Mr. Chairman Major Cashin, the Report on the Economic
and Financial Condition of Newfoundland will be now received.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, in rising to move that this
Convention receive the Financial and Economic Report on Newfoundland,
presented by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the British
Parliament in June past, I would first ask the indulgence of the Convention
for the purpose of making a few introductory remarks.
As my first sentiments, Mr. Chairman, I wish
to offer my most sincere congratulations upon the
high honour and distinction which has been conferred on you, in your appointment as
Chairman
of this assembly of elected representatives of the
Newfoundland people, the first to meet in this
historic chamber since the suspension of responsible government in December, 1933.
It is nearly
13 years since the surrender of our democratic
form of government, since the control of our
national destinies was transferred to the
Dominions Office in London.
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 29
We delegates have been appointed by the men
and women of Newfoundland to meet here to
review our past, study our present and, as far as
humanly possible, to plan for our future. It is a
great task, a great responsibility, but at the same
time, let us ever remember, it is also a great
privilege. To us has been given the sacred and
solemn duty of performing a truly patriotic service — helping to shape the destinies
of our
country for possibly 100 years. It should then be
unnecessary for me to stress the importance of
our approaching the task in a proper spirit - prepared to face all the facts, however
disagreeable, and to get these facts, no matter how deep
we may have to dig. We must not hesitate to stand
solidly behind what is just and right, and be
equally ready to condemn whatever is wrong,
regardless of the source from which that wrong
emanates, and no matter whom the wrong-doers
may be. Newfoundlanders have always been
noted for their courage and love of justice. Let us
then show to the country and to the outside world
that we, in this time of crisis, are not lacking these
same qualities.
As regards this Convention itself, I should like
to repeat what I have so often said in the past, that
I am not and have never been a supporter of this
whole set-up which is absolutely contrary to the
pledge made to this country by the British
government in December, 1933. Everyone
present knows that under the terms of that agreement we were specifically and categorically
promised the return of responsible government
upon our becoming self-supporting, which state
we reached, according to the Dominions
Secretary himself, in the year 1941. No one has
yet come forward to give us the reason why this
pledge was ignored, and why we were offered
this Convention as a substitute. We know that in
that international pact, there is no mention of
conventions or plebiscites and the introduction of
these foreign issues is wholly contrary to the
spirit and letter of that agreement. How can I, how
can any thinking Newfoundlander, honestly and
conscientiously give his moral support and endorsement to a thing which is not alone
illegal,
but even ethically improper? Therefore,
Mr. Chairman, if we are to view this Convention
in its right perspective, we must accept the fact
of its fundamental illegality. And in reference to
this point, permit me to give you some extracts
from a speech delivered by Prime Minister Attlee
in the British House of Commons on December
11, 1945. Replying to questions asked by the late
James Maxton, Independent Labour Party, and
Sir Alan Herbert, Independent, Mr. Attlee says,
"It is important that a series of reconstruction
measures which the Commission government already have in hand or are planning to introduce
should proceed without interruption and these
will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible. The
Commission have a full programme to meet very
pressing requirements on the island during the
next two or three years."
Now, Mr. Chairman, is not this a most extraordinary statement for Mr. Attlee to make.
On the
one hand, he talks about letting Newfoundland
hold a Convention to decide what form of
government the people want, and in the next
breath coolly telling the world that regardless of
what the people of Newfoundland may want,
regardless of any political aspirations they may
have or what the findings of this Convention may
be, he intends to enforce Commission rule on
Newfoundland for another three years and during
that time to carry out his own special plans with
regard to our country. If this is so, what is the
sense of our being here at all, going through these
legislative gestures? Why not save ourselves and
the country all this trouble and expense and wait
until Mr. Attlee has completed whatever
schemes he has in mind for our country, in the
working out of which, apparently, no Newfoundlander shall have part? Does it not simply
bear out what I have said time and time again, that
this whole convention and plebiscite scheme
dressed up in the trappings of democracy is nothing more or less than a glorified
stall. I have no
doubt that in drawing up his three-year
programme Mr. Attlee has been influenced and
enthusiastically abetted by the local commissioners, who must have stressed the necessity
of
retaining their indispensible services. I should
like to make it clear I am not speaking with any
idea of making political capital, or placing unnecessary obstacles in the pathway
of this assembly. I am prepared and eager to assist in
anything which has for its object the genuine
welfare of our country or our people. But even at
the risk of creating a discordant note in this
Convention, 1 am not prepared to deny the truth
of things as I see them. If I did, I would be false
30 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946
to myself, to the country in general and in particular to the people who sent me here
to represent their interests.
I say that this Convention should not be kept
here dilly-dallying in an atmosphere of questionable motives on the part of the Dominions
Office. Nor should delegates be under any misconception as to our actual status. We
must
realise that we are not in any sense a legislative
assembly and that we have no power to make
binding decisions. There has been much misguided talk about our far-reaching responsibility,
but the fact of the matter is we have no legal
responsibility whatever, for the simple reason
that the Dominions Office will not permit us to
exercise any responsibility. As for the opinions
or representations we may present to the
Secretary of State for the Dominions, if such do
not suit he can and probably will throw them in
the waste-paper basket. Our status is simply that
of a mock parliament, a discussion group, a study
club, and that's where our power and responsibility begins and ends. Under present
circumstances the responsibility for Newfoundland's
future rests firstly in the hands of the British
government, and secondly in the hands of our
people themselves, provided they are permitted
to vote in a plebiscite authorised by Mr. Attlee.
For ourselves, we are simply third parties to the
whole transaction. Some people who are as not
yet aware of the true nature of this Convention
may be surprised to hear me speak of it in what
they may regard as a disrespectful manner, but
mark my word, and note, that as time goes on,
and the true nature of this whole thing emerges
from the impressive stage-settings with which it
is dressed up, they will fully endorse the semi-
merits I have expressed today. They will realise
that in their dealings with Newfoundland,
Mr. Attlee, the Dominions Office, and the local
Commission, have stolen the vocabulary of
democracy, but they have deliberately sidetracked its spirit and substance.
In view of these opinions, it may be fairly
asked why I am prepared to sit in a Convention
which I condemn. I am here not in the role of a
subservient delegate to a Commission-inspired
assembly, but as a free and independent representative of the people whose interests
I represent. Anyone who has heard my radio talks,
listened to my pre-election speeches can have no
misunderstanding as to my unchanging attitude
in this matter. I did not wait until I was elected to
condemn this Convention idea. From its first
announcement, I have consistently denounced it
as being conceived with the deliberate idea of
indefinitely prolonging the rule of Commission
government in this country. I told the people of
my district in St. John's West, that I came before
them as a 100% advocate of responsible government; that if they elected me, I would
use every
effort to see that the Dominions Office and the
British government carried out the pledge made
to this country in 1933. It is for these things that
the people have sent me to this assembly, and I
do not intend to fail them. Again, I emphatically
condemn the motives which inspired this Convention, and I equally condemn the purposes
for
which the Dominions Office would use this assembly of Newfoundland representatives.
But we
have to be realists, we have to make the best of
the situation thrust upon us; and, as good sometimes comes out of evil, I at least
hope to see in
this assembly an opportunity for a long silenced,
long subjugated country to recover its voice. I see
in it the first opportunity given our people in 14
years to lawfully come together and consider the
fate of their common country, and by the personal
contacts thereby created to strengthen the bonds
of their blood and soil. I see in it an opportunity
for giving birth and outlining plans for the freeing
of our country from her present state of national
dishonour, of laying the cornerstone of a new
freedom and making the first advances towards
that new and brighter future so long denied and
desired by us. And it is with the desire of assisting
that I am here today.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I have
been asked to present for your acceptance and
consideration a report on the financial and
economic position of Newfoundland. In doing so
I am not to be regarded as its Sponsor. I am
performing this service simply as a part of my
duty as delegate to this Convention and because
I have been requested to do so, with the hope of
expediting the work
This report on Newfoundland has, as usual,
neither been compiled nor authored by Newfoundlanders. For the past 12 years, our
people
have been subjected to consistent propaganda by
apologists of the Commission and the Dominions
Office, and during that same period the only
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 31
reports they have seen were those issued at the
instance of the Dominions Office: the Amulree
Report,
[1] the Goodwill Mission report,
[2] the Gorvin report
[3] and the one which we are now asked
to receive. It is both significant and deplorable
that no official report has been issued from any
Newfoundland source and that no Newfoundland
mentality has had any part in the preparation of
those submitted to us. Is it any wonder that the
only side of the case which Newfoundlanders
have had placed before them is the case for Commission of Government? Is it not high
time that
we Newfoundlanders did something about this,
and prepared our own report — a Newfoundland
report for the benefit of our people? Surely we
are just as competent to discuss and analyse the
affairs of our own country as some Englishmen
thousands of miles away? Must we continue to
meekly accept these biased and self-motivated
publications of outsiders?
In my estimation the famous Amulree Report
is a publication whose sole and single aim was to
pave the way and justify in advance an inexcusable act of political sabotage which
had already been decided on. The Goodwill report and
the Gorvin report were simply the usual valueless
impressions of fly-by-night transients, whose
authors wrote their reports under the admonishing finger of their masters in Downing
Street. The
latest of these reports, that of June past, I have
before me. It was obviously written for the enlightenment and guidance of the delegates
of this
Convention, no doubt with the object of influencing their thoughts and decisions.
As usual, the
authors are graduates of the Dominions Office in
London, their names being Messrs. Chadwick
and Jones and as usual the report bears the imprimatur of that office.
There is one characteristic all these reports
seem to have in common, and that is the complete
absence of any criticism of the actions of the
British government, the Dominions Office or
Commission government. Calumnies there are in
galore of Newfoundland and Newfoundlanders
—our ignorance, our backwardness, our political
corruption. Libels are plentifully interspersed
throughout their pages on our religious institutions, our living and our dead. But
never one
single criticism or one word of censure against
those people or bodies at whose instigation they
were making these reports. This is perhaps only
to be expected and may be regarded as good
politics, but it is certainly not honest politics.
For the purpose of further illustrating what I
have said about these reports in general, I propose
to quote a few extracts from this latest piece of
Commission propaganda. The opening lines read
as follows: "In 1933 financial difficulties combined with the economic effects of
a world-wide
depression led the Newfoundland Government to
approach the United Kingdom for assistance."
These are just the first four lines of this report,
but let us see how true a picture they represent. 1
call your attention to the words, "financial dif~
ficulties compelled us to ask for assistance." It
fails to explain that the real assistance we asked
for was bluntly refused. That a gun was put to our
heads, the demand that we first commit political
suicide before any assistance would be forthcoming. The report also conveniently fails
to state the
simple facts: that we would never have been in
financial difficulties at all, but for the extraordinary sacrifices made by our, what
they term backward people and corrupt politicians, when they
voluntarily sacrificed our national credit to the
tune of $40 million as our contribution towards
the winning of World War I. It would therefore
follow that, in 1933, our normal debt would have
only been $60 million and this after 78 years of
strenuous national existence. Would this indicate
our inefficiency in handling our affairs? Does this
show incapacity on the part of our public men as
the Amulree Report recklessly states? This report
does not even hint that, in 1933, the obvious and
proper course for Newfoundland to follow under
the circumstances was some form of default. In
support of this I quote briefly from an authoritative statement made by A.F.W. Plumptre,
of the
University of Toronto, and published in the
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political
Science.[4] Mr. Plumptre states that on June 15
1933, the British government actually paid $10
32 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946
million to the United States instead of
$75,950,000 which her bond called for, and this
therefore amounted to default on the part of Great
Britain herself. Commenting on} the Newfoundland situation Mr. Plumptre says, "It
appears on the evidence of the Report (meaning the
Amulree Report) that Newfoundland had an
incontrovertible case for honourable default — a
case which was even stronger in its economic
aspect than that of Great Britain a few months
earlier." But Newfoundland was not allowed to
take advantage of such a course because of the
efforts of a combine consisting of the British
government, the Canadian bankers and our own
prime minister at that time. The report says that
Newfoundland was led to ask for assistance from
the United Kingdom. I contend the word "led" is
not accurate. It should rather read we were mercilessly dragged and driven into the
pit prepared
for us. And above all in its significance, this
report completely ignores the fact that the Alderdice government with whom they were
dealing
was acting in callous violation of its election
pledges; that the whole thing was dripping with
treachery and broken faith, and that the British
government was fully aware that it was dealing
with leaders who had been traitors to their
country and who were agents acting without any
legal authority. And it is from reports of this kind
that they apparently expect us to base the discussions of this Convention.
Let me give you just one more example. The
second paragraph of the report begins in this
fashion: "The Commission has now been in office for twelve years. During the first
half of that
period the Island was in financial difficulties." In
these few words the report condemns itself. We
were supposed to surrender our political freedom
on the clear understanding that our financial difficulties would be removed. That
was both the
word and the spirit of the negotiations between
our government and the British government, and
what happens. This report coolly admits that after
faithfully performing our part of the agreement
and sacrificing our national honour we were
simply left to bow deeper under worse financial
difficulties for six whole years. That instead of
keeping their agreement, they led us into a valley
of poverty and misery, which condemned 70,000
of our people to the whiplash of dole, and caused
us to experience a period of national suffering
never equalled in the entire life of our country.
These two instances are not simply isolated examples showing the misleading and unreliable
nature of these reports, they are representative of
their entire content. The examples I have given,
show that in our deliberations we must not allow
ourselves to be influenced by writings which are
neither accurate, impartial nor comprehensive.
Nor can we wisely accept the opinions of those
whose first duty is to protect the interests and
carry out the set policies of their masters in the
Dominions Office. No man can serve two
masters, and no reports made by the agents of the
Dominions Office can be expected to give us the
information or the guidance we require to enable
us to solve the problems before us. It is my belief
that the first duty of this assembly is the removal
of that veil of secrecy which has for over 12 years
enshrouded the political history of our country - to bring in to the light of day,
the things which
have so long been hidden in darkness. To give the
people of the entire country a full, clear, honest
picture of things as they really are.
Mr. Chairman, I shall have some further remarks to make
in connection with the subject matter of this report when it is received by
the Convention and upon the furnishing of the information
which I have requested from the various departments of government. What I
have said so far represents the spirit in which I formally move that
this report be received.
Mr. Newell Mr. Chairman, some of us junior members of
this Convention have hitherto refrained from imparting our
accumulated wisdom whilst matters apparently of great moment were
being discussed. We have felt, at least I have, that such things as
procedure and rules could best be dealt with by older and more experienced
hands.
I should like to quote from our terms of reference. "It shall be the duty and function
of the
Convention to consider and discuss among themselves as elected representatives of
the people of
Newfoundland the changes that have taken place
in the financial and economic situation of the
island since 1934." That is a clear enough mandate, and indicates what should be the
starting
point of our deliberations.
For my part, I am much more concerned about
how the people of this country are going to eat
during the next 50 years than with how they are
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 33
going to vote; and I believe, furthermore, that that
was the thought of the people who sent me here.
I have hesitated to mention such a mundane affair
as eating hitherto, because our discussions have
been of a somewhat exalted nature, concerned
with such things as rights and wrongs; but I don't
think the question can belong avoided. I hold it
true that political independence is based on
economic independence. We had a form of political independence in this country for
many years.
When we lost our economic independence our
political independence went too. Should we not
learn something from our own history, and make
sure that we are not to be faced with a similar
situation? The economic independence of our
country is in turn dependent on the economic
independence of the people who compose it. If a
man is not economically independent, what
freedom has he? He may vote in a free election
for the candidate of his choice every two weeks
or every two years; but if he isn't free to eat three
times a day, I repeat, what freedom has he? What
do I mean by economic independence, you ask?
Just this. In a parody of the famous words of
Mr. Micawber, annual income $1,000, annual
expenditure $900 — result freedom. Annual in
come $1,000, annual expenditure $1,100 - result economic servitude. The man in this
country who can look his neighbour in the face
and tell him what's what is economically free,
and if he hasn't got political freedom he'll soon
start getting it. People who have money to spend
are not afraid to assume their own responsibilities. Let us set our economic house
in shape,
let us have independent-minded men, and you
and I can go home tomorrow. Let us fall short of
that attainment and we may wrangle on here till
doomsday.
There are those who claim this country is
self-supporting, and maybe it is. But I wonder
whether they also assert that our economic system is fundamentally sound. When things
are
going well most of us fail to see the inherent
weakness of the very system that is providing the
monetary prosperity. Perhaps it is because we are
too conservative in our thinking. We are extremely careful how we handle a new idea.
Get too
many new ideas and someone might call you a
radical, or even a socialist, or perhaps something
even more wicked and staggering. Better to leave
things as they are than risk that. I suppose that is
why we are still cranking the old Model T
economic system that Cabot left us when he went
back to claim his ten pounds. It's archaic. It's an
anachronism. It's almost medieval. Certainly our
economic setup has all the earmarks of the old
feudal system, with its lords and villeins. Perhaps
in our case the villains are the lords.
The war, which uprooted so many things, has
failed to dislodge it. True, it increased the booty
as far as we are concerned, but it did nothing to
change the rules. Our economic system has not
changed its fundamental character, except in
spots, over the past 14 years. It hasn't changed in
400 years. And bearing in mind always the extent
to which we are dependent on changing conditions in the outside world, the fact remains
that
our economic setup is not conducive to individual
freedom. And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in putting it so mildly I have not obscured
the fact. If
you want something specific to argue about take
our credit system, our barter trade, our individual
control of credit, with all their attendant evils and
inconvenience both to business and the individuals. Sentiment is a grand thing, particularly
on holidays and Sundays. But in our workaday
world we must be guided by hard practical considerations and for us at the moment
that means
economic considerations.
I come from a district that is a bit remote from
the centre of things, far removed from the political arena. But we are concerned about
the future
of this country, and desperately anxious to do the
right thing. I have received letters from constituents expressing the hope that this
Convention
would produce the information necessary, and
not presently available to them, to enable them to
make a wise decision. We want all the facts,
economic and otherwise. And we want the widest
possible freedom of choice. We would resent any
attempt to limit the choice of this freely elected
assembly.
To return to the importance of economic considerations, and taking one case in point.
Yesterday I gave notice of a question about public
health. I am particularly interested in the subject
because I work with an outfit
[1] that is up to its neck
in a fight against such things as TB and beri-beri.
Beri-beri, is a by-product of malnutrition, a
prevalent disease in certain parts of this country
34 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946
(as also in China, I believe), and in many cases it
is recurrent. It is a product of a wretched
economic environment. We patch up the wrecked
body as best we may and send it back to that
environment. Is our work particularly constructive, would you say? Wouldn't it be
more constructive to go after that economic environment
and change it too? Meanwhile, whilst we are
treating the patient there is one less producer at
work; and the economy of the country suffers
thereby — two ways.
Our government is spending considerable
money on public health. It needs to spend much
more. But where are we going to get it? We need
more hospitals, more nursing services, more doctors in public health work. How are
they going to
be paid for in normal times? I don't know. But
before I start shouting for any particular form or
forms of government, I want to know. If the
Convention can find an answer to questions like
that, it will have achieved something of permanent value.
It is an open question how far any government
can be held accountable for economic prosperity.
Personally, I think the matter goes deeper than a
question of constitutions. It goes to the very roots
of such organised society as we have. But you
cannot have political democracy, as far as I am
concerned, without individual economic
freedom. Meanwhile, we are here to discuss
among ourselves what changes have taken place
in the financial and economic situation since
1934. Let us drop the oratory and get on with it.
Mr. Keough Mr. Chairman, we are gathered here at a most
solemn moment for Newfoundland. It is a moment every bit as solemn
as the first moment of discovery. It is a moment every bit as solemn
as that when Newfoundlanders first congregated in responsible government.
For this is the time of decision as to whether this land we live in
can support a community of civilised men in such fashion as civilised men
expect to be supported in this mid-20th century. We must make as
accurate an estimate as may be possible of our capacity to be sufficient
unto ourselves, and having done so, say whether or not we think we can
fuse the economics that we must live by, and such genius for the political
as may be ours, into a satisfactory social and political order. It is
of utmost importance that we should not err in our estimate of what the
national economy will
support. For if we err in that. then shall we defeat our whole
purpose. It was that thought which has led me to wonder if the holding of
this Convention at this time is not a bit premature. I am not at
all so certain that this is such a happy moment to have to decide what
we must now decide. In some future year the world would have had time to
stop vibrating and the post-war pattern of life would have become
distinct. We could then better judge to what extent we could be sufficient
unto ourselves. Five years from now would be a much better
time to determine whether we will still be able to balance our national
budget, and what is still more important, whether that last forgotten
fisherman out on the bill of Cape St. George, or down on the bill of Cape
Norman will still be able to balance his budget five years from now. That
for me is the ultimate test. The Commissioner for Finance or the
Minister for Finance, whichever it might be, might well go on balancing the
national budget from now till doomsday but the same would be no real
indication of a satisfactory national economy if there were still those who
did not eat. For me what matters is not so much budget surpluses, as
that none should have to tighten his belt.
However, that which we must decide must be
decided not later than in the days of the forthcoming national referendum. It is going
to be most
unfortunate for Newfoundland if too many
people get delusions of grandeur about what we
are ready for in governments, and insist upon our
biting off more than we can chew. A year or so
ago I would have said that there was great danger
of that very thing happening, for quite a number
of people seemed to think that we were ready for
almost anything in government. In the meantime
many have retreated from that position and are
now quite content, indeed are now quite insistent,
that this Convention should give precedence of
consideration to the economic over the constitutional. This is, of course, as it should
be. Once
this Convention can come to see somewhat clearly the probable shape of economic things
to
come, once we can determine wherein there has
been permanent change in the economic and
financial stmcture of this island, then will our
task be greatly simplified. However, how to see
through the still effective economic distortions of
war to permanent change without the benefit of
a certain minimum of relevant statistics will not
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 35
be easy. This difficulty was specifically admitted
in the Report on the Financial and Economic
Condition of Newfoundland prepared for the
members of this Convention.
It was most encouraging to see that the Convention did apply itself in the first instance
to
consideration of the economic. I must confess to
some misgivings at the beginning as to whether
there would be some young men or some elder
statesmen in a constitutional hurry, who would
want to get over the economic hurdle in a hurry
by ignoring it. I was happy to see matters did not
go so. There is much talk today, much questioning of whether or not we are self-supporting.
A
year of so ago I would have said that there was
much surety of that. There seemed to be much
surety, too, that the war had brought to us a great
prosperity. All that wild talk of the great
prosperity the war brought us was, as far as I am
concerned, just so much unmitigated rot. It was
not prosperity, if by prosperity you mean full and
plenty, and some left over that could be put aside.
In most cases where there was anything to spare
it had to go to take up the slack, to replace and to
restore what had rusted and rotted away in the
years the locusts ate. All that came of the war jobs
and dollars was that a few more Newfoundlanders than ever before came a little closer
than
ever before to achieving a decent standard of
living.
It is encouraging to see today this great concern with the question of self-support;
and, that,
gentlemen, is a question upon which we must be
as absolutely certain, one way or the other, as it
is humanly possible to be before we go on to the
constitutional issue. On making answer we shall
have this in our favour that, I feel sure, no man
here present thinks that the mere balancing of the
national budget is indicative of a condition of
self-support. To my mind, a surer measure of the
extent to which we are self-supporting is the
individuals' ability to balance his budget and
have something to spare. This is the acid test, is
every man who makes an honest effort to make a
living able to make a decent living, and will he
still be able to do so when conditions are no
longer abnormal? And if you say to me that is
taking an extreme view, I shall have to ask you
just what men you are going to require to be
satisfied with just how much less? I am quite
prepared to admit that we live in a sparse and an
austere land. It yields a meagre, grey, ascetic
existence, and that but unwillingly. I am prepared
to agree that perhaps we cannot expect for our
people the largesse and elaborate standards enjoyed by people richer in natural resources
and
accumulated capital. But there is a certain minimum standard of living consistent
with human
dignity. There is a little matter of three square
meals a day, and a decent suit of clothes on the
back, and a roof that doesn't leak over the head
We cannot be satisfied in conscience with less
than that minimum. And if you say that any
Newfoundlander should have to be so satisfied,
then again I shall have to ask just what men you
are going to require to be satisfied with just how
much less. I know you are not going to tell me
that we must be so satisfied. And I feel that you
will be much concerned that matters shall be so
resolved that in this island that latter question will
never have to be asked.
It is not for me to seek to forecast what will
come of our efforts and after our efforts, but I
have high hopes that when our work is finished
and the ultimate decision taken, we in this island
shall come to know more spacious days than we
have ever known, and that to our children after
us, and to their children after them, it will be
given to walk the ways of a more prosperous land
in happiness, peace, and dignity.
Mr. Smallwood At the risk of wearying you, I rise in
all sincerity and with more enthusiasm than I would like to show, to offer
my congratulations to the last two speakers. They have, for the
first time since this Convention opened, expressed the
authentic voice of the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood I am sure that the people of Newfoundland
today, taken by and large, excepting a certain limited few, are
completely uninterested in far-fetched and high-faluting questions of
types and forms of government. I think they are tremendously preoccupied
with questions of bread and butter. It has been my experience, and the
experience of these two younger men; theirs, of course has been such as
to bring them constantly and almost continuously into intimate touch
with the real people; for the co-operative workers have nothing else to do
so far as their work is concerned but to be in constant touch with the
people who make the wheels go
36
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 around. That is the voice that is going to
be heard in this Convention. They are not alone in that viewpoint,
they will be joined by a few here in this Convention. I have no doubt
whatever that efforts will be made, honest and sincere, even if
mistaken, to keep the discussion on political and constitutional lines, and
it is not going to be done. There are bigger things than politics and
constitutions to be decided in this Convention, before
ever we come around to the type or form of government. I should imagine that
for the next three months that will be the matter with which the
Convention will be fully occupied, and before we come to a discussion of
constitutionality and the rest, I would like to put myself on record on
a matter with which Major Cashin has dealt at least briefly here this
afternoon. Major Cashin has said that he condemns the motives that inspired the
creation of this Convention I want to say, Mr.
Chairman, that in my view the whole idea, the whole conception of the recent
National Convention election, of this Convention, of the national
referendum to follow, constitute in the aggregate the most thorough
democratic procedure in the entire political history of Newfoundland. I see in it
nothing sinister. I see in it no
attempt whatever to railroad this people or this Convention. I see nothing
suspicious in his presence and appointment of Professor Wheare, though
I heard it suggested on the air, that he, or the person appointed in his
place, was to be a Dominions Office dictator to come to Newfoundland and dominate
the Convention so that the delegates elected would
be merely puppets in his hand. I see no evidence of it, and I do not
believe for a moment that was the intention. Let us look at it for a moment.
There are five documents relative to the whole political situation
- the Amulree Report, the British government white paper, the joint
address of the legislature of Newfoundland, the act of Parliament, and the
letters patent. If I am not mistaken, there is a phrase in identical
language in all five documents to the effect that responsible government
would be restored to Newfoundland when Newfoundland became
self-supporting again, and upon request of the people. It is therefore very
clear that a contract was indeed set up between the Parliament of
Britain and the people of Newfoundland, and the contract laid it
down that when two conditions were met responsible
government would be restored to this country: the first, that
Newfoundland should be self-supporting again, the second that the
Newfoundland people should request it.
At most, and then taking merely a very superficial view, we can say today that Newfoundland
is self-supporting and that the first of the two
conditions has been met. The Newfoundland
people have never requested the return of responsible government to this moment. It
is true that
here and there an association, a businessmen's
organisation, a public meeting, a group isolated,
scattered, constituting in the aggregate only a tiny
fraction of the Newfoundland people, have
passed resolutions that they would like responsible government restored. But the people
have
not requested the return of responsible government. Up to this moment where has the
Dominions Office, the Parliament of Great
Britain, or the government of Great Britain violated a contract established? Have
they been
asked that they do it? They have not. If, tomorrow
morning or afternoon, any member of this Convention stood in his place and moved that
we
recommend to the government of the United
Kingdom, or to the Secretary of State for the
Dominions, the restoration of responsible
government, and the motion is seconded and
voted on and carried ... we have not an iota of
evidence to lead us to assume that that request
would be refused. Despite accusations of malignancy, despite suggestions of nefarious
purpose,
we have not the slightest evidence that a request
of this Convention to the government of the
United Kingdom for the restoration of respon~
sible government would be refused by them in
the sense that they would refuse to submit it to
the people of Newfoundland. Remember we are
not the people of Newfoundland, and even our
unanimous asking for the restoration of responsible government does not make it the
request of
the Newfoundland people. Mr. Chairman, that
right of the people to request the restoration of
responsible government has not been removed, it
is still here in the national referendum, the particular machinery which has been
set up through
which the people can express any wish.... Now,
Mr. Chairman, if the right of the Newfoundland
people to request a return of responsible government stands and is still here, where
is the lack of
democracy in the whole situation? Not only do
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 37
we retain as a people the right to request responsible government, we have gone further,
our right
to request anything has been specifically recognised. In other words today this Convention
can
recommend through the British government to
the Newfoundland people anything it likes....
Now where is there anything undemocratic? I am
rather intimately familiar with government in
Newfoundland from the year 1919 to the last day
we had it, by reading and by studying, familiar
with every govemment and every type of government since the first in its history....
I resent this as
a Newfoundlander, I resent the suggestion that
this Convention is rigged, that it is a bluff and a
camouflage, which involves all of us in the possibility of being a pack of fools.
It is an insult to
the intelligence of every Newfoundland man and
woman who cast a vote on June 21, an insult to
every man who stood as a candidate....
Mr. Hillier Mr. Chairman, I have not spoken since the
opening of the Convention, but I would not be satisfied were I to leave this
room this evening without endorsing the remarks of my friends from
White Bay and St. George's. They voice completely my sentiments and the
sentiments of the district from which I come, and I feel
they are voicing the feelings of the Newfoundland people. The
great thing that worries many of our people is not so much the form of
government we set up, it is the fact of being able to maintain their
families and give them decent meals and clothing. We are very largely
fishermen. I know all about the life and business and
profits of fishermen. I have lived in many places in this country and have
seen the hardships they undergo I lived through the dole period, and I
hope we shall never again return to that state. I don't think there is
anybody who knows better than I do the fight they have from day to day to
maintain their families.... They said to me before going out, "Play
your part to the best of your ability and in the best interests of the whole
of Newfoundland." I am not partial, my interest extends very far
beyond my own district, to Newfoundland as a whole. As my friends
remarked, the economic standard of the individual is very important;
how can the country be economically sound if the individual is the other way
about?
Mr. Burry Mr. Chairman, I stand this afternoon very shaky,
being one of the junior members of this Convention, but I wish to express
myself in
a few words. I come from the most northerly district of this
Convention, one that has gone through years of great strain and stress.
Labradorians as a people are hard-working in the great majority of
cases, and they deserve a good living, a living they have not had. They have
sent me in to see that they get a government that gives them a decent
living. They are not concerned with constitutional government, but with a
government that will give them a decent living for the
labour they put into their work I want to put myself on record that I am
very heartily in favour of the last three or four men who spoke so forcibly. I must
congratulate them on their very fine orations, and
hope that out of this Convention will come some kind of government that will
give our people in Newfoundland and Labrador a decent living.
Mr. Brown Mr. Chairman, I have listened to so much
oratory here this afternoon that I don't know if it is wise to speak at this
time or not.... I have no prepared speech, Mr. Chairman, but I have
listened quite attentively to all that has been said. I have for many years
in this house listened to oratory, as you have yourself, sir, both as
member and Speaker. Some of that oratory was wise words, some was dam
foolishness. I have heard more about government and Commission of
Government in the city of St. John's than I have heard in the north of the
country for two years. I wish it distinctly understood that as one who
voted out responsible government (and I am the only one in this house, and I
am not ashamed of it) I have yet to find the man who could tell me
what better thing could have been done at that time when the country was on
its uppers. What happened in 1930? One afternoon I had in my
possession $35,000 to the credit of my district. The next morning there was
not a cent. No member of any district handled his own money in
cash. What he did was make out a requisition and send it to the
government departments and had them send outenough money to build a wharf,
or a road or something. There was a reason for that. In 1932 when we
came back as a legislative body we found the country could not get along.
Our income could not meet our expenditures, and it boiled
down to the question of giving up responsible government and
letting Commission of Government come in, or letting 70,000 people,
men, women and children in this country starve
38
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 throughout that winter. As one who
represented labour for many years I would never be one who would cast
my vote to let 70,000 starve. I agree with my honourable friends Mr. Newell
and Mr. Keough, but I am interested today, as a representative of the people, in
the question of how we are going to get
three meals a day for ourselves and our families. We must not
forget that while the Commission of Government have made mistakes they
have done some good things as well. I wish it to be distinctly understood
that I don't like Commission of Government, although I
helped bring it in. I would rather see responsible government or some other
form of government if this country could afford it. I came to this
Convention with an open mind and no preconceived ideas. I told my supporters
that it was useless to ask me what form of government I wanted. I
said, "I don't know, I must first go there, and after every form of
government is examined then, and only then, will I be in a position to
cast my vote for what form of government I think is best for the
people of this country." And the form of government that is best for the
people of this country is best for me and what I represent.
Now, some may be running away with the idea
that all this country is down on Commission of
Government. That is not correct. I think that if
there was a vote taken among the fishermen, you
would find 85% of them for it. This is the only
form of government that ever did anything for the
fishermen... I just bring back to your memories
two or three years ago, when the government first
announced the prices of codfish in the foreign
markets. That was done, I think, as much through
my influence and advice as through anybody's. I
was after Mr. Dunn for two years to do that and,
by the way, I feel that Mr. Dunn was the finest
commissioner that has come here in the Natural
Resources department — and the fishermen
knew for the first time in the history of the Newfoundland fishery that year and since,
before they
put a cod trap, or a trawl, or net or line in the
water, what they were going to get for a quintal
of fish when it was taken out and dried. Take
labour. The government created conciliation
boards first. They created an arbitration board
and gave labour a show, and I may say that I think
that in eight out of ten cases that came before that
board, labour got the benefit. Ask any of the
clerks on Water Street. Labour today can thank
the Commission of Government for that. Take
public health, cottage hospitals, and other things
carried through by the Commission of Government. We must, if we are going to condemn
any
form of government, give credit where credit is
due. The Commission of Government has, in my
opinion, done as much and more for the industry
of the country than any government which has
existed. As far as the government of today is
concerned and the future government, sir, I have
an open mind. After this Convention has got
through its work and settled down to make some
recommendations to the Dominions Office as to
what forms of government are best for this
country, then I will cast my vote according to the
dictates of my conscience.
When the discussion was on in connection
with Mr. Wild coming to address the Convention, and the discussion lasted some time
as to
whether he would address the Convention as a
committee of the whole with no outsiders, or in
public with strangers in the gallery, I said I
thought it was better not to cross our bridges until
we came to them. I said that if Mr. Wild refused
to give us information in public, then that was all
we could do about it. Never kick a man until you
have reason. One of the daily papers reported I
said that if he refused to give us the information,
it was time to jump on him. That gave a wrong
impression. I do not think any members, myself
included, are ready to jump on anybody's back.
Every man should get a decent hearing, and never
condemn a man until you have reason to condemn. If Mr. Wild or any of the commissioners
cross me I would not be afraid to tell them what
I thought of them. The paper's statement was
misleading and I ask that it be corrected.
[The Convention adjourned]
