Mr. Fudge Mr. Chairman, I have great pleasure in rising
to move that the Forestry Report as tabled be received by the' Convention.
Our committee has been meeting continuously three times
weekly since appointed some four weeks ago, and have been able to get
together some most interesting and valuable information relative to
the forest industries of the island of Newfoundland and its
possession, Labrador. All matters referred to in the report, which
is covered under several headings, have received the closest attention
of every member of the Committee and I am glad to be able to inform the
Convention that our findings are definitely unanimous. I regret
however, that owing to our friend Mr. K.M. Brown having been ill, he was
unable to attend all meetings. I want to take this opportunity of
paying special tribute to Messrs. MacDonald, Vincent, Dawe and Cashin, who
were the subcommittee appointed to draft this report, and who
have been instrumental in making the report of such general interest.
I would now request Major Cashin to give a review of the entire report for
the further enlightenment of the delegates...
[The Convention moved into committee of the
whole]
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, having been delegated by the
members of the Forestry Committee to further explain this report,
I feel that it will not be thought out of place if I make a few brief
comments on its contents. I do this, so that those delegates who are not
members of this particular committee may understand the background of our work and
the objects which we had before us in compiling the
report. As you will have noted, the various phases of the report cover
a wide range, including pulp and paper industries both at Comer Brook and
Grand Falls, the pit- prop industry both in Newfoundland and
Labrador, the saw mill industry, reafforestation, etc. Our studies,
which have extended over a period of several weeks have included a detailed
examination of all
available facts and statistics, and in addition we have availed of the
knowledge and experience of those members of our committee
who are particularly qualified to discuss matters relating to our
forest industries.
As intimated in our report, we regret that we
did not get all the information which we required
from government sources, and in particular I
refer to my request for the annual financial statement of Bowaters.
[2] The government have also
been unable to furnish us with any survey of
standing timber on the Labrador. But, in all, we
believe that we have managed to include in our
report all pertinent facts and figures necessary for
the making of a fairly accurate estimate of the
present and future prospects of the forestry
resources of our country. In some cases, as you
will notice, we have deemed it advisable to furnish some historical background. We
have
thought this necessary, in order that the Convention may more clearly understand just
how things
are with us today. I might say, and I feel that I
speak on behalf of the members of our committee, that irrespective of our individual
political
leanings, we have always kept in mind the necessity of our being as objectively factual
and as
impartial as possible. No attempt has been made
to distort circumstances or exaggerate figures,
and we have only criticised where we conscientiously felt that such criticism was
fully justified
and was in the best interest of the country....
The introductory section gives a general
synopsis of the available and existing timber
resources of our country, the amount of timberland under lease and the principal operators.
It
will be noted that by far the greater portion of our
timberlands has been acquired by the two pulp
and paper companies. Whether it was beneficial
or otherwise to have given these two corporations
such a virtual monopoly of our forest wealth, may
be regarded by some as debatable. But certain it
is that we cannot do much about it just now, and
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 89
we must accept the position as we find it.
The birth of the pulp and paper industry in
Newfoundland was when the government of the
day under the premiership of Sir Robert Bond
opened negotiations with the Harmsworth interests of London, England, for the purpose
of
developing the timber areas in the Exploits Valley.
[1] From an original capacity of 200 tons per
day, the intervening years have seen this industry
increased to around 500 tons daily, and I have
been reliably informed that this same company
[2]
has under consideration the further expansion of
their operations, with the object of further increasing their production to 700 tons
daily. This
envisages a proposition which will distribute
some $8 million dollars in earnings to our people
annually. And so, in looking to the future of our
country we see that we have in this Grand Falls
project a reasonably sure and permanent asset,
which will give the means of a decent livelihood
to thousands of our people.
We now come to the other great industrial
development at Corner Brook. This did not start
until nearly 20 years later, and the details of this
undertaking have been adequately outlined in the
report. When the present expansion plans of this
company are completed, it is estimated that the
total annual earnings of Bowater employees will
be in the vicinity of $11 million. We see, therefore, that in these two enterprises
alone, New~
foundland can look to a total annual earning of
around $18 million. This does not include profits
tax paid the government by both companies. It is
my opinion, therefore, that such a source of income can be regarded as a permanent
plank in the
future economic security of the country.
I now come to another matter which has never
been, as far as I am aware, fully explained to the
people since it first became a live issue some
seven or eight years ago. 1 refer to what we know
as the "Gander deal." This matter has been
referred to briefly in the report itself. But, in order
that the Convention may be in a position to
properly appreciate it, I think it advisable to give
you something of the background.
It begins in the year 1927, when the International Power and Paper Company acquired
the
Corner Brook project from the financially sick
Newfoundland Power and Paper Co. Limited. At
that time, the International Company was also
interested in developing the Gander areas. As a
result legislation was passed granting certain
concessions to a corporation promoted by the
Reid Newfoundland Company. This corporation
was called the Gander Valley Power and Paper
Co. Ltd., and the property was reputed to contain
some 8 million cords of commercial timber. After
an inspection and survey of the property and
water powers, however, the International Company felt that it would not be a sound
economic
proposition to develop another pulp and paper
mill at Gander. They were definitely interested,
however, in acquiring the properties and incorporating them with the Comer Brook enterprise.
The Reids were of the opinion that the promotion
of another mill was a sound proposition and
continued their efforts to interest other capital.
Finally they succeeded in interesting the Hearst
interests in the construction of a 1,000 ton mill on
the Gander, and approached the Newfoundland
government to guarantee the project to the extent
of $20 million. In addition, they wanted to acquire further timber limits on the Labrador,
as
there was not sufficient wood on the Gander areas
to feed such a mill as was proposed. This was in
1930. I was Minister of Finance at that time, and
together with the late Prime Minister Squires and
the late Sir William Coaker, had several conferences with the Hearst representatives
and the
Reids in New York and Montreal.
At that time the pulp and paper industry
throughout Canada and the United States was
beginning to experience reverses brought about
by over-production. I want to point out that the
Hearst interests were the largest consumers of
newsprint in the world, their publications requiring some 600,000 tons annually. It
is my firm
conviction that Hearst had no sincere intention of
building a paper mill, but was merely bluffing in
order to drive down the price of newsprint further. In addition they were indebted
to the
Canadian newsprint producers for an amount of
around $8-10 million, and incidentally, it has
only been during the last couple of years that this
indebtedness has been liquidated. The International Company, at this time, was still
interested
90 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
in acquiring the Gander areas for Corner Brook
and were prepared to expand that mill if the Reids
would sell the properties. I was informed by one
of the directors of the International Company that
they had made a tentative offer to the Reids for
the Gander areas amounting to some $6 million.
The Reids, however, had faith that the Gander
could be promoted and a mill established and
refused this offer. Negotiations continued for
some time between the Reids and other interests
but nothing materialised. This placed the Reids
in a very awkward position from a financial
standpoint, and they had practically arrived at a
position where they would be forced to sell their
interests to the International Paper Company.
The government of the day, of which Sir Richard
Squires was Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, then took a most important step,
they immediately placed writs against the properties and
thus held the properties from being sacrificed to
either the International Company or any other
company.
During the early thirties the newsprint business was in a state of stagnation. Prices
of newsprint were falling at an alarming rate because of
the absence of any demand, and long established
mills both in Canada and the United States were
forced to suspend business. At Corner Brook,
feeling the results of the widespread depression
in the newsprint world, operations were severely
curtailed and hundreds of employees were laid
off. Operations continued on a very restricted
scale. It was not until 1937 that there was any
evidence of an increased demand in the
newsprint world.
It was this same year that the Bowater people
of London, England, sent their agents to Canada
for the purpose of acquiring from the Quebec
government timber areas from which to export
raw wood for use in their English mills. Their
advances, however, were turned down by the
Quebec government, and as a result they came to
Newfoundland and secured from the Commission government options on certain Labrador
areas. They also acquired options on the Gander
areas, with the distinct idea of constructing a pulp
and sulphite mill in that territory. However, their
principal purpose at that time was the export of
raw wood to Britain. Their survey on the
Labrador was completed in the autumn of 1937
and their options were never exercised, because
in the meantime they had begun negotiations
with the International Company for the acquisition of the mill at Corner Brook, and
eventually
closed a deal for the purchase of all the common
stock of the Corner Brook company for a sum in
the vicinity of $5 million, which was $3 million
more than International had paid for this stock ten
years previous.
Having acquired the Corner Brook mill, the
Bowater people came back to the Commission
government and intimated that it was not
economic to build a mill on the Gander. But they
countered with the proposition, that if they could
acquire the Gander areas and incorporate them
with the Corner Brook company, they would
build a sulphite mill in Corner Brook and, further,
they proposed to export some 130,000 cords of
raw pulpwood annually to their mills in England.
This, in effect, was the "Gander deal." Through
the lifting of these writs, placed on the properties
in 1930-31, Bowaters acquired the Gander areas,
incorporating them with Corner Brook, and because of the fact that the Corner Brook
company
had a concession given them originally in 1923,
and again in 1927, whereby the annual profits
taxes amounted only to $150,000, we find that
the operations on Gander result in no profits taxes
and that thus the Newfoundland treasury has been
deprived of not less than $750,000 a year in
revenue.
Everyone here this afternoon knows that
public indignation at the time of the passing of
the Gander deal in 1938 was rampant. Meetings
were held in various sections of the country
protesting against the legislation. The Board of
Trade passed resolutions condemning the enactment, but the Commission government with
the
approval of the Dominions Office ignored the
protests and rights of the people, and this iniquitous legislation was passed into
law. To show
you that this was not an isolated case, let me give
you one more example of the consistent threat to
our country's resources while they remain under
the control of our present form of government.
We now come to another phase of the story of
the activities of the Bowater people in Newfoundland. In 1927, legislation was enacted
whereby it was provided that before any
dividends would be paid on the common stock of
the company, a sum of at least $2.5 million would
have to be available as a surplus in the company's
October 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 91
treasury, which was made to provide additional
security for the Newfoundland government on
their original guarantee of ÂŁ2 million given the
company at the start of construction in 1923.
However, in December 1943, influence was evidently brought to bear to secure an amendment
of this legislation. This particular legislation and
its object was published in the daily papers at that
time but no objections were made by an apathetic
public. The legislation was passed by the Commission government releasing this $2.5
million,
and then we find that in August, 1944, Bowaters
pay dividends to their parent company in
England, and have continued to pay dividends
since, and according to their annual report for
September 30, 1945, they had paid a total in
dividends to the parent company of some
$1,676,250 or around 6% per annum. This dividend could not have been paid without
releasing
this security. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I want
to draw the attention of this Convention to the fact
that the original legislation which was passed in
1923, and again in 1927, provided for two Newfoundland directors on the board of this
company
for the purpose of guarding the financial interests
of Newfoundland. At the present time there is no
Newfoundlander on the directorate. The two
directors are the Commissioner for Finance and
a Montreal lawyer.
Under the provisions of the Gander deal in
1938, the Corner Brook company was permitted
to export some 133,000 cords of wood annually,
but it is compelled to export at least 50,000 cords
on which they pay the treasury 30 cents per cord.
Our report draws attention to the fact that during
the present season 50,000 cords are being exported, whilst the sulphite mill at Corner
Brook
has been closed down for months because of a
shortage of wood, and recently we are informed
that owing to a "dry season" and because of
insufficient wood from the western end of the
island, the mill may have to go on short shift, thus
depriving our men of much needed work. We
show that at least 250 working days have been
lost to the workers at Comer Brook, and that the
total earning power will be reduced by at least
$100,000. If the mill is forced into curtailing its
operations because of shortage of wood, it will
mean further reduction in earning power.
Mr. Chairman, I wish the Convention to distinctly understand that I am not one of those who
would be a party to obstructing any progressive policy which had as
its object the profitable development of our potential assets. But I say
unhesitatingly that the concessions granted the Bowater corporation
under the Gander deal are such as would indicate, to me at any rate, that
the policy of the Commission government is to eventually
pass over a wholly disproportionate control of Newfoundland to a private
corporation. I was one of those who supported the original legislation which made
this project possible, as was my fellow
delegate Mr. Brown, and also you, Mr. Chairman. In viewing this Comer Brook
development, it must be ever borne in mind that the treasury of
Newfoundland, the assets of the people, is behind this proposition to the
extent of some $8 million and until such time as that contingent liability is redeemed,
the people of Newfoundland have a
prior right as against those who have, in this instance, sacrificed our
security.
We find as the result of our investigations that
the Commission government is also open to censure in connection with this policy governing
the
export of raw pulpwood. It should not be necessary to emphasise that if we are to
receive the
benefit of our forestry resources, we must conserve them. As the report will show
you, the
Bowater people were given the right under the
Gander deal to export up to 130,000 cords of raw
pulpwood annually. I regard this as a reckless
sacrifice of our resources and a deliberate depriving of our people of labour and
earnings. As has
been stated in this report, the sulphite mill at
Corner Brook has been idle for several months
and even the main plant has been forced to curtail
operations because of shortage of wood. In the
face of such a situation, which deprives our
people of their normal earnings, it is tragic to
know that at the same time the government is
permitting thousands of cords of pulpwood to be
exported out of the country to keep outsiders
working, whilst our own men are forced to
remain idle. I figure that we have exported out of
the country during the present season sufficient
raw wood to keep the Bowater sulphite mill in
operation for 250 days, which would mean a
resultant loss in labour to our own people of
around $100,000.
In addition, I believe it high time that the
government should introduce a comprehensive
and vigorous programme of reafforestation, with
92 NATIONAL CONVENTION October 1946
the object of perpetuating our forest wealth. We
must remember that the future of this country
may mean nothing to transients but we are the
trustees, so to speak, of generations to come.
Now we come to saw mills, of which there are
over 800 scattered all over the country, and which
mills produce over 50 million feet of lumber
annually. This industry may seem at first sight of
no great importance, but when it is considered
that they provide an earning power of from $1.5
to $2 million annually, they become worthy of
real consideration. I am informed, however, that
in connection with these mills there are many
millions of feet of lumber sawn on which the
government has not collected or is not collecting
royalties, and I suggest that a more business~like
system of enforcing these regulations should be
inaugurated.
In the report we have been able to touch but
lightly on the matter of Labrador from the
standpoint of its forest wealth, and even now I
cannot hope to do justice to the possibility of this
possession. It would be well for those who can
only conceive of our country in the terms of the
42,000 square miles of our schoolday geographies to let their eyes turn to the north
— to
that great unknown, unexplored 110,000 square
miles awarded us by the decision of the Privy
Council in 1927. As yet, we have only scratched
the surface of this territory, but our search has
brought to light what may one day be regarded as
one of the greatest single deposits of high-grade
iron ore in the western hemisphere. I am, and
have always been convinced, that the potential
riches of the Labrador are beyond our most optimistic dreams and that in that part
of our territory alone we have the guarantee of a permanent
national security. Although we have had this territory under our sovereignty since
1927, a large
number of our people seem to act as if they were
unaware of its existence. In view of this it is not
surprising that my fellow delegate,
Rev. Mr. Burry, has found it necessary to make
us Labrador-conscious and to drive home the
point that when we speak of Newfoundland we
must include under that term Newfoundland-
Labrador. But, in speaking of Labrador, there is
a possibility that I may be regarded as being
prejudiced or talking for political reasons. So
then, let me tell you what outsiders and particularly the Canadians think of our Labrador.
I
quote from an article in the November issue of
the Magazine Digest, which bears the following
title: "America's Steel Mills Saved in Labrador".
Then follows this sub-heading "The most
Fabulous Iron Discovery on the North American
Continent hasjust been made in the Frozen Wastes of Labrador." This article is too
long for me
to quote in full, but it indicates that both Canadian
and American manufacturers will find new outlets for their products when Labrador
construction and development get under way and the dead
iron of Labrador will turn into gold, for exports
of $350 million in iron ore annually are a distinct
possibility.
As stated in the report, the quantity of timber
available on the Labrador is as yet unknown.
However, estimates give it as from 50 to 100
million cords. All this timber is suitable for either
the manufacture of pulp and paper or for export
as pit-props. It has been known for a long while
that there are inviting possibilities for the construction of a sulphite mill on the
southwest coast
in the vicinity of Baie d'Espoir. If such a proposition should materialise the virgin
forests of the
Labrador would ensure a constant and steady
supply of raw material and such a venture should
give additional employment to at least 1,000 men
and an annual payroll of another $1.5 million.
It is admitted that the timber areas of Labrador
are the last available virgin forests on the east
coast of North America, and for that reason it
would be well if the present government would
bear in mind the advisability of hesitating to
make any further concessions, without a definite
assurance that the areas would be developed to
the benefit of the country and the people.
In concluding my comments on the report, I
submit, Mr. Chairman, that the overall picture of
our forest industry is one bright with hope and
encouragement, and a clear denial to those who
would say that our country is lacking in the
fundamentals which go to the making of a rich
and prosperous people. I am aware that we have
other resources and industries which offer as
bright or even a more promising future. As you
will note from the summary of the report, there
are at the present time some 14,000 people
engaged in this industry, with a total earning
power of some $16 million annually. These
figures speak eloquently for themselves; and as
pointed out the future expansion of the pulp and
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION 93
paper industry envisages an increase in annual
earnings to a total of not less than $20 million.
If, Mr. Chairman, the outlook for our forest
industries is any indication of the future
economic security of the country, then that future
is promising indeed.
[The commitee rose and reported progress]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood, you propose, with the
consent of the Convention, to move a resolution of which you give notice
today. Would you please frame your motion accordingly
Whereas it is desirable that the National
Convention and the people of Newfoundland
should be fully informed so far as possible of
all facts having any bearing upon forms of
government that might be submitted to the
people in a national referendum; therefore be
it
Resolved that the appropriate authorities
be advised that the Convention desires to
inform the Government of Canada of the
Convention's wish to learn that government's attitude on the question of federal
union of Newfoundland with Canada; and
further wishes to ascertain the terms and conditions on the basis of which the Government
of Canada consider that such federal union
might be effected; and be it finally resolved
that the delegation shall have no authority
whatsoever to negotiate or conclude any
agreement or in any manner to bind the Convention or the people of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman That is the motion of which notice has
been given by Mr. Smallwood.... Is there any objection to the subject matter
of the notice now being discussed by Mr. Smallwood? If not, I will
assume you have given your unanimous assent to the waiver of
notice.
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, the history of this island
is an unbroken story of struggle. Our people's struggle to live commenced on
the day they first landed here, four centuries and more ago, and has
continued to this day. The struggle is more uneven now than it was then, and
the people view the future now with more dread than they felt a
century ago.
The newer conceptions of what life can be -
of what life should be — have widened our
horizons, and deepened our knowledge of the
great gulf which separates what we have and are
from what we feel we should have and be. We
have been taught by newspapers, magazines, motion pictures, radios and visitors something
of the
higher standards of well-being of the mainland of
North America; we have become uncomfortably
aware of the low standards of our country; and
we are driven irresistibly to wonder whether our
attempt to persist in isolation is the root cause of
our condition.
We have often felt in the past, when we
learned something of the higher standards of the
mainland, that such things belonged to another
world, that they were not for us. But today we are
not so sure that two yardsticks were designed by
the Almighty to measure the standards of well-
being; one yardstick for the mainland of the continent, another for this island which
lies beside it.
Today we are not so sure, not so ready to take it
for granted, that we Newfoundlanders are destined to accept much lower standards of
life than
our neighbours of Canada and the United States.
Today we are more disposed to feel that our very
manhood, our very creation by God, entitles us to
standards of life no lower than our brothers on the
mainland.
Our Newfoundland is known to possess
natural wealth of considerable value and variety.
Without at all exaggerating their extent we know
that our fisheries are in the front rank of the
world's marine wealth. We have considerable
forest, waterpower and mineral resources. Our
Newfoundland people are industrious, hardworking, frugal, ingenious and sober. The
combination of such natural resources and such
people should spell a prosperous country enjoying high standards, western world standards
of
living. This combination should spell fine,
modern, well-equipped homes; lots of health-
giving food; ample clothing; the amenities of
modern New World civilisation; good roads;
good schools, good hospitals, high levels of
public and private health; it should spell a vital,
prosperous, progressive country.
It has not spelt any such things Compared
with the mainland of North America we are 50
years, in some things 100 years, behind the times.
We live more poorly, more shabbily, more meanly. Our life is more a struggle. Our
struggle is
tougher, more naked, more hopeless. In the North
American family Newfoundland bears the
reputation of having the lowest standards of life,
of being the least progressive and advanced of the
whole family.
We all love this land. It has a charm that
warms our hearts, go where we will: a charm, a
magic, a mystical tug on our emotion that never
dies. With all her faults we love her. But a
metamorphosis steals over us the moment we
cross the border that separates us from other
lands. As we leave Newfoundland our minds
undergo a transformation. We expect, and we
take for granted, a higher, a more modern way of
life such as it would have seemed ridiculous or
even avaricious to expect at home. And as we
return to Newfoundland we leave that higher
standard behind, and our minds undergo a reverse
transformation. We have grown so accustomed
to our own lower standards and more antiquated
methods and old-fashioned conveniences that we
readjust ourselves unconsciously to the meaner
standards under which we grew up. We are so
used to our railway and our coastal boats that we
scarcely see them; so used to our settlements, and
roads, and homes, and schools, and hospitals and
hotels and everything else that we do not even see
their inadequacy, their backwardness, their
seaminess.
We have grown up in such an atmosphere of
struggle, of adversity, of mean times that we are
never surprised, certainly never shocked, when
we learn that we have one of the highest rates of
tuberculosis in the world; one of the highest
infant mortality rates in the world; one of the
highest maternity-mortality rates in the world;
one of the highest rates of beri-beri and rickets in
the world. We take these shocking facts for
granted. We take for granted our lower standards,
our poverty. We are not indignant about them: we
save our indignation for those who publish such
facts, for with all our complacency, with all our
readiness to receive, to take for granted, and even
to justify these things amongst ourselves, we are,
strange to say, angry and hurt when these shocking facts become known to the outside
world.
We are all very proud of our Newfoundland
people. We all admire their strength, their skill,
their adaptability, their resourcefulness, their industry, their frugality, their
sobriety, and their
warm-hearted, simple generosity. We are proud
of them; but are we indignant, does our blood
boil, when we see the lack of common justice
with which they are treated? When we see how
they live? When we witness the long, grinding
struggle they have? When we see the standards
of their life? Have we compassion in our hearts
for them? Or are we so engrossed, so absorbed,
in our own struggle to live, in this country, that
our social conscience has become toughened,
even case-hardened? Has our own hard struggle
to realise a modest competence so blinded us that
we have little or no tenderness of conscience left
to spare for the fate of the tens of thousands of
our brothers so very much worse off than ourselves?
Mr. Chairman, in the present and prospective
world chaos, with all its terrible variety of uncertainty, it would be cruel and futile,
not that the
choice is ours, to influence the handful of people
who inhabit this small island to attempt independent national existence. The earnings
of our
65,000 families may be enough, in the years
ahead, to support them half-decently and at the
same time support the public services of a fair-
size municipality. But will those earnings support
independent national government on an expanding, or even the present scale? Except
for a few
years of this war and a few of the last, our
people's earnings never supported them on a
scale comparable with North American standards, and never maintained a government,
even
on the pre-war scale of service Our people never
enjoyed a good standard of living, and never were
able to yield enough taxes to maintain the government. The difference was made up
by borrowing
or grants-in-aid.
We can indeed reduce our people's standard
of living; we can force them to eat and wear and
use and have much less than they have; and we
can deliberately lower the level of governmental
services. Thus we might manage precariously to
maintain independent national status. We can
resolutely decide to be poor but proud. But if such
a decision is made it must be made by the 60,000
families who would have to do the sacrificing,
not the 5,000 families who are confident of getting along pretty well in any case.
We have, I say, a perfect right to decide that
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION 95
we will turn away from North American standards of living and from North American
standards of public services, and condemn ourselves
as a people and government deliberately to long
years of struggle to maintain even the little that
we have. We may, if we wish, turn our backs
upon the North American continent beside which
God placed us, and resign ourselves to the meaner
outlook and shabbier standards of Europe, 2,000
miles across the ocean. We can do this, or we can
face the fact that the very logic of our situation
on the surface of the globe impels us to draw close
to the progressive outlook and dynamic living
standards of this continent.
Our danger, so it seems to me, is that of
nursing delusions of grandeur. We remember the
stories of small states that valiantly preserved
their national independence and developed their
own proud cultures, but we tend to overlook the
fact that comparison of Newfoundland with them
is ludicrous. We are not a nation. We are merely
a medium size municipality, a mere miniature
borough of a large city. Dr. Carson, Patrick Morris and John Kent were sound in the
first decades
of the 19th century when they advocated cutting
the apron-strings that bound us to the government
of the United Kingdom; but the same love of
Newfoundland, the same Newfoundland
patriotism, that inspired their agitation then,
would now, if they lived, drive them to carry the
agitation to its logical conclusion, to take the next
step of linking Newfoundland closely to the
democratic, developing mainland of the New
World. There was indeed a time when tiny states
lived gloriously. That time is now ancient
European history. We are trying to live in the
mid-20th century, post-Hitler New World, We
are living in a world in which small countries
have less chance than ever before of surviving.
We can, of course, persist in isolation, a dot
on the shore of North America, the Funks
[1] of the
North American continent, struggling vainly to
support ourselves and our greatly expanded
public services. Reminded continually by radio,
movie and visitor of greatly higher standards of
living across the Gulf, we can shrug incredulously or dope ourselves into the hopeless
belief that
such things are not for us. By our isolation from
the throbbing vitality and expansion of the continent we have been left far behind
in the march
of time, the "sport of historic misfortune", the
"Cinderella of the Empire." Our choice now is to
continue in blighting isolation or seize the opportunity that may beckon us to the
wider horizons
and higher standards of unity with the progressive mainland of America.
I am not one of those, if any such there be, who
would welcome federal union with Canada at any
price. There are prices which I as a Newfoundlander whose ancestry in this country
reaches back for nearly two centuries am not
willing that Newfoundland should pay, I am
agreeable to the idea that our country should link
itself federally with that great British nation, but
I am not agreeable that we should ever be expected to forget that we are Newfoundlanders
with a great history and a great tradition of our
own. I agree that there may be much to gain from
linking our fortunes with that great nation, but I
insist that as a self-goveming province of the
Dominion we should continue to enjoy the right
to our own distinctive culture. I do not deny that
once we affiliated with the Canadian federal
union we should in all fairness be expected to
extend the scope of our loyalty to embrace the
federation as a whole. I do not deny this claim at
all, but I insist that as a constituent part of the
federation we should continue to be quite free to
hold to our love of our own dear land.
Nor am I one of those, if there be any such,
who would welcome union with Canada without
regard for the price that the Dominion might be
prepared to pay.
I pledge myself to this House and to this
country that I will base my ultimate stand in this
whole question of confederation upon the nature
of the terms that are laid before the Convention
and the country. If the terms are such as clearly
to suggest a better Newfoundland for our people
I shall support and maintain them. If they are not
of such a nature I shall oppose them with all the
means I can command. In the price we pay and
the price we exact my only standard of measurement is the welfare of the people. This
is my
approach to the whole question of federal union
with Canada. It is in this spirit that I move this
resolution today.
Confederation I will support if it means a
lower cost of living for our people. Confederation
I will support if it means a higher standard of life
96
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
for our people. Confederation I will support if it
means strength, stability and security for Newfoundland. I will support confederation
if it gives
us democratic government. I will support confederation if it rids us of Commission
government. I will support confederation if it gives us
responsible government under conditions that
will give responsible government a real chance
to succeed. Confederation I will support if it
makes us a province enjoying privileges and
rights no lower than any other province.
These, then, are the conditions of my support
of confederation: that it must raise our people's
standard of living, that it must give Newfoundlanders a better life, that it must
give our
country stability and security and that it must give
us full, democratic responsible government
under circumstances that will ensure its success.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I have given a
statement of my faith, but I do not expect members to support this motion for the
reasons that
impel me to do so. Members no doubt have a
variety of reasons of their own, and their support
of this resolution does not at all necessarily imply
agreement with mine. There are many cases to be
made for submitting and supporting this resolution quite apart from those I have given
here
today.
In the name of the people of Bonavista Centre
and of thousands of other Newfoundlanders
throughout this island I move this resolution. I
believe that this move will lead to a brighter and
happier life for our Newfoundland people. If you
adopt this resolution, and Canada offers us
generous terms, as I believe she will, and Newfoundland decides to shake off her ancient
isolation, I believe with all my heart and mind that
the people will bless the day this resolution was
moved. With God's grace let us move forward
for a brighter and happier Newfoundland.
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of seconding
this motion. I want to make myself quite clear at the onset with respect to
that. I do intend to second it. My purpose in doing so I will explain as
I go on. I entirely disagree with Mr. Smallwood's statements, entirely. I
don't intend to adopt them in any one whit. But the motion
that he makes is for the acquiring, as far as the Convention is concerned, of
a fact which is actually as important as any fact that we have had
presented here to us today. It is important for
one reason, that is that we may disabuse our minds for once and all of
this business of confederation. I do believe that we have to get
the terms of confederation. I do believe the country expects it, and
certainly we can hear from the fire of Mr. Smallwood's speech that he is
going to be one person who makes us expect confederation as a form of
government to be considered. Whether good or bad, whether it meets with our
ideas of the economy of the country or not, it is still a fact, and as
a fact that we must ascertain, I second the motion. It is just as real a
fact as that we ascertain the report of the Forestry Committee today.
To me, Mr. Chairman, it is in this class. We have heard of St. George's coal
fields, most of us, all our lives. A lot of us are beginning to doubt
very much the value of St. Georges' coal fields, but we are determined to
find out, if we can, if they have value. I doubt very frankly if the
terms that Mr. Smallwood envisages from Canada are going to be very much
better than we got when we were not in nearly as good a position, as when the approach
was made before. But it is a fact that we have
to ascertain these terms, and in this spirit I second this motion. I want to
be understood as not agreeing with Mr. Smallwood, and having
no wish for confederation.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, I felt solemn when I rose in
this House to deliver my maiden speech on Thursday, September 12, but my
feelings on that occasion were not half so intensely
patriotic and righteous as they are today in speaking to the
motion introduced by Mr. Smallwood. I feel it will be a great surprise to Mr.
Smallwood, who is quite convinced I am going to support
his motion, to realise that on the contrary, I am strongly opposed to it, on
factual, but, more important, on moral grounds. In the first place, I
think his resolution is premature. This Convention is a body
of Newfoundlanders, elected to first consider the financial and economic
changes that have taken place in this country since 1934, and then on
the basis of our findings to recommend forms of government to be placed
before the people in a national referendum. The Convention was called
together and formally opened by His Excellency the Governor. After a week or
so of preliminary discussion, the "shake down cruise" so to speak, the
Convention as a whole agreed that the very best method of going about the
first part of their task would be to subdivide into
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
97 committees, each of which would consider a certain phase of the country's business
and economy and place
its report before the Convention for debate.
The Convention has been in session now
something over six weeks. The committees have
been working something over four weeks. One
interim report has been referred to its committee.
The first two actual reports, the education and
forestry reports have just this day been submitted
for debate. Yet, it is at this point, that Mr. Smallwood, the "self-appointed apostle
of confederation" as he has been called, chooses to
introduce his resolution. In other words before
the Convention has been given even half a chance
to get a true picture of the Newfoundland scene,
it is proposed that we should send a delegation
post-haste to find what Canada will give us if we
are well-behaved and come round as quickly as
possible to Mr. Smallwood's way of thinking.
Yet if the Convention agrees on its findings that
the country is self-supporting, and can continue
to be self-supporting, then there is no necessity
for us to seek aid from anyone. On the other hand
if the findings are negative and assistance must
be sought, then it is sound logic that we may have
to go to the United Kingdom, as well as Canada
and perhaps even the United States. But all this
is still somewhat in the future, and I submit that
the motion is premature — it is in plain everyday
language "jumping the gun."
I do not propose to go into the constitutionality
of the matter at this stage, for that would be just
as premature as Mr. Smallwood's resolution. But
I would like to make one observation in this
regard. The terms of reference, which are beginning to look pretty sick as time goes
on, have been
stretched, twisted and shrunken to suit every
point of view, so that they may be said to permit
almost anything, and at the same time allow
nothing. On the one hand the Convention has no
powers. It is not a governing body; it cannot
subpoena witnesses to come before it; it cannot
compel public servants to divulge what should be
public information. On the other hand a member
of the Convention seeks at this stage, in the midst
of the very preliminaries, to endow it with the
sovereign powers of a government to enable a
delegation of its members to go to the capital of
another country and there discuss terms of union.
It is very inconsistent.
At this point I would like to refer to an excellent paper on the "Political and Financial
Implications of Confederation" which was read
before the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Newfoundland Branch, by Professor
A.M. Fraser, M.A., of the Memorial University
College on March 15, 1946. Professor Fraser first
declared that since he is not a native-born
Newfoundlander he would not presume to appraise the sentiments of the people on this
fundamental question and preferred not to express
any personal opinions. His impartial paper dealt
only with the political and financial set-up in the
event that Newfoundland were to ever enter the
confederation. But this he did say: "At the outset,
I would, however say that in my opinion, the
final decision on Confederation, as far as Newfoundland is concerned, must rest with
the people
of Newfoundland, and that they should be asked
to register that decision only after negotiations to
secure the best offer of terms from Canada have
been completed on their behalf by a sovereign
government of their own choosing. If these
negotiations were to be conducted under any
other auspices the terms secured would be bound
to be suspect, and even if confederation were
achieved in this manner, it would leave a heritage
of discontent, which might well imperil the satisfactory operation of the agreement."
There are without doubt many eminent constitutional and legal minds in this country
and
outside who will support that opinion. I am a
young man who hopes to spend the rest of his life
in this country and contribute to its betterment,
and when I am as old as Mr. Smallwood is now,
please God, I do not want to be accused of helping
to sell this country up the St. Lawrence. The
public has a short memory, and those who, dazzled by the immediate prospect of temporary
advantages without considering the implications,
wish Newfoundland to enter confederation with
Canada or any other state on a referendum vote,
would be the first if the deal later went sour to
revile the National Convention, the body that
made possible such political conjuring.
If these arguments against the acceptance of
this resolution, at this particular time, are not
sufficient, and I believe they are, there is one
further objection, the strongest I have to make,
and one which involves, or should involve, a
breach of the privilege of the members of this
98
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946
assembly. lt will explain why, even if I were
convinced of the regularity of this motion, I could
not in conscience support it. For I would be left
open at any time, and at Mr. Smallwood's
pleasure, to a charge of complicity.
This may not be the time or place for a little
sermon in morals or ethics, but it is the time and
place, I think for a little speaking of minds on a
matter that concerns both ethics and morals,
especially when today's doctrine of materialism
has crept, it seems, even into our own councils of
state. "Every man for himself and the devil take
the hindmost." It's get what you can for yourself,
and don't be bothered by scruples. Proponents of
this doctrine always make one mistake. They
forget the integrity of the individual conscience;
that because they are clever in duplicity others
may be just as wise in honour; are quite blind to
the fact that some men will not barter that honour
for a nice trip to Ottawa, the bait that was privately offered me, and goodness knows
how many
others, if we supported the motion now before the
house. To put it even more clearly, I was told by
Mr. Small-wood, that I was slated to be a member
of the delegation and that I should play ball to see
that this motion was carried.
The members of this Convention are supposed
to have an open mind. They are supposed to first
examine the country's position to see whether or
not it is self-supporting, and having determined
that to recommend a form or forms of government to the United Kingdom to be submitted
to
the people of this country at a national referendum. Making due allowance for every
man's
honest opinion, even at this stage, there is a limit
that should be drawn nonetheless.
One member at the earlier public sessions of
the Convention expressed himself rather strongly
on forms of government and other things, and
was unfavourably criticised. Yet another member, elected on a definite platform, has
been as
busy as the proverbial blue tailed fly propagandising the remainder of the Convention
at every
opportunity. Not content with that, he invited a
majority of them to his hotel room, and endeavoured to talk them into supporting his
resolution. That may be good politics from Mr.
Smallwood's point of view, but when we consider the nature and purpose of this Convention
and the present stage of its work, I think it is the
lowest kind of political chicanery and that it
should be aired on the floor of this Convention. I
am doing my honest best, whatever my personal
opinions, to fairly appraise the situation, and I
resent most strongly the obvious attempt that is
being made to colour conclusions. Mr. Smallwood's antics may provide a great deal
of
humorous conversation, but it goes beyond a joke
when even one individual is asked, cajoled or
invited to sell his integrity, to further the cause of
confederation, or any cause at this stage.
In view of Mr. Smallwood's activities, both
inside and outside the Convention, I feel it's time
that we had a show-down. I'd like to know, and
a lot of other people would like to know, who Mr.
Smallwood is acting for. Is it for himself or for
the Canadian government, or simply for his constituents? He will be hard put to it
to convince me
it is simply and solely the latter.
For these reasons I do not believe that now is
an opportune time for this resolution to be
brought before this House and debated, and I
would suggest that it be deferred to a date when
the Convention, having themselves got the facts
in relation to Newfoundland, are in a better position to receive it.
Mr. Penney Mr. Chairman, would it be in order to move
an amendment to Mr. Smallwood's motion?
Mr. Penney Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say
that I am opposed to Mr. Smallwood's motion at this particular time, and I
agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Harrington, but to be short
and sweet, or sour as the case may be, I will put it this way. Because this
Convention is not yet fully informed on matters affecting the economy
of Newfoundland I do not understand why we should take any action in
connection with confederation at this time; may I therefore move as an
amendment to Mr. Smallwood's motion that we defer any action on the subject
of confederation with Canada for a period of say two months.
Mr. Hillier Mr. Chairman, I have followed very closely
the views expressed. I have not prepared any special address, but I do think
before we discuss any forms of government, confederation, responsible,
or anything whatsoever, that we should wait until we have completed the task
on
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
99 hand and discovered the foundations upon which we are
to build in the future. I am satisfied that then we can get down to work in
earnest. I came here with no fixed views whatsoever, I still remain
so, and, until I can see the picture of the future of the country, I will
not decide in favour of any form of government Maybe I should go as
far as to say that I am voicing the sentiments of others in this assembly.
It is the first time that such a gathering has come about, and this assembly will
go down in history and will be remembered for
what it did accomplish and what it did not accomplish in the interests of
the masses of this country. At this time in the history of our country
we have to consider the general welfare of the masses and not the few. The
whole has to be considered and not the part. I think that is very
important. Thank you.
Mr. Fudge I feel that I cannot let this opportunity slip by without making some remarks on
Mr. Smallwood's statement,
wherein he said that our people were 100 years behind the times.
Mr. Smallwood No, I am talking about the country, not the
people.
Mr. Fudge I wish to say that during the past eight years I
have represented at least 5,000 of the people of this country. The general
labouring man in this country is not 100, or even 50 years behind the
times. This is ridiculous, furthermore I will support the idea and the
thought that there has been a little National Convention held outside
this place by a few.
Mr. Brown I did not intend at this particular
time to have anything to say in connection with the resolution
introduced by my honourable friend, Mr. Smallwood. I may say to begin with,
that whatever reason or whatever sympathy I would have with joining
forces with Canada, Mr. Smallwood has killed it all in his address here
this afternoon. I also think it is premature; we have not gotten though
the business of this house — the business we were sent here to do. Only two
committees have reported There was an interim report of the Fisheries
Committee, which report was referred back to them and I would say, for
the information of the delegates, that the next report will be a final
one and that will not be for some time yet. After all, the fishing industry
is the greatest industry we have in this country and
we want to get all the available information before we present the
report. As far as confederation is concerned, there is nothing
wrong with sending a delegation to Canada; that could be tolerated,
but Mr. Smallwood in his address says Newfoundland is so far behind the
times. I have travelled perhaps as far in Canada as Mr. Smallwood — I could not
go any farther in Canada than I have been — I have been
through Alaska as well, and during these travels I learned much about
Canada and Canadians, and I never thought our country and our people were so
far in the background as Mr. Smallwood says. If that is his reason for
introducing this resolution, then I do not see eye to eye with him. I am not
a confederate. If I could be convinced, perhaps I would be;
but, Mr. Chairman, it will take a lot of convincing before I cast
a vote for confederation with Canada. Let us take the eastern provinces and
ask the man on the street what he thinks of confederation;
many have told us, "We are in now and we cannot get out; if we were out, we
would never go in." Again he referred to health and in particular to tuberculosis;
I might ask Mr. Smallwood if he has ever read a
clipping in one of the Canadian newspapers in connection with the
percentage of tuberculosis on the Gaspé coast. Perhaps Newfoundland can hold
a candle with Canada, and Newfoundland is not as far back as 100 years
behind another country, and I say Newfoundlanders are not 100
years behind other people.
Mr. Smallwood I did not say that, I said 50 years behind
and in some things 100 years.
Mr. Brown I would not believe you or anyone else. You may
go down below Cape Chidley and find a few Esquimaux who are that far behind.
It was that kind of talk and the publication of it that got us where we
are today. Your remarks today will go all over Canada, over the world; how
can we blame people or newspapers for publishing things about
Newfoundland — calling us Indians and Esquimaux when we ourselves are calling
ourselves Indians. I thought this resolution would come in, and 24 hours
after he introduced it in the house it would be debated. I did not think
there would be any speeches or addresses given on it this afternoon. But
Mr. Smallwood's address, I do not mind telling you, pierces the hearts of
100
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946 almost every member of this assembly; not
only what he said, but the way he said it. It got my goat and I shall
have more to say on this matter at some future date. I am against
confederation as I see it today. I came here with an open mind, with no
preconceived ideas. I did not go to my district and preach
confederation; I did not preach anything. Whatever government is best for
the people, that is the government I would vote for and I will do it
today regardless of resolutions brought in by Mr. Smallwood or by anyone
else.
Mr. Butt I am not wholly in accordance with the
amendment of Mr. Penney. It is too definite; two months' time would be
better. Maybe it could be a little more elastic. My reason for speaking at
this time is to introduce something which ought to be said at this
time, and Mr. Smallwood's address gives me the opportunity — that is to ask
ourselves, before we go any further, does the Convention know exactly
where it is going, as a Convention? Have we given ourselves specific
directions as to what we ourselves want to do? For example, we were
presented with the Chadwick-Jones report and we more or less threw
it out. We gave it scant attention although it was formally received.
We were presented with a reconstruction report which we did not consider
worthy of discussion, in spite of the fact that future policy is
involved; and the implication covering the introduction of that report is
that a programme of $60 million be introduced, the funds for which
would have to be found locally. We have not received that although it was
laid on the table. Later on we were told that the Convention
must not concern itself with government policy in spite of the fact we have,
as part of the terms of reference, to recommend future forms of
government. How any man can divorce the two in his mind, I do not know. We
do not know what the national production is, the data is not available, how are
we then to know if we are self supporting? Then
we had the Fisheries Report. We got so far and had to leave it, as someone
said, "in mid air", because we did not know what to do with it. We got
into the bases deal and we did not know how to clarify our own position — we
did not know what to do under the circumstances. Then we are presented
today with the Education Report, for the first time. If I read aright the
attitude of the Education Committee in this respect, they base their
report solely on the
economic condition of Newfoundland insofar as education is concerned.
We shall have to do more than that with our reports if we are going to
finally make up our minds just exactly where Newfoundland is
going in the future. I was expecting someone to answer questions like
this...
Mr. Chairman Are you discussing the Education
Report? If so, your remarks are not relevant.
Mr. Butt I am trying to show you that the committee's
interpretation of our terms of reference were narrower that I
think they should be, consequently we ought to clarify just what we can
or cannot do. I am not discussing the Education Report, I am giving an
indication of the way we have or have not interpreted our terms of reference. Lastly,
when we are right in the midst of the gathering
of facts and before we have made up our minds as to where we are going, we
have a motion placed before us with a resolution of approaching another
government with the question of union. Before we go any farther we
ought to clarify our minds as to where we are going as a Convention. The
chairman of the Forestry Committee tells us we did not get all the the facts.
If I have said anything that has not happened in this Convention so far,
I would like to be brought up about it, but the point I am making is this:
before we can discuss or even think about the question of confederation,
or asking for the terms, we have to decide in our own minds what our
terms of reference mean and where we are going. It is important, to me at
least, that we do not interpret our terms of reference in too narrow a
manner. I will support Mr. Penney's motion that the matter of confederation
be deferred until we see fit to deal with it. I might add also that I
too am looking for the welfare of Newfoundland and I would not rule out
the possibility at some time or other, of going to Canada, but before I do
that I want to know the facts of Newfoundland; I want to go to Canada
with a sense of dignity; with the feeling that I am a Newfoundlander. I do
not want to go when we do not know whether or not we are
self-supporting. We must first of all decide where we are going in this
matter.
Mr. Smallwood I want a ruling — at the moment
there is a resolution and there is an amendment. Does the debate
proceed on both simultaneously, or on two different debates? One is a
resolution and the other an amendment and I ask whether a member may speak
twice, once on
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
101 the motion and once on the amendment — just as a
matter of guidance?
Mr. Chairman Strictly, the debate on the first question
should continue until the termination of that debate, when the amendment may
be moved and on that amendment any member may speak again.
Mr. Smallwood In the circumstances in which within half
an hour of the motion's having been moved, an amendment is moved to it?
Mr. Hollett I rise to speak against the motion, but in
case there is any doubt in the mind of my friend, Mr. Smallwood, I am not
speaking for the amendment against the motion. It seems to me that I
have seen this motion in a different form than what was brought before us
today. Apparently there are some discrepancies behind the
motion, as to who is or is not the proper authority. The form in which I saw
that motion definitely states that His Excellency the Governor be approached to
make the necessary arrangements to assure us
whether or not the Government of Canada would receive a delegation in order
to discuss the terms of confederation. The bringing in of this motion
at this particular juncture in our deliberations is so premature as to be
positively indecent. Before we have had time to consider and discuss
among ourselves the economic and financial position — before we have had
time to glance over the initial reports brought in, our friend Mr.
Smallwood flew to Quebec and elsewhere and came back from Canada
thoroughly prepared to fight this thing to the bitter end with the
idea that when this Convention was over it be committed definitely to
confederation.
Mr. Hollett Until I see proof to the contrary, I will
say it is the truth. Mr. Smallwood has approached the members of
this Convention and offered them this, that and the other thing I
myself was offered a senatorship. I fail to see how any one man in this
Convention could, on one flying trip, come back with so many portfolios in
his bag — Minister of Fisheries and Mines and so on. I fail to see how
any man who has an honesty of purpose, who has the public welfare of
the people of this country at heart, can be dancing around this town of St
John's, in and out of hotels, offering jobs in Canada if we voted for
confederation. I put it to you Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, these
manoeuvres are positively indecent. We are self-thinking
individuals elected by our people to come here and thrash out the
various things at issue. On the other hand, who are the appropriate
authorities of this country? Who are the proper authorities to whom we shall
appeal as to whether or not we should send a delegation to Canada to
find out the terms of confederation? Here we are, elected by the
people, and unfortunately we find we have not even the right to go into
public offices and demand certain information. Do you mean to tell me
that Canada would discuss with an unauthorised body the terms of
confederation? There is a chance that these terms will be even~ tually
turned down. Do you think that any official body in Canada would do anything
that would make them appear so ridiculous in the eyes of their own
people?
Mr. Hollett Do you want us to go to Canada with our
fingers in our mouths and say, "Please Canada, let us in, Mr. Smallwood
wants us to go in." I submit, the time is not opportune. If I were
eager to do something to have confederation foisted upon this country, I
would ask to have the motion withdrawn for consideration by the members.
Mr. Smallwood If I may be allowed, I would like to
speak to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman Do you want to make a personal
explanation, if so, you may do so. You also have the right, as mover of the
resolution, to reply at the end of the debate.
Mr. Smallwood Speaking to the amendment, I may say that
members must not suppose that the adoption of the motion means that a
delegation is appointed or elected to go to Ottawa immediately. Members must not
suppose that the adoption of this motion
means that the subject of confederation and terms and conditions of confederation
will be brought into this house within the next
few days or even the next few weeks. Mr. Hollett has touched on the question
of who are the proper authorities. What would happen is that this
motion would be forwarded from one authority to the other; possibly to His
Excellency the Governor; possibly from him to the Secretary of State
for Dominions Affairs in the United Kingdom; possibly from him back to His
Excel
102
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946lency the Governor; possibly then from His
Excellency to the Commission of Government; possibly then from the Commission of Government
to the Prime Minister of
Canada; all of which might take a matter of several weeks and in fact
I believe would take a matter of several weeks; so that we might then
picture at some future date — two or three weeks from now — a reply,
through you, coming to this house to the effect that the Government of
Canada will not deal with this Convention; or a reply from the Government
of Canada that they will deal with this Convention. That
would be the next step that this Convention would hear about, if the motion
is adopted. Two or three weeks from now a reply would be brought in to
us through you, sir, that the Government of Canada would or would not
receive a delegation from this National Convention. If it would
not receive such a delegation, then the matter dies so far as this
Convention and the succeeding national referendum are concerned. On the other hand,
if the Government of Canada will receive a
delegation of this Convention, and to those delegates impart the
terms as that government saw them, of confederation of Newfoundland
with Canada, then it would still be some time after that word was received
before the delegation could go. I do not see myself, in the nature of
things, in the circumstances, how any such delegation could actually go
before some time in December and possibly some time in the month of
January. By December or by January this Convention, we hope, if it is not to
sit here forever, will have received a number of reports from the
committees and will have completed its debate on some of these
reports and will probably have them, or nearly all of them, in hand
and under discussion. These reports are the data and facts of Commission
government; they are the data and facts of responsible government; the
thing we lack is the facts and data of confederation. If any
gentleman in this House will move that we approach the Government of the
United Kingdom seeking to learn from them what help, if any, they will
give this country under Commission Government, I will support that
motion. If any gentleman moves that we approach the United States, not
for federal union, because that is not allowed unless we pass a resolution
extralegal and extra-constitutional, and that I will not
support; I will support any motion proposing any
approach to any part of the British Empire or the British
Commonwealth, and if it is in the best interests of the people of this
country (and I repeat that) to affiliate with Great Britain as
Northern Ireland is; to affilliate with Timbuctoo or Canada if it is in the
interest of the people of this country, I am for it and I will support any
such motion. Because I feel that the people of this country are fully
entitled to have all the facts about any kind of government, including
Commission, including responsible, including union with
Canada or with anyone else. I feel I have no right to deny the people those
facts; I feel that this Convention has no right to deny the people of this
country the facts about any kind of government that is within the
British Commonwealth.
Mr. Chairman Is not your present address in the nature
of a reply to this debate? The result is going to be that you are going to
deprive yourself of reply. I will have to rule you out of order.
Mr. Smallwood I will not trespass a moment more upon the
motion itself, but merely the amendment. 1 wish it could be understood by the
gentlemen of this Convention, whatever they may think of me—I wish it
would be understood, sir, that the amendment might, if adopted, have
this result, that if in the month of October, the month of November and
part of the month of December we are debating the various reports of the
above committees, and perhaps carry those debates over into the month of
January, perhaps February, and then, having debated Commission
government and responsible government, because that's what
these reports are, having then done that, we decide rather late, maybe up in
the winter, that we have none of the facts of confederation.
It could be a month or two months after we had decided to seek those facts
from Canada before we got them. It might be up in the month or March or
April before we have the facts of confederation. That is why, sir, I oppose
the amendment moved by my friend Mr. Penney, on the ground that delay,
for even a month or two, might result in our debating the facts of confederation
in March, April or May of next year, by which time
the Convention should be over and forgotten. If we are going to debate it in
January we have to adopt the motion now, and that's why I oppose Mr.
Penney's amendment, which I believe he moved with all sincerity and genuine
motives. But if it is adopted, when the people of
October 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
103 Newfoundland should be voting in May or June for the
kind of government they want we may be still here talking about
confederation
Mr. Northcott There is an old but true saying that
"fools rush in where angels fear to tread." I don't think we should rush the
facts of confederation or anything else. These matters are very,
very important, and I do oppose Mr. Smallwood or anyone else trying to
railroad this thing through. I would like to see these terms, but I
certainly want to take my time and there are many things to be
considered before seeking these terms.
Mr. Dawe I wish to rise and make objection to this thing. I
understand that the proposed delegation has already been picked. I
do not think that we should seek terms with Canada on confederation until our natural
resources have been properly assessed. I
am going to ask Mr. Smallwood what he meant by what he said in the lobby of
the Newfoundland Hotel: that if he could find 200 honest Newfoundlanders
he would not advocate federal union with Canada. We kneel before God and
ask His help, but we don't have to kneel before Canada.
Mr. Smallwood I am beginning, sir, to think now, the
last remarks made by Mr. Dawe make me very strongly believe that after all
the talk of conspiracy here this afternoon there is in fact a
conspiracy, a diabolical conspiracy originating in several sources, a
conspiracy to blacken me. When a man wants to know if it is true that
Smallwood said in the lobby of the Hotel "If he could find 200 honest
Newfoundlanders etc." I certainly did not.
Mr. Chairman Wait now, gentlemen, we have to debate
this in an orderly way. I want to get this in the proper order. Mr. Dawe has
made a statement and you have the right to deny this and you
have done so. There is no reason to get heated up in this manner.
Mr. Chairman There is not going to be any fracas
between members in the Convention while I am in the Chair.
Mr. Dawe I am not a party to conspiracy.
Mr. MacDonald I have listened to the speakers and I
think the great majority of them are not so much against this inquiry to
Canada, except that
they are against this particular time to send this inquiry. I am not a
confederate. I am something in Mr. Higgins' class. I am not sold on the idea
of confederation, or on the idea of responsible government, nor on the
idea of Commission of Government, but we have to ask Canada for at
least particular terms which she is willing to give Newfoundland in
confederation. Because, whether these 45 men like it or not, there are
people in Newfoundland today who favour confederation, and they must be
given an opportunity to vote for or against it. Now I come from
a district where, as Mr. Hollett will agree, we were not told to come
in here to support any particular form of government, but we were told
to judge for ourselves the suitable form of government and put it before our
people, so that they could select the form of government they desired.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that there has been a good deal of opinion that we
are here to settle the form of government for Newfoundland. We are not
in here to choose anything, but we are here to consider and discuss, and
then finally to recommend to the people certain forms of government.
There has been some reference made to terms of reference of the Convention,
and there is nothing to prevent any member from choosing two forms of
government to put before his people, the people are finally those to make
the choice. Now then, Mr. Chairman, in speaking of this amendment, if
this Convention feels that it has to get this information from Canada, why
not do it now? Why wait two or three months, or weeks? Get the
machinery in motion. Whether we like it or not I think we have to get that
particular information.
Mr. Starkes I stand here definitely opposed to
confederation at the present time, but this resolution that Mr.
Smallwood has brought in, to my mind is one of the most important that has
come on the floor of this house up to the present time, and I feel
that I would not be playing fair to my district if I did not say a word or
two about it. I am very well aware that we have many people in this
country today who believe in confederation. They may be right or they may be
wrong. I personally am opposed to it at the present time. I am not
prepared to argue the point just at this stage. The main fact is that there
are many people who are supporters of confederation. We must remember,
sir, that they are Newfoundlanders
104
NATIONAL CONVENTION
October 1946 like ourselves, and whatever other delegates
may do I am not prepared to say to that Newfoundlander, "No,
my mind is closed against it, closed against federation." I am not prepared
to say to them that I won't listen to anything connected
with confederation. I am prepared to listen to whatever terms can be found.
I am not prepared to take any attitude against the resolution at the
present time. I for one cannot see how this Convention can turn a
deaf ear to this resolution. Many of our people believe in it. Many others
who may not yet believe in it now, if they get the terms, may yet
believe in it. I am not prepared to deny them the chance to get the facts.
If confederation is to be a possibility in Newfoundland,
special terms would doubtless be necessary. If the Convention should decide
that a delegation should be sent to Ottawa, I think in all fairness,
another delegation should be sent to England. Certainly there are
possibilities of her helping her oldest charge, and it is now that we want
to find this out. If I voted against this resolution I would
be voting against getting facts, so I am voting to support it. When
this resolution is passed it will give us the information we want. Then, and
not until then, will I make up my mind on this whole confederation
business, and the people as a whole will make up their minds. I do not
commit myself to this. I do not see how we can do so. This is our
duty, sir. Let us as members sent here by the people perform that duty.
Mr. Newell I was about to rise, sir, to propose the
adjournment of this debate. It is not my intention to speak on
this subject, and I do not rise to ask precedence for myself tomorrow, but
there is a very real danger that the merits of the question under
discussion may be confused with the personalities involved in that
discussion, and I think, sir, perhaps we can all come to this debate on the
morrow with clearer minds and perhaps more disciplined tongues. I
therefore move the adjournment of the debate.
[The Convention adjourned]
