Mr. Butt In view of the fact that this report may have
an effect upon the people's thinking, I move that the debate be adjourned
until tomorrow, and that we proceed with the other orders of the day.
Mr. Chairman Moved by Mr. Butt and seconded
by Mr. Kennedy that the debate on the motion to send a delegation
to Ottawa be adjourned until tomorrow to allow the members time to
study the report and the enclosure of Mr. Pratt's address.
[After some debate, the motion to adjourn debate
was defeated]
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, since adjouming last evening
I gave some thought to the matter under discussion today with the idea of
trying to reconcile the different points of view.... I sum it up in
this way, in eight points:
1. We are all agreed that we want the terms
of confederation.
2. The difference between us is when is the
time to make the inquiry.
3. Mr. Smallwood's motion is to start the
machinery for the approach to Canada immediately.
4. Mr. Penney's amendment is to defer the
approach until we have finished the reports.
5. Mr. Bradley's amendment is the same as
Mr. Smallwood's motion, but the delegation is
not to leave before the first of January.
6. If Mr. Bradley's amendment is passed and
the delegates named, they can begin work immediately and work through the Christmas
vacation.
7. The delegates appointed would be
honourable men and would, I am confident, not
be prepared to consult with the Canadian
authorities until they are armed with the necessary data.
8. So that there would be no doubt in the
minds of the members of the Convention, I suggest that if the amendment suggested
by Mr.
Bradley was carried, that before the delegates left
for Canada they individually assure the Convention that they were so armed.
With that safeguard I cannot imagine any
doubt in the minds of the delegates as to the
approach being in safe hands..... With that
safeguard, I can see no objection to having the
amendment moved by Mr. Bradley passed immediately.
Mr. Crummey I rise for the purpose of reporting my position as to the matter before the Chair.
I have listened
attentively to all the speeches. Some of the discussion did not appeal to
me. I do not intend to make a speech, I think time enough has been
wasted. I will be as concise as I possibly can. The motion is that a
delegation will be appointed from this National Convention. The
amendment is that the sending of a delegation be deferred, and the reasons
offered I consider sound. The amendment to the amendment is a simple
matter of trying to befog the issue. The sending of a delegation from this
Convention I cannot agree with, because I take the position that the
matter of confederation, or federation must be negotiated by governments and
we are not a govemment.... I want to state emphatically that I
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
151 do not consider the question of confederation is a
matter for the National Convention to decide, I mean to negotiate, even
getting the terms. There is nothing left for me to do but to support the
amendment as it states definitely that the matter may come up for
consideration later on.
Mr. McCormack Mr. Newell has said that most delegates
are one up on him. I might say that most delegates are three up on me. I
have not spoken to either the motion or the amendment, or to the
amendment to the amendment...
Previous to the introduction of the original
motion the various committees were working
harmoniously on the primary task. The motion by
Mr. Smallwood was not startling in itself, as most
delegates seemed to take it for granted that we
would want to know eventually the terms Canada
was willing to offer under confederation. What
was startling was the fact that it was brought in
at that stage in our proceedings. Its introduction
disrupted the work of the committees, and what
is more, the tirade delivered by the mover tended
to resolve the debate into an issue on confederation.
The amendment offered by Mr. Penney
seemed a logical thing at the time. Nothing has
changed since, despite well-prepared speeches
and the masterly way in which many of them
have been presented. I must confess that I am not
impressed with the points made, and have not
been influenced by them to alter my original
opinion.
The fact that several delegates reiterated, too
convincingly, that they were not confederates,
makes one feel we would do well to exercise the
suspicions for which we are becoming proverbial, and look for underlying motives.
Mr. Bradley, in a very logical address, presented with the
ability of a master, has expressed concern over
the time which might elapse in the setting up of
machinery and the consequent delay in obtaining
information. I cannot be persuaded, even by Mr.
Bradley, that the setting in motion of machinery
would entail such delay as would warrant our
rushing to Canada without necessary facts about
our own country. He talks of January lst, which
gives us a mere six weeks. What does a little time
or the expenditure of a few thousand dollars
amount to, when we consider the momentous task
confronting this Convention?
If the outcome of the national referendum
happened to be responsible government or Commission government we could look forward
to a
change at the wishes of the electorate, but if we
commit ourselves as a tenth province the decision
will be irrevocable. We have no guarantee that a
referendum will be held before 1950, and should
we obtain terms now, who is prophet enough to
foretell if these terms would be official then? I
propose to vote for the original amendment so we
can put first things first and get on with the work
of our committees and arrive at a solution of our
primary task, discovering not whether we are
self-supporting, but rather to what degree we are
self-supporting, and for how long a period we can
reasonably hope to remain so, keeping in mind
the unprecedented and unpredictable condition
of world affairs. We would then be in a position
to seek terms of federal union and should do so
without any feeling of inferiority, realising that
both parties would expect to benefit thereby. It is
my pleasure to support Mr, Penney's amendment.
Mr. Kennedy I have listened until this stage of the
National Convention with intent and interest, but with the introduction of
this latest amendment to the amendment, my patience has neared its
end. Certain members of this assembly seem to have forgotten what they were
put here to do. The general attitude of these individuals has been
revolting, and the presentation of their one-tracked narrow-minded
outlook has revealed all too plainly what they consider to be the main
object at stake. We are here to seek information and on the basis of
such information to recommend the form of government we consider most
beneficial to our beloved country and not, as some members have
obviously concluded, to prattle on seeking salve for our own wounded
prestige.
If one and all of our present nine working
committees could this week, or any other week
for that matter, present the vital statistics to prove
this country independent, what an utter waste of
money, and what a world-wide laughing stock
this Convention would become by prolonging
such ridiculous tittle-tattle as this futile motion
and equally futile amendment to the amendment
have produced. Let us in the name of heaven
stamp out this egotistical self-elevation, and as a
team get down to the work which this motion and
the amendment to the amendment are seeking to
sabotage by their untimely and scheming interruption. Not only I but our constituents
are be
152 NATIONAL CONVENTION November 1946coming impatient. Can you blame them? I suggest that this Convention first obtain
clear-cut
national facts and so put our country, and not our
ideological crazy whims first. In all earnestness,
let us behave and pull together as gentlemen and
true Newfoundlanders, and not like so many old
women in constant discord with our neighbours
on the other side of the fence. Take down that
fence and in its place insert the programme which
is planned, and which we were put here to carry
out.
Mr. Northcott ....I want these terms, but the time is
not ripe to get these terms; we must first set our house in order, and until
then we should make no attempt to get any more than the facts that our
various committees are now gathering. Surely we have many men in this
country and assembly who are capable of running our affairs. We have
lots of good businessmen in this house today who could take care of
Newfoundland, and do it well, if they were given the job. I think we
have gone far enough with the debate, and I suggest that we vote on this
issue, and see where we arrive.
Mr. Dawe Mr. Chairman, I have no prepared speech. I
happen to have had the honour to represent Newfoundland at the
Imperial Ottawa Conferences at the request of the Newfoundland Board
of Trade on timber in 1932, and I have had an office in the Ottawa House of
Parliament building. I know something of the tricks of the trade and
political intrigue. I have been in England, and I know some of the senators
of Canada, the late Senator Webster of the British Coal Corporation,
with whom I negotiated the first barter deal of pitprops with England for
300 years, and later through Senator Webster 250,000 tons of Wabana
ore. The basis of our Ottawa agreement was contingent on Newfoundland
selling 500,000 tons of Wabana ore. Baldwin and Thomas promised Mr.
Alderdice they would do their best, and I succeeded in breaking down the
prejudice of the blast furnace owners in England with the result that
Wabana ore is going there today. Baldwin and Thomas did not do it, and I
have the correspondence for it.
Mr. Starkes In speaking on the amendment made by Mr.
Penney, I want to be clear that I came to this National Convention with an
open mind, elected by the people in Green Bay district
for the third time in succession during the past 18 years; and by the
way, no other member sitting in this Convention can boast of that record. I
do because I am confident that the people in my district elected me,
feeling sure I would take a firm stand and demand what I thought would be
of the greatest importance to those people was sent me here. In
supporting the resolution a few days ago brought in by Mr. Smallwood, I made
it plain I stood here opposed to confederation at that time. I am also
opposed at the present time to responsible government, and for that reason
suggested when speaking on the resolution, that we also should
ascertain from the British House of Parliament what they are prepared to do
for us in the way of cancelling our national debt, or any other
handouts that we should be prepared to consider valuable, having in mind our
very close connections to the mother country, and the valuable aid this country
has rendered her.
I am definitely opposed to the present form of
Commission of Government as we had it forced
upon us and had to endure it during the past 13
years. I said "forced upon us", because we all
know that the government of thatday, before they
went to the country, made a pledge when presenting their manifesto that before they
would change
our constitution, they would first submit the
change to the people in a referendum. This they
did not do, they did not stand by their pledge
made to the electorate, but voted for and instituted the present form of Commission
of Government. I must confess that many of our people
have during those years lost interest in the public
affairs of this country, probably brought about by
this so called prosperity that our country now
enjoys. We are all conscious of the fact that this
prosperity is not going to last forever, and God
knows, everyone here must feel in their own
hearts that we now must determine the future
destiny of our people bearing in mind the probability, almost the certainty, that
hard times will
come again. It would be all right to talk about
responsible government, if we could feel confident that the present degree of prosperity
will
hang on for the next 20 or 30 years....
The people of this country, and here I can
speak very positively about the district of Green
Bay, have a great dread in their hearts about the
future that lies before them. That, sir, is why so
many of our Newfoundland people today are so
November 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
153
doubtful and so fearful about bringing responsible government back to our country.
But there are those in this Convention who are
all in favour of responsible government. I am not
one of those, and I am not one of those with much
faith or belief in Commission government. I do
not deny that they have done some good things
for this country. How could they be here for 12
or 13 years without doing some good? I believe
the people should have some say in the government of their country, and that is why
I am willing
and anxious to get all the facts about union with
Canada. I do not pretend I know anything about
such union and its benefits, or disadvantages, that
is why I am anxious to at least hear the terms, so
that we can discuss and debate them, and if we so
desire have it placed on the ballot paper for the
electorate to make the final decision. I am not a
confederate, neither am I anti-confederate, but I
can assure this house that if the people support
the terms at the referendum, Newfoundlanders
most assuredly will have their elected representatives; they would then have their
elected
prime ministers, and be given a chance to throw
them out, and elect someone else after four years
of their stewartship. Someone may say that
responsible government would give us that. Yes
it would, but how would it give it?
Would responsible government have any hope
of success when the hard times came again? Or
would it mean that we would be on our own
again, with nobody to come to our rescue? I think
I know already what the outcome would be. What
I and our people want to know is this: under
confederation, would we have help in case of
need? That is another reason why I am so anxious
to get the terms and conditions of confederation
without too much delay. Now so far as Mr.
Penney's amendment is concerned, it's all right
for one thing only, and that is to give the resolution not two months or six months
hoist, but to
obliterate it completely.... The people are not
going to be satisfied to have this confederation
matter put on the shelf. They are determined to
have the terms, as many telegrams from my district have clearly shown me these past
four or five
days, and other telegrams to other delegates have
shown so clearly,
I would like to know what is wrong with
Mr. Bradley's amendment. It says very clearly
that no matter when the delegation is appointed,
it cannot go to Canada before January 1, 1947.
What do the opponents of this amendment want?
Do they want it to be next February or next
March, or next April or May? I'm one man who
isn't willing to hang around here all through the
winter helping to spend $1,000 a day of the
people's money. It's all very well to pooh-pooh
such a small matter but $1,000 a day sounds like
a lot of money in a district where they haven't
even got a doctor, such as Green Bay district,
although 25 years ago they had two. To some
people a $1,000 a day may sound like a very small
amount. They may be willing to stay here for a
whole year spending this money, but so far as the
people of Green Bay are concerned I think they
would much rather see some of this money going
to help them with the new cottage hospital that
they hope to have built at Springdale, the capital
of my district, to which I hope and trust the
government of today will give very serious consideration. Seeing the way things are
going here,
I feel like putting on my coat and going home. It
looks like a certain number of people are out to
kill the people's chance to get the terms of confederation. And why? Is it because
they want
responsible government, that they spend half
their time trying to think up this objection or that
objection to this motion and amendment to get
the terms of confederation?
Before I sit down I want to tell this Convention
that the people are going to have the terms of
confederation in spite of the efforts of a certain
few to keep it from them.... I would not be doing
my duty to my district and my country if I voted
against getting these terms, so I will vote for the
motion as amended by Mr. Bradley. I call upon
every fair-minded man in this Convention to do
likewise. It's time for us to give the people a
chance, and not deny them the chance to get the
truth about this matter once and for all. Can't we
as men be true to the confidence placed in us,
secure the facts from the Dominion of Canada,
from the United Kingdom, and if need be and it
is possible, secure the facts from the United
States of America? That is what we are sent here
for, and why not do it now? I give my wholehearted support to the amendment made by
Mr.
Bradley.
Mr. Fudge I rise to a point of order for information. I would like to know whether or not we
have gotten into
a place where we are to discuss forms
154
NATIONAL CONVENTION
November 1946 of government. I would like to know,
because I certainly will defend responsible government, and I may have
something to say about some of those who conducted our affairs at that
particular time.
Mr. Bailey I have listened carefully to the different speeches, but I have not said very much
and I think the pattern
seems to fall clearly. What is wrong? We are going to find the terms under
which Canada will accept us into union. I believe we don't want to go
to Canada to get the terms. The terms have been right here in St. John's for
a long time. Newfoundland has been used as an international pawn, and
you and I today are nothing, only pawns in the game. Our fate was
sealed nearly two years ago. Everybody wants the terms of union. I
guess nearly everybody here knows what they are....
[1]
Mr. Figary Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose
of seconding Mr. Crosbie's motion. I have listened to
different speakers this afternoon on the amendment to the amendment, and
practically every one of them stated that there was a great deal of
time wasted in the discussion on this confederation matter. I can stop a
gramaphone from talking, but to try and stop some people from
continuous talking is, I am afraid, too big a job for me to do. However. I
may say that my patience is about exhausted, and I would suggest that
we get down to the real business of the Convention in a right and proper
manner.
[The Chairman then put the motion on the floor
to a vote. The original motion was defeated 25-
17. The Chairman then put Mr. Bradley's motion
as an alternative amendment rather than an
amendment to Mr. Penney's amendment. It was
defeated 25-17. Mr. Penney's amendment was
carried 25-18. The Convention then adjourned. ]
