Mr. Smallwood I suggest to the House that this
afternoon we take up the section of the report dealing with broadcasting.
Perhaps Mr. Secretary would read the section on broadcasting
[The report was read as far as the second paragraph on page 4]
Mr. Cashin I cannot let that go. That statement, "We
are aware also of the existence, at least amongst some members of the
public, of a belief that free speech is limited on the Corporation's
stations, and that censorship is exercised over broadcasting by the
Corporation. The point was put bluntly to the Chairman and General
Manager of the Corporation, and in denying categorically the existence of
any limitation of free speech or of censorship they explained the
Corporation's policy fully and answered freely any questions we cared to
put." That statement is a deliberate falsehood. In denying that there is
censorship, the Chairman of the Corporation was lying and lying
deliberately.
Mr. Cashin He was making a false statement. I want to
tell the Chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation that manuscripts were
taken out of the broadcasting house to be censored. I have proof. I am
sorry I did not bring a manuscript to show where certain things were cut out
which they claimed were libelous because they reflected on the
Commission of Government. The Railway would not take an action against the
Broadcasting Corporation, which is owned and controlled by the
government. If a statement was made regarding certain things that went on in
the Railway which the Broadcasting Corporation said was libelous, well
then, if they allowed it to go over the air would the Railway take an action
against the Broadcasting Corporation? Certainly not. They would be
going to law with themselves, and that is not sensible. But the Chairman of
the Broadcasting Corporation has had a man ready to
go on the air and has censored his speech and cut out half of it and
brought it back to him half an hour before he had to go on the air. That
same statement that they cut out has been made over VOCM and there was
no libel action taken against them. The broadcasting station is a tool
of the Commission of Government, and they have been using it as such for the
past 18 months. I know whereof I speak and I could not let this thing
go without expressing an opinion.... Anyway it will have to come before the
Finance Committee and we will have to bring Mr. Williams
[2] up and he can say it to my face, because he
knows it is false. I told him so in the broadcasting house, and I
had to chase him all around the town to do it.
[The Secretary continued reading the report]
Mr. Cashin May I be permitted to turn back to page 3,
subsection 1, where it says: "To erect a suitable building etc." Where are
they going to find that building, and how much will it cost?
Mr. Smallwood A little further up on the same page you will
see that at the end of 1945 the Corporation's current assets amounted to
$75,000, consisting of $68,000 cash, which amount included $9,800
accounts receivable, which have since been collected. In other words, at
the end of 1945 they had cash on hand of roughly $68,000. You will notice a
little further on in this report, they have been making $10,000 to
$20,000 a year, in fact it was up around $26,000 last year. I suppose what
they intended to build the broadcasting house out of is their current
assets, perhaps even getting a loan for the balance from the government. We
did not ask what it was going to cost or exactly where it was to come
from.
Mr. Cashin They also say they are going to build a
broadcasting station at Grand Falls, and take over the RCAF station at
Gander, In my opinion they won't get far unless they go to the
government for the balance of the money.
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 201
Mr. Smallwood I am sure Major Cashin will admit that
apart from any quarrelling on the matter of censorship they do
seem to be flourishing, and they should not have any trouble in borrowing from the
government or anyone.
Mr. Cashin I don't suppose they will have any trouble
as long as the surplus lasts!
Mr. Job That's absolutely apart from the government, it
is a public corporation?
Mr. Job The people of Newfoundland have a share of it,
I suppose?
Mr. Hollett What happens at the end of 25 years. When
the capital is paid off, where does the ownership lie then?
Mr. Smallwood The unpaid balance of that original
advance of $84,000? They are paying that off regularly and at the end of 25
years it will be all paid off and they will still own it. It may not
be the same Board of Governors, but they will own it as they own it now, as
the trustees of the Newfoundland people.
[The Secretary continued reading the report]
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, the only appendix
to this report gives the number of radio receiving sets in the
country, reasonably supposed to be in operation in Newfoundland and Labrador
from January 1, 1937 to December 31, 1945. And then secondly a table
showing the number of sets upon which the licence fees were paid from
January 1, 1937 to December 31, 1945. There is quite a difference in
the figures, showing that there have been quite a number of owners of radio
sets not paying their licenses....
I would like to underline the paragraph on
page 5, which reads as follows: "There is one
matter upon which the committee feels that it
must express its disappointment etc." You
have in St. John's and in Corner Brook and Grand
Falls (where there are to be stations) and also
Gander, various organizations, not government
departments, but the MCLI,
[1] the Patricians and
Holy Cross, the Llewellyn Club,
[2] trade unions
and the co-operative movement (that movement
is making good use of the Corporation), but there
are a lot of other corporations, and they are open
to give free the use of their facilities for forums
and round table conferences for formulating
public opinion. I think that too much publicity
cannot be given to that fact. We were informed
that their rules down there (in the paragraph on
page 4) are as follows, it says: "However the
Corporation is prepared to give free time, on the
basis of equality, to reputable persons who wish
to discuss etc." I think that refers to individuals,
not organisations, and I believe the rule is this:
former cabinet ministers, and, I believe, former
members of the Legislative Council, are, according to the rule laid down by the Corporation,
permitted to have one and a half hours, or three
half-hour broadcasts, no charge made, subject to
the right of the Corporation to edit the contents
of the broadcast.
Mr. Smallwood I am speaking strictly to the report. Their
right is to edit the script, also to submit it to their solicitor for his
opinion on any statement which may appear to be libelous or defamatory.
Former cabinet ministers and members of the House of Assembly can
have apparently equal time. And the same with members of the
upper house. I want to emphasise for the benefit of people who may be
listening in to-night (if anyone does listen to these broadcasts) that the
Corporation is there to give the use of their station free for the
discussion of public affairs.
Mr. Smallwood It is general knowledge that VOCM has
been very generous also in the use of its time and in the latitude it allows
speakers on public affairs.
Mr. Jackman Are they prepared to give VOCM the same
facilities as VONF, on educational matters?
Mr. Smallwood I am sure that Mr. Jackman does not
suppose that the Broadcasting Corporation has anything to do with
broadcasts on VOCM, or with the personnel of that station. I don't
think they interfere at all. The dispute with VOCM and the Broadcasting
Corporation has to do only with VOCM's request to increase their power
and stations, it is not with regard to what they shall or shall not
broadcast.
Mr. Jackman I cannot agree with the excuse given by the
government for turning down the
202 NATIONAL CONVENTION December 1946
request for VOCM to enlarge its
broadcasting facilities. It is an excuse for dictatorship. VOCM today
is the most popular radio station in Newfoundland. If we could
take a poll we would find 90% of our people listen in to VOCM more so
than VONF, and in the report it says the government is not going
to give VOCM a chance to expand. I do not think it is right. It is about all
we have left in our country —- the air. Now they are trying to take
that away. They are going to set up a station in Grand Falls, and possibly
one in Bell Island. What sort of propaganda are they going to give us?
This country owes a tribute to VOCM; if we did not have VOCM, we would not
have this National Convention today. I think this Convention
should protest against the dictatorial attitude of the government
in trying to take all we have left. There should be some public policy to
make the government give VOCM a chance to expand; it is what the
people want — the facts and truth.
Mr. Hollett I come from a part of this country where we
rarely hear VOCM and it is only since I have been in St. John's I have been
privileged to listen in to it, and I am thoroughly in accord with Mr.
Jackrnan. I cannot swallow the excuse given by the Broadcasting Corporation
for not allowing VOCM to increase power from 250 to 1000 watts in view
of the fact that the Broadcasting Corporation are planning to
increase the power of their station here in St. John's and erect
another station in Grand Falls (1000 watts) and another in Corner Brook
(1000 watts). I believe there is something more in this refusal than first
strikes the eye. I would ask Mr. Smallwood if the Committee enquired
as to what manner this increasing of VOCM from 250 to 1000 watts
would contaminate or obliterate the air waves over this country?
Mr. Smallwood The report says the Committee felt
considerable sympathy for VOCM and for Mr. Butler. Whether strict observance
of that ruling has the effect of making it impossible for VOCM power
to be increased is a matter upon which I am not competent to pass judgement.
Mr. Hollett Did you enquire?
Mr. Smallwood We did, as far as our own competence allowed us. When you get into a technical matter,
you
have to know what kind of
questions to ask, to have the knowledge to tell you whether the answer
is scientifically correct. If the Convention will retain the services of a
high—class radio technician, he could give you the answer. We cannot.
Mr. Bailey I whole-heartedly agree with the
Broadcasting Corporation and I think the time has come to get the
broadcasting station back under the people. I was in hospital for a month
and in the next bed to me was one of the leading radio technicians in
the world — Mr. Galgay — he explained the whole thing to me and I followed
closely. The Broadcasting Corporation is all right.... The only thing
we have to do is get control of the country, and of the broadcasting
and own one valuable thing.
Mr. Ashbourne I would like to pay tribute to those who
compile, at no doubt considerable expense, and furnish to the broadcasting
companies the various news bulletins given to the public
free of charge. These bulletins are appreciated in the city of St.
John's and especially in those outports where no daily newspapers are
immediately available. I mention the Gerald S. Doyle news bulletin
[1] and the bulletin supplied by Messrs Harvey and
Co.
[2] VOCM is not very much heard in
Twillingate, probably on account of lower power. I see no reason why they
should not receive permission to increase their power. The weather
forecasts, news regarding steamer movements, railway freights, are of great
moment to the people who live in the outports. In St.
John's we can buy a newspaper twice a day and see when various steamers are
accepting freight; when trains are leaving; get weather forecasts; but
to the fisherman who has to get up early in the morning and go out it is a
great satisfaction to have some idea as to what the weather is likely
to be on the following day. I would like to bring to the attention of the
government, the matter of considering that radio batteries be admitted into Newfoundland
duty free. All you have
to do in St. John's is plug in the socket by which the electric light is
given. Very few people in the outports enjoy that privilege.
Mr. Vardy When this report was being read I was like Major
Cashin, but I decided to hold on until it was fully read. In 1937 I prepared
a half-hour talk to deliver, and went to the best
December 1946 NATIONAL CONVENTION 203
legal talent and submitted my manuscript to be
scrutinised. I contacted the manager of VONF and told him I wanted to
deliver a talk. He told me it depended on the topic and nature of the talk,
whether or not I would be allowed to speak. I was advised four or five
days afterwards that he regretted that after consulting the Board he could
not allow me to deliver the address. He said I was far too critical of
Commission of Government. In view of that, I cannot accept the second
paragraph on page 4 as a statement of fact. I congratulate those
responsible for this report. I move that the report be received.
Mr. Harrington Before the report is received, I would
like to make a few comments. I have been broadcasting quite a while and I
feel I would be remiss if I had not something to say. I have no
quarrel with the Broadcasting Corporation. 1 have said a few hard things
about Commission of Government and I have not been rapped over the
knuckles The comments I would like to make are in connection with the staff.
On page 1 — 1 chief operator; 1 operator. These are employed at the
studio, and as far as I know they are at Mount Pearl. It had struck me for
quite a while that the Corporation is understaffed. A broadcasting station is not
like a government department where you go in and
see a lot of staff. Some people get the idea there is not much work to be
done. Take, for instance, Mr. House, he is chief operator and is at
this moment recording this broadcast. When it is all worked out on the basis
of time, they really have a lot of work to do. We should particularly
pay tribute for the way in which it is covering the Convention and it takes
a lot of their time, particularly the operators.
Mr. Ballam I would like to say, as Mr. Harrington has done, that we should at this time pay
a little tribute to the
Broadcasting Corporation. I agree with Mr. Jackman, if it could be done, we
on the west coast would like to see VOCM's output increased. We do not
get them and very seldom VONF. We are fortunate in having VOWN; the
service they are giving is good. I understand from the report that they are
increasing the wattage in Corner Brook, and you people in
here might have the opportunity of listening to us. I agree we should offer
a vote of thanks to the broadcasting station.
Mr. Higgins My main reason for rising was to refer to
the paragraph under discussion. It is
refreshing that for the first time since the House opened, Mr.
Smallwood admitted there is something he is not fully competent to
discuss. I do not intend to give an opinion, because it might be
suggested that it might be biased due to my association with one of the
Board of Governors. As the opinion is held by some members that VOCM
is entitled to more power for their station, why not have the Committee make
enquiries outside as to the rightness or wrongness of the explanation
given by the Broadcasting Corporation?
Mr. Smallwood The first thing we did was to ask Mr.
Butler to appear. He stated his case before the Broadcasting Corporation
stated theirs. We knew nowhere else to go. We would need technical
information in order to be able to assess the technical explanation that the
Broadcasting Corporation gave us. I would like to join
with Mr. Harrington and Mr. Ballam in the words they have uttered about the
gratitude of this Convention to the Corporation, for broadcasting
the debates; not only to going to considerable expense,
because it does cost money, but re-arranging their whole time from
9.15 each night until around midnight. I know the whole country is
listening and that is giving value to the Convention deliberations
and debates, a value it could not possibly have otherwise. Tens of thousands
who have to vote on the kind of government they want, would have no
way of knowing the facts upon which we are basing our recommendations, and
upon which they perhaps will base their voting for the referendum. The
Corporation should know how grateful we feel to them and I am
disappointed we have not been hearing it from all sides of the house.... A
feeling has grown up that the Convention is lying on its oars and loafing.
There are nine committees; three of them have so far reported; six
others have yet to report. Here is one of 143 pages foolscap and I am sure
the Finance Committee will bring in 200 to 300 pages. That is not done
without hard work....
Mr. Butt I wonder if the Committee asked the Broadcasting
Corporation how far they were prepared to go in cutting commercial
advertising in order to arrange their time to give individuals or other
bodies the opportunity to broadcast.
Mr. Smallwood The answer is simple. A broadcasting station arranges some of its programmes as
much as a year in
advance... In connection
204
NATIONAL CONVENTION
December 1946
with this broadcasting of these
proceedings, they have cancelled everything after 9.15 at night. Not
only are we grateful to the Corporation but also to the commercial firms
whose programmes have got to be cancelled in order to make way for what
we think is more important — the discussion of public affairs.
Mr. Butt If you have commercial advertising there is a
certain rigidity about those programmes which cannot be offset, unless you
ask the people who control them and they are pleased to do it (and I
am not doubting that they are). I want to know how far the Broadcasting
Corporation are prepared to go in lessening revenue from commercial purposes so
that they can facilitate the broadcasting of other
affairs...
Mr. Smallwood It seems strange for Mr. Butt to be
directing that question at me, because he is as well able to answer that
question as I am.... In connection with the large number of radio sets on
which no payment was made in 1944, the answer is that during the war
it became just about impossible to get radio sets, and in many
cases radio tubes and other spare parts, the result was that
throughout the country there came, by the end of the war, to be a very large
number of radio sets which actually were not in use and so I suppose,
with some degree of humanity, postmasters throughout the island did not
collect the fees on unused radio sets. I think that's the explanation.
Mr. Miller I am somewhat disappointed about the manner in which this report
is being covered by the House. Very good points have been overlooked, and we are
making useless remarks. Our business today is as
serious as it will be later on. There was a good point made by Major Cashin,
concerning the erection of broadcasting stations at St. John's, Corner
Brook, Gander, and Grand Falls. I can't guess the amount these outlays
might total. I might say a quarter of a million dollars. Not worth our
consideration this afternoon? We may be asked to spend that in
three or four years time. It is well worth our consideration, and further this report
should deal with the business basis of the
Broadcasting Corporation. I think it is incomplete because it has not got it
here. I cannot form an opinion whether the Broadcasting Corporation
will be an asset or a liability to the future of Newfoundland. I want to
know. That's what I am here for — more about the assets and
liabilities of the future. This report
has not got it and I am disappointed. The Committee ought to
have investigated the rates we charge compared with the rates they charge in
Canada, find out if there are any privileges given on this
broadcasting station, whether some people are getting special rates, etc.
General routine work, but it is not in the report. I do agree with Mr.
Hollett and others who made mention of VOCM. That station is not heard in my
district, or very rarely, and that is only 84 miles away. I cannot
take Mr. Smallwood's explanation when he says that VOCM could find no place
on the air. Has the air, that is the channels of broad, casting,
reached a saturation point? Must we think that the United States and Canada
will have to go down to these lower frequencies and less power? We are
not driving a hard enough bargain, and VOCM is getting a raw deal.
At the same time I am not so greatly concerned over that, but I am
that we have not got the facts in dollars and cents.
Mr. Smallwood As the report states, the balance sheet
of the Broadcasting Corporation is published annually in the public
accounts, the report of the Auditor General, and in considerable detail. I brought
along the balance sheet for each of the last three
years, but we have them running back 14 or 15 years.
Mr. Smallwood For each of these 16 years the annual
balance sheet was published in considerv able detail. It is fairly simple,
and it seems they have been making from $12,000 to $25,000 a year
profit. It does not look like they would ever be a liability. If the number
of people with radio sets and licence fees and the sale of time on the
air should fall off, then their income will fall, and they might have a
deficit. I don't think we need to look upon them as a liability in the
future. The other point is one that I have so much sympathy for myself
that I don't want to be jockeyed into the position of standing here
defending the Broadcasting Corporation. I am not responsible for the
explanation of this, we are only repeating honestly the explanation given to
us by the Broadcasting Corporation, admitting our inability
to assess its validity. It sounds genuine and we are not competent to
question it. Mr, Miller, please don't blame us for that explanation.
Mr. Chairman if all the gentlemen are through and there is no further
comment I move that the
December 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
205
Committee rise, report progress, and beg leave to
sit again tomorrow.
[The committee of the whole rose and reported
progress]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Crosbie to move that this Convention
is of the opinion that until the people of Newfoundland have decided what
form of government they wish to have in the future, there should be no
further negotiations in connection with any disposal of any assets of
Newfoundland, either in Newfoundland or Labrador.
Mr. Crosbie ....Some five or six weeks ago we had the
Forestry Report submitted and there was considerable debate regarding the
value of timber on Labrador. I am afraid many people here spoke of
Labrador not knowing of what they spoke. I felt it was rather a pity for us
to discuss in public something we did not know about. That report was
passed and sent back to the committee for consideration. I have taken some
trouble to ascertain what was the position of timber on Labrador.
I had an idea that Bowaters, one of the large paper companies, had
made surveys there in 1937 and 1938, both ground and aerial. I have been in
Comer Brook and asked Mr. Lewin, and he told me that he had no
objection to getting the surveys and giving them to the Committee. To his
knowledge, where we said 2 million cords of wood, there are 20 million
cords of wood easily accessible. At that time the cost would have been
extremely heavy and they had the opportunity of making this other deal at
Gander, which they took. He said it was good timber and there is no
reason why it should not be made into pulpwood or paper.
Bearing that in mind I was somewhat worried
about a letter I received from Saint John, N, B.,
Canada. We did hear rumours on the street about
certain parties negotiating with the Department
of Natural Resources for timber rights.
Mr. Smallwood may have had the idea that some
delegates in the Convention were mixed up in the
movement. I am sorry I forgot to bring that letter
here, but that party went on to say that "myself
and my association can procure ten or eleven
thousand miles of timber on Labrador and can get
them for you on favourable terms." It is getting
pretty rough when a Newfoundlander has to be
offered part of his own country from an outsider.
Mr. Flinn told us that negotiations had been commenced, and since that nothing had been done. I
am prepared to believe that, but I believe this
resolution should go through this Convention. I
also feel, since yesterday, that it is more necessary. We heard of the Gander agreement,
and I
don't think any man who had the interest of the
country at heart would make such an agreement.
The British government are only trustees of this
country, and that's all. They have been the last 12
years, and they feel by setting up this National
Convention they would like to pass back their
trust to us. That being so I don't think Commission of Government has any right to
bargain away
any more assets of this country in Labrador. We
don't know the value of Labrador. I mentioned
timber, but in the Magazine Digest of last month
there is an article that interested me. It said
"Labrador Iron Ore Saves United States Steel
Mills". That staggered me and I read the article.
It finished up by saying that in the not far distant
future the United States will be taking from
Labrador $350 million worth of iron ore a year,
and that's not chicken feed. I understand that one
of the companies is negotiating a power agreement on Labrador. The British government
should be very cautious about any further agreements they make until the people have
an opportunity to say something about the future of this
country. With that in mind I beg to move this
resolution.
Mr. Penney I second the motion proposed by
Mr. Crosbie, and may I say that it looks like we have
uncovered things during our fact-finding investigations that many of us
thought unbelievable. It is time to cry halt to further dickering
with the assets of Newfoundland and Labrador by a caretaker government
— yesterday's revelations on the Gander airport deal for example — and
there are others to come — so that in this motion, even though it may not be
heeded, we do nevertheless consider it our duty to try and save
the remnants of our heritage for the people of Newfoundland,
as well as let them know what is happening. I strongly support Mr. Crosbie's
motion....
Mr. Chairman The motion has been moved by
206
NATIONAL CONVENTION
December 1946
Mr. Crosbie and seconded by
Mr. Penney.
The matter is open for discussion. Each member has the right to speak
once, Mr. Crosbie having the right to reply.
Mr. Vardy I support Mr. Crosbie's motion. I feel from
what ground we have covered we realise with deep concern the serious inroads
which have been made on our national wealth during the term of
Commission of Government. Many of their unscrupulous acts are beyond
repair, more will be headaches for some future government; but at least and
during the remainder of their tenure of office I would suggest that
"what we have we hold." This is not the time to encourage any lengthy debate
on the matter; but we will all agree, in view of the startling facts
already before us, this urgent matter demands our immediate consideration.
If they as the trustees and guardians of our
country's resources refuse our request, an appeal
should be addressed from this Convention,
through His Excellency the Governor, to the appropriate authorities in London. Some
may interpret this as being beyond our terms of reference.
If so, it is certainly not beyond our rights as
Newfoundlanders, who are at this time more than
ever concerned over the fate of what little is left
of our natural resources. If nothing more is done,
a unanimous petition from the individual members outside the official scope of the
Convention
should be addressed to the government on this
important matter.
Mr. Miller Take the second last line — "nor any
disposal of any assets of Newfoundland or Labrador." Does "assets" cover the
whole thing? I feel it should be all-embracing.
Mr. Smallwood It would be scandalous if the motion were
to pass with practically no discussion. I do not think the
government or the country would consider that this Convention was taking
it seriously if it went through in a perfunctory manner. It is one of
the most vital things to come before the Convention. The point made by
Mr. Miller is that it does not go far enough; it seems to me, technically,
that it goes a little too far. I think I know what is in the mind of the
mover and those who seconded it; they have in mind the public domain,
the natural resources, waterpowers, timber and territorial areas; but
what is mentioned there is the word "assets" which goes way beyond physical
assets. As
worded, if that were adopted by us and accepted it would preclude the
government from adding to the national assets.
Mr. Smallwood According to the motion there should be
no further negotiations in connection with any assets of Newfoundland, even
to increase those assets. I know Mr. Crosbie means the
natural resources of this country that might still be bartered away, and
that is what we all have in mind. If some of the rumours are true — what
about this business of further bases? Mr. Job has been concerned that
we have leased those bases for 99 years in return for nothing. Even the land
they built on, the Americans did not pay for — not a single cent. It
was paid for by the British government. First the Newfoundland government paid for
it and the British government paid them back.
One thing I will say for Mr. Crosbie, if anything is to happen, he is the
first to hear of it. If our territory is to be further bartered away,
if we do get our own government back again in the future we will not be able
to do much with it. Maybe Mr. Crosbie would tell us about the 20
million cords of good merchantable timber discovered by Bowaters.
ls that on Crown land or is it among the grants?
Mr. Crosbie As far as I know it still belongs to
Newfoundland.
Mr. Smallwood That makes it more important. If we have
20 million cords in Labrador and if people are here from Canada and the
United States trying to get concessions; and if a private company can
write Mr. Crosbie from Saint John and offer him 10,000 square miles of
timberland in Labrador, there must be some reason on their part for
the man to be able to think they can get it. Every member of this Convention
would not be a Newfoundlander if he did not feel as Mr. Crosbie does,
who is determined to do everything in his power to prevent any
more of this going on for the next 12 months. There is room there for
a first-class row. I am sure the whole Convention, and the public, will back
him; and if he wants a parade or march, we will follow behind...
Mr. Higgins I agree with Mr. Miller. If our reading is
correct, I agree that Mr. Crosbie means assets as being in toto.
[It was moved by Mr. Smallwood, seconded by
Mr. Higgins and carried, that Mr. Crosbie be
December 1946
NATIONAL CONVENTION
207
aallowed to speak again]
Mr. Crosbie I did not expect to get into this this
afternoon. By the word "assets" 1 mean everything — the water that
runs; power taken from that water; trees; fish around the shores we control; timber;
anything that is under Newfoundland
domain. I used the word "natural resources" today. You do not have to go
back very far to find $8 million loaned free of interest; $2 million
borrowed at interest. It does not make sense. That is why I deliberately
used the word "asset". Mr. Smallwood thinks it might mean that they
can increase our assets; I do not think the government can. They have not the
ability. If you . read further you will see "any disposal"; it is
"disposal" with which I am concerned. We are elected here by the
different districts, we have had a lot of criticism because we have had no
public sessions; if we had had public sessions, there would not have
been much assets left to play with. What we have left, for goodness' sake let
us hold on to. I will head a parade, sure, but it may be worse than a
parade.
Mr. Hollett I rise to support the motion made by Mr.
Crosbie. Mr. Smallwood thinks we are taking it in a lukewarm manner. I think
it is because each of us agrees that it should have been on the carpet
long ago. I feel the hopelessness of the situation. All we can do is pass our
opinion on the disposal of assets. The Commission of Government, and I
probably should say the Dominions Office, will take no more note of our
opinion than throw it in the wastepaper basket. Those absentee landlords
have disposed of practically all we did have at the time we lost
responsible government, without consultation of the people
of this country; more than that, they dispose of territory, giving
mineral rights on the Labrador; giving timber leases, and doing anything which came
to their minds to dispose of the public
domain of this Dominion — and it is a Dominion. "Dominions Office" — I am
sick of it. It puts me in mind of a stanza from Milton, this corrupt
practice.
Enough of such as for their bellies' sake,
Creep and intrude and climb into the fold?
Of other care they little reckining make,
Than how to scramble at the shearers' feast,
And shove away the worthy bidden guest;
Blind mouths! (that is the mouths of State)
that scarce themselves know how to hold
A sheep-hook, or have learn'd aught else the
least
That to the faithful Herdman's art belongs!
What recks it them? What need they? Thay
are sped;
And when they list, their lean and flashy
songs
Grate on their scrannel Pipes of wretched
straw.
The hungry Sheep (the starving people of this
country from 1933-39) look up, and are not
fed,
But swoln with wind and the rank mist they
draw,
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread:
Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw
Daily devours apace, and nothing said;
But that two-handed engine at the door
Stands ready to smite once, and smite no
more.
[1]
That is the Dominions Office described by Milton in the 17th century, that little
back room in
some place in Downing Street where the destinies
of colonies are decided; where they think they
have the right to sell Newfoundland or give it
away as they have been doing. I speak thus because I realise the hopelessness of the
situation.
We saw what happened at Gander. One to two
million is to come out of the pockets of the people
annually and they ask us to decide if the country
is self-supporting. It is the worst treatment any
country in the world ever got from the mother
country... I support the motion of Mr. Crosbie.
Mr. Bailey I support the motion which I think should have
been brought in long ago. I do not agree with Mr. Hollett that the Dominions
Office will not take note of it; we should see to it that they do. We
are elected by the people of this country and we should be the voice of
freedom. The time has come for us to start fighting and to let Great
Britain and certain elements know the way we have been treated in the past,
and I believe from today we should get going on this. The people of this
country criticised us for doing, as they thought, nothing, when we were
getting $15 a day. They lost interest because we had no public sessions.
As Mr. Crosbie says, if we had
208
NATIONAL CONVENTION
December 1946
been having public sessions we would not
have found out the things we did. I believe each and every one in this
House should forget all differences and get this country back to
the people to whom it belongs. We are here because our people love
this country. Why should they give away the assets our forebears fought so
hard to get? The Commission government intends to spend that $30
million surplus before they get out. Then they will turn the government over
to us. We waited too long. How much longer are we going to put up with
it? We are not going to get anything without fighting for it. The average
Briton does not understand anything but a fight. I risked my life for
this country and I would do it again.
Mr. Vincent However there is no need to elaborate on why
this motion should, and doubtless will command the unanimous
approval of this House. To me it would be most extraordinary indeed
should a dissenting voice be heard. I make no apologies for saying that any
delegates raising their voice against this should be deemed unpatriotic indeed. Let's
back the resolution with concerted action, and do
it right away.
Mr. Higgins I don't think there will be any notice
taken of the motion, but to be critically correct I think that the motion
will have to be amended, and for that reason I move the following amendment: that
the word "assets" be deleted and the following words
substituted: "any of the natural resources or liquid assets of Newfoundland at present
under the control of the Commission of
Government, other than already contracted for, either in Newfoundland or
Labrador". Otherwise it will mean that Highroads cannot even
sell a tractor. The waterpower situation is already covered by one of the
acts in 1938 and 1944, giving the Labrador Mining and Exploration
Company full power to acquire what waterpower they require as soon as mining
leases are taken out by them. We have no control over that. That's why
I move that amendment.
Mr. Smallwood I would second that if Mr. Higgins would assure me that they can't pay their bills!
Mr. Smallwood It is not that kind of liquid that Mr.
Higgins is dealing with. Does that mean that
they could not pay their bills?
Mr. Higgins We will say "their liquid assets other than
current". I think the whole lot of it is really a lot of nonsense. I am sure
there won't be any notice taken of it.
Mr. Chairman That's a little bit complicated, and I
think you had better put that in writing and submit it to the clerk, please.
[The Convention agreed to accept the proposed
change to the motion without debate]
Mr. Jackman Five years ago I wrote a letter to the
Daily News. In the final paragraph l pointed
out that since the beginning of Commission government we, the people
of Newfoundland, stood by silently and had our possessions and our
assets given to outsiders without having any voice in the matter whatever. I
congratulate Mr. Crosbie; I am strongly in favour of this motion, and will do anything
I can to see that the motion will have teeth in
it. I realise that we as a Convention are not in a position to demand the
Commission of Government do anything, but we have an opportunity if we
wish to take it on ourselves, that each delegate when he goes back to
his district should call a public meeting throughout the whole country to
deal with Mr. Crosbie's motion from a public standpoint, and, while
the Dominions Office is inclined practically at all times to
ignore things, I think some public agitation at least may open their eyes...
Mr. Harrington I would like to take up where Mr. Bailey
left off... I certainly agree with him. I don't think that Mr. Bailey was
being radical in what he said, neither do I think that Mr. Hollett is a
defeatist, but a realist. However I have my doubts. I think this motion may
do something. The stronger we make it the more chance we have of doing
something. Mr. Bailey made a little excursion into our history, a matter
which Mr. Bailey and I have made numerous excursions into the
past few years. When people say, "That's 50 or lOO years ago, forget that",
well the same thing is happening today, and what are we going to do
about it? I want to support Mr. Bailey's stand that it is time for fighting,
and if this is the beginning of the tight, I am all for it.
[ The motion as amended carried unanimously,
and the Convention adjourned]
