Mr. Bradley Copies of this report are on the desks of
the members and I presume you have read them. It will be unnecessary for me
to read them formally. I would draw your attention to section 2. It is
recommended that the work of the Convention be divided up into nine
committees, each consisting of ten men. We have endeavoured
to apportion the work of the members as best we could in order to balance
them. These committees will be appointed by the Chairman in accordance
with the schedule which is attached to this report and which sets out the
various committees and members of each. As each member of
the Convention sits on two committees, we suggested a schedule which
provides that each committee meets three times a week. That does not
mean that the committees cannot meet of
tener. They may meet
at night. Section 4 provides that the chairman of each committee is to be
one of the members of the Steering Committee, in order that there
might be a connection between the Steering Committee and each sub-committee.
As there are only seven members on the Steering Committee and there
are nine committees, it is obvious, at present, that two chairmen are not
members of the Steering Committee. It has therefore been
suggested we should ask your leave to add to the Steering Committee
accordingly. It is proposed that the work begin at once. It will be
apparent that very little in the form of formal meetings of the Convention
will take place, and it was thought advisable that after we meet the
Commissioner for Finance on Tuesday there should be an adjournment taken,
and that we
46
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 should meet at the call of the Chairman.
Section 6 is very important. It is one thing to ask questions; another thing to
get information. In order that this be done as
speedily as possible we have asked the Commission of Government to provide
an official in each department to assist the committees and
in that way will facilitate the obtaining of information and save
valuable time. You will notice that there has been considerable overlapping in connection
with the asking of questions.
In order that this may be avoided it is proposed to set up a 'Questions
Committee' to which all questions will first be handed. It is not
intended to restrict rights to ask questions. We may advise you as to how to
change the questions and there may be questions eliminated where there
is overlapping, and your questions amplified in order to get the information
with greater exactitude. The Commission has agreed and is anxious to
facilitate us in every way. I move that this report be received.
[The motion carried unanimously. The Convention resolved into a committee of the whole.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the report were approved.
Section 5 was read]
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, in 1934 the Commission of
Government system came into Newfoundland, and since then in this country
there has been no political action of any kind whatsoever until the
holding of the National Convention election. For 12 or 13 years
there happened in this country exactly what Mr. Bradley,
sitting in this House at the time as leader of the Opposition, forecast
would happen. I remember his forecast that one effect of Commission
government would be the death of whatever public opinion had existed. For 12
or 13 years in Newfoundland there has been no political action, no
political agitation, no political propaganda. That has been a grand thing.
At that time I disagreed with Mr. Bradley in private conversation
and in my own mind. I thought that what we needed was a political
holiday or armistice. We have had it, but we have also had what he forecast
— the death of public sentiment. Now that was reflected very
considerably in the number of our citizens throughout the island who did not
bother to vote on the 21st of June. Sir, this Convention opened on
Wednesday a week ago, and I have followed, as I am sure we have all done,
the
reports appearing in the daily newspapers and the weeklies, and the
nightly broadcasts on the two stations, of the meetings of this Convention;
and, as others have done, I have tried to visualise what was happening
throughout the island. I was trying to picture in my mind hundreds of
families around the island sitting in their homes listening to the
broadcasts of the events of the Convention of that day. That has gone on now
for a week and two days, and it has been good stuff, it has been
suggestive and informative, but it has all had to do with public affairs and
that is to the good. What is needed in this country is a great revival
of interest in public affairs, and I do not mean politics. God forbid. This
section 5 would have the effect of closing down the general assembly
of the Convention, and setting up as its only substitute very valuable work
on the part of nine committees. A practical idea, a useful idea, and a
necessary idea that these nine committees should be set up, entirely right
that these practical topics should be tackled in that way, and I agree
completely; but it seems to me, and it means no more to
me than it does to the members of the Steering Committee or to any member of
the Convention, a pity that after seven or eight nights only of
practical, informative and even brilliant broadcasts, reaching
perhaps 200,000 of our people nightly for eight nights, arousing the public
interest in public affairs, that after eight nights it
should thus be abruptly cut off and for three or four weeks they should hear
no more about the National Convention. The suggestion was made, but I
don't see it in this section, I think, sir, by you, the thought of meeting
once a week in general assembly. That is not mentioned here. It is
intended that the Cenvention should adjourn until called together by the
Chairman at the instance of the Steering Committee, except that on
Tuesday we do meet in private session to meet the commissioner.
Mr. Chairman I think you rather misapprehend the effect
of this inquiry. It is not the intention of the Steering Committee to
recommend that the Convention adjourn indefinitely, but while members are at work
it is impossible to have a session of the
Convention; but as the work progresses and they are in a condition to report
to the Convention, the Convention will immediately re-assemble.
Mr. Smallwood The work of these committees
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
47 is going to take time, a week or two, or maybe three,
at least in the case of some of the nine committees. Some may be able to
report back tentatively within a week. The whole point is that it
seems to me regrettable, unless there can be provided in some way to the
reporters, who are the eyes and ears of the Newfoundland public, a
daily statement to keep the interest of the public continuously alert. I
fear that a good beginning made at interesting the people of Newfoundland
will be stopped abruptly for a week or two and then, let's picture it,
a committee reports to the Steering Committee that it has done a certain
amount of work and is able to report, tentatively at least; the report
is brought in and tabled and the whole Convention receives it and it goes to
the individual men to study. It is a case of the whole house meeting
merely to receive these reports and I fear that there is not only a
possibility, but a probability, that for the next two to four weeks
the general assembly of the Convention will disappear with that
amount of time lost completely, from this one standpoint of keeping the
Newfoundland public interested and informed.... There is
nothing personal in it, but I am terribly impressed by the need to arouse in
our Newfoundland people a continuous and increasing interest
in pubic affairs.
Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, I appreciate to the full all
my friend Mr. Smallwood has said.... I am not quite sure that an
adjournment, even for a month, will so kill public opinion that it cannot
be immediately revived when we have something to lay before them. The
brutal fact is that it is not physically possible for the whole Convention
and the nine committees to meet at the same time. Obviously we cannot
be in two places at once, and if we are to obtain some continuity of
publicity it must be at the expense of the work of the various committees,
and that must delay the completion of that work. Now if the Convention
thinks that the value of that continuous publicity outweighs the value of
speed in the working of the committees, why of course that is up to them.
Mr. Ballam I agree with Mr. Smallwood, not altogether but
to some extent, but as Mr. Bradley says we must not do anything to keep us
here longer than necessary. Anything that we can do to expedite matters
I believe it is our duty to do. I was wondering, at the 3 o'clock meeting of
the committees, if the session could not meet here, as
there may be some other people who would like to place questions, and
the longer these are delayed naturally the longer we will be waiting
for the answers.
Mr. Jackman The people of Newfoundland have waited for almost 14
years, and I feel that what they want now is cold, hard facts. Reporting
over the air and to the newspapers is all right, but I feel that what
they want is nothing sensational at all, just the facts. I feel this is a
good move, because I don't see how we are going to get anywhere if we
are going to meet in full session every day like this. I don't think any of
us want to be here longer than necessary, I think we should get the work
done and put the information before the members.
Mr. Hollett I am somewhat in accord with the sentiments
of Mr. Smallwood, that it is not possible to keep the interest of
the public alive if we adjourn the assembly for a considerable period,
and I am wondering if we could compromise a little on this plan and have the
committees meet on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and then
have the Convention meet on Friday. In some instances these committees are
going to extend over a somewhat long drawn out time, and I feel that
if we knew that the Convention would come in session once a week, it might
make up for the lack of continuity. I think Mr. Smallwood and all of
us would consider this a compromise.
Mr. Butt Mr. Chairman, I agree with the remarks of Mr. Jackman. If this
Convention adjourns, and meets, say once or twice a week, it
adjoums in order to give the different committees time to get the
information that our constituents are asking for and need, and I feel sure,
sir, regardless of the Convention adjourning for a week or two, the
people are not going to lose interest. The people will be informed that the
Convention is adjourned for a purpose, and that the representative they
sent to this Convention is seeking information for them, and that the
information cannot be gotten together while this Convention sits daily. There must
be adjournment, and time given
the members of the committees in order to seek this information which is so
vitally important to this Convention. I fail to see where the citizens
of this country can object when they
48
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 know, that the Convention was adjourned
for a purpose, and that every member of the Convention was
doing his job in their interest, and seek ing the information that they sent
us here to get....
Mr. Smallwood In line with Mr. Butt, my point is not that the public
would condemn us for not meeting daily, they would just lose interest. Now
on a given night 200,000 people, let us assume, are listening in. On
that one occasion, in one sentence or two, it is said in a broadcast that the
Convention has adjourned to go into committee work. I will agree that if
that were said each night for a week on the air that fact would then become
public property in Newfoundland. I am sure that my friend Mr. Harrington
will agree on that. You have got to say the same thing in a number of
ways at least five times over that many days before it becomes public
property. I am afraid that the reaction would be, "What's happened to
the Convention? I have not heard a word from them for some days." The
fact that they divided into nine committees, and that they are working
like nailers to get certain information would not be appreciated. My
point was not as to whether the constituents would blame us or not, my fear
is that they will not even know that we have adjourned or why, and they
will think we are trying to stretch it out as long as possible. Already
lots of people have said, "Oh they meet at 3 o'clock and adjourn at 5
o'clock - $15 gone to wing!" They don't know how we are working - that
does not make good copy for our friends in the press box, and the bare fact
that there was a committee meeting is not copy at all....
Mr. Brown Mr. Chairman, what is the radio and the press
for? Surely, the press and the radio can inform the general public what is
happening. Well, if the general public don't want us to get the
information that we are seeking today and going to seek, how can we reach
any decision in this Convention? Surely there must be a time for the
obtaining of this information, and we can't get that information and have
this house sit every day. Some of us have been sitting on some committee every day,
except Sunday, up to the present time, and
I don't see how this House can sit daily and obtain the information we want
to give the general public. I think this is only prolonging the debate
and losing time discussing the matter. As far as what my friend Mr. Smallwood says
about us getting $15 a day, there will
be some of us who go out of St. John's and our $15 a day won't cover
our expenses, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can get through by
Christmas, and I know many others in this Convention who are of the
same opinion. Let us get down to business in the right way and get through
this Convention just as quickly as we possibly can, in the meantime obtaining all
possible information and giving it to the
public.
Mr. Smallwood Just one last word. I hope the newspaper
men and radio men present have received enough copy so that they can drive
it home to the public. That's my idea, to give them enough copy to
make them say more than one line that we are going to adjourn. If they
report this little scrap that we have had, it may serve the purpose
for which it was intended.
Mr. Hickman I agree entirely with Mr. Butt, and if the
people have had nothing for 12 years I think another week or two won't hurt.
I think the quicker we get down to the actual work the better. I would
like to make a motion that the motion be put.
Mr. Chairman Moved that section 5 as read be agreed.
Motion carried unanimously.
[Section 6 read]
Mr. Chairman There is a slight correction there,
gentlemen. The officials of a department will not come here and take part in
the committee meetings, but it is meant that an official from the
department will be there and his first duty will be to give this task his
first attention. That section will read: "It is proposed that each committee
shall have the assistance of an official of the appropriate government
department to assist it in its task of obtaining the necessary information
from that department. The Commission of Government have assured the
Chairman of their fullest co-operation in this respect."
[Sections 6 and 7 approved]
Mr. Chairman It is proposed that each member of the
Convention sit on two committees, and the schedule for the time of sitting
has been so arranged that they will not overlap. If it is so
approved, gentlemen, I shall appoint the members of the Convention to
the committees accordingly.
[Moved and carried that this suggestion be approved. The committee of the whole rose,
and the
Convention adopted the Report of the Steering
Committee]
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 49
Mr. Job I wish to make the following remarks on the
subject of this Chadwick and Jones report, which perhaps for short I may
call the white paper. I hope there will be many other opportunities of referring
to it, and on this assumption I do not intend to
speak at length on it today. It has been prepared from our own government
department records, with a view to giving us a preliminary picture of
the economic position of Newfoundland. This document, in my opinion, is
a definite contribution to our efforts and cannot be lightly brushed
aside. I believe that a careful study of it will help the delegates to get
some sort of a picture of the government's economic position, but it is far from
providing all the information we will
require. A careful study of that excellent review entitled
Newfoundland. Economic, Diplomatic and
Strategic Studies, edited by R.A. MacKay, of which a copy has
been furnished to every delegate, will give us a still clearer picture. I
wish today to briefly call attention to two short sentences in this white
paper, one of which on page 9 reads as follows: "The long term
prosperity of the Island ultimately depends on a flourishing export trade."
The other on page 21 reads: "Certain industries run by outside
concerns bring into the country only sufficient money to run their
operations, but the great bulk of earnings from the sale of fish is
ploughed back into the economy."
I have emphasised, and will take every opportunity of again emphasising, that the
happy state
of affairs declared to he so vital and desirable by
those two bright young delegates, Mr. Newell
and Mr. Keough in their admirable addresses,
will never be achieved unless and until we are
assured of a more stable and profitable market for
our fishery products of all sorts than has existed
in the past. Such a market will be available only
if we take advantage of our strategic position to
negotiate tariff arrangements with the mother
country, with Canada and with the United States
of America, and the sooner some government
with solid backing can get under way with these
negotiations the better. There is very shortly
going to be held an international trade convention
for the purpose of discussing trade relations and
tariffs, at which a delegate or delegates appointed
by the Newfoundland Commission of Government will be present. Newfoundland's case for
special consideration so far as trade and tariff
relations with the United Kingdom, Canada and
with the United States of America are concerned,
should be based not only upon the question of
reciprocity on tariff concessions, but also upon
the fact that these three countries will be utilising
our strategic position for the safety of their millions of people.
This country has never received anything, except the temporary benefit of certain
expenditures during the war, which were necessary for
the safety of these millions of people, in return
for the 99-year leases of Newfoundland territory
granted to the United States, and the special airport facilities granted to Canada.
We do not want
to be subsidised by outside people to enable us to
maintain that fair standard of living to which
reference has been made, but we do want to be
assisted by tariff arrangements. It is useless to
develop our production of fish products without
assurance of a profitable market. I make these
present remarks on account of the urgency existing, to impress upon those who will
be responsible for the appointment of delegates to this
forthcoming international trade convention, of
not overlooking our grounds for special consideration. We shall want the full weight
of this
Convention and of our people behind this idea if
anything is to be accomplished quickly.
Before closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
support most strongly the views and patriotic
sentiments so eloquently expressed by Mr.
Smallwood and also by Mr. Ken Brown upon the
remarks of Major Cashin on introducing his motion for receipt of this white paper.
His address
was more or less a repetition of some made over
the radio for months prior to the Convention, and
I fancy that they amused a great many people and
perhaps even were helpful in arousing public
interests in the political situation, but it was not
the kind of address that should have been
delivered at this Convention, and I fancy that
every delegate here will agree with this viewpoint
and resent the subtle insinuations made.
Mr. Vincent Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the motion
before the Convention I did so, in the words of Mr. Keough, "possessed with
a deep conviction that this is a vital moment in the annals
50
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 of our country." I have observed that
there are those among us who are very hopeful of seeing a sentiment
develop in favour of this or that form of government. In the early stages of
what can only be described as an investigating committee, that is very
bad. One delegate is a proponent of this, another an adherent of that, and
it would be very unfortunate should any attempt be made by a proponent
of any form to superimpose his preconceived notions, fixed beliefs and
fore-ordained opinions on this assembly. There should be
no splitting into groups. Supposing your district does want
confederation and mine responsible government, what of it?
Districts are but the components of what make up Newfoundland, so let
us confine ourselves to factual data only. Furthermore, any attempt to
narrow the issues or restrict the choice of the people would not only
be foolhardy, it would be positively dangerous. The majority of our people
are not concerned with the name of tomorrow's government, but that the
administration of tomorrow should provide, inasmuch as governments
can, more comprehensive and higher educational standards,
more and better communications, in short a general raising of the standard
of living which, to say the least, is much lower than in any English- speaking
country of the western hemisphere.
The solution is not to be found in the political
field, it will be found in the future prosperity and
consequent happiness of that family over the
way, for "a nation is as poor as its people." I
personally do not care what name is given to their
set form of government; I'll vote for it as soon as
it can be shown it was in the best interest of
Newfoundland. Today we are at the cross-roads.
"Whence from here and whither tending?" I ask.
These are important questions and it devolves
upon the members to be exacting in their research
and honest in their opinions, not guided by sentiment. The economy of Newfoundland
is not basically different in 1946 from what it was in 1934
— the influx of outside capital during the abnormal war years cannot in the long run
have any
appreciable effect upon our ability to be self-sufficient - the internal market for
our products
cannot in the foreseeable future be greatly enlarged. Newfoundland still has 42,000
square
miles of territory with only a third of a million
people. That confronts us with a large problem
for it obviously means a too-wide diffusion of our
national effort, which in turn greatly weakens the
ability of any centralised government to maintain
anything like fair provisions for the communications so essential to the people of
the small towns
and villages. I would hesitate to vote for any form
of government before all the facts are assimilated. For after all, the real trouble
is the age-old
business game of trying to make enough money
on the goods sold to enable the businessman to
keep his personnel happy, and his stores and
warehouses in fairly decent order. The three
meals and tight roof argument may he basically
sound, but it is only a half-truth, for the question
is not how we'll eat and what we'll wear. It goes
deeper than that, for it must not be forgotten that
no government in itself can go on providing for
the welfare of its people unless its resources can
support its economy. Government of course can
provide legislation, social and otherwise, that
will in some measure contribute to that end, but
the burning questions are, can we provide new
industries, seek out and develop new resources?
There is a dire need for newer methods in our
saltfish industry; and our external trade, the very
essence and life-blood of our economy, is, as it
was 50 years ago, still contingent upon the ability
of foreign markets to purchase our exportable
products. These and other factors tend to make
the task facing the Convention a case of arithmetic plus sound common sense, so let
us dispense with our pet opinions and continue the
investigation on our financial and economic affairs on the broad plane of securing
facts only.
I cannot agree that the Convention is a farce
and a fiasco. I am willing to explore every possibility, analyse every issue, and
without identifying myself with any group or following any
star, to measure everything by the yardstick of the
best for Newfoundland. I would vote for the
retention of Commission of Government, if after
the mobilisation of all the facts I find it is best for
the country, but I shall as readily vote against it
if the opposite is the case. Logically I believe in
responsible government — what free man
doesn't — but it is not a question of what I
believe, it's what is best for Newfoundland.... I
do not pretend to have any notion how the
country would vote tomorrow, but I am convinced that the widest publicity should be
given
to the findings and deliberations of the Convention. If we conduct our investigation
in the proper
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 51
manner, I am confident we can safely leave the
final analysis in the hands of our fellow Newfoundlanders. They will choose wisely
and well.
Mr. Jones Mr. Chairman, it is with a certain amount of intimidation I
rise to make a few remarks on the report now in question. This National Convention
has become a reality after much tribulation.
I hope its faculties will continue to keep healthy and strong, because it
will need the shoulder of an Hercules to carry the burden of statistics
about to be placed upon its shoulders. The members of this Convention have
been appointed by our respective districts to try and find
out the best form of government suitable for Newfoundland The task is
going to be extremely difficult, and will call for the best contribution
each and every one of us can put into it. We shall have to give sane and
unbiased considerations to the many problems which will from time to time
confront us, and there is much hard work in store for us before we can
attempt to try and come to a decision.
Mr. Chairman, since we relinquished our
status as a self-governing people, Newfoundland
has been in the limelight, and still is. We have had
many reverses in our economic life since then,
yet we have survived somehow. When war was
declared Newfoundland was at its lowest ebb,
economically and financially, yet in spite of the
fact that many of our young men were on the dole,
being only half-fed and half-clothed (on six cents
a day) they rallied round the colours, and very
soon some 7,000 of our young men were enlisted
in the different forces of the empire, not forgetting thousands of our young women
who offered
their services. Mr. Chairman, let us hope Newfoundland will never again experience
the difficult times previous to the outbreak of hostilities.
That is where this Convention comes in, to find
that form of government which will remove the
spectre of want from our people. Should this
Convention recommend such a form of government, then it will be the means of placing
Newfoundland on the map, and our children's
children will look back in the years to come on
the work of this Convention and say it was a
masterpiece.
Mr. Chairman, as we look at the estimates for
1946-47 we find a deficit balance of approximately $4 million. How can we be self-supporting
under these conditions? If we wish to find a
solution to our problems, we must forget this
form or that form of government, until we have
studied carefully all the information at our disposal and then come to our decision,
which is the
most suitable form of government for this sadly
burdened country of ours.
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, during the past few days we
have listened to some lengthy and eloquent speeches by several
members of this Convention and I wish to tender congratulations.
What I have to say will not be lengthy nor will it be eloquent. I am
not too particularly blessed with the gift of oratory, nor do I think it is
necessary at this stage of our proceedings.
The Chadwick and Jones report will he of the
utmost value to us in our deliberations, and I do
not think there will be any question of its adoption. During this debate a lot has
been said for and
against various forms of government. Mr. Chairman, the time is not ripe, nor do I
think it appropriate, for us to discuss the merits or demerits
of any particular form of government. As regards
what form of government is best for this country
at the present, I have no idea, but as to what kind
of a government I want for this country, I have a
very fixed idea. What I, and the majority of the
people of this country want is a government that
will give us the greatest measure of economic and
financial stability. A government that will see to
it that the rising generations of this country are
given a sound education, a chance to develop a
healthy mind, and what is perhaps most important
of all, a healthy body.
During the past, Mr. Chairman, our people
have been denied a great many, if not all of these
privileges or shall I say rights. I could carry on in
this strain to come length, but if I do I shall
probably find myself in the rather awkward position of self-contradiction. Because
at the beginning I stated that what I had to say would not be
lengthy.... So let us cut out the pretty speeches
and get down to business.
Mr. Penney Feeling that our friends at Carbonear may be thinking I am asleep on the job or
something worse because
we are not figuring in the news so far, may I take this opportunity of
speaking briefly, as well as to let you know at the start that I am not a
past master in the field of oratory. Yet, like all other members of this
Convention, we have our own opinions and feelings
concerning the work which we are called upon to
52
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946 do. I was surprisingly touched and pleased
with the addresses of Mr. Newell of White Bay District, and
Mr. Keough of St. George's on Wednesday last, because they were
young men representing extern districts in Newfoundland, and they may
not have been schooled in parliamentary amenities in the same way
as our old time politicians whom we have already heard every so often.
Yet it could be clearly seen that they were alive to their jobs and gave us
some good stuff to think over. May they be followed by other outport
members who may be classified as unknown in this public way so far, like
your humble servant.
When Mr. Brown told us in his address that he
came to this Convention with an open mind his
declaration touched me closely, for I can say also
that it is my privilege to be sailing in the same
boat in that respect. While I am not in love with
the dictatorial make-up of Commission of
Government, I am more concerned over the number and kind of meals the people of Newfoundland
will be able to afford in the years
ahead, than I am in particular forms of government at this time, so to that end, and
for that
purpose I am very willing to serve with a feeling
that there are many rivers to cross in between.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to address this assembly
at the present time, and I don't intend to do so today for more than five
or six minutes. I feel it is much more fitting to have members outside
St John's do the talking at the present time, because we in St. John's who
are so much closer to the seat of government have a lot to learn from
the opinions of outside members. My real reason for rising in this
debate was because I did not feel justified in keeping silence any
longer, having listened to the remarks of the proposer of this motion on
Wednesday last. I do not feel justified for two reasons, one that silence
may be considered to give consent to the views of Major Cashin, and
secondly because I feel that his remarks, whilst they may be good politics,
do not lead to contentment in the minds of the delegates. The remarks I
object to are these. In referring to the undertaking by the British
government to Newfoundland — "When the country is self-supportin g we
would have responsible government given back upon the express
wish of the people" — he said, speaking of this people, "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?" Again, in referring to a statement made by Prime Minister
Attlee that the Commission have in hand or are planning to meet our present
needs during the next two or three years, Mr. Cashin read into this
statement the fact that the British government intended to enforce
Commission rule for two or three years. He said again, "Our status, despite
what may be said to the contrary, is simply that of a mock parliament,
a discussion group, a study club." How anybody holding opinions such as
these can sit as a member of this Convention is beyond my
understanding, and certainly Major Cashin's doing so is, using his own
words, very improper. The most scathing part, however, is the excuse
he gave when he said he was not "a subservient delegate to a
Commission-inspired assembly, but rather a free and independent
representative of the people whose interests I represent." The
suggestion contained in these remarks means that either some or all of us
are subservient delegates to what Major Cashin describes as "a
Commission-inspired assembly". I resent that suggestion, and I am sure I
resent it equally with all of you here today. There is no man here who
is not a free and independent representative of the people, and I defy Major
Cashin or any other person to say otherwise. I am not interested in
the background of this Convention; as far as I am concerned we
have been elected by the people of this country to ascertain if we
have or can arrange economic security and financial stability. Without these
no government can be successful. Having ascertained these items we
must look to the form of government best suited to the country. Our fellow
countrymen are looking to us with great expectations, in fact the
outside world is also extremely interested in this Convention, as we note by
the newspaper coverage we are receiving. I ask you, can the remarks of
Major Cashin impress our country or outsiders with our ability to solve our
problems? Let us in all future sessions refrain from all such remarks
as we heard here on Wednesday last. We must remember that the cost of this
Convention is by no means inconsiderable. The sum of $150,000 was set
aside to cover this assembly. The costs amount to upwards of $800 for each
day. Unless we are giving service in line with our
September 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
53 terms of reference we are not playing the game by our
constituents or by the country generally.
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, much has been said on what we
are gathered here for. I could not help recalling some of the speeches of
yesterday. I believe we of the Convention realise the responsibility of what is
an historic occasion, and it is something, in my
estimation, that should not have happened. I am learning for the first time
the whole truth about what has happened in the past, and the truth
still leaves me in that state of mind that there should never have been an
occasion for a National Convention. I agree with my honourable
colleague, Major Cashin, that we should never have surrendered the
constitution. In that I differ from my learned colleague Mr. Brown. At
that time I was out of the country. In 1929, watching the course of events,
I was talking to some of the members of the House and the matter of
borrowing came up. They said we had to borrow to get along, I asked, "What
are you going to do when you can't borrow, have you any plan? You had
better get one for your borrowing days are about over." It seems
like everybody drifted along with no plan, "laissez faire" was the
order of the day. That was the time to have tried to get the house in order,
and when the world got in the doldrums in the thirties, the first
thing we should have done was to have notified our debtors that until our
markets picked up we would acknowledge our debt, and pay a token
payment of say one third of one percent and also tried at the time to get
our interest scaled down. After all, we had spent a lot of the money
fighting for democracy, it was just as well to face it first as last. No,
that much was too much for Newfoundland, where vested property has sacred
rights above the call of human rights. Then the Tory element came to
the fore and we had to surrender our franchise, our birthright. Esau sold
his for a mess of pottage, he made a better bargain than us. I don't
know who got anything out of it. I am sure the British government didn't,
for since 1934 all liberal-minded people throughout the world have
reminded her of her treatment of Newfoundland. When serving on a great ship
in 1940 and talking in the mess about the way the democrats let the
Spanish republic down, one steward who was secretary of the Barcelona
Labour Party and on the run from Franco said, "What did you expect of the
Tory element in
Britain, did they not take away Terra Nova's constitution because she
could not pay to the Yankee and British capitalists the interest on her
debt, and that debt was only $2 a head for the people of Britain?" So
you see, prestige is hard to get and easy to lose. Then we got a Commission of Government,
a cure for all our ills. I was home from
1936 to 1939 and if ever there was a hopeless, befuddled body of men in the
world's history it was that same Commission. I'm sure had the home
government given us the power to elect our commissioners with the power the
commissioners had, plus financial experts from the old
country, the story would have been different today. I doubt if we would have
been clamouring for a change of government.
Let us review our country's past. With everything against us for the past 336 years
since the
first permanent settlers landed here, taking the
type of country it's our lot to own, and the way
our economic system has worked, we have made
marvellous progress, and its because our people
seem to be made out of different clay. The north
breeds men, and our country bred good men - we must never let them down, and I have
great
faith in the future. I don't think it's going to be
easy. We don't want men of the type who surrendered our God-given right to vote. Personally,
I don't think we'll get them, I think we have
learned our lesson. Let us review our past financially. The figures, if one is to
believe the British
year book from 1900 to 1930, show that with a
population of less than 255,000, we exported
nearly $700 million worth of goods and we imported just $l4 million less than we exported.
Out
of these imports we built a Grand Falls, a Corner
Brook, Deer Lake, the dry dock, the Newfoundland Hotel, hundreds of miles of railroads.
Added to that we borrowed $70 million, added to
the wages of a number of men who like myself
worked outside the country and sent their money
in, which probably in the 30 years reached nearly
$100 million. Let us get down to the crux of the
matter, and find out why, with this wealth in
sight, we are in the place we are. In 1929 our
exports totalled $40 million, or $140 per head for
every man, woman and child in Newfoundland.
That was our foreign trade. That year the foreign
trade of the United States, the greatest in her
history, was $42 per capita. Economists have told
me we are the largest exporters per capita in the
54 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946
British Empire, of goods taken from sea, forest,
mines and land, and its all plain to the world that
any country where exports exceed imports that
country is in a healthy condition, except Newfoundland. If we are going to eat, as
Mr. Newell
states, we have to find out how and where we are
going to eat. We have got to have a plan and a
government that will give us that freedom from
fear and want that so many of us fought for.
I could not help thinking, when listening to
Mr. Wild, with a revenue of $33 million, how our
country in 1930 had exports valued at $7 million
and a revenue of $1.25 million. Take our position
today and then, are we not that much better off?
If our social security and way of living would
only increase with our expert and revenue, then
we sure would have heaven on earth. I think in
those days our "crooked" politicians did a good
job, and if we get men of their stamp and managing ability, plus the advanced knowledge
of the
last 46 years, it will augur well for the country. I
am not in accord with this big plan spending. I
believe in retrenchment with a capital "R" for the
days that are always ahead after a war. Then plan.
"Today" has always characterised their actions in
the past — always the wrong thing at the wrong
time. I believe the government is making a mistake.
I voted against Mr. Smallwood bringing in an
expert. I'm no BA but I don't want any expert to
tell me why we don't eat or why we can't balance
budgets. I have been a left wing socialist since
1910, and have travelled to nearly every country
with a coastline in the world. I have been fortunate to meet folks who are trying
and planning
a better way of life. I have also taken notice of
conditions in Newfoundland for 45 years and I'm
not at all surprised that things are as they are, in
fact with our laissez faire way its a wonder they
are not worse.... I can answer Mr. Newell, before
we eat we have to have a government "of the
people, for the people and by the people" who
will see that those conditions are eliminated and
the common man is represented. I spent the six
years of the war with 28 voyages to Europe, with
Russia and the Mediterranean thrown in, and I
can assure my learned colleague, Major Cashin,
that the ports of Britain are no stranger to me. I
detested the Commission of Government and
would have fought it if it had been the best
government in the world, and it was a long way
from that, for I believe in democracy. I'm still of
that mind. I could not get any news of what was
going on home from this side, so I tried on the
other. I met quite a few men who are in power
today. I remember one of them saying, "Newfoundland with nearly 20,000 of her sons
and
daughters working and fighting for democracy is
under a dictatorship. It sounds ridiculous, but we
don't know what to do for Newfoundland for they
don't know what they want themselves." I'm sure
we cannot place the blame on the Labour Party,
for had you, Major Cashin, got 50 or 60 men
together of sterling character and demanded self
rule with a united populace behind you, Labour
would have fought for us and I think the Tory
element would have been glad to have changed
it.... The only chance for the Labour Party to find
out if there was really any political talent and
interest in government was to call a National
Convention. Take it from me, Labour is in sympathy with us and don't put the blame
on them. I
agree with you about our getting out a financial
report by Newfoundlanders wholeheartedly, and
the quicker our way; the British way in getting
back our independence is going to be expensive
and a long-drawn out affair, and we should petition His Majesty's Government, as we
are an
elected body and heartily sick of Commission of
Government, and ask if they will turn the government over to us and let us put parties
in the
field, first for responsible government, second for
modified Commission of Government, third for
confederation with Canada, fourth North of
Ireland status, and for three years educate our
people in what they have lost, so our people will
have full knowledge of the issues at stake. I
believe this is the best and cheapest way, and I
don't think it should be left to a later date. I
believe this would be parliamentary, and no man
could say the country was sold down the street. I
have never thought the Commission of Government legal. The Statute of Westminster
states
these seven self-governing nations within the
British Commonwealth of Nations are in no way
subordinate to each other, neither in their domestic or foreign policy, and as I read
it that cannot
be changed without a plebiscite of the people.
That plebiscite was not held, the Alderdice
government was elected to bring back prosperity
to the country, not to sell it.... We, as the first
elected body of Newfoundlanders, will forget the
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 55
lapse of the past and hold the mother country to
the Statute of Westminster, so let us go ahead and
appeal to the mother country to allow us to take
our place without a lot of beating around the bush,
take over the job and quit ourselves as men.... So
let us clear lower decks and face whatever our
country calls for.
Mr. Fowler Mr. Chairman, if I recall correctly some
speakers in the early stages of this debate called for an end to oratory and
the beginning of the real business of this Convention. I think that
this was not the end but the beginning of such oratory, and while I realize
that it is a great temptation to any delegate, conscious of his
ability, to burst forth in flowery speech, yet I also contend, sir, that the
sooner we get down to real business the better.
I agree that the people of this country are very
much concerned over this business of eating in
the future, but feel sure the great majority are also
gravely concerned over the way they will vote,
and as to whether they will have that precious
right restored to them in future years. You need
more than a full stomach in order to have a
contented people, and history will bear out that
statement.
We are about to discuss the report of the
Dominions Office. This, I hope, will be an inter~
esting study, and give us a first class picture of
our financial and economic position at the
present. But how this Convention or any other
body can determine whether Newfoundland will
be self-supporting in say ten years from now,
regardless of what form of government we adopt,
is more than I can understand; and since the basis
of our economy is by no means stable, a chance
on the future must be taken in any event. Therefore, in order to justify ourselves
before posterity,
we owe it to them as well as to ourselves, to
secure if possible a form of government which
will embody the highest ideals of democracy and
permit of the greatestopportunities for all. To this
end, gentlemen, let us take up the work at hand
in harmony and unity. Let us not strike the note
of discord too loudly, for there are eager ears
listening, but, in the words of Britain's wartime
prime minister, "Let us go forward together."
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, we have certainly had an opportunity to hear
all shades of opinion. I am amused at the idea of the open mind, and
also of making sure of three meals a day. In order
to bring this thing to a close, I move that the question he now put
with regard to the acceptance of the report.
Mr. Smallwood I have already spoken and I can't speak
again, but may there not be other delegates who may wish to speak?
Mr. McCormack Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I did not
propose to address the Convention as I am unaccustomed to public speaking,
also because I consider all this speech-making so much waste of time
that could be used to better advantage. However, as it seems to be
the order of the day and apparently expected by many, I now ask for your
tolerance.
Few of us came here with this so-called open
mind, and as was to be expected, the proponents
of the different forms of government are already
showing their partiality to those whom they look
to as leaders. I believe, however, that all are
motivated with a sincere and honest desire to
arrive at recommendations which will be of
greater benefit to the many rather than to the few.
It should be remembered meantime that each one
of us expects to form conclusions from facts
obtained, rather than from oratory in debate
before these facts are obtained. The Steering
Committee is to be complimented in this connection in dividing the work between the
different
committees and we may now hope for more
expediency in obtaining the information relative
to our work.
Many questions have been tabled, most of
them relevant, but not all of them absolutely
necessary, the replies to which may be difficult
to obtain, and, as the Hon. Mr. Wild suggested, it
would be well to confine them to essentials,
otherwise the compilation of replies will outlive
the Convention itself. Surely we can arrive at an
estimate of our national economy approximate
enough to meet our requirements without seeking
after minute details. With reference to our national income, we cannot hope to obtain
even a fairly
approximate figure when no tabulation of in:
dividual incomes is available from the majority,
and even those would not contain supplementary
income. I might refer to a large number
throughout the island receiving monetary gifts
regularly or otherwise from friends or relatives
within the United States and Canada, I would
suggest, in this connection, that Convention
delegates, whom it may be assumed are conver
56 NATIONAL CONVENTION September 1946sant with the living conditions of their constituents, should be able to contribute
towards a
solution of this problem.
As for forms of government, in the final
analysis no form of government can give
economic security if our resources, when fully
developed, are not capable of giving us a self-sufficient national income equitably
distributed.
Our chief concern, then, is to discover, not
alone our economic position at the present time
of abnormality, but, insofar as possible, what we
can expect it to be in say ten years time. In
speaking thus, I am not unmindful of our many
neglected assets, as for example our geographic
position, on which we should capitalise, and the
many services supplied us at high cost by outside
interests, which could and should be supplied by
ourselves. We must not fail to remember that the
government is primarily an administrative body,
and may I quote in conclusion: "O'er forms of
government let fools contest, That which is best
administered is best."
Mr. Chairman Gentlemen, is it the wish that we adjourn
the debate to enable any of the members who have not spoken to
speak on this motion?
Mr. Bradley I think that this would be a wise move, and
for that reason I move the adjeumment of the debate, because I think there
are many members who have not had a chance to find their feet, and we
ought to give them an opportunity to do so, so that they can be more
accustomed to speaking on the floor of the house before we get to the
really serious business of this Convention.
Mr. Chairman Proposed by Mr. Bradley, seconded by Mr.
Ballam that the debate on this motion be adjourned. Carried unanimously.
Pursuant to the adoption of the Report of the
Steering Committee, and in accordance with the
suggestions of that committee, I appoint the following committees:
(1) Fisheries
Brown (Convener)
Job
Goodridge
Crosbie
Bradley
Ashboume
Hillier
Reddy
Fudge
Figary
(2) Finance
Cashin (Convener)
Job
Crosbie
Hickman
Crummey
Keough
Penny
Goodridge
Bellam
Cranford
(3) Forestry
Fudge (Convener)
Cashin
Dawe
MacDonald
Roberts
Vardy
Brown
Vincent
Northcott
Bailey
(4) Mining
Higgins (Convener)
Hollett
Banfield
Miller
Jackman
Vardy
Fowler
McCarthy
Watton
Burry
(5) Agriculture
Butt (Convener)
McCormack
Fogwill
Keough
Harmon
Ballam
Spencer
McCarthy
Jones
Kennedy
(6) Local Industries
Hickman (Convenor)
Reddy
Dawe
Hillier
Penny
September 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 57
Vincent
McCormack
Starkes
Cranford
Jackman
(7) Education
Hollett (Convenor)
Fowler
Jones
Fogwill
Spencer
Miller
Harrington
Smallwood
Ryan
Newell
(8) Public Health and Welfare
Ashboume (Convener)
Newell
Roberts
Higgins
Harrington
Kennedy
Banfield
Burry
Crummey
Starkes
(9) Transportation
Bradley (Convener)
Smallwood
Hannon
Figaxy
Northcott
Ryan
Bailey
Watton
Butt
MacDonald
Mr. Chairman The Committee on Information will consist of Mr. Bradley,
KC. and Mr. Higgins, K.C., in association with myself; and in
view of the alteration of the procedure there will be no necessity in the
future for notice of questions. All requests for information will
now be passed to the Committee on Information and they will transmit
them forthwith to the appropriate departments for information. Will the
convenors of the various committees notify the committees to meet in
accordance with the schedule. We will
now proceed with the orders of the day.
Mr. Smallwood Since I tabled notice of this motion
[1] we have heard Mr. Wild. At the session
yesterday there was some difficulty in getting the exact figure showing the
gross national production of the country and it was suggested that
by a process of sampling there could be arrived at something fairly
accurate, approximate, at least, of the figure asked for in this resolution.
You gentlemen are quite familiar what arguments there are in favour of
the general idea of knowing the value of the gross national production of
the country. It is an entirely different motion, of course, from that
defeated here the other day - the one which asked for the appointment to the
Convention of a statistician-economist. This solely asks that the
government should provide us with the information. How they get it is not
our business. We do not put a time limit there, but within the next
couple or three months we want some approximate idea, something more complete than
is given in Dr. McKay's book where there is an
attempt at guessing the national production. I make that motion.
Mr. Bradley I do stress the difference between this and
the motion which was defeated the other day. I think we must all agree that
every bit of information possible for us to have ought to be laid
before us. Just how accurate an estimate of the gross national production of
this country can be obtained by the government, I do not know. I am
neither a statistician nor am I an economist; but I think Mr. Wild indicated
that something more could be done than has as yet been done, and for
that reason I think we would be making a very grave mistake if we refuse to
adopt this resolution. It is an effort to get all the information and
in order for us to get a basic figure.
Mr. Chairman I take it the Finance Committee will take
that under consideration as one of their first duties.
Mr. Hollett I am in favour of the proposal; it is
essential that we know the gross national production, but why not
have it for, say, 1939 and for 1933, otherwise it will be impossible for us
to make the comparison.
Mr. Smallwood I would like to have it for every year
for the last 50 years, but it is a sheer impos
58
NATIONAL CONVENTION
September 1946sibility. It has never been done; it can be
done only with respect to figures that can be gotten. The original
data upon which the final figure would be built are missing except
for'possibly last year and this year. They exist, but not in written
form — in government accounts but
never as actual written data. I wish they had.
Mr. Chairman I take the liberty of deleting the word
"House" and substituting the word "Convention" in this resolution.
[The motion carried unanimously, and the Convention adjourned]
