NEWFOUNDLAND
APPROVAL OF TERMS OF UNION WITH CANADA
That it is expedient to present a bill for the
approval by parliament of the terms of union of
Newfoundland with Canada. The implementation of
these terms will involve a charge upon and payment
out of moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of
Canada.
Mr. Coldwell: Is the minister not going to
make his statement with the Speaker in the
chair?
Mr. St. Laurent: I am prepared to make
the statement at the time which might best
suit the convenience of hon. members. I
can make it now on the motion that the
Speaker leave the chair, or I can make it
as soon as the Speaker leaves the chair, when
we are in committee. I had thought it might
better suit the convenience of hon. members,
since no doubt more than one will be speaking on this resolution, to have everyone
speak
under the same conditions, where questions
may be put and answered, if hon. members
should find it desirable. I am quite prepared
to go on now, however, if it is the wish of
hon. members that I do so while Mr. Speaker
is in the chair.
Mr. Drew: I think it would be appropriate
that the Prime Minister proceed with his
explanation now, while the Speaker is in
the chair.
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members
will be of the view that the measure with
which the house is now called upon to deal
is of an epoch-making character. This fifth
session of the twentieth parliament has the
historic task of considering the addition to
Canada of the last segment in the original
plan of the fathers of confederation. The
bill to follow the resolution will ask parliament to give approval to the terms of
union
with Newfoundland which were signed in
Ottawa on the 11th of December last.
Of course this is not the first time that the
project of the fathers of confederation has
received serious attention from the Canadian
parliament and the Canadian public. It is
well known to us all that two of the original
members of the Quebec conference in 1864
were from Newfoundland. They participated
in the resolution which ultimately proved to
be the basis upon which the British North
America Act was drafted, submitted to the
parliament of the United Kingdom, and
284 Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
passed, though in a good many respects in a
form which departed rather substantially
from the terms of the original resolution.
Nevertheless Newfoundland was not represented at the conference at Westminster when
the draft of the British North America Act
was being considered by the conferees and
the law officers of the parliament of the
United Kingdom.
Provision was made, as all hon. members
know, for the entry of Newfoundland on the
same terms as were made for the entry of
Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island
did enter the confederation, but not Newfoundland. In 1869 there was an election in
which the proponents of confederation with
Canada were decisively defeated. The matter
was dropped and remained quiescent for a
long period of years. In 1895 it was brought
up again. Serious financial difficulties had
been facing the government of Newfoundland. One of its commercial banks was
forced to suspend its payments. At that time
there were negotiations with the Canadian
government looking to union, but it proved
to be impossible to agree upon tentative
terms that the participants in the negotiations would undertake to recommend to their
respective parliaments.
During the first war, Newfoundland, as we
all know, made a magnificent contribution to
the cause of the allies. Concurrently with
the activity resulting from this contribution
to the war a certain amount of prosperity
came to the island. However, the world-wide
depression of the early thirties again created
a serious situation for the people of Newfoundland, who depend so largely upon world
trade for their prosperity. An investigation
was made by a commission appointed, at the
request of the government of Newfoundland,
by the government of the United Kingdom.
The commission recommended that the constitution of the island be suspended and that
the government of the United Kingdom make
itself financially responsible for the obligations of the government of Newfoundland.
It was also recommended that the government
be replaced by a commission of government,
made up of a governor appointed by the
United Kingdom and six commissioners appointed by the dominions office, three of
whom were to be chosen from residents of
the United Kingdom and three from residents of the island. It was also provided that
when the financial difficulties had been overcome the constitution might be restored,
but
nothing was done about that during the
period of the war.
In the second world war the Newfoundlanders repeated their most generous contribution
to the cause of the allied nations. The
activities carried on in the island, and the
amount of money that had to be spent to
make the island the outpost of defence of
the North American continent and the jumping-off place for convoys to Europe brought
about a situation of unparalleled prosperity.
The commission of government was able to
increase materially the public services provided by the government, and in addition
to
accumulate a surplus of some $70 million.
Following the cessation of hostilities, to
ascertain the wishes of the people of Newfoundland a national convention was called
to
consider the future form of the government
of the island. Forty-five elected representatives met in a national convention early
in
1946, considered the economy of the island,
its financial position, and dispatched delegates
to interview the British government as to
what that government's intention might be
with respect to the future of the island. The
convention also considered the dispatch of
delegates to Washington to see what arrangements might be possible with the government
of the United States of America, but decided
against it. The convention sent an important
delegation to Canada to discuss with us the
possibility of bringing about the completion
of the original scheme of the fathers of confederation.
The delegation arrived here early in June,
1947. It was headed by Mr. F. G. Bradley,
and the other delegates were Mr. T. G. W.
Ashbourne, Mr. Charles H. Ballam, Rev. Lester
L. Burry, Mr. P. W. Crummey, Mr. G. F. Higgins, K.C., and Mr. J. R. Smallwood. Exploratory
talks and investigations with a committee appointed by the Canadian government extended
into September, 1947. As a
result of those studies and discussions the
Canadian government prepared a statement
of terms believed to constitute a fair and
equitable basis for union. This statement was
forwarded to the governor of Newfoundland
by the then prime minister, with a covering
letter. It set forth the terms the Canadian
government would be prepared to recommend
to this parliament if the people of Newfoundland decided they really wanted to become
partners in our union on substantially such
terms.
These terms were placed before the
national convention in Newfoundland and
were discussed at great length. The national
convention passed a resolution to the effect
that there be submitted, in a referendum to
the people, two questions as to the future
form of government: (1) the restoration of
responsible government, and (2) a continuation
of the commission of government. There was
a motion before the national convention to
include on the ballot a third question: whether or not the people wished union with
Canada on substantially the terms expressed in
the statement which had been submitted. This
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 285
motion was defeated in the national convention by a vote of 29 to 16.
Mr. St. Laurent: Twenty-nine against and
sixteen for the inclusion of that third alternative on the ballot to be submitted.
In newspaper reports it has been stated
that following this decision, widely signed
petitions were submitted to the governor asking that the third question be also included
in
the ballot to be submitted.
The government of the United Kingdom,
which still had the final responsibility for
the affairs of the island, decided that the
question would be included as one of the
three to be submitted to the electorate of the
island. The secretary of state for commonwealth relations, in a dispatch to the governor
of Newfoundland, said in part as follows:
The terms offered by the Canadian government
represent . . . the result of long discussions with a
body of Newfoundlanders who were elected to the
convention, and the issues involved appear to have
been sufficiently clarified to enable the people of
Newfoundland to express an opinion as to whether
confederation with Canada would commend itself
to them. In these circumstances. and having regard
to the number of members of the convention who
supported the inclusion of confederation with Canada in the ballot paper, His Majesty's
government—
That is, the government of the United
Kingdom.
—have come to the conclusion that it would not be
right that the people of Newfoundland should be
deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue
at the referendum . . .
This first referendum took place on June 3,
1948. Out of a total of 176,297 registered
voters on the list, 155,777 votes were cast.
For responsible government there were
69,400 votes cast, or 44-55 per cent; for confederation, 64,066 or 41-13 per cent;
for the
continuation of the commission government,
22,311 or 14-32 per cent. As there was no
over-all majority, and as had been announced
before the referendum took place, a second
referendum was arranged to decide between
the two forms which had received the larger
number of votes, namely, the restoration of
responsible government or confederation with
Canada. The second referendum took place
on July 22, 1948. At that time 6,000 fewer
votes were cast than in the first referendum.
The total number of votes cast at the second
referendum was 149,657. Of this number,
71,334 or 47.66 per cent were for the restoration of responsible government and 78,323
or
52-34 per cent were for confederation with
Canada, a majority for confederation with
Canada of 6,989 or 4.68 per cent.
In this second referendum, confederation
received a majority in eighteen out of the
twenty-five electoral districts from which
members had formerly been elected to the
legislature of Newfoundland. Following the
announcement of the result of that vote,
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, then Prime
Minister, stated that the result of the referendum was clear, and beyond all possibility
of
misunderstanding an expression of opinion of
the people of Newfoundland for confederation, and that he believed the people of
Canada would welcome the result. Mr. King
went on to state further:
The Canadian government is now consulting with
the governments of Newfoundland and the United
Kingdom in the working out of appropriate constitutional procedure for implementing
the decision taken
by the people of Newfoundland. The government
will also be glad to receive with the least possible
delay authorized representatives of Newfoundland to
negotiate the terms of union on the basis of my
letter of October 29, 1947. to the governor of Newfoundland, and the documents transmitted
with it.
In these negotiations any special problems which
may arise in connection with the entry of Newfoundland into confederation will. I
am sure, receive
most careful consideration. Before final action is
taken, the government will recommend the resulting
agreement to the parliament of Canada for approval.
Following that letter, the government of
Newfoundland appointed a delegation to come
to Ottawa to negotiate the final terms under
which the entry of Newfoundland might be
brought about. The delegation was headed
by Hon. A. J. Walsh, K.C.—now Sir A. J.
Walsh, K.C.—commissioner of justice and
chairman of defence in the commission of
government. The other members of the delegation were Mr. F. G. Bradley, KC. and
Mr. J. R. Smallwood who had been members
of the first delegation and with them were
Mr. Chesley A. Crosbie, Mr. Philip Gruchy,
Mr. J. B. McEvoy, KC. and Mr. Gordon A.
Winter. Negotiations with this delegation
were opened at Ottawa on October 6, 1948,
and ended with the signing of terms of an
agreement on December 11, 1948. Copies of
the terms have been distributed to hon.
members, as well as a statement of questions
raised and answers given by the representatives of the Canadian government in the
course of the negotiations, and also a report
and documents relating to the negotiations
for the union of Newfoundland with Canada,
in which hon. members I think will find
practically all the pertinent information that
was before the representatives of the Canadian government and the delegation from
Newfoundland. On examining it, I noted
that there was one omission which is not
substantial but which I regret, and which I
hope will be rectified when there is a reprint
of this historic document.
When we met in the senate chamber on
December 11 to sign the terms of the agreement that had been arranged, I made a few
remarks before the actual signing took place.
286
Newfoundland
HOUSE OF COMMONS
I took that opportunity to pay what I considered, as I am sure did all those who had
participated in the long negotiations, was a
well deserved tribute to the former Prime
Minister who had had the responsibility for
initiating the proceedings. I venture to take
the time of the house to read into the record
of Hansard what I said then:
I am sure the Newfoundland delegation will be
as pleased as his former colleagues that Mr. Mackenzie King is present on this historic
occasion.
Mr. King had the main responsibility on the Canadian side for the beginning of the
negotiations which
we have now completed. We have reached an agreement for the entry of Newfoundland
as a province
of Canada. The agreement is now to be signed on
behalf of Newfoundland by the members of the
delegation and on behalf of Canada by the Acting
Secretary of State for External Affairs and by
myself as Prime Minister.
There was a rather agreeable incident to
which I called attention at that time in the
following words:
I should like to ask those who are to sign the
agreement between Canada and Newfoundland if
they would use the inkstand which has been placed
on the table for the purpose. Perhaps I might explain why this request is being made.
The inkstand
was left to the Canadian nation by the late Major
R. A. C. Kane, V.D., who inherited it from his
grandfather, Sir Etienne Pascal Tache. The inkstand was used at the famous Quebec
conference in
1864 by the original fathers of confederation, and
was subsequently presented to Tache. who presided
over that conference. It is particularly fitting, therefore, that it should be used
at the signing of the
agreement to complete confederation.
I also mentioned the following:
It is also of interest that this inkstand was lent to
Mr. Mackenzie King at the time of the Quebec conference of 1943 with the late President
Roosevelt
and Mr. Winston Churchill. and that it was also used
on that occasion.
It may be of interest to hon. members to
know that the inkstand will be placed in
the library of parliament, which is visited by
thousands of Canadians and of visitors from
other lands each year, and where it is more
apt to attract attention than if it were
deposited in the museum, or in the archives
or in some other of those places where we
have so many interesting things which so
few see.
There are still certain stages required to
complete this matter of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation as a tenth province.
The target date has been set as March
31, and the agreement requires that to come
into effect it must first of all receive the
approval of the Canadian parliament and of
the Newfoundland government, and must
also be confirmed by action of the parliament
of the United Kingdom.
As hon. members know, in order that there
may be passed by the parliament of the
United Kingdom any law affecting Canada,
it must be stated in the preamble that it is
done with the acquiescence and at the request
of the houses of the Canadian parliament.
That is one of the express provisions of the
Statute of Westminster. In order to finish
the work that is being done to bring about
this completion of the original scheme of
confederation, it will be necessary that there
be passed by the parliament of Canada a
statute ratifying the terms of the agreement
and that they be also ratified by the government of Newfoundland, and that they be
confirmed by a statute of the United Kingdom.
All this must be done before March 31
because the terms of agreement are conditional. The words used in section 50 are as
follows:
These terms are agreed to subject to their being
approved by the parliament of Canada and the government of Newfoundland: shall take
effect notwithstanding the Newfoundland Act, 1933, or any instrument issued pursuant
thereto; and shall come into
force immediately before the expiration of the
thirty-first day of March, 1949, if His Majesty has
theretofore given his assent to an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
northern Ireland confirming the same.
That is the condition upon which these
terms can come into force, and if the condition were not fulfilled these terms could
not
come into force.
The passage of an act of the parliament of
the United Kingdom will require joint
addresses of this house, and of the other
place, to His Majesty, asking him to submit
to the parliament of the United Kingdom the
appropriate legislation. I would imagine that
this house will wish to consider very carefully, and perhaps debate at some length,
the
terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada.
However, if this parliament comes to the conclusion that these terms should be approved
by a statute of the Canadian parliament, the
adoption of the addresses to His Majesty the
King will become a mere formality, because
the matter is already covered by the terms
of union, which by that time will have
received the sanction of the parliament of
Canada by a Canadian statute. Therefore I
would hope that there would not need to be
much debate upon the joint address. After
the parliament of Canada has come to the
conclusion, as I hope it will, that these terms
of union should be accepted, there will also
be required—but it need not, in my view,
give us very much concern at the present
time—to be passed before March 31 a bill
making changes in language in the general
Canadian statutes which will be appropriate
and which will after the union be designed
to apply to Newfoundland.
The terms of the union provide that the
legislation of Newfoundland will remain in
effect until it is repealed or modified by the
appropriate body having jurisdiction under
the division of powers provided for in the
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 287
British North America Act, and that the
Canadian legislation will come into effect
upon dates to be fixed by proclamation of His
Excellency the governor in council. That was
requested by the delegation from Newfoundland because they said it would be inconvenient
to have the whole body of statute law
of Canada come into force at one given
moment. Nothing can be done to bring that
body of law into force until the union has
become effective the last minute of March
31, 1949. They felt that there should be a
proclamation immediately bringing a certain
portion of these laws into effect, but that
there were others for which preparation for
proper administration would have to be made,
and that it would be desirable to provide
that they might be gradually brought into
effect as the proper administrative machinery
had been set up to enable them to be followed and carried out.
Perhaps the question may arise as to why
it is necessary to have a statute passed by the
parliament of the United Kingdom to confirm
the entry of Newfoundland into Canada.
There are two reasons for that. One is that
this does in fact, though it may not in form,
amount to an amendment to, or a derogation
from, the terms of the British North America
Act in so far as Canada is concerned.
Hon. members will recall that under section
146 of the British North America Act it was
provided that Newfoundland might be
admitted into the confederation upon joint
addresses of the houses of parliament of
Canada and of Newfoundland by order made
by, then Her Majesty, on the advice of her
council of the United Kingdom. This time
it was not possible to comply, even if it had
been desirable to do so, with the exact terms
of the procedure set out in section 146,
because there were no houses of parliament
of the colony of Newfoundland; and secondly,
it might not have been desirable to have that
procedure resorted to because, since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster and
as a
consequence of constitutional developments,
His Majesty, on the advice of his ministers
responsible to the parliament of the United
Kingdom, no longer exercises the prerogatives
of the crown over Canada.
His Majesty now, by reason of the situation
or development which brought about the
Statute of Westminster, and which is registered in the terms of the Statute of Westminster,
exercises the royal prerogative in
respect of Canadian affairs upon, and only
upon, the advice of his ministers responsible
to this parliament.
The second reason is that at the present
time the government of the United Kingdom,
responsible to the parliament of the United
Kingdom, still has the ultimate responsibility
for the affairs of the colony of Newfoundland.
And though it might be thought that Canada,
on the decision of its own parliament, should
be entitled to add to its territory, and though
under the Statute of Westminster the parliament of Canada has the same rights, recognized
internationally, to make laws having
extraterritorial effect as has the parliament
of the United Kingdom, a law of the parliament of Canada would hardly reach out and
gather in a territory that was subject to the
legislative and administrative jurisdiction of
another autonomous nation. And whatever
may be the fine points of technical procedure
in that regard, the relations between Canada
and the United Kingdom are not such that
anything which would appear so discourteous
would be considered on either side.
It was felt therefore that the most expeditious procedure might be to follow the precedent
which had been established when
changes were made with respect to natural
resources in the possession of the western
provinces. There the entry of the western
provinces into confederation had been accomplished in accordance with the terms of
the
British North America Act. However, it was
found that when it became advisable to
modify those terms, their modification would
constitute a derogation from the express provisions of the British North America Act.
In
order to bring that modification about in such
a manner as to leave no doubt in any mind
that it was done in a form beyond successful
contestation before the courts, agreements
were made between the government of Canada and the governments of each of the
western provinces. The agreements contained
clauses very similar to this section 50 which
I have read to the house. Those agreements
were to be subject to the approval of the
Canadian parliament and the approval of the
legislature of the province concerned, and
confirmed by an act of the United Kingdom.
That was the procedure adopted at that
time. It is a procedure which operated in a
manner that no one has been tempted in any
way to test. It is a procedure which requires
short bills, in the case of the Canadian
parliament, expressing, more or less, only that
the terms of agreement of Newfoundland
with Canada annexed to the bill as a schedule
are ratified and, with respect to the parliament of the United Kingdom, that those
terms
shall be a schedule to the act which will
be introduced before the parliament of the
United Kingdom, if and when this parliament sees fit to proceed further with the
matter.
The result will be that everything contained in the terms of union will have the
effect of law for all the Canadian people,
those who now constitute the inhabitants of
the nine present provinces and those who, by
288
Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
virtue of that confirmation, will become the
Canadians of the tenth Canadian province.
I do not think I should attempt at this time
to deal with the terms of union. They will
have to be dealt with at some length, I am
sure, by hon. members. Perhaps however
I may be permitted to refer in a general way
to some aspects of the problems we had to
consider. We found at the outset that those
problems were perhaps even more complex
than the ones with which the fathers of confederation had to deal in 1867, and in
the
months which preceded the adoption of the
British North America Act.
The colonies represented at the Quebec
conference in 1864 were similar in their
development, and similar in their financial
and tax structure. It required no great
change to divide powers which were practically the same in all the colonies which
were coming together—that is, to divide them
between the central authority, which would
exercise one portion, and the provincial
legislatures which would have jurisdiction
over the other.
But between Canada and Newfoundland in
1948 there were great differences in the
system of taxation and in the administrative
structure. Those differences had to be harmonized with the existing fundamental basis
of our constitution, the British North America
Act. And I may say that there have been
no substantial departures from the provisions
of the British North America Act. There has
been one in connection with education. In
the British North America Act provision is
made for certain guarantees for denominational schools. But the sanction of those
guarantees is an appeal to the governor in
council, if anything is done in violation of
them.
The experience of the years has been that
an appeal to the governor in council over
matters which become highly controversial,
when they involve the religious beliefs of
honest people of diverging views about the
way they should worship their Maker, is not
an effective safeguard.
With respect to this agreement the delegation from Newfoundland was told that of
course we did not pretend to exercise or to
ask for any control over their school system.
We had none; and we were not going to make
it a condition of their entry into Canada that
they should give us some control in the
central authority as to their education.
The situation was not the same as it was
when new provinces were created out of the
territories. When the new provinces were
created out of the territories this parliament
had legislative control over the educational
system, and it was turning over that legis, lative control to the new bodies. It was
felt
to be fitting at that time that it should
retain some portion of that control to ensure
respect for the constitutional safeguards
which were being written into the constitutions of those new provinces.
But with respect to Newfoundland, they
had at the time of the negotiations, and they
have today in their legislative body, full and
exclusive control over their educational system. But we said to them, "If, for the
satisfaction of your own people, you do wish to
have constitutional safeguards written into
the terms of union, we will be quite prepared
to consider those you will suggest." The
treatment they suggested was constitutional
safeguards, but constitutional safeguards the
application of which will be left to the courts
of justice.
It is provided that the legislature will have
exclusive control over all educational matters,
but must not make any laws that would
prejudice what is described in the terms of
union as the rights of the denominations
which comprise the people of Newfoundland.
The legislature has no power to do anything
prejudicial. Review will be a matter for
the courts. If there ever should be an attempt
by the legislature to do anything that would
contravene the terms of the union it will
not be a matter of appeal to His Excellency
the governor in council. It will be a
matter for resort to the courts of justice
of the island of Newfoundland in the first
instance, and then to the ordinary courts
administering the laws of the country.
The other departure had to do with oleomargarine. In Newfoundland the dairy industry
is very small, and over the years the
people of Newfoundland have been using oleomargarine produced from raw materials
available in their own economy. At the
time of the negotiations the Supreme Court
of Canada had not decided that this parliament has no juridiction to deal with
oleomargarine in the form set out in the
Dairy Industry Act. We agreed that there
would not be any attempt by this parliament
to prevent the people of Newfoundland from
continuing to use oleomargarine, because
they are not in a position to get the article
which many of us regard as more desirable,
butter produced by the dairy industry. But
it was also provided that, unless and until
the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine
ceases to be prohibited in the other parts
of Canada, they would not ship any of their
oleomargarine into the other provinces.
Perhaps we would not have felt it was
necessary to talk about that problem at all
if the judgment of the supreme court had
been available at the time negotiations were
proceeding. There was a feeling that it was
somewhat undesirable to have this special
FEBRUARY 7, 1949
Newfoundland 289
situation with respect to Newfoundland, but
after all I think the completion of the scheme
of confederation is of more concern to the
general Canadian public than is the question
of determining whether Mr. John Jones or
Mr. Tom Allen, residing in one of the villages
or towns of Newfoundland, shall have the
right to use oleomargarine instead of having
to use butter.
I think those are the only departures from
the general scheme, because in a general
way it was the desire of those people of
Newfoundland who favoured entry into
Canada to become Canadian citizens, subject
to the same laws and entitled to the same
great privileges that are the heritage of
Canadian citizens of the nine other provinces.
I come now to the matter of financial terms.
That was a tough one. The people of Newfoundland did not want to become a province
of Canada under conditions which would not
make it reasonably probable that they could
carry on successfully, and participate in the
advantages which appertain to Canadians
generally. We on our side wanted to provide
financial terms which would make it reasonably probable, if not certain, that the
addition
of Newfoundland to the economy of Canada
would ultimately prove to be beneficial to both
partners, to the older Canadians and to the
newer arrivals. It was found, after more
precise and careful study of the administrative problems that would be faced by the
government of the province of Newfoundland,
that the terms suggested in the offer submitted in October, 1947, would not be sufficient
at the start to enable the provincial government to provide for its people on a basis
comparable to that which is provided by the other
Canadian provinces. It was felt there had to
be quite substantial provisional grants, extending over a period of twelve years on
a diminishing scale, to bridge the transition from
the present economy of the island to the kind
of economy which would make it possible for
the provincial government to provide the
people of Newfoundland with substantially
the services that are provided for the rest of
the Canadian people by their provincial governments, without resorting to a burden
of
taxation heavier, having regard to capacity
to pay, than that which bears upon the people
of the maritime region. The section of the
Canadian economy generally described as
the maritimes was felt to be the one which
would be most nearly comparable to the
situation which would be apt to develop in
Newfoundland. It was felt that for a transitional term the government of Newfoundland
had to be provided with sufficient funds to
establish and develop services comparable to
those available to the people of the maritime
region, and that it had to be able to do so
without imposing upon the people of Newfoundland a burden of taxation heavier than
that prevailing in the maritime region.
After long negotiations it proved possible,
I think, to arrive at the scheme which is set
out in the terms of union, and which is apt to
achieve that result. Human foresight, however, is never as good as hindsight. It was
also provided that within eight years from
the coming into force of the terms of union
a commission would be set up to examine the
situation anew, and to report as to whether
or not the terms provided are working satisfactorily and are sufficient to bring about
the
object of equalizing the lot of the people of
the new province with that of the people of
the older provinces. There is no undertaking
to implement any terms of recommendation
that may be made at that time by a royal
commission. It was felt by the Newfoundland
delegation, and by the representatives of the
Canadian government, that this was something that was being entered into in a spirit
of fairness on both sides, and that it was not
necessary to make binding stipulations about
what would happen with respect to the report
of a royal commission. It was felt if there
was an investigation and a report by a commission, in which the public at that time
would have confidence, the legislators of that
day could well be trusted to do what would
prove to be right in order to make this
enlarged nation a united nation continuing on
its path of progress toward its great destiny.
At the time many people in Newfoundland
felt that the government of the United Kingdom should have proceeded in some other
way; should have at once restored responsible
government and left it to a responsible government to discuss and negotiate a possible
union with Canada. The government of the
United Kingdom chose to call together a
national convention of elected representatives, to have them advise in respect of
the
future form of government. After that commission had made its investigation the government
of the United Kingdom decided to
submit directly to the public of Newfoundland the question whether they wished to
have responsible government restored or
whether they wished to join us in our march
toward the future. The people of Newfoundland, by a substantial majority, decided
that
instead of having responsible government
restored they wished to have confederation
with Canada immediately implemented.
As far as we were concerned, of course, it
was not our business. All we had to do—
and I think we did that with the most scrupulous care—was say that we would be glad
to have them join with us, but that it was
290 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
something which was their concern, and that
if they decided they wished to become Canadians we would be glad to welcome them and
to extend just as fair terms as we could hope
to have ratified and confirmed by a Canadian parliament animated by the same sentiments.
And it was in that spirit that the
negotiations were carried on.
From what I have been able to read in the
press since the agreement was signed, there
appears to be almost complete unanimity on
the part of the Canadian public that this was
a good arrangement to make, and that it is
a good thing in this year 1949 to complete the
original project envisaged by the fathers of
confederation in 1864. From what I have
seen of the editorial comment in the newspapers of the island, there are still those
who
would prefer to have had responsible government re-established and the terms of confederation
discussed by and through that
responsible government. In the referendum
the majority decided otherwise, however;
and even among the objectors I think there
are now large numbers who feel there has
been a sincere attempt to make a fair proposal, and that confederation with Canada
has been made inevitable both by the
Almighty in the distribution of the lands and
waters of this northern half of the North
American continent, and by the historic development of the people who have inhabited
these two parts. They are not strangers to
each other. They come from the same stocks.
They have developed under the same system
of responsible government, of love of individual freedom, of respect for the human
being
as more important than the state. They have
developed in the view that the state exists
for the individual, and not the individual for
the state. It is my hope that this arrangement
will commend itself to the Canadian parliament, to the vast majority of the Canadian
people and also to the vast majority of the
people of Newfoundland. We are here now
considering a matter of great moment. In
the last two wars we realized how close we
were to each other and how close we had to
be in order to survive. In this troubled world
I think we, both in Newfoundland and in
Canada, feel that in this way our risks are
more apt to be successfully met and any
dangers overcome than was possible even
with the non-constitutional union of spirits
and hearts that united us during the last two
wars. I earnestly hope it will be the view
of this house that this union of Canada and
Newfoundland is desirable in the interests
of the people of these two lands, and as a
lesson to the whole world of what can be
accomplished by men of good will.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, following the remarks of
the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) it is not
my intention today to deal with the terms
of the agreement in any detail, because the
agreement will be under discussion when the
bill is before the house. I shall simply discuss
the resolution before us, which will have the
effect of bringing before hon. members the
bill the government intends to introduce. For
this reason I shall defer any comments I
might make about certain references made
by the Prime Minister to some features of
the agreement, which to me suggest that careful consideration should be given to its
full
effect.
Perhaps I might go so far as to suggest
that, before the bill is formally introduced
and the agreement accompanying it is placed
before the house, the government give consideration to the desirability of removing
the section in regard to oleomargarine, for
reasons which have nothing to do with the
use of oleomargarine itself. The Prime Minister said the completion of confederation
is
more important than the question whether
or not Tom Jones in Newfoundland is to eat
oleomargarine. The balance of importance
unquestionably is in accordance with what
the Prime Minister said; but there is a very
important question that may be involved in
the inclusion of that section, to which I think
the government should give some attention
before we are asked to discuss it.
It is true that the section to which I refer
was included in the draft terms of agreement before the Supreme Court of Canada
had reached its decision as to the constitutional authority of the Canadian parliament
to deal with restrictions on the use of oleomargarine. The provision that the manufacture
of oleomargarine should be continued
in Newfoundland related to the fact that
already it was being manufactured there.
I am not concerned with the circumstances
which led to the inclusion of this provision.
What I am concerned with is that a principle
is put forward which, if accepted, might
apply with equal force to other matters of
trade and commerce, and with serious consequences. It suggests that it is an acceptable
principle to create trade barriers between
provinces of Canada. Serious consideration
should be given by the government and by
the house to the principle involved in the
acceptance of this provision of the agreement,
even though the Supreme Court of Canada
by its decision may to some extent have
made this discussion academic,
There is one other interesting provision in
the agreement which should not be disregarded by some of those who have found
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 291
occasion to avail themselves of the absence
of any similar limitation upon their discretion. The Prime Minister referred to the
terms of the agreement which relate to financial arrangements. Without going into
them
in detail now, I wish to point out another
question of principle which is important.
Having placed before the appointed representatives of Newfoundland certain proposals
in regard to a tax agreement, the following
provision is then included:
The subsequent entry into a tax agreement by the
government of Canada with any other province will
not entitle the government of the province of Newfoundland to any alteration in the
terms of its
agreement.
The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), while he was premier of Manitoba, the
premier of New Brunswick and other premiers who succeeded in obtaining adjustments
when other adjustments were made, would
have felt themselves greatly injured if they
had been subject to any such limitation as
this. It seems unusual that the only province,
among those accepting agreements in respect
to the payment of subsidies in return for taxing powers, to have any limitation placed
upon its subsequent right to ask for readjustment should be the new province of Newfoundland,
to which we should be extending
every courtesy and offering every encouragement. These, however, are details, but
I
suggest they are worthy of consideration and
will be given consideration when we are discussing the precise terms of the agreement.
As has already been pointed out by the
Prime Minister, the union of Newfoundland
with Canada will represent the fulfilment of
the great and challenging vision of those who
met in Charlottetown on September 1, 1864,
in the hope of bringing together the whole of
British North America as one united nation.
It will give reality to the dream of Sir John
A. Macdonald, whose proposals to Newfoundland for confederation were not first made
at
the time of the Charlottetown conference but
were in fact put forward to Newfoundland in
1858. It is well to remember the significance
of the fact that these proposals which were
put forward to Newfoundland in 1858 brought
the first favourable official response to his
contention that steps should then be taken to
create a federal union.
When I had the privilege of visiting the
confederation chamber in Charlottetown not
long ago, I was greatly impressed, as I am
sure all other members were who have visited
that beautiful room, by these words on the
memorial tablet which commemorates that
historic meeting. On the tablet are these
words: "They builded better than they knew."
They built so well that we are seeing before
us the fulfilment of the vision of those who
sat there in 1864 and pictured this great
union of free people embracing all the territory then known as British North America
and extending from the Atlantic to the
Pacific.
Macdonald, Cartier, and those associated
with them, were disappointed that Newfoundland did not become part of Canada in 1867,
but they never despaired of ultimate success.
Macdonald's renewed proposals of 1888 gave
convincing evidence of the continuing hope
that Newfoundland would join with the rest
of Canada. Again in 1895, as has already been
pointed out, another attempt was made to
find a satisfactory basis for union, but again
without success. It is not without interest to
note that on these earlier occasions the
renewed discussions related to the difficult
financial conditions in Newfoundland. The
present discussions, on the contrary, have
taken place in a period of greater prosperity
than has ever before been experienced in the
island's history.
From those earlier days up to the time
of the discussions which have led to the
agreement which will be before us for consideration, there has been a continuing hope
in the minds of a great many people in Newfoundland and Canada that the vision of
the
fathers of confederation of one great nation
from sea to sea would ultimately be fulfilled.
The motion now before the house calls for
a decision whether the bill to bring about
the union of Newfoundland with Canada is
to be introduced. In fact that is the only
issue before us in this motion. Speaking on
behalf of all the members of the Progressive
Conservative party in this house, and with
their unanimous support, I wish to welcome,
personally and on their behalf, the introduction of such measures as will complete
this
union upon terms satisfactory to the people
of Newfoundland and the people of Canada.
It is neither appropriate nor possible at this
stage to discuss any details of the procedure,
because we are still to be told what the
provisions of the bill will be and the course
which is to be followed in the discussion.
We are now simply discussing a resolution
which, in effect, asks us to express our
opinion as to whether or not this house should
proceed to deal with such legislation as may
be required to bring about the effective union
of the sister dominions of Newfoundland and
Canada. On that simple question it is difficult to believe there can be any division
of
opinion, and I join in expressing the hope
that the proposal for union, made by Sir
John Macdonald so long ago, may soon become a reality. I trust that in the years
ahead the people of Newfoundland will be
given every reason to have, in ever-increasing measure, confidence in and good will
292 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
towards those with whom they will be associated within the boundaries of one great
nation.
Newfoundland has a great and unique
history. It was the first part of the area of
North America to be discovered. While other
explorers were taking back to Europe reports
about and later actual cargoes of gold from
the newly discovered Americas, John Cabot,
who discovered the island in 1497, carried
back to England and to Europe, not tales of
gold but tales of immense shoals of fish off
the Newfoundland banks, which revealed a
new form of wealth. That wealth challenged
the adventurous of those days, and it has continued to be the main concern of those
who
have settled and built Newfoundland during
the past three hundred years.
Great new industries have been built to use
the forest resources of the island and now, in
recent years, Newfoundland has added to its
many achievements that of becoming one of
the most important centres of international
air travel in the world. It is a fascinating
picture, one to arouse and to stimulate the
imagination of every young Canadian as well
as of every young Newfoundlander, to see
the movement, from every part of the world,
of people whose paths cross at Gander or at
Goose Bay. I recall seeing only a few months
ago, at the great airport of Gander, one plane
which had just arrived from India on its way
to New York and another from New York
putting down just afterwards on its way to
the Mediterranean. There were also passengers who were already there from planes
moving both ways between Britain and the
United States and between Britain and
Canada, and also between this continent and
France and Italy. It is one of the most
challenging pictures of the immense changes
which have taken place within these past few
years, and it gives the youth of Newfoundland and of Canada as a whole some suggestion
of what the expanding use of air
transportation means to this country in the
years ahead.
Mining also has long been an important
industry on the island, and there is every
reason to hope that further exploration and
development, which undoubtedly will be
greatly stepped up with the new associations
that will be formed, will greatly increase the
value of these resources in Newfoundland
itself as well as in Labrador.
The Newfoundland we know today is the
result of the hard work and the fortitude of
a great people who have at all times retained
the highest standards of personal integrity
and public service as well as those simple
virtues of thrift and hard work which are
today perhaps more important than they ever
were before. With improving transportation
facilities, more and more Canadians have
come in contact with the people of Newfoundland and know how justifiably proud
the people of that island are of what they
have accomplished, often under great difficulties.
Not only have our contacts with Newfoundland been extremely close during the long
years of peace, but in the years of war there
was an increasingly close relationship which
laid the firm foundation of admiration and
respect upon which has been built a widening
confidence, in Newfoundland and in Canada,
in the advantages of confederation.
In two world wars the people of Newfoundland wrote some of the greatest pages
in their long island history, and I should
like to refer to that contribution because it
has a direct bearing on the subject we have
under consideration today. In 1914 Newfoundland had the distinction of being the
first of the dominions to commit itself to
that vast struggle for freedom which ultimately enveloped the whole world. On August
4, the very day on which war was declared,
Newfoundlanders who had voluntarily joined
the royal naval reserve were called to the
colours. On August 7, only three days after the
outbreak of war, the Legion of Frontiersmen,
the only military unit then organized in Newfoundland, volunteered for overseas service;
and that unit became the base of a wider
enlistment which ultimately took the form of
the Royal Newfoundland regiment. On October 4, 1914—a day that will be recalled by
many hon. members of this house—the first
Newfoundland contingent sailed on the s.s.
Florizel from St. John's to join the first contingent of the Canadian expeditionary force
off the island of St. Pierre. I happen to know
that there are in this chamber those who will
recall that significant union of forces when
the s.s. Florizel joined the other ships which
were then lying at anchor. On arrival in
England the Newfoundland contingent was
brigaded with the first Canadian division on
Salisbury plain.
In August, 1915, the Royal Newfoundland
regiment, as it had then become, sailed from
England for Egypt and joined the 29th
imperial division, landing at Suvla bay in
the Gallipoli peninsula on September 20, and
it took part in the terrific battles which followed at that time, when we who were
then
opposed to them learned to respect the fighting powers of the people of Turkey, as
others
fortunately have come to respect them today.
After the historic evacuation of Gallipoli, this
regiment was transferred to France and on
July 1, 1916, fought at Beaumont Hamel in
the tremendous battle of the Somme. On that
occasion the Royal Newfoundland regiment
was engaged in one of the really Homeric
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 293
battles of history. It took part in one of the
most desperate and tragic attacks of the
whole war. Seven hundred and forty officers
and men went over the top that morning to
attack that key position in the enemy
defences, and they suffered 684 casualties.
Of this action, Sir Douglas Haig said in his
dispatches:
The heroism and devotion to duty they displayed
on the first of July has never been surpassed.
Their own corps commander said in his
dispatches:
The assault only failed because dead men could
advance no further.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is with
people such as those who wrote that imperishable page of history that we now join
hands
in the great enterprises of peace.
The Royal Newfoundland regiment had one
of the finest records in the whole war. When
it was demobilized in St. John's on November
25, 1918, 5,046 officers and men had passed
through the ranks of that one unit, whose
establishment in the ordinary course of
events would be only approximately one
thousand men.
Thousands of Newfoundlanders also served
with great courage and distinction in the
army, the navy and the air force units of
Canada, Britain and the United States. All
who saw them in action or learned of their
achievements knew the stout hearts and great
spirit of these splendid people who are about
to unite with us in confederation.
In the second world war the association
between Newfoundland and Canada was very
much closer. The changing character of
global warfare placed Newfoundland in a
central position in that great struggle. Its
strategic importance was highlighted in the
early days of the war when Churchill and
Roosevelt, with their military and official
staifs, met in one of its many bays to draft
and sign the Atlantic charter which pledged
the people of the commonwealth and the
United States to join forces in restoring freedom to the people of Europe who had
been
engulfed in the flood of nazi power.
With the increasing role of long-range
bombers and aircraft of all kinds, Newfoundland became a focal point in the efforts
of
Canada, Great Britain and the United States
through the years which followed.
During the whole of the war, Newfoundlanders served side by side with Canadians
in different parts of the world and also in
their own country. Because of the threat to
the Atlantic coast by German submarines and
aircraft, it was necessary to provide for the
actual defence of Newfoundland as a very
real contingency which might be faced. For
that reason many Canadians served in Newfoundland throughout the war.
In the spring of 1940, the Black Watch of
Montreal were dispatched to Newfoundland
to protect the great airport at Gander, which
was then being expanded as an operational
base for the Royal Canadian Air Force and
the air-ferrying services of Canada, Britain
and the United States—the United States, of
course, indirectly at that time. Because our
common interests had become so closely
linked, the defence forces in Newfoundland
were brought under the Canadian Atlantic
command in 1940.
Canadian coast defence batteries and antiaircraft units were stationed at the airports
at Gander, Goose Bay, Torbay and also at the
loading piers at Conception bay, the mines on
Bell island, as well as the fuel tanks and
docks at Lewisporte and Botwood. A Newfoundland coast defence battery manned the
defences at Bell island while Canadian batteries were stationed at St. John's.
I mention this to indicate the close military
association which existed between the people
of Newfoundland and Canada under the
Canadian Atlantic command. In due course
the Queen's Own Rifles of Toronto relieved
the Black Watch at Gander and, as the war
progressed and increased in intensity, units
from every part of Canada were moved to
different points in the island. These included
the Chaudiere regiment, the Royal rifles,
the Edmonton fusiliers, the New Brunswick
rangers, and other well known regiments.
The Royal Canadian Air Force operated
bases at Botwood, Torbay, Gander and Goose
Bay. Thousands of our young men and
women served in these units at these various
bases. Extensive communication systems
were also set up under Atlantic command
signals. Other Canadian services included
the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the
ordnance corps, medical depots and other
special units.
In addition to those who served in their
own units, many Newfoundlanders served
in the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal
Navy. They also served in all branches of
the Royal Canadian Air Force, including the
women's division. Those with Canadian units
wore the Newfoundland badge on their
shoulders and won friendship and respect
from all with whom they served in every
part of the world.
Because of these many contacts, thousands
of Newfoundlanders trained and served in
Canada while thousands of our own young
men and women saw service and made warm
friendships in Newfoundland.
I have mentioned these details at some
length because that history of the participation of Newfoundlanders in two wars, and
particularly that association between the
young men and women of Canada and
Newfoundland in the second world war,
294 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
convey an impression of how close our natural
friendship really is, and undoubtedly greatly
increased support in both Newfoundland and
Canada for this idea of union, which has
been before us for so many years. These
young men and women, the very finest of
our youth, were our ambassadors in this great
cause; and no nation ever had better
ambassadors than we had. Their efforts on
our behalf, whether or not intentionally
carried out for that purpose, have had much
to do with what we have under consideration
today.
The spirit of unity and wholehearted cooperation between Newfoundlanders and
Canadians, which was so apparent at the
Canadian army, naval and air bases established
in Newfoundland during the war, offers a
happy augury of the spirit of understanding
and good will which can be established
between the peoples of these two dominions
when we become part of one nation.
I have touched only briefly on the many
reasons why Canadians will welcome Newfoundland into confederation, as was intended
under the original provisions of the British
North America Act. But it would be folly
for us to disregard the criticism which has
been directed to the methods which have
been employed in bringing this about. It is
not only in Newfoundland that very severe
criticism has been directed against the way
in which this has been done. Many Newfoundlanders who are in favour of confederation,
and strongly in favour, have been insistent that legislative authority should be
restored to the people of Newfoundland and
that elected representatives of such a legislative body should negotiate any terms
which
are to bring Newfoundland within confederation. They contend that the commission of
government, appointed by the government of
the United Kingdom, has no right to negotiate
such terms either directly or through
appointed representatives.
Newfoundland is not a colony. Newfoundland was accorded the full status of a dominion
in the Statute of Westminster. It is
argued, and in many cases argued with much
bitterness, that it is inconsistent with
democratic practices that any group short of
the representatives of a fully constituted
legislative assembly should be empowered to
decide the terms under which Newfoundland
will join Canada.
How strong that criticism is outside of Newfoundland, as well as within its boundaries,
is
shown by a letter published recently in the
Manchester Guardian from Mr. Thomas
Lodge, who was one of the first members of
the commission of government appointed in
1934. Denouncing in the most vigorous
terms the procedure followed, Mr. Lodge
describes the whole transaction as an
"unholy deal." And those are his words, not
mine. The same attitude is reflected in the
press and in many public statements in Newfoundland. There is also much public criticism
of the procedure in Canada, so far as
Newfoundland is concerned, and the method
which has been followed.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
met the Newfoundland delegation appointed
to discuss the terms of union, he said to them,
"One thing is sure, the objective itself is
more important that the approach." It seems
to me that the approach is very important.
It is essential that the union of Newfoundland
with Canada be something much more than a
mere legal union. It is essential that the
union be one which appeals now, and will
appeal in the years ahead, to the people of
Newfoundland and to the people of Canada
as something which united them in spirit and
in friendship even more than it did in statutory form.
We have no way of knowing what discussions took place between the government of
Canada and the government of the United
Kingdom or the appointed representatives of
Newfoundland. We do know that there is
widespread discontent and dissatisfaction, and
that this will not contribute to the spirit of
harmony and good will which should be the
main consideration of all those who welcome
Newfoundland as a part of Canada.
It must however be remembered that in
the house we are called upon only to deal
with the steps which Canada will take to
bring about confederation. Except for any
action by the Canadian government which
has not been disclosed and is therefore not
known to the members of the house, the procedure so far as Newfoundland is concerned
is one which affects the people of Newfoundland in their direct relationship with
the government of the United Kingdom. We may well
regret that appropriate steps were not taken
to assure that there would be no cause for
any widespread feeling of bitterness or dissatisfaction, but it is not for us to tell
the
people of our sister dominion what course
they should follow in their own dealings or
in their dealings with the government of the
United Kingdom.
I hope I shall be forgiven for indicating that
I have some personal sentimental feelings
toward the transaction we have under consideration. It happens that my father's
mother was born in a fishing village in Newfoundland, and that as a young boy I was
constantly impressed with the stories of the
hardy life of those fine people who lived by
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 295
their daily efforts, chiefly from their ships at
sea.
I was imbued in my early youth with the
feeling of justifiable pride which those born
in Newfoundland have in their great traditions and the great background of that island.
Knowing even by that indirect contact, as
well as by more direct contacts in later years,
something of the feeling of the greatness of
their own island's history and all it stands for,
I hope that everything possible will be done
to avoid the discontent and misunderstanding
which does exist, and which is reflected in
the press and in public speeches being made
in Newfoundland and elsewhere today. For
we want to see the splendid people of Newfoundland joining Canada in a spirit of real
satisfaction and friendship and with a certainty that it is to the interests and advantage
of all of them.
This is an historic occasion. The proceedings which carry into effect the purpose
of
this resolution will of necessity be debated
in detail, and there will be discussions in relation to those details. But in regard
to the
principle of carrying into effect the vision of
those great men who met at Charlottetown in
1864, I find it difficult to believe that there
can be any difference of view anywhere in
the house as to the hope that this will be carried out to the complete satisfaction
of the
people both of Newfoundland and of Canada.
For the reasons I have indicated, we will
support the resolution before the house.
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar): Mr.
Speaker, this is not the stage at which to
discuss any of the details of the agreement
and therefore I do not propose to do so. May
I say at once that members of the C.C.F.
throughout Canada join with other people
in welcoming into confederation the island
of Newfoundland.
When in 1867 the fathers of confederation
succeeded in uniting this great land which
we call Canada, Newfoundland remained
aloof. Now, after eighty years, what we may
term the oldest British colony in North
America joins this great undertaking, the
nation of which we are a part. I say therefore there can be no wonder when, in discussing
the resolution, we are filled with a
sense of its historic importance.
Newfoundland, by reason of her strategic
position, to which reference has been made
this afternoon, her wealth and, Mr. Speaker,
most of all, the sterling qualities of her
people, is indeed a welcome addition to the
country in which we live. She, may I add,
has resources which have never been adequately and thoroughly surveyed, and about
which in many instances very little is known.
Her people are descended principally from
those hardy seafaring folk who crossed the
stormy Atlantic in little cockleshells of boats
from places like Bristol, Bideford, Plymouth,
fishing villages along the Devon and Cornish
coasts, and from places on the shores of
Brittany, Normandy and Scotland.
If I might interject a personal note: In
the district where I was born, in the county
of Devonshire, our parish registers record
how in the late seventeenth and eighteenth
century fisherfolk who crossed the Atlantic
paid their church tithes after having returned
from fishing expeditions on the grand banks.
When they came back, this great reservoir
of new food for a hungry continent of
Europe was more valuable to the people of
Europe than all the treasures Sir Walter
Raleigh hoped to find farther south. It was
his brother adventurer, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who concentrated upon Newfoundland.
I believe it was Francis Bacon who said that
the fisheries of Newfoundland were more
valuable to posterity than all the mines of
Peru. I believe that is true.
So the beginnings of Newfoundland were
laid by hardy fisherfolk who, perhaps, had
no thought of settling so far across the stormy
ocean. But it was the wealth of fish which
laid the foundation of Newfoundland, just
as it may be said that the fur trade laid the
foundation of New France. And just as in
the seventeenth century Canada was typically French in its origins, characteristics
and customs, so it may be said that Newfoundland is typically British in its origins,
in its customs, and in its general outlook
upon life.
So that once again, within this North
American confederation we call Canada, the
two great races who have laid the foundations
of this country, together with the many
hundreds of thousands who have come to us
from many lands and who, too, have made
their contribution, are engaged today in laying the foundations of a Canada greater
than
we have known, making it a nation stretching at last in every sense from sea to sea.
But just as the gentlemen adventurers into
Hudson bay tried to keep the settlers out of
what was then known as Rupert's Land and
is now the Northwest Territories, Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, so the fish-dealing
merchants of the west of England tried to
keep settlers from landing and taking root in
Newfoundland. They wanted to keep the
harbours and coves for the curing of fish,
and to add to their own profits thereby. But
settlers came, and in spite of the gentlemen
adventurers they remained and they fought
their way through. I mention this because
I think it tells us something of the type of
people and their background, and indicates
296 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
clearly the sturdy stock from which they
sprang, and their determination to see things
through. The settlers had to fight repressive
laws, and literally they were under a star
chamber jurisdiction.
Just before I came into the house I looked
up a reference to this repression in our history. In 1633, in the reign of Charles
I, the
star chamber laid down a number of rules by
which the people of Newfoundland were to
live, and they were repressive indeed. Then
in 1660, in the reign of Charles II, the preamble was altered and confirmed. Let me
read you a paragraph from it:
All owners of ships trading to Newfoundland are
forbidden to carry any persons not of the ship's
company, or such as are to plant or do intend to
settle there, and that speedy punishment may be
inflicted on offenders.
I can recollect no similar provision touching any other British colony, or indeed
any
other colony elsewhere.
In 1832, if I may take a jump, representative government was granted by the parliament
of the United Kingdom, but it was not
responsible government. True, it was representative government, but the governor and
the executive were not responsible to the
legislature. A few years later there was great
friction in the colony, and the British government was asked to intervene. They did
so, and the constitution, such as it was, was
suspended for a time. It was not until 1855
that the country followed Canada in obtaining responsible government.
I do not propose to traverse the checkered
story of the island's political and economic
history up to 1931. That was done in part
this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr.
St. Laurent), and to a certain extent by the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). In 1931,
when the. loss of markets and world-wide
depression brought into bold relief the desperate financial plight of the island and
the
terrible suffering among its people, something had to be done. In response to appeals
from the people of Newfoundland a royal
commission was set up under Lord Amulree.
I am not going into the details of its report.
I am going to say, however, that I have read
very carefully the report of that royal commission, which I think was published in
1934,
and I was shocked at the conditions which
were revealed in it.
As we have heard this afternoon, the
result was the suspension of the constitution
again, and the setting up of a commission
government, which was also described this
afternoon. That is where the matter rests
today. I agree with the Prime Minister and
the leader of the opposition that what we are
about to consider is an agreement into which
Canada is entering, and it is our duty to see
to it that that agreement is in the best inter
ests of Canada. It is none of our business to
discuss other matters in relation to it. It is
the business of the government of Newfoundland, which at the moment is the government
of the United Kingdom, to protect the interests of the people of Newfoundland both
in the
agreement and in the manner of its making.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to
say that I hope and trust that the agreement
when consummated will prove mutually satisfactory and advantageous to Canada and
Newfoundland. Therefore our first duty is to
see that the terms of the agreement we are
about to discuss are fair and satisfactory to
our own country. As I say, I hope that as
time passes both countries will find the agreement satisfactory and mutually advantageous.
I think another matter we have got to be
clear about is that we are not taking into
confederation the stricken country of 1931. I
believe it was the Prime Minister who said
this afternoon that a financial surplus has
been piled up, and that the country is now
relatively prosperous. It has accumulated a
substantial surplus. Indeed, the reason why
we are discussing this problem at the present
time is that it has emerged from the slough
of despond which afflicted it in the hungry
thirties.
In September, 1944, the hon. member for
Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), the hon.
member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and I
attended a conference of the British commonwealth labour, co-operative and socialist
parties held in London. We had the opportunity
of meeting Lord Ammon and of hearing from
him quite a long and interesting report. He
had been appointed in 1943 by the coalition
government to head a good-will mission to
inquire into the situation as it then existed on
the island of Newfoundland. The mission
visited every part of the island and held
discussions with representative people of all
types, from the fishing people along the coves
and coasts to the people of the towns and in
the city of St. John's, on economic conditions,
the political future of the island, and all those
matters which are very much under discussion today.
Subsequently the Fabian society published
a pamphlet much along the lines of the
address which Lord Ammon made, and which
I, and my hon. friends who attended the conference with me, heard. I want to quote
from
it a few words which express his appraisal of
the people of Newfoundland. He said:
I should record my appreciation of the integrity,
shrewdness, and high level of intelligence of the
Newfoundlanders. They are, on the whole, a kindly,
hospitable people, hardworking yet easy-going, well-
mannered but outspoken, thrifty but generous to
strangers. Living in close contact with nature, employed for the most part on hard
and often dangerous manual work. they have an ingrained healthy
contempt of danger; an easy—perhaps too easy—
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 297
philosophy that tomorrow will look after itself, and
an ability to turn their hands to anything from boat
building to home construction. Their aptitude as
seamen is well known, and their contribution in
manpower to this war requires no comment. It
would be hard to find a more loyal and delightful
people.
I thought that was worth putting on the
record this afternoon. The leader of the
opposition (Mr. Drew) has spoken at length
in regard to their war record, and I think we
all appreciate what the island did during the
war. But Lord Ammon also found that conditions on the island were deplorable. He
noted that the people depended for their
livelihood mainly on fish, timber and the land,
with fishing quite the predominant industry.
He said that much of the poverty was due to
the long-established methods pursued by the
old-style salt and dried cod industry, in which
the fishermen went from one debt sheet to
another through the operation of what is
known as the truck system, now illegal in the
United Kingdom and in many other places.
On this his comment was interesting, and
again I want to quote it:
The uncrowned kings of the settlements are the
"planters" or outport merchants, who supply the
fishermen, buy their fish and in their own lights act
as "guides, philosophers and friends" to the settlements. All of them take heavy risks
in advancing
money on the probable out-turn of the fishery. If
it fails, they fail heavily; if it prospers, they prosper.
Many are honest men who have helped hundreds of
fishermen through hard winters, others are unscrupulous. All profess to abhor the
truck system, but
none seems willing to help the fishermen out of
the net of debt in which they are constantly enmeshed; and all hold surprising views
on the profit
an honest trader is permitted to make in a normal
year.
He also noted something else; that wherever
co-operatives had been established—and the
establishment of co-operatives has proceeded
apace, very largely under the leadership of
the university of St. Francois Xavier in Nova
Scotia—or where the fisherfolk received cash
for their product, the condition of the whole
community had greatly improved.
As I said before, at this stage it is not
proper to discuss any of the fifty sections,
and I do not propose to do so. That will
come when we are discussing the legislation.
However, I do want to say something about
the necessity of our working together in an
effort to develop the material resources of
the island for the purpose of raising the
standards of living and preventing further
exploitation by monopolistic and selfish interests, from which the masses of the people
of Newfoundland have suffered from the very
beginning. We should consider Newfoundland
and Labrador as part of the whole maritime
region, which incidentally is a region that
cries aloud for a new deal. We believe the
federal authority, of course in co-operation
with the provinces, of which now Newfound
land will be one, should institute a policy to
encourage the location of industry and investment so that the whole maritime region
will
be protected from further exploitation by
powerful interests with head offices in central
Canada or elsewhere.
The other day we heard a great deal about
the centralization of government. In my
opinion the real danger of the loss of provincial independence, yes, of individual
independence, is not in the dominion-provincial
tax arrangements made by this parliament
with seven of the provinces, but in the concentration of financial and economic power
in
the hands of a few wealthy individuals or
corporations in one or two of the provinces
of Canada. Not many months ago the present
leader of the opposition, then premier of
Ontario, stated that 52 per cent of all industrial and military production during
the war
came from Ontario. Granted, that was a fine
record for the managers and workers in industry in this province, a record of which
they
can be very proud. But is it not an indication
of the tremendous concentration of industry
in one province, if the hon. gentleman's figure
is right, especially since the bulk of the
remainder of Canadian industry, 48 per cent,
is concentrated in one other province? It is
all very well to argue that Canada has grown
strong because the provinces control certain
resources which make for national strength;
but to say, as the leader of the opposition did
on January 28, that—
—the strength of this country has been built upon
the combined strength of all the governments . . .
—is unfortunately simply not in accordance with the facts. The fallacy of that
statement is that some provinces are weak,
not because they signed tax agreements but
because of the concentration of industry,
wealth and power in a steadily diminishing
number of corporations located in a few
places, and mainly in two provinces. Yet it
should be noted that the masses of the people
of Ontario by and large are no better off than
the masses of the people in the other provinces of Canada.
We welcome Newfoundland, then, on
another count; because it will tend to
strengthen the position of the maritime provinces and the other "have not" provinces,
and to highlight their problems. Indeed, the
addition of another "have not" province will
assist all the other provinces similarly situated. If I may once more use the phraseology
of the leader of the opposition the other day,
this will help provide further checks and
balances, not only against over-centralization
of power in this parliament but against over-
centralization of financial and economic
power anywhere in Canada. Indeed, in my
298
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Newfoundland
opinion the tax agreements represent the only
attempt yet made in Canada to decentralize
this vast power in our country by effecting
some redistribution of public revenue among
them.
But more than a policy of financial decentralization is essential. Already since the
war we have seen serious unemployment
affecting Halifax, Trenton, Cape Breton, and
other maritime industrial centres. When the
closing of the Trenton steel works and its
removal to Montreal was being investigated,
the president of Dosco defended it on the
ground that to continue or expand the
industry in Trenton would be uneconomical.
Well, it is all very well to say, as the leader
of the opposition said, that—
—the great developments that have taken place in
the nine provinces have very largely been the result
of the wise and intimate guidance of the provincial
governments in each of those provinces.
But the function of the national government
surely must be to give wise guidance to the
national economy, so that all parts of the
country may share in the development of our
resources and the benefits derived therefrom.
In other words, this parliament should have
a positive economic policy for all Canada.
What is needed is a national policy to provide
the maritimes, now including Newfoundland,
with the means to supply opportunities for
maritime youth in the maritime region, just as
we should have a policy to provide opportunities for prairie youth in the prairie
region
and for Pacific youth in the Pacific region.
The centralization trend, economically and
financially, can be reversed only by the
national government, which must have both
the financial resources and the power to
achieve a positive development program.
I suggest to the house that we might find
some inspiration in what has been done in the
United Kingdom since the war to reverse a
similar trend and to assist the depressed areas
of England, Scotland and Wales. Indeed it is
not only socialist theory but economic necessity which has caused the Labour government
to nationalize some facilities and to propose
the nationalization of some others, including
the steel industry. By controlling the banking and credit policies of the Bank of
England
and by directing national investment, as well
as using its power of granting priorities on
things in short supply, since the war the
British government has encouraged the building of more than seven hundred new and
important factories, more than four hundred
of which have been built in depressed areas.
Last evening I was talking over the telephone
with a gentleman, not a resident of Canada
but from New York, who has just spent six
months in Britain; and he told me that the
transformation in the depressed areas was
nothing short of miraculous. He mentioned
particularly conditions in Cumberland, where
before the war some thirty to forty per cent
of the people were continuously idle and
unemployed. He went on to say that within
a month or two that area will have a shortage
of labour.
Some delegates to the parliamentary conference last September and October visited
South Wales, for example. I was not one of
that party, but they told of the tremendous
industrial expansion and mounting level of
employment in that depressed area, where for
years before the war misery, poverty and
unemployment dominated the countryside.
The effect of this is also improved housing,
improved health and a tremendous drop in
the death rate, particularly the infant mortality rate. Taking as an illustration
the
northern city of Jarrow, which Ellen Wilkinson once described as the city that was
murdered, in 1934 the infant mortality rate
was 95·82 per thousand, far above the
national average of 61·92. Last year, because
of the relocation of industry and employment,
it fell below the national average, to 39·68
per thousand.
Side by side with the decentralization of
industry, requiring for our own country,
incidentally, a program of housing, the expenditures on ill-health will drop sharply.
The effects of malnutrition and overcrowding
are minimized or largely prevented when
you have industry, employment and all that
goes with it. I say, then, that the entry of
Newfoundland into confederation should be
an occasion when this parliament should be
considering policies that will give new hope
to the maritime area. The problems of
Newfoundland are similar to those of the
maritime areas; transportation, economic development and the marketing of products.
I say this is a challenge presented to this
parliament at the present time, a challenge to
adopt a really imaginative national policy.
It is my contention that no single province,
no matter how rich, can alone undertake this
kind of thing successfully, for it requires a
careful survey of the primary products and
resources of the country so that a decision
can be reached as to the types of industry
which should be located in the several areas
that are under-industrialized or depressed.
Then, of course, an intelligent national plan
for the utilization of our resources is required.
Along with that a conservation policy should
be formulated, adopted and indeed put into
effect. I know that, when Newfoundland
comes into this confederation, Newfoundland
as well as our other provinces will need a
policy of that description for the conservation and intelligent use of resources.
Along
with that should go a national transportation
policy which would serve the nation instead
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 299
of emphasizing the discrimination in facilities
and rates which now exists. All this would
have a great psychological and material effect,
not only on the maritimes but on the whole
country.
When I was speaking last week on the
address, I noted that there are difficulties
ahead, difficulties which have been obscured,
postponed or minimized because of the postwar demands and the European recovery
program. Our whole economy is, indeed, very
vulnerable. An imaginative plan for the
development of Canadian resources, including
Newfoundland, in the interests of all parts of
Canada and particularly in the interests of
the depressed or potentially depressed parts
of Canada, should be formulated and begun.
As I have said before, I think that is a
challenge to this house and an opportunity
which the entry of Newfoundland into confederation brings forcibly before us. So far
as we in this party are concerned, we are
prepared to co-operate in accepting that challenge and trying to do something effective
about it.
Is there any other reason, Mr. Speaker,
except that of the economic policy of the
financial and industrial monopolies which
have located in the central Canadian provinces, why the prophecy of Sir Leonard Tilley
should so long have remained unfulfilled at
least in part? Speaking in this house in 1879
Sir Leonard Tilley said this:
I am not, I think, over-sanguine when I say the
day is not far distant when the population in the
western country will be greater than in Canada
and when the maritime provinces with their coal,
iron and water power will be the manufacturing centre for this vast dominion.
Perhaps he was over-optimistic so far as
the maritimes and the western part of the
country are concerned. But, in large part,
the vision should have materialized, because
the resources are there.
Those of us who can look back on the war
years can remember a discussion before the
war expenditures committee of this house
when the late member for Vancouver-
Burrard, Mr. McGeer, the present member
for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), the present
member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew), myself
and others urged there should be some decentralization of the steel industry. We urged
that if at all possible steel should be produced where the plates were being used,
and
that the valuable deposits of coal and iron
on Vancouver island might form the basis
of a Pacific coast steel industry to supply
British Columbia shipyards. We were told
categorically by the steel controller of that
day that no such development would be permitted because the steel industry was already
well located; and, when the war was over,
expanded production might be an embarrass
ment to the steel industry as established
owing to a falling-off of demand or the import
of foreign steel.
While Sir Leonard Tilley may have been
too enthusiastic in his vision, yet there are
no reasons, other than those I have given,
why industry should be centralized or why
it should become concentrated more and
more, not only in one or two provinces, not
only under the control of one or two corporations and individuals, but under the
control of industries which have become
monopolistic in their character and in their
methods. To my mind, at least, the partial
fulfilment of this vision of Sir Leonard
Tilley lies largely in the hands of the
present members of this House of Commons.
Newfoundland will come into confederation with her great resources, many of them
unsurveyed and many of them unknown.
Not long ago, I read a statement by a Roman
Catholic prelate who had spent many years
on the island, Monsignor Sears, who spoke
of the fine agricultural possibilities in western
Newfoundland. Again, the problem of conservation enters because that is where lumber
is being cut. If we are going to have
agriculture, as we are finding out in many
parts of our country, we have to conserve our
trees or reforest the slopes when they are
denuded.
I am very glad that this resolution gives us
an opportunity of thinking not only of the
great historic event of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, but also of
her
sterling people with their interesting history,
people who have fought against great odds
in the past and are fighting against them
now. They will add much to our Canadian
nation. It offers us too the opportunity to
think not only of the future of Newfoundland
but of the future of the maritime region, and
indeed of that of all of Canada, and to
impress upon us that we must do our part
in the building of a far greater nation than
even the fathers of confederation visualized
when they planned complete confederation
of the scattered colonies over eighty years
ago.
Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River): Mr.
Speaker, it is not my purpose to take a great
deal of time this afternoon, because I feel
that the ground has been quite adequately
and well covered by the speakers who have
already taken part in this debate. I feel,
however, that we would be remiss in our
duties and responsibilities if at this time we
did not say something to indicate that we too,
in our great movement across Canada, support the principle of this resolution without
any qualification. The social credit movement
rejoices that the process of confederation,
which started more than eighty-five years
300 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
ago, seems now to be entering its final stages.
We join in welcoming Newfoundland into the
Canadian community of provinces, the
Dominion of Canada. To her, if she should
choose to ratify the agreement which will be
brought before us in due course, we extend
the warmest possible welcome. At the same
time we express the sincere hope that divine
Providence will set His seal upon the greater
Canada to the end that she may go forward
and realize fully her great destiny.
I hope that the terms of agreement between
our two countries, as finally approved, will
be so satisfactory to both the people of
Canada and the people of Newfoundland that
it will stand unchallenged for many years
to come. I confess, though, that I have felt
some misgiving arising out of the fact that,
when the second referendum took place on
July 22, 1948, only 44 per cent of the electorate voted for confederation. It is true,
I
admit, that, of those who voted, a majority
voted for union. I do not suggest at all that
anyone was at fault except the electors
themselves, in that they did not get out to
the polls. I believe, however, that we all could
have felt more secure and happier about the
result if sufficient interest had been taken by
all the electorate in Newfoundland so that,
when the vote took place, there would have
been an undoubted, over-all majority of the
electors supporting union. I hope of course
that the great majority of the people of Newfoundland will eventually come to understand
and appreciate the step that is being taken
and that they will eventually give to it their
wholehearted support.
Much has been said this afternoon about
the people of Newfoundland and about their
great country. Thus far all the speakers have
extolled the virtues of Newfoundlanders, and
quite rightly so. I share in the admiration
that has been expressed for this great people
and for what they have accomplished under,
as we all understand, great difficulties. If the
Newfoundlanders confederate with us, they
will definitely enrich the sum total of the
qualities of the people of greater Canada.
Their spiritual, moral, physical and cultural
qualities are certainly no less than our own.
We know of course that their country
possesses resources and strategic values of
great importance. We appreciate all of these;
nevertheless the advantage will not be all on
one side. Let me say that if we are fortunate
enough to have Newfoundland join with
Canada, Canada will gain much. At the same
time, let me say that Newfoundland also will
gain much. We have here the greatest country on the face of the earth, and I say that
in full realization of the magnitude of the
statement I am making. I believe, and have
always believed, that Canada has a great
destiny. I believe that in the years to come
Canada will prove to be the real bulwark of
the whole of America, not only materially, but
spiritually and morally as well.
I have always appreciated the fact that
Canada is the one part of America that retains
by statute observance of the Sabbath day.
That fact gives to our country a moral
strength which cannot be found in any other
part of America. It may not be appreciated
now, but I am strongly hoping that certain
forces in our country, who today are moving
to repeal that statute and to throw open the
Sabbath day to the same activities that take
place on week days, will forget their aims
and objectives and join with us in maintaining in this country the Sabbath day as
it
should be.
When Newfoundland comes in, if she
chooses to approve this agreement, I express
the hope that she too will join with us in trying to defend what we consider to be
one of
the fundamental strengths of our great country. We have in Canada, in my opinion,
a
people second to none anywhere in the world.
We have a country which, if properly developed on sound economic lines, can yield
to its
people a standard of living unequalled in any
part of the world. We also have in our
country, and it is a fact we all appreciate, a
forward-looking people who, though they are
sometimes given to inertia, when they are
moved gather momentum and in due course,
I think, find the right path and do what is
right.
I say these things for the reason that I do
not want it said at any time that, on this historic occasion, we did not point out
to our
friends from Newfoundland who may join
with us, as we hope they will, that they are
fortunate in the opportunity that confederation offers to them, just as we are fortunate
in having them join with us. When our country, in very fact, reaches from sea to sea,
Mr.
Speaker, let us express the hope that, from
one end of that greater Canada to the other,
our people will join hands and march forward determined to make this country the
finest place in the world in which to live; to
build the happiest people it is possible to find
anywhere on the face of the earth; and indeed
to build here for the western hemisphere a
real bulwark, spiritual, material and moral.
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National
Defence): The speakers who have preceded
me have all referred in the most fitting and
eloquent terms to the importance that the
entry of Newfoundland will have in the consummation of the dream, the work and the
achievements of confederation. One newspaper said that this is one of the great
historic developments of the year. This, sir,
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 301
will have been one of the great historic
developments of any year in the history of
Canada. And what is more, its importance
transcends even our own national interests
and our own national hopes, because this is
one of the few occasions in recent years on
which it is possible to speak of union rather
than disunion, of construction rather than
destruction. And when we see, as we have
seen around the world, disunion, revolution
and disorder, it is a great forward step that
we in Canada and our neighbour Newfoundland should be able to point to this as a
constructive achievement in the completion
of confederation. But further, too, it is
significant that this union should be coming
at a time when we are looking forward to
the consummation of a pact—also a union—
of north Atlantic nations in the proposed
north Atlantic security pact.
It is something more than a coincidence
that these two great events in the history of
our country should be brought about at the
same time and for reasons which contribute
one to the other. We can point to this work
of union, this work of good will, this work
of construction. The only other kinds of
unions that have been consummated in recent
years are unions whereby country after
country has been brought under the domination of the soviet union by coercion, by
force and by revolution. Our union today is
being brought about by co-operation of men
of good will, of men who have the same
traditions, the same historical background,
the same racial origin, and who also, as long
as there has been any knowledge of North
America in Europe, have lived on this continent beside each other.
It is interesting, too, that we should consider
this proposal against the background of
the act of confederation itself; for union
will be the final achievement of what was
begun in 1867. Confederation was brought
into being in consequence of the discussions
between the representatives of the various
colonies in British North America, begun at
Charlottetown in 1864 and continued at
Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton, and
then carried on again at Quebec with representatives there from the colony of Newfoundland.
It is greatly to be regretted
that it was not possible at that time to consummate this union. But it was possible
there
to make the beginning of the great nation of
Canada, and so we saw added to the original
group under the provisions of section 146 of
the British North America Act or other legislation Manitoba in 1870, British Columbia
in
1871, Prince Edward Island in 1873 and
Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905. They
formed the original nine, and we are now
completing this union of the colonies of
British North America of 1867 to form the
nation of Canada of 1949.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)
referred to some of the differences in the
nature of the problem that faced the representatives of the governments of Canada
and
of Newfoundland when we sat down in 1947
and again in 1948 to discuss the terms
together. Just imagine how conditions have
changed since 1905. This brings into focus the
new factors that have to be determined, the
additional complexities and the new and
greatly extended functions of government. In
1905 there was no social security, there were
no old age pensions or pensions for the blind,
there was no unemployment insurance, there
were no family allowances and there was no
veterans charter. On the material side there
was no civil aviation and there was no broadcasting, nor was there any income tax.
These matters that I have mentioned represent the immense change that has taken place
in the functions and in the scope of government, but they also show an immense increase
in the complexity of the subjects that had
to be dealt with in the discussions with representatives, first of the convention,
and then
of the government of Newfoundland. These
discussions started, as has been said by the
Prime Minister, in 1947 when representatives
of the cabinet met for several months with
a committee representing the convention. In
consequence of that discussion a proposal was
produced headed "Proposed arrangement for
the entry of Newfoundland into confederation". The subheading is very important.
It reads as follows: "Terms believed to constitute a fair and equitable basis for
union
of Newfoundland with Canada should the
people of Newfoundland decide to enter into
confederation." It is dated October 29, 1947.
By a letter dated the same day it was forwarded to His Excellency, Sir Gordon Macdonald,
K.C.M.G., governor of Newfoundland,
by the then Prime Minister of Canada, Mr.
W. L. Mackenzie King. These terms for
proposed arrangements had been worked out
by the committee representing the convention
under the chairmanship of Mr. F. G. Bradley,
K.C., and by the Canadian government under
the then Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King.
These terms were made available to the
governor and the government of Newfoundland and then they were tabled in the house
and released to the press. The terms were
before the people of Newfoundland when on
the second referendum they decided to enter
confederation. I would submit that those who
have some difficulty over the fact that the
terms of union have been negotiated with
302 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
representatives of the government of Newfoundland, rather than with those appointed
to represent a responsible government in
Newfoundland, must take into account the
fact that first it was the British government
which decided to put the question as to
whether they wished to enter confederation
on the plebiscite which was put before the
people of Newfoundland; and, secondly, that
at the time, when a majority of the people
answered yes, they had these terms before
them, and those terms had been explained by
representatives of the people, including the
members of the convention who had sent
representatives to discuss the terms here.
That having been done, I submit this government had no choice but to proceed to meet
the representatives of the government of
Newfoundland. Once there was a plebiscite
on whether or not Newfoundland should enter
confederation, once the people with the terms
before them had decided in favour of entering confederation, then this government
could
not do other than express its willingness to
entertain negotiations and to discuss the terms
of union with the representatives of the Newfoundland government. It really is as
simple
as that. Once the British government had
allowed the question of joining confederation
to be put before the people, then this government had no choice whatsoever in the
subsequent course it followed. In consequence,
the government of Newfoundland, acting
through the commission of government,
appointed the seven gentlemen, whose names
were given by the Prime Minister (Mr. St.
Laurent), to come here to enter into negotiations.
They arrived and were met; and I should
like to tell the house something of the course
of those negotiations. We recognize that this
is an historic occasion, and it may be useful
for our own people, yes, and perhaps for
future generations, to have a note placed on
Hansard as to the way in which negotiations
were carried on. As a member of the cabinet
committee, I had something to do with those
negotiations and as deputy chairman, when
the Prime Minister could not attend, it was
my responsibility to preside at the conference,
and to do a good deal of the work of preparation and discussion at all stages.
My experience in conferences includes the
dominion-provincial conferences of 1941, 1945
and 1946, and conferences with representatives of the provinces dealing with different
matters at different times, as well as conferences with other nations dealing with
various
aspects of international affairs. Thus far, no
conference at which it has been my privilege
to represent the government or the country
has been conducted with closer attention to
the sole interests and welfare of the people
concerned—in this instance, the people of
Canada and the people of Newfoundland than
was this conference.
I should like to pay tribute to the delegation representing Newfoundland, under the
chairmanship of a most distinguished lawyer,
citizen and statesman, in the person of Sir
Albert J. Walsh, K.C. As chairman of the
Newfoundland delegation he showed great
capacity—and tenacity, too—in explaining the
position and rights of the people of Newfoundland. He put forward those views he
felt it his duty to express, and did so with
a courtesy and fairness as well as a frankness which inspired the whole proceedings.
That was the atmosphere in which the work
was carried on. There was no bickering;
there was no backbiting; there were no
recriminations; there were no leaks, either
accidental or inspired; there were no occasions when there was a lack of frankness;
there were no charges. There was the steady
and competent effort by well-meaning people
to see if they could not arrive at a fair and
equitable basis upon which our two countries
could enter into union and partnership.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Claxton: The conference began to
meet on the 6th of October of last year, and
was continuously in session until the terms
of union were settled. The conference had
its final plenary session in the Senate chamber, as it did its opening session, on
the 11th
December. Thus some two months were
occupied in arriving at the terms. In addition
to the plenary sessions of the conference, a
number of subcommittees were set up. They
are enumerated on page 81 of the report and
documents which the Secretary of State for
External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) tabled today.
They included subcommittees on drafting,
finance, fisheries, transport and veterans
affairs, which met in practically continuous
session from the beginning to the end.
The subcommittee on drafting, in addition
to considering the form which the terms of
union and the bill should take, also considered the Canadian statutes and the Newfoundland
statutes that might be affected, as well as
the procedure that might be adopted in making a submission to the parliament at Westminster.
Altogether the subcommittee on
drafting produced not less than fourteen
drafts of the terms of union after they had
begun to be submitted to the plenary conference, and also a number before. This work,
as I say, continued night and day throughout
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 303
the more than two months from the 6th October until the 11th December of last year.
On the llth December the terms of union
were signed by representatives of Canada
and Newfoundland at the ceremony in the
Senate chamber.
In addition, a number of points had been
raised by the Newfoundland delegation in the
course of the proceedings. Many of these
were put in the form of written questions,
and others were raised from time to time
throughout the deliberations. It was decided
in the end that they should be dealt with in
a document accompanying the terms of union
and headed, "Statements on questions raised
by the Newfoundland delegation during the
negotiations for the union of Newfoundland
with Canada." These were transmitted by
the Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent as Prime
Minister of Canada in a letter dated December 11, 1948, addressed to Mr. Walsh,
chairman of the Newfoundland delegation.
He said in the letter:
During the course of our negotiations covering
the final terms and arrangements for the union of
Newfoundland with Canada, a number of questions
concerning government policy were raised by your
delegation and answered by the Canadian government. In addition a number of temporary
administrative arrangements were settled in order to facilitate the union.
It would not seem fitting to include in formal
terms of union matters of this kind, since they are
scarcely of a constitutional nature. I am therefore
sending you the enclosed memorandum covering
these various items. While these will not form part
of the terms of union, they contain statements of
the policy and intentions of this government if union
is made effective by the approval of the parliament
of Canada and the government of Newfoundland,
and confirmed by the parliament of the United
Kingdom.
These statements in reply to the questions
raised by the Newfoundland delegation were
forwarded to the Newfoundland delegation
and constitute a statement of government
policy or administrative intentions on the
various points that they cover.
I am sure hon. members will realize that
this result was made possible by the assistance of very competent officials. Both
the
Newfoundland delegation and the Canadian
representatives were fortunate in that respect.
On the Canadian side a number of officials
participated, representing every department,
agency and activity of the government. I
should like to refer particularly to the work
done by our high commissioner in Newfoundland, Mr. J. Scott Macdonald, who was
succeeded at the time of these negotiations by
the Hon. Charles J. Burchell, K.C., who
returned to Newfoundland for the purpose,
and who assisted in the discussions by securing information for the government, and
also
by facilitating the Newfoundland government
in obtaining information about the situation
in Canada. Through this instrumentality and
also through other officials such as Mr. J. R.
Baldwin, who was secretary of the conference
and of the Canadian delegation, and Mr. R. A.
MacKay of the Department of External
Affairs, there was the freest possible interchange of information, and at every stage
the
work was facilitated in consequence of the
public spirited service of these officials.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell),
and
also the member for Peace River (Mr. Low),
in their speeches this afternoon, referred to
the character and the characteristics of the
people of Newfoundland. Our experience
during these negotiations extending over a
period of a year and a half completely confirms everything that has been said in praise
of the people of Newfoundland. Our experience could not have been better. It is also
confirmed by the experience of the Canadian
soldiers, sailors, and airmen who served in
Newfoundland during the war. The Prime
Minister and the leader of the opposition
referred to the great part played by Newfoundland in the first as well as in the second
world war. It appears that in the first war
a total of more than ten thousand residents
of Newfoundland served in their own forces
and in the forces of Great Britain, Canada,
and the other allied countries. In the second
world war a total of more than ten thousand
served overseas, and in addition some 1,500
men and 600 women served in the Canadian
armed forces. Altogether a total of something like 13,000 saw service of one kind
or
another. In his book "The Canadian Army,
1939-1945" Colonel C. P. Stacey, director of
history, has this to say at page 43:
There was close co-operation between the Canadian and Newfoundland governments from
the outbreak of war. Newfoundland afforded all facilities
to the R.C.A.F.; Canada provided Newfoundland
with equipment including some coast defence guns;
and when France collapsed in June, 1940, steps were
immediately taken to safeguard the great airport at
Gander and the seaplane base at Botwood. An
infantry battalion and a flight of bomber reconnaissance aircraft, now hastily despatched,
were only
the vanguard of larger forces.
Then Colonel Stacey goes on to describe
the very close co-operation at sea, on land
and in the air between our armed forces. In
a book to be published shortly under the
authority of the Minister of National Defence,
on naval operations during the war, written
by Joseph Schull, this is said:
St. John's was a hospitable and storied capital
where few men lacked a home to go to for a meal.
There were friendly hostels. provided, stocked
and operated by Canadian service organizations; and
there was a St. John's hospitality committee which
could receive and fill without blinking the request
of an incoming ship for a hundred girls and a dance
"tonight" . . .
304 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
Perhaps nowhere in the world was there a garret
exactly like the Crow's Nest; fifty-nine steps from
street level up the outside of an old store building—
officially named the Seagoing Officers' Club and open
to officers of the allied fighting ships and the merchant navy. Reminiscences went
round the world,
and doubtless are still on the wing, of that loud
and smoky room where ships' crests and bells and
trophies hung thick on every wall.
It is true to say that, in the hearts of the
officers and men of our navy and our merchant marine, St. John's occupied as large
a place as any Canadian port. It was
regarded as the home port of a large part of
the Canadian fleet. On this account, as well
as the others that have been mentioned, we
shall be especially glad to welcome Newfoundland into confederation.
But this story of working together in our
common defence is not a recent one. It is
reported that five companies of the Newfoundland regiment were sent to Upper
Canada during the war of 1812; and I am
glad indeed that, in the terms of union, reference is expressly made in paragraph
44 to
defence establishments, as follows:
Canada will provide for the maintenance in the
province of Newfoundland of appropriate reserve
units of the Canadian defence forces, which will
include the Newfoundland Regiment.
So if union is consummated it is our intention to see that this great regiment is
perpetuated, with its name and its traditions, as
one of the components of the Canadian armed
forces. By joining the military traditions of
Newfoundland and Canada, we will be enriching both.
Mr. MacNicol: Would the minister add just
a word about the distinguished record of the
Newfoundland Regiment in Upper Canada
during the war of 1812? In Toronto we have
a monument erected in its honour.
Mr. Claxton: I shall be glad to. I referred
to the regiment a moment ago.
Mr. MacNicol: I heard what the minister
said, but I did not hear any reference to the
Victories of this regiment in Upper Canada.
Mr. Claxton: That is what I was referring
to. Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland forms part
of the geographical pattern and formation of
North America. This island with a population of 330,000 has an area of 42,000 square
miles, larger than Ireland and amounting to
84 per cent of the combined area of the maritime provinces. But in addition Labrador,
which since 1927 has been found to form part
of Newfoundland, has an area of another
110,000 square miles. Newfoundland is situated at the mouth of the gulf of the St.
Lawrence; and those of us who have come
home from abroad, on coming within sight of
Newfoundland going through the strait of
Belle Isle, have felt that if we were not at
home, at least we were getting close to it. It
will be a source of the greatest possible satisfaction to us in the future if, when
we reach
the island on the way home, we really can
feel that this is part of our home, our native
land.
Then, sir, the resources of Newfoundland
have been referred to. They have great fisheries. They have two great pulp and paper
plants, one of them, Bowater's, being the
largest paper mill in the world. There are
seventy—five firms constituting secondary
industries, with some 3,500 employees; and
in addition to the iron ore mines of Belle Isle
there are various other mineral deposits. Our
belief is that, properly explored and developed, these resources of Newfoundland will
soon establish the soundest possible economic
as well as historical, racial and geographic
reasons for union.
Our conviction is that it is in the interests
of both countries that we should join together.
Common experience is that generally speaking
a marriage between fairly mature adults is
likely to be successful, because they have
gained something in the way of tolerance and
understanding. Our hope is that that understanding will help us over the difficult
times,
because there will be difficult times, in working out the terms of our union. On the
basis
of our separate experiences, we will be able
to build a better common life than either
of us can separately. There is every reason
for our supporting this measure. I am sure
it will be a matter for the utmost gratification to the people of Newfoundland, as
well
as to the people of Canada, that the debate
on this subject should have been carried on
in a way which recognizes to the full that this
is an important occasion in the life of Canada.
At the time of confederation, Mr. Speaker,
D'Arcy McGee, who then represented part of
the constituency I have the honour to represent, said this:
I see, in the not remote future one great nationality bound, like the shield of Achilles,
by the blue
rim of the ocean. I see it quartered into many
communities, each disposing of its internal affairs,
but all bound together by free institutions, free
intercourse and free commerce. I see a generation
of industrious, contented. moral men, free in name
and in fact—men capable of maintaining, in peace
and in war, a constitution worthy of such a country.
I believe that that hope, Mr. Speaker, and
that aspiration of D'Arcy McGee is now
being realized in the union of Newfoundland
with Canada, for the good of both our peoples
and, we believe, to the benefit of the people
in other countries as well.
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie): Mr.
Speaker, I should like to endorse the opinions
expressed by all the members who have preceded me in this debate in their references
to
the good will which has prevailed between
the people of Newfoundland and the people
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 305
of Canada during so many years. The right
hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Mackenzie
King), in welcoming the delegates to Ottawa
on June 25, 1947, expressed, I believe, the
sentiment of all Canadians when he said:
In welcoming you, we welcome neighbours and
kinfolk who, with us, owe a common allegiance to
the crown and whose countries are members of the
British commonwealth. History and geography have
given us much in common. We enjoy with you the
heritage of British freedom and the even older
heritage of Christian civilization. We have shared
together the perils and sacrifices of two world wars.
Side by side, we face the uncertainties of the postwar world.
The leader of this group this afternoon
mentioned some of the common problems
we must face along with the people of Newfoundland. The people in Newfoundland will
be a long distance from Ottawa. They will
experience the difficulties which others, who
are also a long distance from central Canada,
have experienced since confederation. I
believe this parliament must be very sure the
acquisition of Newfoundland should not be
regarded as a new empire to be exploited by
vested interests.
I should like to discuss this evening a problem which so far has not received very
much
consideration during this debate, namely, the
point of view of the 71,334 or the 47·66 per
cent of the people in Newfoundland who
voted for responsible government. Very
frankly, I admit I cannot pose as a competent
authority on Newfoundland's history or problems. I did, however, spend a week in Newfoundland
in December. It was something of
a shock to me to find so much bitterness there
over the question of confederation. This
is a problem which the rest of us in Canada
would do well to consider carefully. I
realize it is not primarily a Canadian problem, but we must face the fact that 47·66
per
cent of the people voted for responsible government. Here is a minority coming into
confederation feeling that they have real
grievances.
I should like to take a little time tonight to
present a point of view which I found in
Newfoundland. I might say I was rather
surprised to find that Newfoundland is so
isolated from Canada. I happened to be
there the day after the terms of union were
signed. The following day, when the by-
election was held in the constituency of
Digby-Annapolis-Kings, I was curious to
ascertain the outcome of the elections, and I
checked with the only radio system there, as
well as with the newspapers, to find out what
word there was from Canada. I was told that
news from Canada had to reach Newfoundland via London and the people of Newfoundland
would not expect to hear any news
of the by-election on the radio until the fol
lowing day. It was a matter of surprise that
we had not had Canadian Press service in
Newfoundland during these years. You will
recall, too, that during the years we in
Canada have had very little information concerning events in Newfoundland. .
If I had not spent that week in Newfoundland, I would have allowed this resolution
to
pass without raising the point I plan to discuss with the members of the house tonight.
I should like to remind you that, as has
already been pointed out, Newfoundland
played a very active part in world war I.
They added to their national debt to the
extent of over $50 million and then, in the
years following the war, found themselves in
a difficult financial position. In 1931, Newfoundland appealed to the British government
for financial assistance, but was not
satisfied with the terms offered by the British.
In 1933, Newfoundland consented to the
setting-up of the Newfoundland royal commission, better known as the Amulree commission.
The king's warrant sets out the
objective of this commission.
—to examine into the future of Newfoundland and
in particular to report on the financial situation and
prospects therein.
The recommendations of the commission
are well known, but it might be mentioned
that, in producing the papers relating to the
report of the royal commission, it was pointed
out that:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom
would think it a little less than a disaster if the
oldest colony in the British empire were to default
in its obligations. On the other hand it is clear
that the present burden of the debt is more than the
people of Newfoundland can, for the time being, discharge unaided despite the utmost
effort.
The recommendations were as contained
in the report of the Newfoundland royal
commission, one recommendation being as
follows:
The existing form of government would be suspended until such time as the island may
become
self-supporting again.
A second recommendation, found in the
report of that commission, reads as follows:
It would be understood that, as soon as the island's
difficulties are overcome and the country is again
self-supporting, responsible government, on request
from the people of Newfoundland, would be
restored.
Since 1933, the people in this important
island have been denied the right to elect
their members to transact the business of the
country. As I stated, it was clearly set forth
in 1933 and 1934 that this was a temporary
arrangement and that, when the economic
position of the island improved, the democratic rights of the people would be restored.
The war years brought prosperity to Newfoundland, as they did to many other parts
of
306 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
the world. The Canadians, British and
Americans made large expenditures in Newfoundland, and by 1941 it seemed as if the
economic position had improved to the point
that the island might consider getting responsible government. In 1943 the then secretary
of commonwealth affairs went on record as
follows:
The arrangements made in 1933 included a pledge
by His Majesty's government that as soon as the
island's difficulties had been overcome and that
country was again self-supporting, responsible government, on request of the people
of Newfoundland, would be restored. Our whole policy is governed by this undertaking.
Mr. Nicholson: That was December 2, 1943,
In 1946 the commission of government passed
the Convention Act, which was referred to
this afternoon, and this national convention
was in session for about a year. I believe the
Prime Minister reported this afternoon that
the convention sent a delegation to London, to
Ottawa and to Washington. My information
was that a proposal was made to send a delegation to Washington to consider the question
of linking up with the United States but that
the proposal was defeated. Delegations went,
however, to London and to Ottawa. While
the delegation was in London, I am informed,
the question of the type of plebiscite to be
presented to the people was discussed with
Lord Addison, who was then secretary of state
for commonwealth affairs, and he was asked
this question: If three forms of government
were recommended to be put on the ballot by
the convention, would all three go on? His
reply was:
If you recommend it, I should think so; but I
should be bound to be advised by the convention.
Later he said:
If a substantial majority of the convention said
"we would like these questions put to the people," I
feel pretty sure I should be most anxious to give
effect to their wishes.
As was mentioned this afternoon, there was
a proposal that, in addition to putting on the
ballot the question of the continuation of
commission government and the question of
restoring responsible government, public
opinion should be tested on the question of
confederation with Canada. That proposal
was defeated, 29 to 16. I have been interested in reading the information which was
tabled this afternoon by the Secretary of
State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). At
page 10 of the document I find the following:
The national convention, before concluding its
sessions, resolved by unanimous vote to recommend
that two questions, restoration of responsible government and continuation of commission
of government, should be included on the referendum ballot;
but by a vote of 29 to 16 declined to recommend that
confederation with Canada should also be included.
The United Kingdom government concluded, how
ever, that "it would not be right that the people of
Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity
of considering the issue at the referendum." since
the terms offered by the Canadian government had
been the result of long discussions with a body of
Newfoundlanders elected to the convention . . .
Then later on in this report, at page 71,
there is a copy of a letter from the commonwealth relations oiiice discussing this
question, and I am not at all convinced by the
reasoning. Mr. Noel-Baker, in paragraph 4,
says:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom
appreciate that there has been a feeling amongst
some members of the convention that the entry of
Newfoundland into a confederation with Canada
should only be arranged after direct negotiations
between a local responsible government and the
Canadian government. The terms offered by the
Canadian government represent, however, the result
of long discussions with a body of Newfoundlanders
who were elected to the convention, and the issues
involved appear to have been sufficiently clarified
to enable the people of Newfoundland to express an
opinion as to whether confederation with Canada
would commend itself to them. In these circumstances, and having regard to the number
of members of the convention who supported the inclusion
of confederation with Canada in the ballot paper,
His Majesty's government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right that
the people
of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue at the
referendum
and they have, therefore, decided that confederation with Canada should be included
as a third
choice on the referendum paper.
I think it is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, in
view of the clear decision in the first vote of
29 to 16, and later on after a unanimous vote
by the convention, that the British government decided to disregard the considered
opinion of the convention. I submit that this
is a grievance that will be remembered in
Newfoundland for a great many years. As
an impartial observer, I cannot see any good
reason why the people of Newfoundland
should not have had the first opportunity to
decide whether or not they wanted a continuation of the commission government or wanted
to have responsible government. I refer to
the large number, 71,334, who voted for
responsible government as compared with
78,323 who voted for confederation. I am well
aware of the argument that in the first
referendum there was quite a small vote for
the continuation of the commission government namely 22,311. But let me remind you,
Mr. Speaker, that of those voting, the largest
number voted for responsible government.
There were 69,400 votes for responsible
government and 64,066 for confederation.
In the interval between the two votes, a
great deal of propaganda was put out by
those who wanted responsible government
and by those who wanted confederation.
When I was in Newfoundland I was given a
copy of a "memorandum to the common
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 307
wealth prime ministers now assembled in conference in London from the responsible
government league of Newfoundland". I am
sure a great many members of parliament
have received copies of this memorandum. It
draws attention to the fact that, after the
decision had been reached by the most
democratic process that the people had had
for many years, those who were in the minority used the publicly-owned radio there
to
get signatures to a petition and to get telegrams sent into the British government
to
the extent of some 50,000. On the other hand,
the responsible government people point out
that while they wanted to present their point
of view in connection with appealing their
case to the British parliament, they have
been denied access to the radio, and that they
have not been given the same advantages as
have those who were supporting confederation. The charge was made in this brief that
large sums of money came from outside Newfoundland to influence the voting in connection
with these plebiscites. These are
extremely serious charges, and I think that
the people of Canada are entitled to information as to whether the charges are well
founded or not. I think the Canadian government should profit by the experiences we
had in Canada following the signing of
confederation in 1867.
For years we have had regional problems
in Canada as a result of the tactics used in
bringing about confederation. If in connection with bringing about confederation
between Newfoundland and Canada there
have been practices which should not be
approved, the people of Canada should have
full particulars.
In summing up their grievances, the
responsible government league mentioned
that in 1876 letters patent were granted.
These were suspended in 1934 on the recommendations of the royal commission of 1933,
when a firm undertaking was given that this
was a temporary arrangement and that eventually, when economic conditions improved,
responsible government would be restored. I
do not accuse the Canadian government of
being guilty in connection with these grievances. But our representatives who were
negotiating should have gone out of their way
to see that this commitment was fulfilled if
at all possible.
The British North America Act of 1867 sets
out specifically that the people of Newfoundland have rights which should be respected.
Section 146 of that act reads as follows:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the
advice of Her Majesty's most honourable privy
council, on addresses from the houses or the parliament of Canada, and from the houses
of the respective legislatures of the colonies or provinces of Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island. and British Col
umbia, to admit those colonies or provinces or any
of them, into the union, and on address from the
houses of the parliament of Canada to admit
Rupert's land and the northwestern territory.
It is clear to me that this important provision of the British North America Act is
being disregarded in the negotiations which
are taking place, because the people of Newfoundland have not been able to express
themselves through a representative legislature, and those who have negotiated for
them
have not been elected by the people and are
not responsible to them. As far as we are
concerned, we should have been more anxious
that this provision of the British North America Act should be given some attention
by
the British government and by the negotiating members of the representatives from
Newfoundland.
In their representations the responsible
government league point out that while a
majority of 7,000 was secured in support of
confederation, some members of the commission government ignored their obligations
and
duties by participating in this controversial
question, and they pointed out, that when the
people in Newfoundland did vote on the question, the terms that were proposed to them
were later found to be unsatisfactory.
If the negotiations could have been carried
on by the elected representatives of the people
after they had full information on the
problems that were being discussed we would
not have had that dissatisfaction.
When I was in Newfoundland on December 20 my attention was drawn to a telegram
which was posted in the post office in Grand
Falls, a notice asking people to fill in their
application forms for family allowances. I
was later sent a form. At that time a great
many people in Newfoundland were unwilling to accept the fact that Newfoundland was
to be a part of Canada. They said to me:
"By what authority are you Canadians coming into Newfoundland and distributing your
propaganda?" A good deal was said about
what family allowances were going to mean
to Newfoundland, but while they were taking
their case to the courts they thought it was
quite unfair that Canadian family allowance
forms should be circulated through the mail
in Newfoundland, further aggravating the
problem. I am aware of the justification for
this conduct. We had given a commitment
to make family allowances payable after
March 31, but some consideration should
have been given to the feelings of the 71,000
people who felt that circulating the family
allowance forms and literature was disregarding their constitutional rights while
they were trying to get the British government to reverse the decision or trying to
carry their case to the highest possible
tribunal.
308 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
In conclusion, I should like to plead with
hon. members in all sections of the house to
face up to the fact that here is a minority
problem that will embarrass us for some considerable time. I am familiar with the
comment made by a great many that in this
point of view I am expressing the case of the
wealthy people in the Avalon peninsula. I
need not tell the house that my contacts were
not with the millionaires in St. John's. I
tried to find a fairly good cross section of
opinion in Newfoundland, and we must try
to recognize that an injustice has been done
in the methods which have been adopted in
the negotiations. I do not suggest for a
moment that all the wrong is on one side and
all the right on the other. I do not propose
to take sides in what is really a Newfoundland domestic problem, but it does vitally
affect Canada and it is the duty of all hon.
members to admit frankly that there is a
problem there and that together we must try
to solve it.
I have no doubt that eventually the people
of Newfoundland will be happy members of
our larger Canadian family. I agree with the
Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton),
who suggested that marriages which take
place between mature adults can result in a
happy future for the participating parties.
There are also adjustments which have to be
made by people who marry late in life. The
negotiating parties should have full information regarding all the details which have
occurred in connection with the arrangements
leading up to the marriage. I should like to
express the hope that people in all parts of
Canada will co-operate with our friends from
Newfoundland, who will become a part of
the country, and that we shall see to it that
we can all work to establish a better Canada
than we have ever known before.
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton): I wish to
endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson). I do
not
think that any hon. members will misunderstand the stand that we are taking in this
particular situation. Most Canadians will
welcome Newfoundland and the people of
Newfoundland as a sister province of our
great nation. Surely nature intended that
the north half of the North American continent should be joined together economically
and by blood. What has happened quite
recently is the discovery of great material
wealth in ore in Labrador. This seems to
have had something to do, at any rate, with
the sudden interest which we Canadians and
Americans have taken in recent months in
the development of that great area.
Mr. Adamson: Nicolet-Yamaska has been
conceded to the Progressive Conservatives.
Mr. Castleden: The reason we object to this
resolution is based on the fact that we feel
there has been some miscarriage—
Mr. Castleden: —of some of the basic principles of democracy. We are here as the
representatives of the Canadian people, having before us an agreement the terms of
which this government has entered into with
a delegation from Newfoundland. The basis
upon which we are making our decision is
that we, for the Canadian people, believe that
on the basis of these terms Canada should
form an agreement and an alliance to go into
confederation with Newfoundland. But the
sad fact about this whole arrangement is that
no similar legislature in Newfoundland,
elected by the people, ever had any opportunity to discuss this matter.
In a few weeks, if this measure becomes
law, the parliament of Great Britain will
similarly be deciding the fate of Newfoundland on the basis of an agreement of confederation
between it and Canada. I say
there is a very serious lack here, when the
people of Newfoundland are denied that
right. Surely they are the people more concerned than any others.
Definitely, there should be an opportunity
for the people of Newfoundland, through a
legislative body democratically elected by' the
people of that country, to take the terms of
the agreement, place them before their representatives, have those elected representatives
discuss the matter and decide it in a proper
democratic way, as should be done by a real
parliament. Surely this should be done in
any country among the democracies of the
British commonwealth of nations.
But what have the people of Newfoundland
had? They have had no responsible legislature for a number of years. A commission
has been governing that country since 1934,
I believe. This commission carried on its
work, and suddenly it was decided that a
convention should be held. Under the authority of the British government they sat
in convention. In that convention there were some
forty-five representatives who, under their
terms of reference, were instructed, I believe,
only to investigate the matter and make
recommendations. But instead of that, they
have gone ahead with some kind of referendum—a referendum which has not given a
very large or clear majority. Even those
people who voted for confederation did not
represent one-half of the voters on the voters'
list, though, it is true, they represent 52 per
cent of the people who voted.
But what did they vote for? Did they vote
for some agreement? No; the agreement was
brought into being after the vote.
FEBRUARY 7, 1949 Newfoundland 309
Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni): They knew it
would be fair.
Mr. Castleden: I do not think it is our
problem. I do not think there is any question
that the people of Canada would be fair with
the people of Newfoundland; that is not the
question at all.
Mr. Castleden: It is their legislation. It is
the right of a people in a democratic country,
through their legislature, to have some say
about the terms of an agreement which they
are to enter into. That, it seems to me, is
not right, and Canada's parliament should not
be a party to an agreement under which such
fundamental, basic, democratic rights are
denied to a people who some day will be welcomed, as I know they will be, if they
decide
to come in. Let Newfoundland feel that we
have stood here and fought for her democratic rights. Let her feel that we welcome
her as a sister in a great dominion. Let her
be convinced of our belief that fundamentally
her people should have the full and proper
democratic right, the basic right, to some say
as to whether or not they accept the terms of
agreement.
I hope I have made our position clear. We
certainly would welcome Newfoundland, if
she could come in. I think we could do it
more wholeheartedly if we felt that all the
people of Newfoundland and of Labrador had
had a proper democratic part in making the
decision and in drawing up the agreement.
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):
Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in
this debate, because I thought this afternoon
that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar
(Mr. Coldwell) stated very clearly the case for
members of this group. But after listening
to the last two speeches I have felt that members of the House of Commons, or the
public
generally, may think that there is a division
in this group over the entry of Newfoundland
into confederation.
Mr. Gillis: Such is not the case. This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent),
the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and
the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar did an
excellent job in placing the facts of the matter before the house. Moreover, they
gave, I
believe, a comprehensive historical background, and the reasons why Newfoundland
should enter confederation.
I rise at this time to say that I know something about Newfoundland and its problems.
From where I have made my home for a good
many years it is only ninety-six miles across
the gulf. I have known many Newfoundlanders, and there are perhaps more of them
in my constituency than in any other constituency in Canada.
Mr. Gillis: I believe the step now being
taken to bring Newfoundland into confederation is one which should have been taken
many years ago. My understanding is that
Newfoundlanders are now being emancipated
from a small group of fish merchants who
have exploited them for the past three hundred years. As I said before, this is a
step
in the right direction.
Let me now say something which has not
been said before. For many years the people
of Newfoundland were allowed to enter
Canada freely and to take employment here.
During the winter months when they were
not able to fish—and that is about the only
industry on the island—hundreds of Newfoundlanders would come to Cape Breton
island to work in the coal mines. They
would find employment there during the
winter months, and then return to their fishing industry when the season opened.
Since about 1931 that has not been permitted. The coal mining regulations in Nova
Scotia were amended so as to preclude them
from going into the mines and taking employment as coal miners. Consequently our
immigration laws were amended so as to
prohibit the entry of Newfoundlanders into
Canada. They were treated almost as Europeans, or others coming from foreign
countries. I thought that was a great disservice to the people in my part of the
country because, as has been suggested by one
hon. member, they are good workers and good
citizens. Not many of them are to be found
on relief, and they can turn their hand to
almost anything. They have had to develop
that technique because of the conditions under
which they have lived in their own country.
They had to be jacks of all trades.
Having said that, let me add that I am not
quarreling with what happened in Newfoundland. I believe that those who argue
along the lines of responsible government
are dealing with a misnomer. It is not
responsible government they are looking for,
because that is exactly what they are getting
now.
Mr. Gibson (Comox-Alberni): They never
had it before.
Mr. Gillis: Arguments were made for the
setting-up of a national government, and
remaining out of confederation. In the last
fifty years they have had governments of that
310 Newfoundland HOUSE OF COMMONS
kind which have failed twice. In each case
when the national government failed they
had to turn to Great Britain for a commission
government to administer the affairs of the
island. Having failed twice with that kind
of thing, I think it is unreasonable to ask the
people of Newfoundland to go back to it. If
it is responsible government they are looking
for, in my opinion they are getting responsible
government now for the first time in the
history of the island. Two votes were taken,
and after they were taken there was still a
majority of approximately 7,000 in favour of
entering confederation. I do not think anyone can say that is undemocratic, because
the
whole population of the island is only equal
to about three constituencies. After a lot of
propaganda and educational work two votes
were taken, and the majority of the people of
Newfoundland who voted said they wanted
to come into confederation with Canada. I
think that is democratic. I think the processes employed in elections in Canada were
followed in Newfoundland. The argument
has been raised, what are you going to do
about the 71,000 people who voted the other
way? I should like to ask any member of the
house, what are you going to do with the
large number of people in your own riding
who voted against you in the election?
Whether they like you or not, they accept you
as their representative. That is exactly the
situation in Newfoundland. There was a 45
per cent vote in favour of union. Under the
circumstances, where the use of the franchise
had been out of the hands of the people of
Newfoundland since 1934, and where very
little educational work had been done in the
matter of the ballot, to get a 45 per cent vote
in favour in a vote taken under the conditions
that existed reflects a good deal of credit on
the people who turned out to vote.
I do not see any reason to quarrel with
that. As I see it, it is our duty now not to
confuse the matter any further by raising
those arguments which arise from sectarian
sources. On this question I have seen certain
briefs which have come from Newfoundland,
and which I would be ashamed to introduce
in this house. It is a straight sectarian appeal
that is being made to the people of Canada
and to the members of this House of Commons in order to offset what, in my opinion,
was a democratic vote of the people of Newfoundland.
I live close to them and have worked with
many of them. I know the disabilities which
handicap them at the present time; but I
believe that, if we handle the matter sensibly and do not fan the flames any more
than they have been fanned, if we put this
agreement into effect, install good administra
tive machinery, have members from Newfoundland in this House of Commons, and
let the people of Newfoundland set up their
own provincial government, the union will
be successful. That is responsible government.
In my opinion they are being fooled, by a
lot of propaganda they are getting now, into
the belief that they are going to be dictated
to and legislated for by Ottawa. The reverse
is true. They will have their own government similar to our provincial governments.
They will work out their own problems in
the provincial field. They will have their
members in this national forum to carry their
message further. They will benefit from
much of the social legislation for which we
have had to fight over the years. I am in
favour of this agreement and I think it
should be carried into effect. I intend to go
to Newfoundland and say what I am saying
here tonight, only a lot more so. I got up on
the spur of the moment because I felt I had
to say these things in view of what was
said by the last two speakers.
Motion agreed to and the house went into
committee, Mr. Golding in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time
and concurred in. Mr. St. Laurent thereupon
moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, to
approve the terms of union of Newfoundland
with Canada.
Mr. Graydon: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the bill which is founded upon
this resolution is now available for distribution?
Mr. St. Laurent: It is available. It consists
of one clause, and of the terms of agreement
as hon. members have now had them for
some considerable time. The bill is ready for
distribution and will be distributed immediately.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.
Cet individu a participé aux :
