tax structure of Canada,
what do we know about it now? What does the
country know about it? What does Mr.
Smallwood know about it?
Some time ago, sir, I quoted some figures in
respect to probable federal revenues which
would be collected from the people of
Newfoundland as a province. I had taken considerable time and trouble with this. I
arrived at a
figure, with the exception of the corporate and
income tax, of over $10 million in excess of the
Canadian estimate. Now this total was got by
actually applying the Canadian taxes to our imports for the year 1946-47, and also
by making a
reasonable estimate of taxes on local production.
This figure of $10 million is in my opinion conservative. Mr. Smallwood, in his summing
up of
the debate in committee, showed agreement with
one source of Canadian taxes, that is in the
general sales tax, and when doing so he very
conveniently used the Customs Blue Book for the
year 1945-46 which showed imports of $9 million less than 1946-47. He also estimated
taxable
local production at only $5 million, which is
absolutely absurd when it is realised that three
items only of local manufacture amount to over
$4 million in 1946-47. Now, sir, there has been
much criticism and abuse directed at
Newfoundland's method of collecting taxes, particularly the method of collecting taxes
on imports. Of course it is not an ideal way. It rests
heavily upon the wage earner, but until a better
method is devised, this system will remain. It is,
if I may say, inexpensive in operation considering the scattered nature of our population
when
compared with methods used elsewhere. Of
course, Mr. Chairman, the evils and iniquities of
this kind of tax has been used by Mr. Smallwood
in his argument for confederation; so much so,
that he apparently forgot all about the Canadian
taxes. He used the old argument time and again,
that of computing wholesalers' and retailers'
profits on cost of goods plus duty. Is it possible
that Mr. Smallwood is so innocent that he thinks
that under confederation the wage earner of Newfoundland will have any relief from
this? Let us
consider for a moment the Canadian system of
collecting taxes. The Canadian federal government imposes a series of taxes much worse
in
their application to the wage earner than we have
in Newfoundland; they impose excise duties, excise taxes, import taxes and the general
sales tax,
a multitude of taxes for which there seems to be
no rhyme or reason. All of these taxes are indirect, the import taxes are imposed
on goods at
the point of entry, excise duties, excise taxes and
the general sales tax are imposed at the point of
manufacture, and in their application to
Newfoundland these taxes will be, in their effect
on the wage earner, the same as our import taxes.
The importer, the wholesaler and the retailer will
make profits on all of these taxes. In this respect
the position under federal union will remain unchanged — in fact, in my opinion, it
will be
worse. On many items of taxable goods in
Canada there are two, three and sometimes four
separate federal taxes before the goods reach the
consumer.
Mr. Chairman, it is the double and sometimes
treble taxation which bears so heavily upon the
wage earner, these are the taxes which dig down
into the workingman's pocket. One or more of
these taxes, sir, will be applied, with very few
exceptions, to everything we use if this country
enters federal union with Canada. I have computed the Canadian import taxes on a per
capita
basis, taking the average from the five year
period ending in 1946. I have done the same in
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1435
respect to excise duties, excise taxes and the
general sales tax and I have got the following
result: import taxes, $11.61 per head of population; excise duties $1l.67; excise
and other taxes
$18.02; sales tax $22.98. These taxes as applied
to Newfoundland will result in a total taxation
under these headings of $22,427,000. This figure
is $2 million more than that which I had quoted
before, and I am inclined to accept this latter
figure, because I did not know when I examined
them before as much as I do now of the tax
structure of the federal government of Canada.
Now let us consider personal income taxes.
This is, I admit, a more difficult question. The
only way by which I could arrive at any
reasonable estimate in regard to income tax was
to apply the Canadian income groups to similar
income groups in this country. For the year 1945
the average Canadian income tax in the income
group earning less than $2,000 as applied to the
Newfoundland taxpayer will amount to
$386,138. The income groups earning between
$2,000 and $3,000 will pay $620,527; between
$3,000 and $5,000, $996,425; between $5,000
and $10,000, $1,561,014; between $10,000 and
$30,000, $2,003,625; over $30,000 the amount
will be $1,239,120. A total of $6,806,849. These
figures are based on the average tax collected in
each income group on the estimated totals for the
year 1945 and are taken from the Canadian
government official publication. Only 2.82% of
our population are estimated to be income taxpayers for the year 1945, and this number
will be
considerably increased, probably doubled under
the Canadian tax law. The exemptions will be
reduced from $1,000 to $750 for single persons
and from $2,000 to $1,500 for married taxpayers,
and this will result, in my opinion, in increasing
the total number of taxpayers in Newfoundland
to 18,000 persons. In concluding these remarks
in respect to taxes I want to point out that if we
took the total Canadian revenues from taxation
for the year 1946, which amounted to $176.18 per
head, and applied it to Newfoundland's population we get a figure of $56,377,600.
Now sir, I want to make a few remarks about
unemployment insurance. No doubt this insurance plan has a lot to commend it; but
sir, it
will not be of much use to Newfoundland. The
majority of Newfoundlanders are employed at
work not covered by the Unemployment In
surance Act, although the Black Books state that
lumbering, logging and stevedoring may be
brought under the provisions of the Act within the
next few months. Section 86 of the Act provides
for the extension of the Act and also allows for
the limiting of this extension to areas as
prescribed by the Unemployment Commission as
an insurance area; this does not mean that if the
Act is extended to embrace all or any of the
classifications of employment not now covered
that these classifications would be extended to
Newfoundland. No, for example, stevedoring in
the City of Halifax could be included and brought
under the provisions of the Act and the cities of
St. John's and Montreal could be left out. It
depends upon the regularity of employment in
any classification of work as to whether or not an
area would be prescribed as an insurance area. It
appears to me that if the Act were to be extended
to cover most of the present exceptions that it
would be of little value to us.
Now sir, what is the position of the Railway
workers in respect to the terms? I agree, Mr.
Chairman, that the Railway workers will be offered corresponding employment with the
CNR
with all privileges and continuity of service accorded to the employees of the CNR.
What does
this mean? It means this — as the employees of
both CNR and the Newfoundland Railway work
under the provisions of signed working agreements, the continuity of service of both
these
railways are governed by the rules set forth in
these agreements which are very similar in their
scope. If, Mr. Chairman, the CNR should take
over the Newfoundland Railway, then I say, if
any time after that date, even one day after, it was
decided to lay off any of the staff, the only thing
necessary would be to give the required notice as
set out in the working agreement covering the
various classifications of workers, and
employees would then be dispensed with in accordance with the length of time they
have been
employed Required notice is sometimes as low
as four days; others require up to a month. In any
case, under the terms there is no guarantee of
continuity of employment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few remarks
in respect to railway pensions. In the first place
these pensions are paid out of operating account,
and this year this sum is estimated at $200,000.
There is no provision in the terms in this regard,
1436 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
and according to a reply which I received in
answer to a question, I gather that as there is no
statute governing these pensions, and as railway
pensions are a charge on operating account, these
payments would not be a charge on Newfoundland as a province. In any case, Mr.
Smallwood has not made any provision for it in
his proposed budget. Under clause 17 of the terms
it is definite, in my opinion, that the CNR and/or
the Canadian government disclaim any responsibility for these payments. Therefore,
sir, I must
conclude that as from the date of union, those
who are now retired and receiving pensions
would be cut off; and all other employees, 3,000
of them, would lose all the years of service which
every one of them thought would be credited to
them upon reaching retirement age — 3,000
employees with about ten years average service
each, 30,000 years of pensionable service gone
up the creek. It may be argued that under any
form of government pensions might become too
expensive and therefore could be reduced or cut
out; in my opinion, under confederation they
would cease immediately; but under a form of
government national in character, I believe an
opportunity could be had of setting up a pension
plan which would be contributory. In fact some
steps have already been taken by the railway
unions in this respect, a plan to which the
employees could contribute and therefore have
some assurance of a retiring allowance or pension
when they become too old to work.
I have little more to say, Mr. Chairman. In the
field of agriculture, however, I think that our
farmers are well aware of the implications of
confederation and the effect that this form of
government will have on their livelihood; they
know much better than I do of the handicaps that
this form of government would impose upon
Newfoundland's farm economy, and they will no
doubt decide accordingly.
In conclusion, I want to repeat that in my
opinion if we federate, the Government of
Canada will collect no less than $35 million a
year in taxation from the Newfoundland people.
With this in mind, and considering all other factors involved, and realising what
little real
knowledge we have of this question, I cannot
support the motion. I shall vote against it.
Mr. Ballam Before I speak on the motion before
the Chair, I would like to refer to something Mr.
Higgins said in his address. Mr, Higgins told us
that the terms of confederation were a good basis;
he told us that the terms were very good, but
today, and only today, he found out he was incompetent to obtain such terms. Well,
it is too bad
Mr. Higgins did not find out his incompetency
before we went to Ottawa, so that we could have
had the opportunity of picking out a more competent man.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the people of Newfoundland are going to take note of the way
we
vote on this motion now before us; and I think
every one of us is on trial in the eyes of the people,
They are going to judge us by the way we cast
our votes on this resolution. There are those who
will cast their votes against the motion because
they do not like the form of government it mentions. There are those who will let
their own
personal wishes come first, ahead of the public
interest. Big men will show their bigness by
voting for the motion, even though the motion
recommends a form of government that they do
not like. They will vote to give the people their
chance to decide on this question. It is easy for a
member of this Convention to vote in favour of a
form of government he agrees with; but it takes
a big man to vote in favour of a form of government that he disagrees with. When the
vote is
taken on the motion we will see how many big
men we have here amongst us.
I admit that it is fairly easy to think up excuses
for voting against letting the people decide
whether they want confederation or not. I could
think up half a dozen excuses myself for not
letting the people decide, and other members can
also think up excuses. But excuses are one thing;
reason is something else. I cannot think of one
reason for voting against the motion, and I am
still listening to hear any member give one real
reason against the motion.
The motion itself is very plain and simple. It
simply asks us to recommend that confederation
be placed before the people for their decision,
simply that and nothing more. It does not ask
members to be in favour of confederation, but
only to place it before the people, Even the
strongest enemy of confederation can vote to let
the people decide on the question. If I were an
anticonfcderate I would stand up here and say
something like this: "I don't like confederation.
In the referendum I will vote against it. But I will
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1437
vote for the motion, for all the motion asks me to
do is to be in favour of letting the people decide."
If I were an anticonfederate, that is what I would
say, and the people would respect me for saying
it. Why, sir, even the anticonfederates amongst
our people are expecting all the members of the
Convention to vote in favour of this motion.
They'll be ashamed of their anticonfederate
leaders if they vote to deprive the people of their
chance to decide the matter. That is the first point
I wanted to make today, sir; that it is the duty of
every member of the Convention to vote for this
motion to submit the confederation question to
the people themselves
The second point I want to make is connected
with a remark made by Mr. Banfield when he
seconded the motion. Mr. Banfield said that the
people of the southwest coast are all in favour of
confederation. He said they are looking forward
to referendum day to cast their votes for confederation. Well, I have heard how strong
the
people are for confederation up on that great
coast, and what Mr. Banfield said was no surprise
to us. But Mr. Banfield must not run away with
the idea that it is only on the southwest coast that
there are confederates. I come from the west
coast, the best coast in this country today. And I
can tell you there are confederates on our coast
too. Out on the west coast we have many good
Newfoundlanders who are just waiting for the
chance to mark their "X's" for confederation with
Canada. And I can tell you this: our west coast
people are not going to be very pleased with any
members who cast their votes against letting the
people decide the question. We have a strong
sense of fair play out on the west coast, sir. We
believe in playing the game. We believe in giving
the other fellow a chance. Live and let live. I
won't go so far as to say that every man and
woman on the west coast is in favour of confederation, but I will say this: that even
those who
are against confederation are all in favour of
letting the question be settled by all the people in
the referendum.
To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I cannot
understand some men's line of thought. I know a
certain district here on the Avalon Peninsula that
is very strong for confederation. I do not know a
great deal about the Avalon Peninsula, or the
districts that make it up, but this one particular
district I am thinking of, I happen to know very
well; and I know they are very strong for confederation.
Mr. Ballam And yet what do we find? We find
the member for that very district standing up here
and fighting tooth and nail against confederation,
and fighting just as hard to keep confederation off
the ballot in the referendum. He knows how his
district feels. He knows all about the strong confederation sentiment in his district,
yet he seems
to be willing to go right against his own people.
I can't understand it. I won't condemn him, for it
is a matter for his own conscience, butI must say
it is more than I can understand. And I wonder
how many other cases there are like that in this
Convention?
Mr. Chairman, I can see a great many good
reasons why our country should become one of
the provinces of Canada. I have given some thought to the matter — I have tried
to sort out
my ideas on the subject. And let me say this first
of all: I would be strongly opposed to confederation if it meant that Canada was going
to annex
Newfoundland, if it meant that Canada was just
going to take us over, body and bones. I do not
want our country to be annexed or taken over by
any country. If confederation meant that the
Government of Canada would take us over and
run us, then I for one would be opposed to confederation. But confederation does not
mean that
at all. In fact, it means anything but that. Confederation is a partnership. It means
that Newfoundland would become a province in the
Canadian union. And even that does not state it
clearly, Mr. Chairman, for Canada is not just a
union of provinces. It is a federal union. I will
explain what I mean. It so happens that I was the
second man to become president of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour. I was for
years
president of an important union in Comer Brook,
and as such I played some part in forming the
Newfoundland Federation of Labour. My union
was only one of quite a number of unions in this
country at that time. When the suggestion came
up to form the federation, did it means that all
those unions would be joined together to form
one union? Is that what the Federation was, an
amalgamation of all the individual unions? Did
the Federation simply annex all those unions and
form them into one union? No, that is not what
happened at all. Every union kept its own rules
1438 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
and regulations. Every union went right on with
its own officers, running its own affairs. But
every union joined the Federation. The Federation was a federal union of unions. There
were
certain matters and certain affairs that were too
big for any one union to handle, and that is why
the Federation was formed. Each union that
linked up with the Federation held on to its own
local autonomy and ran its own local affairs, but
the Federation began to handle the things that
were too big for any one union to run, and the
Federation began to handle matters that were of
common interest and concern to the individual
unions
And that's just how it is with the Canadian
federal union. Each individual province goes
right on handling its own purely local affairs, and
the federal government takes over the management of the bigger things, such as the
railway and
veterans' affairs, and posts and telegraphs, and
marine works and so forth. Each province elects
its own government to run its own local affairs,
and besides that elects so many members to the
government of the whole federal union itself, that
is, the federal government. No sir, confederation
does not mean that Canada would take us over
and run us. We would elect our own government
every four or five years, and our own government
would run us. At any rate, they would run us in
certain things and the federal government would
run us in other things.
A Nova Scotian is no less a Nova Scotian
because he is also a Canadian. A Prince Edward
Islander is no less a Prince Edward Islander because he is a Canadian too. And a Newfoundlander
would be no less a Newfoundlander
because he was also a Canadian. We are all
Britishers, sir, but are we any the less Newfoundlanders because we are Britishers?
I am a
Newfoundlander, and proud of it; and if confederation meant that I would have to become
a
Canadian and at the same time cease to be a
Newfoundlander, then I for one would be opposed to confederation. We will always be
Newfoundlanders, and proud of it, even when we
become Canadians.
As I said here once before, that is one of the
big things I like about confederation, that it will
bring democracy back to us again. It will bring
back democratic government. It will give us a
voice in our own affairs again That is my first
big point in favour of confederation. But sir, the
biggest reason of all for confederation, as I see it,
is that it will link us up with a great British nation.
You would never guess it from some of the
foolish things said about her in this Convention,
but Canada happens to be the largest and richest
nation in the British Commonwealth, next to
Britain herself. I repeat that, Mr. Chairman:
Canada is the largest and richest nation in the
whole British Commonwealth, next to Britain
herself. And as Mr. Ashboume remarked here,
surely a system of government that works for
12.5 million people will work just as well for
12.75 million people.
It is only plain common sense to think that it
would benefit this small country to throw in her
lot with that great, wealthy British nation. We
should never forget in this country that at the very
time our country went broke, one of Canada's
provinces went broke too. When Newfoundland
went broke in the early 1930s, the Province of
Saskatchewan went broke. Where did we have to
turn? To the old mother country. And thank God
the mother country came to our rescue, because
at that time she was able to But we had to give
up our own government and come under the
Commission system. Where did Saskatchewan
turn? She turned to the federal government of
Canada. Where else would she turn but to the
government of the very union of which she was
a member? She turned to the government of all
Canada, and that government came to her rescue.
But did she lose her own government? Did the
Government of Canada take their government
from them and put others over them? No, Saskatchewan held on to her own government.
Democracy remained in Saskatchewan. Self-
government remained. That's the difference, sir,
when you are a province of Canada. You may run
on hard times as a province, but you cannot go
under. The government of the whole nation
stands by you. And if we become a province of
Canada with our own self-government, we will
have a strong friend at our back in case we ever
need one. That is something to think about, sir.
For we must not get any foolish ideas into our
heads that we will never need a friend.
Everybody does. We know the kind of world we
are living in. We know the uncertainties of this
world, and the uncertainties of trade and finance.
It is a big thing to know that you are lined up with
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1439
someone bigger and stronger than yourself.
Let us think on these things. Let us all in this
Convention be big about this thing. Let us put
aside pettiness and prejudice. Let us view it as
statesmen. It is a very big issue and it calls for
bigness of view. Instead of picking holes
everywhere, let us try to see this thing impartially.
Will confederation benefit the great majority of
our people? Will it bring down the cost of living
and raise the standard of our living? Will it give
us a fairer system of taxation? Will it give the
poorer man a better chance to live? Will it give
our children a fairer chance in life? Will it
strengthen our country?
Will it bring democracy and self-government
back to us? I believe the answer is "yes" to all
these questions, and it is with that belief that I
must support this motion to put confederation
before the people.
Mr. Roberts Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that
I will vote for the motion before the Chair. I feel
in duty bound to do so, in View of the fact that
many thousands of Newfoundlanders wish to
vote for confederation. I wish also to state I hold
no brief for the people of St. Barbe district, which
I represent, as to how they will vote. They will do
as they please. I have only one vote, and will do
as I please with it. But I would like to tell all
anticonfederates that if confederation does not go
on the ballot paper, the people of the northwest
coast will vote overwhelmingly for Commission
of Government. The mention of responsible
government stinks with them. After neglect by all
responsible governments, and despite all the sentimental poppycock that some of our
so—called
patriotic Newfoundlanders have been getting off
their chests here the past few days, and despite all
the taxations they have been hearing about, they
know what to expect from responsible government and they are willing to take a chance
on
confederation. You don't have to take my word
for it, let any man who wishes to find out take a
trip down that coast and talk about the glories of
responsible government; butI warn him to have
a plane standing by so as to make a quick
getaway, especially if he should tell them they
were disloyal or unpatriotic.
Mr. Chairman, a few days ago, a member of
the Convention said to me, "If we enter in union,
you will see scores of Canadian fishermen down
on your coast fishing your lobsters." I may say to
that member that the first lobster caught and
packed for export on the northwest coast was
done by Canadian fishermen who left the much
abused, tax-ridden Maritime Provinces; thinking
they were given a raw deal by their governments,
they settled on our coasts. But within five years,
after receiving a taste of our taxation and our low
standard of living and backward facilities, they
were glad enough to leave it, every one of them,
and go back where they came from, taking with
them scores of our northwest coast people, none
of whom ever came back, only on vacation to
visit their poor relatives and take more of them
away.
Dozens of my relatives and friends, after vainly trying to make a living, have gathered
together
a bit of money with the help of their relatives
abroad and travelled to Canada. Ask these people
if they wish to come back to the living conditions
they left, and they would surely think it quite a
joke. My own mother, widowed in the early years
of her marriage, left with three small children and
little means of support, struggled for three or four
years to keep her family together and maintain
them; she had to give it up, give away her
children, and on the advice of a relative in Canada
went there and made a comfortable living. So I
have a warm spot in my heart for the country
which befriended my mother, above all other
people on this earth.
We peeple on the west and northwest coasts
have been in close contact with Canadians, both
fishermen and financiers, for years and years, and
have not found them the big bad wolves that the
people in the interior and on the east coast seem
to think they are. Surely, so many of our people
would not stay in Canada if they were so tax-ridden as some people try to make us
believe they
are. As I said before, the people of the west coast
who have been in close contact with Canadians
all their lives, must certainly regard the ravings
that have been going on here about all thing
Canadian as pure and simple stuff and nonsense.
I wish to touch briefly on two very much
ridiculed subjects, namely family allowances and
old age pensions. I have in mind a family not far
from my home; a man with ten children and a sick
wife. You can imagine, or can you, the awful
struggle that man is having to make a living. I
wonder would he scoff at a family allowance of
$60 a month, would he worry about the dozens
1440 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
of taxes on a loaf of bread, if under confederation,
he would get his flour for $12 a barrel, when he
is paying $22 for it in Bonne Bay today? Would
he worry about the hundreds of taxes on a pair of
shoes, when under confederation he would be
able to buy three pairs in the place of the two pairs
he buys today? Boots and bread, sir, take a very
large slice out of his budget. His fish he can get
a scant half mile from his door, and his vegetables
can be grown around his home. If he does pay
property taxes, which he knows he is likely to
pay, they will be small on his acre of land and his
small unfinished, unfurnished home. He is
paying plenty now, far more than his pocket can
stand. He is not worrying either about the man
who can afford to drive a motor car, own a fine
house, he figures the man can well afford under
confederation to pay his taxes and help pay some
for him as well.
Old age pensions. I have in mind an old couple
nearly 80 years of age each, living alone, getting
very little help from relatives, trying to live on
their old age pension. That man still has to go in
the fishing boat to try and earn a few dollars to
augment his pension. What a help it would be to
receive $60 a month instead of the $10 they
receive today. His property would not exceed
$1,500, and even if it did exceed $2,000 and
under Canadian rule the government did take it,
would not they be entitled to it after his family
had forsaken them and let the government look
after them? I think they would have a perfect right
to it, and I feel sure the old couple would think so
too. The old age pensioners of Newfoundland
need not worry about the government taking their
property. Very few of them whom I have seen in
the outports have property over $2,000, and if
they have, they would not receive old age pensions. I have made out quite a number
of applications the past 20 years. I have a good idea of their
property value. I am not going to touch on other
taxations, this has been ably and thoroughly gone
into by other speakers.
There will, no doubt, be many changes and
adjustments in the event of union, especially in
the business world. But my thought about all that
is, if our business men cannot adjust themselves
to competition, they are not the men I take them
to be. The proper thing to happen to them is to
fold up. But don't worry, Water Street of St.
John's, and all the little Water Streets of the
outports, will be carrying on under confederation
when I am drawing my old age pension.
And please don't let some people make you
believe the only reason Canada wants Newfoundland is to make a fortune out of us,
and for
the inhumane purpose of starving to death our
300,000 people. That has not been the history of
the democratic government of Canada. In my
opinion Newfoundland has nothing to lose and
very much to gain by closer contact with our
neighbour, Canada, which fact will strengthen
our bargaining power which members like to talk
so much about. In union is strength..So let's hope
Newfoundlanders will remember that at the
referendum. I will, by voting for confederation.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, I have had
many of my statements taken and twisted; I have
been frequently attacked, my motives questioned
and my whole attitude subjected to such misrepresentation and innuendo; and I have
been
called so many names — from Quisling to Judas
Iscariot, from traitor to fool — that I suppose I
would be justified if I were to take offence and
become quite angry; but Lord bless you, sir, I do
not. Instead, I take refuge in the words of the
Psalmist:
[1]
And I am become a reproach to them;
they saw me and they shaked their heads.
Help me, O Lord,
save me according to Thy mercy:
And let them know that this is Thy hand;
and that Thou, O Lord, hast done it.
They will curse and Thou wilt bless;
let them that rise up against me be
confounded, but Thy servant shall rejoice.
Let them that detract me be clothed
with shame;
let them be covered with their
confusion as with double cloaks.
I will give great thanks to the Lord with my
mouth;
and in the midst of many I will praise Him.
Because he hath stood at the right hand of the
poor, to save my soul from persecutors.
I was greatly interested to see what Major
Cashin's reaction would be to my exposure of the
shameful and scandalous profits cleaned up in
this country by a handful of companies and concerns out of a handful of our people.
To tell you
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1441
the truth, sir, I was expecting Major Cashin to
come out and agree with me. He knows it was the
stone sober truth. He knows that our people have
been plundered and looted. I was glad to see that
Mr. Cranford agreed with me. He hates those
monopolists. But Major Cashin actually
defended those looters, he had kind words for
them. He stated strongly that it was communistic
to talk the way I did. It was not communistic to
expose the profits made out of a handful of
people. If anything is communistic or fascistic, it
is the conduct of those who looted our people
during the war.
Major Cashin said I used hard words. Perhaps
I did. But what really matters is this: did I use true
words? Were those profits made, or were they
not? Was the Tax Assessor lying to us when he
told us officially of that $15.5 million cleaned up
in clear profits in just one short year? Are our
people being plundered and looted, or are they
not? That is the thing that matters. If they are, then
no language is too hard to use to expose the fact.
Sir, when you run up against a brutal fact like that
it is no time for soft words, for pussy-footing, but
for plain speaking. It was not I, Mr. Chairman,
who said this, "There are too many middlemen
and commission agents in Newfoundland who
are really only parasites on the community." I did
not say that, sir. It was our late Governor, Sir
Humphrey Walwyn, in his farewell address to
Newfoundland. It was not I who said, "If I had
my way I'd burn every local factory to the
ground." I did not say that, sir. It was Mr. Cashin
who said it, in this chamber. If my words were
hard, sir, what would you call the words of
Governor Walwyn and Mr. Cashin?
Major Cashin told us about the large profits —
hundreds of millions, I think he said — made by
29 corporations in Canada. Yes, I do not doubt
that. But can he not see any difference in corporations making large profits out of
12 million
people, and making them out of our tiny handful
of people in this country? As I said before, there
may be room in Newfoundland for one millionaire — there may be — but there certainly
is
not enough room for 21 millionaires. John D.
Rockerfeller made billions of profits, and so did
Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie, but those millionaires made their millions out of
all the people
of the world, not from a tiny handful of struggling
people here in this little island. Men have become
millionaires in Great Britain, France, and Canada
and other lands, but it is a horse of a different
colour when our tiny population is squeezed and
looted to make millionaires.
Major Cashin says if we go into confederation,
within three years our surplus will all be gone.
No, it will not. It will not be gone within twice
three years. But let me ask this question: if we do
not go into confederation, how long will the
surplus last? And especially, how long will it last
if we should get the kind of government that the
majority in this Convention want to get?
I was greatly amused by Major Cashin's
repetition of his former exaggerated, extravagant
and totally erroneous statement that under confederation we would pay $80 million
in taxes. He
does not say how we would pay that amount. He
won't condescend to tell us. He just makes this
outrageous statement and apparently expects the
faithful followers of his form of government to
take it down, hook, line and sinker. The Canadian
government itself says they will collect $20 million from us, and tells us in detail
how they will
do it. Major Cashin doesn't double it and make it
$40 million. He does not treble it and make it $60
million. No, he quadruples it and makes it $80
million — exactly four times as much as the
financial experts of the Canadian government
estimate. It would not be so bad if only he gave
us one single word of proof, just one little word.
Is he quite sure it would not be $79 million or $81
million? It wouldn't be $81.5 or $80.75 million
now, would it? Or perhaps Major Cashin is $4
million out, as he was in one of his budgets that
he brought in here when he was Finance Minister.
Now I remind you that the first time he spoke on
the question, he quarrelled seriously and violently with the Canadian government's
estimate of
$20 million a year. He said it was 20% out, that
estimate, and drove it up to $24 million. That was
the first time he spoke about it. The next time he
spoke about it, he raised the ante, he put it at $32
million. Then he spoke for the third time, and that
time he raised it again, to $75 million. Now, in
his latest speech, he has it up to $80 million. What
is he doing, playing auction with himself? He has
given us four different estimates — $24 million,
$32 million, $75 million and $80 million. I
daresay before the referendum rolls around he
will have it up to $100 million. What's he trying
to do, make the handful of souls in Newfoundland
1442 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
pay the whole cost of running the United Nations? I think we are just a little sick
and weary
of those fantastic guesses of Major Cashin. If he
would only make up his mind as to which figure
he means, we might be able to take him seriously.
By the way, Mr. Chairman, the anticonfederates
should really get together and do a little teamwork sometimes, because all they have
been
doing is destroying each other's arguments. For
instance, Mr. Hickman estimated that the provincial government would take $17 million
a year in
taxes.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Hollett estimated $19 million and Major Cashin $19.2 million. In federal
taxes, Major Cashin has given us all the estimates
I have just mentioned, and tonight Mr. Fogwill
gives us a brand new estimate of his own: $35
million.
Mr. Smallwood They should compare notes
sometimes, and when they do, they will probably
fall back on the Canadian govemment's official
estimate of $20 million.
Major Cashin tells us that under confederation
if the people want work they will have to get out
of the country to get it. What he forgot to tell us
is where the people will get work if we do not
have confederation. We have not got confederation now, but we have got 15,000-20,000
people
on the dole. We have many hundreds of veterans
of the late war out of work. Without confederation, where will these men get jobs?
Major
Cashin forgot to tell us. He tells us that with
confederation they have to go out of the country
to find jobs, but what our thousands of unemployed men would like to know is, where
they
are going to find jobs if we do not have confederation?
Major Cashin tells us that confederation
would be a threat to our educational system and
that we would have non-denominational schools
forced on us. Now, nothing said in this Convention since the first day it opened is
so untrue as
that one. There is not one single word of truth in
it, not a syllable, not even a letter of truth in it. It
is completely and utterly false, definitely and
finally false, wholly and undeniably false. I challenge any man in Newfoundland —
do you understand, sir? — any man in Newfoundland to
show that our school system, our denominational
school system, is in the slightest danger from
confederation. I challenge any man in this island
to show that all existing rights of all denominations are not absolutely safeguarded
and
protected under the terms of confederation. I say
here and now that no denomination, not one
denomination, has the slightest reason for uneasiness on this point. All existing
rights have been
fully guaranteed and protected, just exactly as
they stand today. Any denomination that wishes
to go right on with its own separate denominational schools, paid for out of public
funds, can
do so under confederation, exactly as it can
without confederation. Confederation will not
make a particle of difference in our school system, and it is false and unworthy and
mischievous
to say it will, or even hint that it will. If there is
in this island any denomination with separate
school rights at the present time that fears that its
rights would be put in danger, let that denomination speak out, or take the proper
steps, and it is
the simplest and easiest thing in the world to
copperfasten the matter. I know what I am talking
about. I know it in great detail, in intimate detail.
I know what I am talking about, sir, and there are
others that know too. I say here and now that if
any person of authority shows me that our
denominational school system is in any danger
whatsoever from confederation, I will drop all
further support of confederation. I will go further,
I will oppose confederation just as ardently as up
to now I have supported it. So now, if Major
Cashin wants me to oppose confederation, let
him get busy and produce his proof.
Well, at last we know the truth about the
matter of the government Savings Bank. It is
exactly as I said all along. Full control over the
Savings Bank will be held by our own government, exactly as it is today. The Government
of
Canada has no law governing provincial savings
banks, and it is left to the province itself, just as
I said it would be. For a great many years the
Province of Ontario has operated a savings bank,
just as we have operated a savings bank, and the
federal government has never interfered. Our
Savings Bank will go right on as it is today. The
provincial government will control it, and
nobody else. The interest rates paid to depositors
will be decided by our own government, just as
they are now. Any profits made will go to our
own government, just as they do now. But will
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1443
these hard facts stop this loose talk about our
Savings Bank? No, it will not. We will still hear
the talk, all right, fast and loose.
Mr. Hollett tells us that we are bound to have
a certain percentage of our people who will be up
against it, whatever form of government we may
have. There is a lot of truth in that, and it is that
very fact that makes me a confederate. I know
exactly how these people will fare under every
other kind of government, and I know how they
will be treated, how their families will be treated
under confederation. That is one of the things that
makes me a confederate.
Mr. Hollett tells us that the Canadian and
British governments are trying to get Newfoundland into confederation, and that in
this they
are being aided and abetted by the Commission
of Government. If Mr. Hollett can convince our
people of that — that the British government and
the Commission of Government would like Newfoundland to go into confederation — then
he
will do more than any other hundred men to
convince our people that confederation is the best
thing for us. I hope Mr. Hollett and Major Cashin
are right, I hope the British government and the
Commission of Government are both in favour of
confederation. Our Newfoundland people are
much more likely to be guided by the British
government and by the Commission of Government than they are by Major Cashin and Mr.
Hollett. If the British government and the Commission of Government are for confederation,
and Messrs. Cashin and Hollett are opposed to
confederation, then I'll be happy.
Mr. Hollett asks why these microphones were
put in this building. That is an easy one, Mr.
Chairman. The microphones were put here so that
what we say could be broadcast to the people.
What we say is broadcast so the people can hear
it. They are given to hear it so that they can get a
good idea of what they would he in for, if we got
the kind of government that a majority of the
members here want the country to have. Why,
that fact alone makes the broadcasting of our
proceedings worth at least a million dollars to our
people.
Mr. Vardy tells us that the large number of
Newfoundland people who want to vote on the
question of confederation in the referendum must
be protected against themselves. They must be
protected against themselves, Mr. Vardy says.
But isn't that what Mr. Alderdice did, when he
refused to let the people decide on the question
of Commission of Government, although he had
promised them that he would let them decide the
question? He protected the people against themselves, and now Mr. Vardy wants to protect
the
Newfoundland people against themselves. Mr.
Chairman, never in my life in this country have I
heard the pure doctrine of Fascism and Nazism
so neatly put as in that statement by Mr. Vardy.
It is the very essence of dictatorship that a handful
of men set out to protect the people against themselves. Or is it the new democracy
we have had
preached at us in this Convention? This is the
strangest doctrine I ever heard — that Mr. Vardy
wants to protect the people against themselves.
Then Mr. Vardy says, "The people did not
authorise us to deal with this confederation matter." This, from a member who on two
occasions
voted here in the Convention to send the delegation to Ottawa to get the terms of
confederation!
When Mr. Vardy voted twice to send for the fair
and equitable basis of union, or the terms, what
was in his mind? Did he mean the terms to be
gotten and then thrown into the wastepaper basket? Or did he mean them to be dealt
with by us?
The people, sir, did authorise us to deal with this
confederation matter, for they authorised us as a
Convention to deal with all forms of government
that might be suitable to the people. To deal with
them — not to decide them, but to let the people
decide. But Mr. Vardy says to the people of
Trinity North, "No, good people, I won't let you
deal with this confederation matter. I will not let
you vote on it. I am trying to protect you against
yourselves." And sir, the people of Trinity North
will remember those words at the right time.
Mr. Smallwood I turn now to Mr. Higgins. Mr.
Higgins touched on the question of divorce. This
is an important matter and I am not going to waste
time discussing any details. The position is very
simple. We have no divorce law in Newfoundland, and I hope we never shall. If we go
into confederation we will take no divorce law in
with us, for we have no divorce law. What about
after we get in? Will we pass a divorce law then?
No, we will not. Will Canada pass a law for
Newfoundland, to grant divorce in Newfoundland? No, sir, Canada will not. The Government
of Canada and the Parliament of Canada
1444 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
will not. They will pass no divorce law for Newfoundland, and they will set up no
divorce court
in Newfoundland, unless — and here I ask you
to pay special attention — unless we ask them to
do it. And that, sir, we are not very likely to do, I
am sure you will agree. The Parliament of
Canada has power to set up a divorce court in
Newfoundland if we go into confederation. Yes,
that is a fact, they have the right and the power.
But they will not use that right unless we ask them
to do so. Never in all Canada's history has the
Parliament of Canada used its power to set up a
divorce court in a province unless and until that
province asked for it. Ontario asked for it, and
Prince Edward Island asked for it, and the Parliament of Canada did as they asked.
If Newfoundland should ever ask to have a divorce court
set up, then the Parliament of Canada would do
it, but not otherwise. Mr. Higgins, sir, is absolutely well aware of that fact, no
one is better aware.
It was Mr. Higgins himself, amongst others, who
personally had some very special interviews on
that very question in Ottawa. He was not the only
one who had interviews, for Mr. Bradley also
interviewed the very high personage whom Mr.
Higgins interviewed — and I am not now referring to anybody connected with the Government
or Parliament of Canada, but someone much
higher in a matter like this. There were various
interviews, sir, and what did they all boil down
to? They boiled down to this: that the Government of Canada would be willing to put
it in the
very terms of union that never, for all time, would
the Parliament, or could the Parliament of
Canada, pass any law for divorce in Newfoundland or set up any divorce court in Newfoundland,
unless and until we ask for it
ourselves, unless we ask them to do it. Let me
make this very clear... To make the matter absolutely sure, and sure for all time,
the Government of Canada would be willing to put into the
terms a special clause stripping from the Parliament of Canada any future right or
power forever
to do such a thing, unless and until we, as a
country, should ask them to do it — and that is
the thing that is extremely unlikely, that we
would ask them. I say that the Government of
Canada would include such a clause in the terms
and that clause would become part of the British
North America Act, if they were asked to place
it there... There is only one condition. That con
dition is this, that the heads of our Newfoundland
churches, our Newfoundland denominations, ask
to have it done and it will be done. That is all that
is needed, sir, for the heads of the churches to
signify their wish that such a clause be put in the
terms. I am very sorry that this matter has been
raised at all in this public fashion -it was not my
doing. The matter had not been overlooked or
neglected or ignored. Far from it. Steps have been
taken to inform those most directly concerned
with the facts as they stand. This was done even
before we left Ottawa at all. And when I say steps,
I mean eminently proper and dignified steps.
Mr. Higgins says that our Catholic fellow-
citizens would not favour confederation unless
some such clause was put in the terms, and in the
BNA Act itself, making sure that divorce and
divorce courts will not come to Newfoundland. I
partly agree with him, and I add this further piece
of information; that our Catholic citizens are not
alone in that feeling. Others feel the same way
about it, and have been informed fully of the
situation. But I want it to be understood perfectly,
that it only needs for the right people to say the
word and that very clause will go into the terms.
Why sir, the Prime Minister of Canada himself
gave us a very broad hint in his letter to His
Excellency. He said that in matters such as education — such as education -they would
want to
satisfy us. Sir, a clause was actually drafted and
a copy of it was here in St. John's — is here in
St. John's at this moment. It is wrong to drag this
matter into this debate. Our people need not
worry about this question of divorce. It is in good
hands, far better, far abler, far more conscientious
hands than either those of Mr. Higgins or me.
Another point on Mr. Higgins, he wanted to
know why so many Canadians were leaving
Canada for the USA. The answer is simple. They
are returning now at the rate of 11,000 a year;
they cannot stand the high taxes in the United
States. In addition to that 12,000 Americans settled in Canada in 1947.
There is only one point in Mr. Butt's speech
to which I would refer. He said, "Let somebody
better than we are decide this question." Exactly.
The people of Newfoundland are better than we
are. Let them decide.
Somebody referred to the Quebec provincial
flag. Why sir, old loyal Nova Scotia has had her
own provincial flag for over 200 years and they
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1445
still fly the Union Jack. We have our own flag,
the pink, white and green, in Newfoundland, and
should we become a province that flag will still
fly in Newfoundland as well as the Union Jack.
It has for over 100 years.
Mr. Hickman solemnly assures us that he is
not an anticonfederate. Well, he certainly did not
go very far out of his way to praise confederation
very much. He says the governments of two
provinces have not yet accepted the tax agreement. That is true. But the governments
of seven
provinces have accepted. Mr. Hickman tells us
that in 1946 one-third of Canada's revenue was
raised from indirect taxes. That may be true. I will
not vouch for one-third. In Newfoundland far
over half the revenue was raised by indirect taxes.
Quite a difference.
There are only two points in Mr. Crosbie's
speech to which I will refer. He says there is a
serious danger of our losing our fish markets in
Europe; he quotes Mr. Gushue as having said so.
But did Mr. Gushue say it was confederation that
made this danger? No! The danger is here now,
with no confederation. It is confederation that
will help. Mr. Crosbie said that under confederation, Canada will control our trade.
There is not
in all this country even one fish exporter who will
not be able to go right on selling to the same
markets just as long as he likes to do it. The
Canadian government does not tell each exporter
to what country or to what customer he may sell
or export his fish or ore or paper or anything else.
Canada has not become the third largest exporting nation in the world by anything
so stupid or
silly as telling exporters where they may export.
The other point is about the Fisheries Board, he
is afraid it will have to go. But it won't have to
go. It will stay and still serve our fishing industry,
except that it will receive the extremely valuable
assistance of the whole magnificent trade and
commerce organization of the Government of
Canada.
Mr. Miller made an interesting point, he said
he would not vote to recommend a form of
government to go on the ballot that he would not
vote for in the referendum itself. But that is what
he did two or three days ago; he voted for Commission of Government, but he was not
prepared
to vote for it himself.
I will not try to follow Mr. Fogwill's bewildering flights of pure fancy, but he told
us of the
frightful taxes in Canada. According to him, they
are away higher than here in Newfoundland.
What I cannot understand is how the poor tax-ridden Canadians manage to exist at all
— why, in
fact, they do not all flock down to Newfoundland
to escape taxation.
There has been a lot of wonderful talk in this
debate about the question of how the provincial
government of Newfoundland would finance itself under confederation, how it would
balance
its budget. Some members have magnified this,
blown it up into gigantic proportions. They
profess to regard it as a terrible and an insoluble
problem, something they cannot see or understand. Let me give them a short simple
lesson.
The federal government will take $20 million
from us in taxes each year. The provincial
government will take another $5-6 million from
us in taxes — call it $6 million. That is a total of
$26 million altogether to be taken from us both
governments — $26 million a year. What are we
paying now? We are paying $40 million to our
one government. $26 million taken from $40
million is $14 million — $14 million less taxes
than we are paying now. Under confederation we
would save $14 million a year in taxes. "But",
says someone, "what about the growth of our
provincial government services? Aren't you
going to make allowances for increase and improvement of our provincial government
services
to the people?" "Haven't we got to expect increased education and health services
to our
people?", I am asked. Of course we have. There
is no doubt about it. And why shouldn't we? We
will save $14 million a year in taxes under confederation. Is there anything to stop
us from
taking a million, or even two million of that $14
million? Confederation will save $14 million a
year in taxes for our people. It will put $ 14 million
a year into their pockets, our peoples' pockets.
All right, if we want to improve our provincial
public services, let us take back a million or two
of that $14 million and spend it on better education and health services for our people.
We could
do that, sir, and our people would not only have
those better services, costing say another $2 million a year, but would still be $12
million a year
better off in their pockets — and that's a million
a month.
And then someone complains because I have
not turned myself into the future provincial
1446 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
government of Newfoundland and decided exactly what taxes will be placed on our people
to
raise those few million dollars in provincial
taxes. They demand that I shall here and now turn
myself into the provincial treasurer or finance
minister and name the taxes that will give the
provincial government those few millions a year.
If I refuse to oblige them they raise a great chatter
about property taxes. Sir, are their imaginations
so poverty-stricken that they can think of nothing
but property taxes? Is their knowledge of taxation
so microscopic that they cannot look around in
this country and see how taxes can be raised by
the government without putting taxes on the bits
of property our people have? Let me remind you
that we are today collecting certain taxes that we
can and will go right on collecting under confederation. Gasoline tax, motorcar and
truck
taxes, drivers' licenses, liquor profits, timber and
mineral royalties, lumber royalties and a dozen
other items that will bring us in close to $5 million
a year. These are taxes that we have right now.
These taxes can be kept on, and if we have any
brains, any courage, any sense of fair play in us,
we will collect the rest of the taxes we need out
of the public domain of this country. And when
I say that, I am not thinking only of the huge areas
of holdings in this country that are tied up in the
hands of persons living outside the country, but
of actual operations going on right now. I am not
going to tip my hand in this matter just now —
the time will come for that — but when the right
moment comes, I think I will be able to show
some of our former finance ministers ways of
getting taxes without grinding the faces of the
poor. And that is a promise, if you want to take it
that way, a promise or a threat, however you want
to take it.
Sir, the conduct of the members on this motion
that will shortly be put to them for their vote will
be watched closely by our people. It will be
watched closely because by it our people will
judge the fitness of all of us to play any future
part in the public affairs of our country. We have
heard many passionate declarations of belief in
democracy. We have been told how very anxious
certain members are that democracy should be
restored to Newfoundland. We have been treated
to many fierce denunciations of dictatorship and
all its works. Well, we shall very soon see how
sincere were those declarations. We shall soon
see just how much they were meant. They have
told us how much they love the people; how
anxious they are that the people once again shall
have control over their own country; how determined they are that the people shall
rule, and not
dictators and outsiders. We shall soon see just
how sincere these declarations really were. They
have told us again and again that our people are
well fitted to govern their country, that our people
are educated and intelligent enough to make the
proper decisions in the referendum, and that our
people can be trusted to render the right verdict.
We shall very soon see how much they meant
those things. By their fruits ye shall know them;
not by what they say, but by what they do; how
they vote for this motion.
Now with regard to those here who are not
going to vote for this motion, it would be very
interesting to know why they will not vote for it.
After Mr. Bradley's speech they have lost completely all the reasons they used to
give for not
placing confederation on the ballot. No longer
can they say that the British government has
broken its promise to restore responsible government if the people request it. No
longer can they
say that Britain is not entitled to place on the
ballot paper forms of government other than
responsible government. No longer can they say
that this National Convention cannot recommend
other forms of government. No longer can they
say that an elected government could get better
terms. No longer can they say that we must have
responsible government first. What have they left
to say? What excuse can they think up now for
cheating the people out of their right to decide the
question of confederation in the referendum? Sir,
there is only one reason they can have. They are
afraid of confederation. They are afraid to put it
on the ballot to let the people vote on it. They are
afraid to let the people vote on it, for they fear
that the people will vote for it. If they are not
afraid, let them vote for this motion. I challenge
them, I dare them to vote for this motion. I dare
them to let the people decide on the question of
confederation. We confederates were not afraid
to let the people decide on responsible government and Commission of Government. We
voted
to place those two forms on the ballot paper. If
the anticonfederates are not afraid that the people
will vote for confederation, let them vote now,
tonight, to place confederation on the ballot in the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1447
referendum. Come on, let them throw all their
excuses out the window and vote for this motion.
Let them show us that they are not afraid to let
the people decide on confederation. I dare them
to do it!
Mr. Higgins I move that the motion be now put,
and in doing so I would like to make a brief
explanation on one point which Mr. Smallwood
brought up.
Mr. Chairman No, you can only speak once
and you have already spoken.
Mr. Higgins In that case, I move that the motion
be now put.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Secretary, please ring the
bells to make sure all members are in the chamber. The motion before the House is:
Be it resolved that the National Convention
desires to recommend to His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom that the
following form of government be placed
before the people of Newfoundland in the
forthcoming national referendum, namely:
Confederation with Canada upon the basis
submitted to the National Convention on
November 6, 1947, by the Prime Minister of
Canada.
All members in favour of the motion, please to
rise.
For: Messrs. Banfield, MacDonald,
Starkes, Spencer, Ballam,
Figary, Vincent, Smallwood,
Burry, McCarthy, Roberts,
Keough, Newell and
Ashbourne.
Recorded: Messrs.
Hillier and Bradley. (16)
Against: Messrs.
Goodridge, Watton, Hollett,
Kennedy, Hannon, Fudge,
Northcott, Penney, Reddy,
Jackman, Dawe, Crummey,
Miller, Ryan, Fowler,
Fogwill, Butt, MacCormack,
Bailey, Vardy, Cranford,
Harrington, Crosbie, Cashin,
Hickman, Higgins.
Recorded: Messrs.
Job, Jones and Brown. (29)
The Chairman announced that he would determine the personal preferences of members
pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure as
between confederation with Canada on the basis
of the proposals submitted to the Convention on
November 6th, 1947, by the Prime Minister of
Canada, and Commission of Government.
There appeared in favour of confederation on
the said basis: Messrs. Banfield, McDonald,
Starkes, Spencer, Ballam, Figary, Vincent,
Smallwood, Barry, Roberts, Ashbourne, Bradley
K.C. (recorded).
Thereupon the Chairman announced that he
would determine the personal preferences of
members as between confederation with Canada
on the said basis and responsible government as
it existed in Newfoundland prior to its suspension
in 1934.
There appeared in favour of confederation
with Canada on the said basis: Messrs. Banfield,
McDonald, Starkes, Spencer, Ballam, Figary,
Vincent, Smallwood, Burry, Roberts, Ashbourne, Bradley K.C. (recorded).
Thereupon the Chairman announced that he
would determine the personal preferences of
members as between responsible government
and both Commission of Government and confederation with Canada.
There appeared in favour of responsible
government: Messrs. Goodridge, Watton, Hollett, Kennedy, Harmon, Fudge, Northcott,
Penney, Reddy, Jackman, Dawe, Crummey, Miller,
Ryan, Fowler, Fogwill, Butt, McCormack,
Bailey, Vardy, Cranford, Harrington, Crosbie,
Cashin, Hickman, Higgins K.C., Brown
(recorded).
[The Convention adjourned at 5:30 am]