Mr. Bradley I would like to say that
it was very fortunate that Mr. Miller raised some
question in connection with section 39. Immediately
on adjournment yesterday afternoon, the
committee met in the Council Chamber and considered
the matter at length.... The question had reference
to the fact that this Convention may have to consider, not merely two alternatives,
but
one of several types of governments, and that we
might find that the type of government which had the
greatest number of votes, by no means had a
majority; and that being the case, it might be that
those members who had voted for a certain form,
might on second choice have preference for some
alternative which, joined with other votes, might
better express the voices and plurality be obtained. The first thing I have to
observe is that this Convention decides nothing. We
want to get that very clear in our motion. We decide
nothing. We can only decide to recommend something;
but any recommendation must not necessarily be
adopted by the British government. So we make no
unalterable decisions. In the next place you will
not be asked to decide on any particular form of
government, you are not voting for a particular type
of government here, the thing to do is to vote that
a type or types of government he put on the ballot
paper. You will not be asked to choose between two,
three or four forms of government. That is not the
procedure, but each type of government under
consideration will, when duly moved, and seconded,
be put to the Convention by the Chairman and will
require a majority vote of this Convention to put
that type or particular form in our recommendations.
That being done, some other member of the Convention
may, and probably will, propose that some other form
be put on the ballot paper and that will be
submitted to the vote, and it will require a
majority to be put in the recommendations, and so
on. and in each case, no member who votes for one is
precluded from voting for the other. It is possible
we might move that they should all go on. It was not
the intention of the committee to deprive the members of the Convention of the right
to
speak or to cast their vote. The idea is that
whatever
preferences a member has should go to the
Dominions Office, so that the imperial government would have an opportunity of
knowing what each member of the Convention thought;
whether he voted with the majority or against it,
he still has the right to write out what he thinks
of everything — what his preferences are and his
reason for it. In fact, this rule, instead of
restricting the members, gives them
rights which they would not otherwise have.
Mr. Jackman I do not agree with the
terms of reference in regard to the form of
government. The form of government was made not in
1932, it was made in 1855 and that decision was
never rescinded by the people of Newfoundland The
question was never put to a vote when we lost our
democratic rights. Therefore, in my opinion, in
regards to terms of reference for future forms of
government, it should be strictly boiled down to
the present system and responsible government.
I have been informed by different people, lawyers,
etc., that this form of government is
constitutional. I am not a lawyer, and I don't know
very much about law, but I cannot see or figure out
how we could discuss any forms of government other
than responsible government and Commission of
Government. For this reason, sir, when we lost our
constitutional rights, I am pretty certain that at
that time the matter was set forth this way to the
people — that when Newfoundland became
self-supporting, and when Newfoundlanders asked for
the return of their government, that would be the
end of it. As far as l can see, we may discuss
federation, representative government,
etc., but there are really only two things we can
discuss, namely Commission of Government
or responsible government. I don't know who is
responsible for this, but if I am in order I beg to
move that responsible government and Commission of
Government be the only two issues.
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen, this
Convention is bound by the terms of the statute
which called it into existence, namely, the National
Convention Act
[2], and
under that act the duty of the Convention
is to consider the financial situation of the
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
17 colony and to make recommendations
to H.M. Government in the United Kingdom as to
possible forms of government to be placed before the
people by way of a national referendum. We can't
control that. We can't even by unanimous vote alter
these terms. The statute is made and we have to
abide by it, always bearing in mind the form and
duty of this Convention. Secondly, I don't see how
we can narrow the choice of the people of this
country, particularly in View of the wording of the
statute. People are entitled to as wide a choice as
possible, and in any case this recommendation of the
committee on rules and procedure does nothing more
than fully protect the voice of the minority of this
Convention, and takes care that the individual's
opinion, together with the views of the Convention,
be put forward. We cannot alter these terms.
Mr. Jackman Here is another matter. Possibly we can't do
it, but I would suggest that we should discuss the
matter here with a view to an amendment of
the terms. We could send it in at any rate, and at
least it would give us a chance to say that we are
not going to sit here and have our hands tied and do
as we are told to do. We should have a definite stand
on matters like this. As far as I can see, it is just
boiled down to a question of forms of government. We
don't have the final choice, but at least we should
be able to try them out on the matter anyway. When we
are told that we can't do this or that, why don't we
try it?
Mr. Chairman Will you consider whether or not, if your
motion is acceded to, it would have the effect of
limiting the choice of the people of Newfoundland,
and tying their hands, by giving them only two forms
of choice instead of several? I don't think we should
deal with that phase of the matter. We are acting
under certain statutory provisions which are very
clear.
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I was on
that committee, and I have some doubts as
to the wisdom of incorporating this into the rules
of procedure. As you have just pointed out it would
limit the choice. The Convention was elected by the
Newfoundland people to consider and
discuss the changes which have taken place in the
economic and financial structure of this country,
and then make recommendations based thereon as to
the
form or forms of government which may be
suitable to the status of this country. Why should
we lie ourselves down with something extra whereby
each person has to give his own personal reasons for
voting this or that way?
Mr. Chairman There is no obligation
on any member, the wisdom of the committee placing
beyond all doubt that the views of the members
of this Convention should be fully protected. The
language used in session makes that very clear. "It
is our duty to make recommendation to H.M.
Government... etc." In other words this does nothing
to limit the rights or circumscribe the rights of
the members.
Mr. Hollett If we read that section
39, those are exactly the terms. It goes on further
to say, "together with any preference which he may
express as to one form of
government or another." Each individual has to make
up his mind as to what he himself thinks is the best
form of government in this country. I fail
to see how he can have two minds about it. He may be
satisfied to have other forms of government, but
there is nothing in the terms of reference to
conclude that, and I must say that I don't like this
particular thing, which seems to be added on, and I
think we should vote against its adoption unless the
last three lines are deleted.
Mr. Chairman Any further debate that
the words to which Mr. Hollett has reference do
nothing more than place beyond cavil or doubt
what is meant by the preceding words of the section.
If it errs it only errs on the side of making things
clearer.
Mr. Hickman Is there a motion before
the Chair, sir? Has it been seconded?
Mr. Chairman There is no need to
second a motion in committee, sir, but Mr. Bradley
has put the motion. Moved that this section as read
be adopted. Carried unanimously. Proceed, Mr.
Secretary.
Mr. Bradley This ought to be
carefully considered. The committee is of
the opinion that the Chairman, by reason of his
qualifications and long experience in parliamentary
matters, and his unquestioned impartiality,
particularly also in view of the fact that he is
continually and daily in close contact with all
activities of the Convention, is the most
suitable person to appoint these committees. In an
assembly of this kind, perhaps on the spur of the
moment and without the due
18
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 consideration
which matters of this kind not only deserve, but in
connection with which they are imperative, we may
come to a hasty decision as to nomination or
election; whereas the Chairman himself, having
regard to his more superior knowledge, is the most
suitable person. I move this.
Mr. Dawe Mr. Chairman, I respectfully
object to that.
Mr. Chairman Does any other person
care to express his views on that section? I would
like to say that, whilst expressing my appreciation
to Mr. Bradley for his remarks about me, for me to
appoint committees is a very honourable duty but
it is also a very onerous duty, and looking at it
from that point of view it is an obligation which
perhaps I might prefer not to have. But you must
remember, gentlemen, that I am but your servant,
and if you in your wisdom want me to undertake
that duty, I shall.
Mr. Brown Mr. Chairman, I quite agree
with the remarks of my honourable friend, Mr.
Bradley, when he has suggested,
sir, that you, as Chairman, appoint all committees.
His point is well taken. You have perhaps more
parliamentary experience than any
man in this House. Your knowledge of parliamentary
procedure and the handling of the rules of the
assembly in years past, your long experience, makes
you the right man, as Chairman of this Convention,
to appoint all committees. I have much pleasure in
seconding Mr. Bradley's motion.
Mr. Ashboume Gentlemen, I support the
remarks of Mr. Bradley and Mr. Brown in this
connection. I think that considerable work may have
to be referred to certain committees. The steering
or business committee is one of the most important
committees which will be appointed, and we should
have that committee at the very earliest moment. A
certain timetable should be devised by this steering
or business committee which might form a blueprint
for the members of the Convention, in order that we
can get down to certain definite business. We need a
plan, and realising the amount of work which
confronts us, it seems to me that only by appointing
different committees and studying the different
estimates which bear upon the financial and economic
con~ dition of the country, shall we get down to
something whereby we can
intelligently study the various reports of the
committees. Otherwise it
will be the duty of each member of the Convention to himself undertake the
exhaustive and complete study of the economy of
Newfoundland, which will be a very
onerous and difficult task. I believe that a lot of
this work could be referred to various committees
who would meet in the morning, or after the
adjournment, or in the evenings.
Unless this is done, and some of this work
apportioned to the various committees, I believe
that the task will be most difficult and the
sittings unduly prolonged. I am prepared to vote for
the adoption of this section.
Mr. Smallwood In joining with the shower of tributes being
paid to you, I would like to express a word of
gratitude to you for the great enthusiasm
and loving care with which you have seen to the
restoration of this chamber to something
approaching, equalling, and perhaps even surpassing
its former glory. It is an achievement for which we
owe you deep gratitude. Anyone who is at all familiar
with the chamber as it was, and who has any feeling
for the glories of the past, must have deep gratitude
to you for the meticulous care you have given to
getting the chamber back to what it used to be. The
mere physical job of gathering desks and chairs that
have disappeared, never to be recovered some of
them, carpets that have been sold by auction and
could not be replaced, great draperies that have
disappeared to be replaced by the best that could
be obtained, the paintings that have been restored
by our own Clem Murphy, I believe. You have done
all within your power, and as far as the $34 million
resources of the country would permit, to get this
chamber fit to receive the new representatives of the Newfoundland people. I have
heard
that you are determined to restore the old legislative library, and we all know the
earnest way in which you are endeavoring to bring the
old people's house back to its pristine beauty, and I
think we can say how deeply grateful we are to
you.
Mr. Dawe Mr. Chairman, may I pass a
little personal remark, when I said, "I
object to the motion", I did not mean it
towards you. I think this House should choose you.
Mr. Brown Mr. Chairman, if any man
has any doubt as to the man most capable and most
fit to choose the committees he can forget it. There
are
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
19 four of us here today who sat under
your chairmanship from 1924-1928: Mr.
Bradley, Mr. Ashbourne, Major Cashin and myself. The
four of us well know that you were often tolerant
with us when you should have been harsh. I
remember distinctly, sir, the latter years of that
govemment
[1] when you
had only one as a majority, and you, with
the help of your colleagues, piloted this House
through, and the government did not go "busted", to
use a common phrase. You did your job and did it
well. I believe the members of this Convention agree
with me that you are the right man to appoint
committees, and whoever you appoint we will be quite
satisfied.
Mr. Vardy I rise to support the last
speaker. I know Mr. Justice Fox, and I do not know
of any person more suitable than he is. Before this
Convention ends there will be a job
for every man elected to it, our responsibilities
are tremendous.
This is indeed and always will be an historic
occasion in the life of Newfoundland. Those of
us who were successful at the polls have been
summoned to perform a common task. Let us
keep faith with those whose confidence has made
these gatherings possible. Let us examine each
fact on its merit and as true loyal Newfoundlanders, at all times put our country
first. I
sincerely hope that the results of our deliberations
will be motivated by a keen honest desire to
restore to our people a truly democratic way of
life.
We have in His Excellency a man of vision
and character, who will not be influenced by any
who might prove disloyal, a great leader who has
the courage of his convictions, and I am satisfied
that in future history his name will be associated
with those who will make it possible for Newfoundland to take her proper place as
a proud
member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Gentlemen, we have a job to do, let us be
tolerant with one another, always respecting the
rights and privileges of each member as the
elected representative of his district, and at all
times upholding the dignity of the chair. I am sure
that our worthy Chairman will allow us plenty of
latitude to intelligently discuss any matter which
is brought on the floors of the Convention chamber. Those of us who are only boys
in politics will
at first be inclined to watch the big guns across
the Channel, and more or less take full stock of
method of procedure, lest the reporters get one
for the Comic Weekly; but as time moves on and
we are more sure of our ground, I am quite certain
that every member will measure up to what is
expected of him.
I am not anticipating any real delay in securing
all the information available in order for us to
eventually arrive at a just and honourable
decision as to what forms of government would
be best suited to our country....
Mr. Hollett I beg to move that the question be now put.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Bradley I move that the report of the committee as a whole be adopted.
Mr. Jackman I would like to speak on a personal
matter that applies to all of us. I refer to a report
in the
Daily News
regarding yesterday's proceedings. I notice that the
report says some of the delegates were absent and it
does not give the names. I am from an outport and I
am certain that my supporters at home are watching
the papers daily and when they see a report that some
of the delegates were absent, it is quite possible
that they are going to mark me down as being off the
job. I do not think a delegate should absent himself from a session unless under
circumstances beyond his control. When a member is
unable to attend he should notify the Secretary and
in future the names, as regards absenteeism, should
be given in the reports.
Mr. Brown I would be the first to disagree with that. If
this Convention lasts six months, six weeks or two
years, I am not going to be here every sitting and
there are few members of this Convention who have not
business that will not permit their attending all
sittings. I may have to go to a meeting of the Woods
Labour Board or some other such convention; I cannot
be in both places at the one time and one thing is
just as important as the other. Down through the
years there never was anything in the rules, to my
knowledge, that prevented a man's being absent.
Mr. Brown Why should we adopt a rule saying a man must be
in his seat at every session? I know that the people
whom I have the honour to represent will
not expect me to be here every sitting. I have as
much interest in my country and as much interest in
this Convention as anyone else, but it
20
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 is a mistake to
say a man
must be here
every day.
Mr. Jackman What I mean is this — and I thought I made it
clear — I did not say he must attend, that is not
possible, for example, he may be sick. The point is
that out of respect to the Chair and the whole
assembly, if a delegate finds it impossible to
attend, he could at least telephone the Secretary,
and if we are going to have all the proceedings
published, which is quite right, I say let the
reports be complete....
Mr. Brown On Saturday evening's train
I left to accompany my wife home. I came to you,
Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose, and
asked if it would be all right to go and said I would
be back on Monday's train.
Mr. Brown When I am not here present
in my chair, I do not care what people say. They can
say I am gone to Timbuctoo. They can say I am
drunk. I am not worrying about that. I do say let
the rules of this Convention stand without having
anything to do with them.
Mr. Fudge I note the chair of Mr.
Ryan of Placentia West is vacant. He has a severe
cold and asked me to tell you that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman It is neither practical nor possible, nor is it expected that on every day of
meeting every member must be here. There are
bound to be circumstances over which we have no
control, and whilst we shall all endeavour to
assemble here and perform our duties, there are
occasions when we cannot be here. Then again a
member may have to leave. It is a matter of duty
for the members to be here and members will
perform that, but it has to be recognised that there
are circumstances which may require a member to
absent himself, he will certainly be excused.
Mr. Brown The only time the papers should report absentees
is in the event of no quorum.
Mr. Jackman I fit is going to be reported, I am of the
opinion the names should be published.
Mr. Butt I move that the question be now put.
Mr. Jackman I move that the names of
the members attending every day be put in
the record.
Mr. Chairman You must consider that
would be unfair, even to absent members, who might
by some misconstruction be written down as delinquents. In the old days there were
occasions when we did not have a full membership of
the House present but we did not inquire into their
reasons.... It might form the occasion for some
unwarranted slander being cast on a member to
have his name posted. I do not think any member who
has of necessity the confidence of his district
which elected him need fear that confidence is going
to be altered.... Perhaps you might pardon me, Mr.
Jackman, if I suggest that maybe you are becoming
alarmed unnecessarily. No one has any wish to cast a
slur upon any member, but you will appreciate what
is an undeniable fact, that we cannot be here on all
occasions. Perhaps you would let it remain as a
subject of good sense.
Mr. Butt I respectfully move that the question be now put.
Mr. Smallwood Perhaps now that Mr.
Jackman has made his point and it has undoubtedly
been reported, he would be happy to withdraw his
motion.
Mr. Jackman I am prepared to withdraw
my motion, but I still think the Secretary should be
notified in the event of absenteeism....
Mr. Vardy I think we are making a
mountain out of a molehill.
Mr. Chairman It has been moved that
the report of the committee be adopted as read, put
in and amended.
[The motion carried unanimously]
Mr. Chairman Before the committee
rises, I most gratefully acknowledge the altogether
generous references which you made to me. You
make me feel most humble but withal most appreciative of what you said. I regard it
as a very
great privilege and a lasting distinction, than
which I can imagine no greater, to be permitted to
serve you, as I hope you will permit me to do.
[The Committee rose and reported progress, and
the Convention adopted the rules and procedures
as approved]
Mr. Ashboume In the terms of
reference for this National Convention, it is
particularly stated that it shall be the function
and duty of the elected representatives to consider
and discuss the changes that have taken
place in the financial and economic system of this
island since 1934, and to examine the position of
the country. It seems to my mind that in the person
of the Honourable Ira Wild we have one who can give
us, I hope, a picture of the financial position of
our country, together with a review of his term of
office and of the problems with which he has been
confronted since he came to
Newfoundland.
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
21 Honourable Mr. Wild came here in
1934 and occupied the important position of
Comptroller and Auditor General until 1938, and in
1941 he returned and since that time has been the
Honourable Commissioner for Finance and Customs. Having been here for nine years
Mr. Wild will soon be relinquishing his commission
and returning very shortly to the old country, so it
gives me much pleasure to move a resolution to
this House this afternoon that the Honourable
Commissioner for Finance be invited to address the
committee of the whole Convention tomorrow, September 18, at 4 pm on the general financial
position of Newfoundland.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman there were
many questions put on the paper yesterday relative
to Mr. Wild, and, whilst I am anxious that he come
and address this Convention, I feel that when he
comes he should be prepared to give all the
information that has been requested of him, I
understand that he is going away shortly, and I
request that if Mr. Wild has not got all that information ready that he be asked to
postpone his address for a couple of days until such
time as he has a great deal of that information
ready. There are many questions I would like to ask
Mr. Wild and I would like to have the information
and further explanation on it. But I don't think you
could have it tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman On receiving an
intimation from the committee which I met yesterday
afternoon that it would be
desirable, in the opinion of the members, that Mr.
Wild be invited to address the committee of the
whole in private, I saw him, and he asked me to
inform you that he is very happy to do so at
whatever time is suitable, and not alone tomorrow,
but thereafter for as many days as he can find it
possible to come.
Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the point made by Major Cashin, but
another thought occurs to me: many of us are not so
well acquainted with financial matters as
Major Cashin, and the sooner we can get some light
the better. If Commissioner Wild can come tomorrow I
believe he would have to speak to us for at least
an hour, and there won't be much time for Major
Cashin to ask many questions, and in the meantime we can get some information. It
might
facilitate Major Cashin's ideas if the commis~
sioner would come tomorrow, with the understanding that he will come again on some
subsequent day.
Mr. Cashin I know from my own
experience that a lot of the information I have
requested is going to take several days to prepare,
and I don't want him to be inconvenienced, and when
he comes he should make a good job of it. Any
member is entitled to ask questions and I know he
can't get it ready before the end of the week.
Mr. Chairman Not alone is he prepared to come tomorrow, but
on other occasions.
Mr. Cashin I want it understood that
if he is not prepared to come back the second time,
particularly when they don't want
to come before the public, the people here are
entitled to every bit of information. The position
the Commission has taken, is that they refuse to
come before the public. Now on questions in the past
I have gone through the ropes myself. When a
question was directed towards a minister, the
minister brought in a reply to that question, and if
the answer did not suit the inquisitor, he
questioned him further there on the floor of the
House. I realise we have no right to subpoena
people, but this is a different question. We are
here to represent the people and they say, "we will
only go up there privately"; and if we get
information from them privately, the press,
forinstance, cannot give it to the public. Now how
are we to get it to the public? Are we to give it
out as a kind of rumour? I contend that whilst we
have no power to drag them here, every member of the
Commission should come before, the Convention
publicly. It creates more con fidence for
themselves, because when the people find out that
they won't come publicly they feel, "Well, what has
he to hide?" However, they have indicated they are
not prepared to do that, so the next best thing is
to get them before a committee of the Convention,
but when that time arrives the questions,
particularly these financial questions, have got to
be answered properly. There is nothing in
it that is not in the public interest, and no
excuses will be taken by me for any refusal to
answer these questions... However, Mr. Wild
22
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 and his associates
desire to say, "We do not want to come before you
publicly" — Why?
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, has Mr.
Wild made it clear that he will only come and
address us, or will he answer questions? The motion
is that the commissioner be asked to come and
address us on the financial questions. Will he
retire at the end of his address, or remain to be
questioned?
Mr. Chairman I take it that perhaps
an informal discussion might ensue.
Mr. Hickman Is Mr. Wild prepared to
stay for that or not?
Mr. Smallwood On that point, which
came up in the Committee on Rules and Procedure, my
understanding is that the general principle is that
all information that they produce to the Convention meeting in the committee of the
whole of a public character is public information,
to be passed on by the Convention to the press and
the public, with exceptions. There might be occasions, we do not know what they
might
be, when it was definitely not in the best interests
to give information on certain subjects. But, given
these exceptions, all information which commissioners or public servants deliver to
the Convention becomes instantly public
property. That is my understanding of the matter. I
was one of these who insisted On these principles.
Major Cashin was another....
Mr. Crosbie I would like to say that
with regard to meeting with the public, I don't
think there should be any exceptions. We are here to
get facts and information, and quite often during
the last ten years we have heard, "It is not in the
public interest." I think it is time we heard the
end of it.
Mr. Smallwood I notice in Mr. Gushue's speech at Rotary
[1] a few days ago he
referred to a report which he said was secret, and
not yet released to the public. If that has a bearing
on the fisheries or any other resources or activities
of this country, and if it would enable us to
determine the economic state and
prospects of Newfoundland, we ought to
have it. But if it is the case that due to
negotiations with governments and fishery
organisations in other countries, it is not expedient
to release it to the public, are we to be denied
access to that document? Are we going to
put ourselves in the position of not being able to
get information which we need because we have
said we will not take any information unless it
becomes public property? Let us assume that the
government is negotiating with some other country on
a question of tariff, or any matter. No government,
speaking generally, will reveal a situation still in
process of negotiation, and yet these negotiations
could be dragged on for months. They might be
prepared to give us that information if we did not
immediately hand it over to the public. If the
principle is established that we are to be the
judges, on condition that it does not become public
property immediately, thenwhere are our rights?
Denied? And is the public interest attacked? I am as
keen as Mr. Crosbie and Major Cashin that the
information coming before this
Convention should come before the Newfoundland
public. I feel so deeply on it that I have come to
this conclusion, that if things are right and the
public of Newfoundland gets everything that we get,
then before we make our report to the public, it,
having the same evidence will have come to the same
conclusions, and made up its mind for itself. That
can be done only if the Newfoundland people get the
information that we get. In spite
of that there may be occasions when that principle
might have to be waived in the interests of getting
information.
Mr. Chairman Take the case of
negotiations. Of necessity the views of the
negotiating party on the other side might have to be
considered. Take some public promotion planning the
utilisation of public resources, in which the
government of the day is negotiating with some
outside concern to develop these resources. I can
imagine a situation where the promoter on the other
side says, "No, I want these discussions secret and
confidential between you and me until such time as
the contract is consummated or concluded".
We have to take into consideration not only the
views but the directives on the other side, for
instance the question of tariffs between
the US and the Newfoundland governments.
The Newfoundland government might be willing indeed
to take the public into its confidence, but the US
government may say, "No, we are
negotiating as between government and
government, and for the immediate present we will
not allow the informa
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
23tion relative to the subject matter
of our negotiations to be made public."
What then? There may be other instances where
definitely it would not be in the public interest to
disclose information. I think we might proceed on
the broad principle that all information,
commitments, obligations and national situations as
we know it (with certain well expected
reservations) will be made available to the
Convention; but we are not to forget that there may
be negotiations which no government, no matter how
willing it is to take the people into its
confidence, can disclose. Take a Water Street
merchant who may have some negotiations with the
government that are pending conclusion. He
won't want to have the situation publicly
canvassed until it is concluded, and I don't think
it would be fair that the matter be publicised under
those circumstances. We have to bear in mind these
exceptions to the general rule that all information
will be made available to the Convention.
Mr. Crosbie I quite agree. But you
might ask a lot of questions, 15 or 20. You meet Mr.
X, commissioner, in conference and he says,
"Gentlemen I don't want you to make this public." If
the answers can't be made public, why should the
questions be asked?
Mr. Hollett It is most unfortunate
that they have taken this attitude. Do you think
that they can give us information, 45 men or so, not
sworn or anything, and net expect it to leak out?
Are the persons of the Commission of Government not
to be allowed to come and see us in public? They
defeat their own ends by refusing to come before
the public. In any case, if an official comes here
we know that if he is not allowed to disclose
something he is not going to. I think it is most
unfortunate, and gentlemen I submit that there is
nothing for us to do but take it gracefully and hear
the commissioner in committee of the whole.
Mr. Chairman Perhaps it might be wise if we did not
anticipate difficulties. Nothing may be discussed by
the commissioner in regard to which there is any
necessity for confidence or secrecy. Why not cross
the bridges when we meet them, and perhaps we will
not have any trouble at all.
Mr. Dawe There is a method of finding information — information from the Canadian government.
Mr. Cashin The point I have been
trying to make is, Mr. Wild may say, "We will speak
to
you as a committee of the whole, but we will not
speak to your committee with the public there."
Why? They have not explained the reason why
they won't do that. They have some reason for it,
and I think they are playing their cards very badly,
because the public can say, "There must be something
wrong, what is it?" Are they afraid they will be
asked an embarrassing question which they don't want
to answer? We delegates were to enquire into
everything and the sessions were to be open to the
public, and now we find that if Mr. Wild comes here
we have to bar that door, and John Citizen cannot
get in while Mr. Wild tells us how he handled this
or that. If Mr. Wild was across the House and was
asked a question by a leader of the opposition he
would have to answer it. Now he says, "Bar the
doors". That is not democracy. We can't make them
come, but if they don't come publicly they should
stay out altogether. With your permission I put an
amendment in this form, that when this invitation
goes to Mr. Wild he be asked to come to this
House tomorrow afternoon, and that when he does come
the House will be in public session, and ask his
reply to it. He can only say no, and then we know
where we are.
Mr. Smallwood This is in connection
with his address, not necessarily in connection with
the cross-examination he is to get later on.
Mr. Cashin I know I can't
cross-examine him tomorrow because he won't have
those answers ready, but in any case I believe it
should be open to the public, and I want a
justification from the commissioners as to why they
won't come before the public. Are they so scared?
Are we too insignificant? That is the
attitude they are taking.
Mr. Chairman Perhaps before we get
any further stirred up we might take this
amendment. Major Cashin kindly read your amendment.
Mr. Cashin I don't have it written
down, but I want when this invitation goes to Mr.
Wild to have it inserted that he make his address in
public.
Mr. Chairman Perhaps you mean to have the words "in
private" deleted.
Mr. Cashin Yes, take out "in private"
and put in "in public session" and be sure of it.
Mr. Ashbourne Did I not understand
from you, Mr. Chairman, that it had been decided by
the Commission that they were not prepared to meet
24
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 us in public?
Mr. Smallwood Tomorrow is merely a review by the
commissioner of the position of Newfoundland as he sees it; it is merely a formal
address.
Mr. Chairman Without interrogation, you mean. It further
has to be remembered that it was not the intention,
of the United Kingdom government to have
officials of the government subjected to
examination by this Convention. That is a definite
statement.
Mr. Chairman I do not know whether it is face to face or
otherwise; but it was not intended that officials of
government should be examined by this Convention.
Furthermore the Commission of Government have stated
that, whereas or whilst it is willing and most
anxious to afford this Convention, and
through this Convention the public at large, the
fullest possible information which properly can be
and should be disclosed, and is further prepared to
meet the Convention as a committee of the whole, but
only in private and not in public sessions....
Mr. Chairman The National Convention Act was passed by the
legislative authority of this country. I do not think
you can go beyond or past that. We are faced with
facts and we cannot do anything about it. We are
bound by the terms of reference under that authority.
We are faced with an unalterable fact. We cannot
compel people to come here....
Mr. Vardy The commissioners are appointees of the home
government. We have no jurisdiction over them. I
think we should accept the facts. We cannot dictate
to them. They are still in office.
Mr. Butt I do not think it is a matter of dictating to the
Commission, but we should ask them for a
reconsideration with a different spirit. If we dictated to them they would probably
dictate back. If we approach them in the spirit that
we want to get the best we can for this country, they
may be willing to reconsider it. I suggest further we
are discussing a time-honoured problem, one that has
been handled on many occasions. If a minister
comes before the public he gives all the information he can give. That is all we
ask.... I suggest we approach them in the spirit of
wanting the information we can get, not for
ourselves, but for the people of this country, and
in that spirit to reconsider the position. If there
is information beyond a shadow of doubt not in the
public interest, he may withhold it. If I ask a
minister a certain question and he says, "I cannot
answer that", and I ask him 20 more questions and he
still says, "I cannot answer them", I will not take
that lying down.
Mr. Jackman I was notified by a commissioner about two
years ago on a question put to him that we had no
authority to call witnesses. He gave me to understand
his authority came from the Dominions Office. I
understand this act has been drawn up by the
Commission. If that is so, by what authority are we
acting? What I want to bring out is that if the
commissioners refuse to meet us in public, let us
have them removed and others put in. Secondly, the
Dominions Office should be contacted and asked if it
is not possible to have the commissioners attend here
and give us what we want in public. The Commission of
Government is not a secret organisation, nor are
we a secret body. Every matter to be dealt with
here should get the fullest possible ventilation.
Mr. Bradley We had better face the facts. This Convention
has no authority to compel anyone, commissioner or no
commissioner, whether he be Mr. Wild or Mr. Jones or
Captain Murphy of one of our sealing steamers, we
have no authority to compel anybody. That being the
case we can only ask, and if he lays down conditions
upon which he will come, we have to comply with the
conditions.
Mr. Chairman I will have to ask for a motion to suspend the
rules if you desire to discuss this matter — i.e. the
rule in relation to members talking more than once —
so as to regularise the discussion. I do not want to
shut off the discussion, but we will have
to regularise it, in order to allow free expression.
Mr. Brown I have not spoken on this matter before, but it
seems to me that we should cross ourbridges when we
come to them. If they refuse, then it is time to jump
down their throats. If we are bound by that act which
you showed us, Mr. Chairman, what is the use of
talking about it?
Mr. Cashin The point is Mr. Wild has been in
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
25vited here. I asked to have the word
"private" cancelled and the word "public" put in.
Mr. Chairman It has been moved by Mr.
Cashin and seconded by Mr. Jackman that the words in
the motion by Mr. Ashbourne and seconded by
Mr. Vardy, after the words "committee as a whole",
"in private session" be deleted, and the words
"public session" be substituted.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Cashin Is it in order to move
that the Hon. Mr. Wild be invited to address the
Convention in public session at 4
o'clock tomorrow?
Mr. Chairman The motion is that the
Hon. Mr. Wild be invited to address this Convention in public session at 4 o'clock
tomorrow afternoon.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman An invitation will be
extended to the commissioner accordingly. I
anticipate what his reply is going to be.
I want to appoint, now, the steering committee, or business committee. Only seven
can be
appointed and there is no insidious distinction
drawn.
The committee will consist of:
Messrs. Cashin,
Bradley,
Brown,
Hollett,
Higgins,
Fudge,
Ashbourne.
I suggest that Mr. Bradley be the convenor of that
committee and that it meet without delay.
There is another committee of very great importance, and that is the library committee.
We
need to have available to the members of this
Convention reference and data of all kinds
referable to the legislature and public affairs of
the colony. We had a well-balanced, invaluable
legislative library. That library no longer exists,
as we knew it. It may be there are some of those
books held by the public library, but to what
extent, I do not know. I do feel there is an urgent
necessity to restore that library as well as for the
immediate information of members of this convention, as also out of veneration for
the past, and
I think we should make a beginning and get all
the books we can belonging to that library and put
them back, as the first step. The first duty is the
restoration of that library to serve your needs as
well as to safeguard invaluable manuscripts
belonging to the legislature of this colony.
Mr. Brown Is it a fact that the books
have been taken out of this House?
Mr. Brown That is a crime. I remember
the first day I held office here. The librarian,
Miss Morris, sent down for me to come to the
library. She asked me to pass down the first book on
the top shelf. I passed it down and she said, "Open
it, you will see the name of your great-grandfather
there, one of the first members of responsible
government." I would not like to
know today that these books had been destroyed. It
is criminal to destroy the library and I would not
like to say what should be done with the person or
persons who destroyed it. I do not know of a more
important committee than this, to
seek out and bring back the books belonging to this
House. I move that that committee be appointed.
Mr. Reddy I have pleasure in
seconding that motion.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman The committee shall
consist of Messrs. Smallwood, Ashbourne, Harrington,
Ballam and Hickman. That completes the order
of the day.
Mr. Smallwood I move the following
resolution: That we request the
government to appoint to the Convention a competent
statistician- economist to enable us the
better to assess the financial and economic
condition and prospects of the country.
We have appointed already to the Convention
an authority on constitutional history, practice,
and theory in the person of Professor Wheare of
Oxford University. Up to the present time, perhaps for weeks or months, the Convention
may
not be able to make as much use of his particular
knowledge and advice as it will have to do when
we get to the question of considering particular
types of government. In the meantime the job of
the Convention as it is beginning to emerge very
plainly now, is going to be one of gathering,
compiling and assessing data of an economic and
financial character. Speaking for myself, I have
made a profession — in part earned my living - by collecting statistics and facts
about Newfoundland trade and industry, but I confess frank
26 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946ly that when I see Major Cashin's questions and
others already asked, and I imagine many yet to
be asked, I feel profoundly my inability to analyse and assess the importance of the
data. It so
happens that I am not very good at arithmetic. I
feel that if the government were to give us a
statistician-economist of at least equal academic
and professional standing of Professor Wheare,
the constitutional authority, whether he be obtained in the United States or any other
English-
speaking country, if he be a thoroughly
competent man, he can be of enormous value in
what is a monumental job. I think we are overawed and weighed down, not with the burden of
the world, but by the realisation of the tremendous task of setting out to assess
the real state of
this country. If we can get help from a professional man, one who has no axe to grind
and who
does not care what kind of government we may
have; if we can get such a man as that it will be
of tremendous help to the members of the Convention in discharging the duty they have
had laid
upon them.
[Mr. Vincent seconded the motion, which was
deferred to the next sitting. The Convention adjourned]
