February 26, 1947
Report of the Committee of the Convention which interviewed
His Excellency the Governor in Commission[1]
Mr. Job I did not know that I was to make this
motion, and unfortunately I have not prepared
any remarks. I simply move that this report be
received and suggest that it be read to the House.
[The motion carried, and the report of the Committee was read by the Assistant Secretary]
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, when this Convention decided to send a committee to confer with
the Governor in Commission with the object of
obtaining information relating to the sending of
delegates to discuss the affairs of our country
with the governments of Great Britain, Canada
and the United States, I was one of those who
voted against such a measure on the grounds that
such a committee could not obtain any tangible
results. Today, that Committee has presented its
report and its nature is such as I anticipated.
Over and over, I have given expression of my
opinion that it is futile to entertain any notion that
we can expect sincere co-operation from either
the Dominions Office or its local agents, the
Commission of Government. I have given
definite instances of the obvious intention of our
rulers to thwart and circumscribe the activities of
this Convention — of their intention to divert and
keep our thoughts and actions in the harmless and
ineffectual channel of petty discussion. I have
pointed out that as a country and a people we are
being trifled with, that our rulers do not intend to
allow us to interfere with the plans they have laid
down. Time goes by, the treasury of our country
is being squandered, and future generations are
being harnessed with huge financial commitments... I say that under the present set-up,
this
Convention can do nothing to help our people or
our country. If the doors of this Convention were
closed tomorrow it would make no appreciable
difference or have any effect on the already
prepared plans of the Dominions Office. The
future of this country has been planned out long
ago in an office thousands of miles away. And if
Mr. Attlee can do it, he is going to see that we
follow out his plans to the letter.
The fate of this country does not rest with this
Convention, but in the hands of the common
people. We have been given the glory, but Mr.
Attlee has kept the power. If there are any
amongst us who cling to the vain hope that this
Convention might be able to protect and
safeguard the financial and political interests of
this country, they should be long disillusioned.
We have only to examine the report before us
today, to obtain ample confirmation of what I say.
We have the position where the members of this
Convention, representing over 300,000 people,
decide to ascertain the possibility of establishing
economic relations with other countries, and in
particular the United States. To quote the resolution: "bearing in mind the present
occupation of
Newfoundland territory by the United States of
America and the fact that free entry is accorded
the USA for its imports into Newfoundland."
Arising out of this resolution, a committee of the
Convention asked the government if they can
approach the USA with a view to making some
profitable-arrangements in the interests of the
country, and the answer to their request is a clear
and definite refusal. We, the people of Newfoundland, are told that the Dominions
Office
will not allow us to make any attempt to better
our national conditions by opening negotiations
with the United States. When the people of this
country, through their appointed representatives
are prevented from exercising the ordinary
freedom of bargaining with another country,
what name are we to put on this sort of thing?
Could there ever be presented to us a stronger
justification for having control of our own
country? Imagine the position, if the British
government tried to prevent Canada or Australia
or any other colony or dominion from doing
business with the United States. Would not the
thing be regarded as so outrageous and improper
314 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
as to be outside the realm of possibility? Yet this
is the very outrageous procedure which is taking
place in this oldest dominion today. But, in spite
of even this, some people do not yet recognise the
rough hand of dictatorship even when it is thrust
in their face. As every man and woman in this
island knows, if we could make some arrangements with the United States for the free
entry of
our fish into the great markets of that country,
Newfoundland could become unbelievably
prosperous. Will any person disagree that this is
a matter which should have been dealt with by
the United Kingdom government on our behalf
when these base deals were first discussed? But
it is evident that the interests of Newfoundland
were not even a secondary consideration. This is
the error we would now like to correct, the
blunder we would try to rectify, the national loss
which we would attempt to make good. But when
we try to make our future brighter and more
prosperous, what do we meet? We come up
against a wall of opposition and a denial of our
rights to make any such effort on behalf of Newfoundland.
Incidentally, there is another matter which
comes to my mind at this point. If my memory
serves me right, in the early days of this Convention, the Chairman was asked if the
Convention
had the power to send a delegation from its membership to the United States. On that
question
being directed by the Chairman to Professor
Wheare, that gentleman stated that this Convention had such powers. But today the
Convention
is informed through this report that we have no
such power.
Mr. Chairman I have to correct you there. The
ruling of the late Chairman and of Professor
Wheare was that this Convention had a perfect
right to send a delegation to the United States to
consider the possibilities of joining up with that
country, should the United States be so minded
to receive any such delegation, but he gave no
ruling on the question as to whether trade
negotiations would be on the same basis.
Mr. Cashin If we have power to send a delegation to the United States to discuss our political
and economic future, it would certainly involve
tariff arrangements concerning our fish.
Mr. Chairman That is a question upon which I
do not feel called upon to give a ruling at the
moment.
Mr. Cashin I can understand that. I am sure if
we sent a delegation to the United States, one of
the first things we would discuss would be so
much of our fish going into the market annually.
However, what is the meaning of this divergent
opinion? What lies behind these two contradictory statements? ls Professor Wheare
right when
he made that statement, or is the Commission
right in denying his statement? What is the justification for subjecting this Convention
to two
such conflicting opinions? If Professor Wheare
is right; and I am inclined to believe he is, then
the Commission is guilty of an inexcusable act in
ignoring his findings.
In the matter of all these proposed negotiations with outside countries, we are simply
told
that we cannot move unless and until we get the
permission of the Dominions Office, If it suits the
Dominions Office and the interests of the British
government to let us bargain, they will do so. But,
if our doing so interferes with their own bargaining, then we are out of luck. This
is an extraordinary situation, above ail in the country which
witnessed the birth of the Atlantic Charter. We
may be too close to the picture to see the full
significance of this thing at the present time. But
when our people look back and consider its
implications, they will find it bears the same
sinister marks as those things which killed the
Bond-Blaine treaty, which gave the French the
rights to our shorelines, which sacrificed our
bases in the last decade. One thing these events
have in common. In none of them were the interests of Newfoundland put first. In none
of them
did she get a square deal. And she is not getting
a square deal now. I go further and say that she
will never get a square deal. She will never know
liberty, never know a real freedom, never know
either happiness or prosperity until such time as
she has her own free government appointed by
her own free people.
Consider how different things would be today
if we did have our own Newfoundland government. Would we, the representatives of the
people, have to go on our knees and say, "Mr.
Attlee, may we have your kind permission to do
business on behalf of our country with the United
States? May we ask this great country to give us
some monetary return for the things which they
got for nothing from you, the most precious asset
in the keeping of any country — the sacred
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 315
sovereignty of our native soil?" Would Newfoundland have to go like a slave approaching
its
master, and ask for permission to exercise the
normal, God-given rights of a free people? Of
course not Today, under a people's government,
we would be in a position to fight tooth and nail
for the protection of our country's interest. We
would not have to beg — we would be able to
demand.... We would be in a position to help our
country in a tangible manner. We would be able
to safeguard and further our trading interests. We
could control the present squandermania which
envisages in this one year the expenditure of the
outrageous sum of nearly $40 million. We would
be able to throw in the wastepaper basket, where
it properly belongs, this Attlee reconstruction
programme, which indicates spending some $60
million other than current expenditure in the next
ten years. These are only some of the rights we
could exercise if we today possessed the priceless
asset of independence.
Speaking on the matter of expenditure I cannot help referring to a matter which properly
belongs to the Financial Report, the evidence
which has come before me and our Committee,
which indicates beyond doubt that the financial
policy of the present government is to dissipate
the treasury wealth of this country in a manner so
reckless and so unexplainable as to defy the understanding of the ordinary Newfoundlander.
Take the matter of the proposed expenditure for
the present fiscal year ending on March 31, 1947,
we find that it is the intention of the government
to run our expenditure up to the colossal unheard-
of total of nearly $40 million, more than half our
total national debt; or if we deduct from that debt
all our available cash surpluses, the sum of the
national debt itself. I defy anybody else to find
any logical or sane reason for this wild rampage
and dissipation of a country's treasury, particularly a country such as ours, and
am forced to
come to one conclusion: that it is part of a callous
and deliberately planned campaign to bleed the
finances of this country to such an extent that it
will be impossible for us ever to stand on our own
feet; to so weaken us, that we will have no other
recourse, but to remain forever at subservient and
penurious people.
Now if, in view of this extraordinary spending,
there was any commensurate arrangements to
increase our revenues, or if such expenditure
were made with the assurance that there would
be a corresponding increase in our revenues, one
might be able to find some method in this apparent madness. But in our case it is
clear there
is no such justification. Another thing I would
like to point out is that the proposed expenditure
would, on the face of it, appear as the ordinary
and necessary expenditure incidental to the
proper operation of government, but such is not
the case. Because out of this $40 million the sum
of only $23 million is required for the administration of our affairs. The balance
is what I regard
as a creative, an artificial expenditure, and to that
extent the budget of the Commission is both false
and misleading:
In a previous address on September 18, 1946,
in commenting on the statement of Prime Minister Attlee delivered in the House of
Commons
on December 11, 1945, I pointed out that he had
indicated that the Commission government had a
programme mapped out for Newfoundland, the
working out of which would take two or three
years, and would be pushed forward without interruption. Some of my listeners disagreed
with
the construction which 1 put on Mr. Attlee's
remarks, which 1 said meant nothing more or less
than that the Commission of Government intended to stay here several more years, regardless
of such things as conventions or referendums. It
was only a few days ago that I had my opinion
confirmed by no less an authority than the present
Commissioner for Finance, the Hon. Mr. James.
When I reminded him of Mr. Attlee's remarks,
he stated that was the programme at present in
effect in Newfoundland and that it would be
carried out in accordance with the statement....
Mr. Chairman, I may have possibly wandered
slightly from my original intention of commenting on the report of this Committee,
but I feel that
the urgency of informing this Convention and the
country of the matters to which I have referred is
in itself a sufficient apology for any digression.
As I see it, the only service we can be to the
people of this country is to inform them of the
political situation and the critical condition which
faces us today.
Mr. Hollett ....Mr. Chairman, I desire to make a
few remarks with regards to this report following a motion made by the Hon. Mr. Job
and duly
passed. I spoke against that motion, particularly
with regard to the method of seeking tariff con
316 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
cessions from the United States of America, and
also against the part relating to the basis for
federal union with the Dominion of Canada.
Careful consideration of this report must indicate that those who voted against the
passing of
said motion were far from wrong in the criticisms
we directed at it. I can well understand Hon. Mr.
Job' s endeavour to get tariff concessions from the
USA for our fish and fish products, and can
assure Mr. Job that every member of this Convention is just as anxious as he is, albeit,
some of
us must agree with the attitude taken by the
Commission of Government, that the question is
the active concern of the government of the day;
who further point out and rightly so, that since in
April of this year representatives of the majority
of states forming the United Nations will meet at
Geneva to discuss the formation of an international trade organisation, with a view
to agreement on tariff and trade questions, it is scarcely
likely that at this time a participating state would
entertain proposals for separate tariff arrangements. Furthermore we understand from
this
report that representatives from Newfoundland
will be present at this conference
Turning now to clause three of the resolution
and report thereon, it appears that the Commission of Government would be prepared
to find
out from the Government of Canada whether the
said government would receive a delegation from
the Convention to consider what would be a fair
and equitable basis for federal union. You will
note they are careful to point out that the words
"or what other fiscal, political or economic arrangements may be possible" should
notbe included
in any inquiry, or in the terms of reference of any
delegation to Canada, as they say, and rightly so,
that these are matters entirely for discussion between governments. If these arrangements
cannot be discussed by a delegation from this
Convention with the Government of Canada, I
fail to see how any fair and equitable basis for
union can be arrived at by any other consultations.
When I ask myself why this third section
relative to Canada was introduced in Mr. Job's
motion, I must seek out the grounds on which
such an effort on our part should be based and we
ought all to do some right thinking in the matter.
Why are we here? The answer is, "the Con
vention Act". To this act we must go to get the
terms of reference. We are told there to consider
and discuss amongst ourselves the financial and
economic conditions of our country, having due
regard to the degree which the wartime prosperity
has affected same. Then based on our findings as
to whether or not the country is self-supporting,
to consider and recommend forms of government
to be recommended to the Dominions Office, any
one of which might be suitable to our apparently
peculiar needs.
They, then, in their omniscient wisdom, are to
decide which forms of government they will
place on the ballot paper at a referendum to be
held at some time in the hazy future. If the Convention Act means anything, it means
that and
that only.
Let us go back to the Amulrec report.
[1]
Everyone in this country is familiar by now with
the implications of his several recommendations.
We have had a dozen years under their benign
influence. But the recommendation to which I
chiefly wish to refer will be found in section 634,
subsection 4(g) and it reads as follows: "It would
be understood that, as soon as the Island's difficulties are overcome and the country
is again
self-supporting, responsible government
on request from the people of Newfoundland, would
be restored". Up to a year or so ago, few people
if any in this country ever doubted that promise.
On the 17 February, 1934, the new Letters Patent
under the then new system of government were
read in the ballroom of the Newfoundland
Hotel.... These Letters Patent of 1934, which
suspended the Letters Patent of 1876 and 1905,
were granted to us by His Majesty George V.
Paragraph four promised the highest dignitaries
of this land that "We are graciously pleased to
suspend the aforesaid Letters Patent which will
provide for the administration of the said Island,
until such time as it may become self-supporting
again, on the basis of the recommendations
which are contained in the report of the Royal
Commission, appointed by us on the 17th of
February 1933".
You will remember that a year ago, the
Secretary of State for the Dominions, in the
House of Lords, stated that machinery was being
set up to find out the will of the people of this
country, and that they would be given an oppor
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 317
tunity to select a form of government suitable to
their needs. I do not believe that up to that time
there was ever any thought in the mind of the
British House of Commons of any other form of
government than the form which we now enjoy,
that is Commission of Government, or responsible government
I take you back to September 2, 1940: France
had fallen in June, and Great Britain stood alone
against the might of Hitler's Germany. The
people of North America realised their danger,
should Britain fall; they consulted the British
government and began to look to their own defenses. On the above-mentioned date, the
Marquis
of Lothian wrote to Mr. Cordell Hull, and told
him that in View of the interest of His Majesty's
Government in the national security of the United
States, and their desire to strengthen the ability of
the United States to co-operate with the other
nations of the Americas in the defense of the
western hemisphere, that His Majesty's Government would secure the grant to the United
States
freely and without consideration for the lease of
naval and air bases on the Avalon Peninsula and
the southern coast of Newfoundland. The agreement for this lease was signed on 27
March l94l,
and accompanying this agreement, and forming
part of it was a letter from Mr. Winston Churchill
to Mr. Winant. It has such significance that I give
it in full to refresh your memories: "...it is the
intention of the Government of the United
Kingdom that, upon the resumption by Newfoundland of the constitutional status held
by it
prior to the 16th February 1934, the words 'the
government of the United Kingdom', wherever
they occur in relation to a provision applicable to
Newfoundland in the said agreement, shall be
taken to mean, so far as Newfoundland is concerned, the government of Newfoundland,
and
the agreement shall then be construed accordingly..." I ask you, was there any idea
in Mr.
Churchill's mind, at that date, but that we would
eventually resume our former status?....
The wording of the Convention Act, the spasmodic and well-timed despatches from across
the
Cabot Strait, and the almost demoniacal fury of
some of the protagonists of confederation in this
country, will have convinced you that there is
more in this thing than first strikes the eye. It is
international and not a local issue. The war ended
in 1945; the Americans are at Fort Pepperell,
Argentia and Stephenville; the Canadians are at
Goose Bay. The diplomats of the world are writing the peace terms. Great Britain has
had her
economy disrupted, she seeks a loan of $3.5
million from the United States and gets it. Canada
lends her $1,250 million. Great Britain financially is deeply obligated. The Big Four
are endeavouring to write the peace treaties; Russia and
the United States have not often been in accord,
neither on the peace treaties, in the United Nations effort, nor with regard to disarmament;
so
much so that the United States and Canada start
negotiations for a mutual defence pact. What
more natural, than that the future status of Newfoundland should be taken into consideration.
"Would it not be better", some might say, in view
of this mutual defence pact which, by the way,
was signed a few days ago, "if Newfoundland
was completely under the control of the Government of Canada?" I say again that our
status is
now an international issue; hence the Convention
Act as is, and hence the bait which is being
constantly held out to us by emissaries from
across the water.
But Britain has pledged her word to us by the
Letters Patent, 1934, and we demand that if we
are to go into confederation with Canada, we
shall go only at the instance of a duly elected
government of our own with a clearly defined
directive from the people of this country. We
know that there has grown up in England, and
hence in the dominions, what is known as the
doctrine of mandate, which has been sanctioned
by. the highest authority. That doctrine is that
parliament cannot legislate on a new question of
vital importance without a mandate from the
people. It was the breach of this mandate which
gave us Commission of Government. Mr. Alderdice assured the people, when seeking election,
that his government would seek from the British
government some way out of our difficulties, but
he further assured the people there would be no
change in our constitutional status until the question had been submitted to them
by way of
referendum; that was not done. But was not the
question of the suspension of our dominion status
of vital importance to Newfoundland? Was it not
a question of vital importance to the British
people? And yet we know that neither the British
government nor our own referred the matter to
their people, nor did they have any mandate from
318 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
them before taking such a drastic step.
It was tragedy enough that we could not raise
by means of revenue $8-10 million to carry on,
especially when $5 million would have to be
ear-marked for the bondholders of our debt; but
was it not an ignominy when Britain said, "Yes,
allow us to suspend your constitution, and we will
feed your people on six cents a day; but you will
have it restored when you become self-supporting again, if you ask for it". How were
we meant
to ask for it? "Oh, you may elect a national
convention. They will find out if you are self-supporting." But did they say to our
people, "If your
convention finds you self-supporting, they will
have authority from you to request the restoration
of your former constitution". No, they say, "If
they find your country self-supporting, they may
suggest to the Dominions Office forms of
government suitable to your needs".
Would it be pertinent to ask Great Britain what
she understands by the words "self-supporting"?
I am sorry to raise this point, for I am as loyal to
my king and empire as any man in Britain today.
Who are we, gentlemen, to recommend forms of
government? Do the men who framed the Convention Act know of any better form than
that in
Great Britain today? We could recommend Commission of Government; that's the latest
experiment in our great British Empire. We could
recommend representative government, were it
not for the fact that it has been tried and failed
miserably the world over. We could recommend
that we might come up a peg from where we are
today and suggest a crown colony; and we could
recommend any one or more of the 2,000 different known forms of government that have
been tried and failed through the ages. We can do
all that, but do we not know that the British
system so far has no equal, or why try to force it
on India or Burma?
Some people have concurred that this Convention may even send a delegation to Canada;
in fact, it seems to be the idea embodied in the
motion and report. Let me quote you section 146
of the British North America Act, 1867: "It shall
be lawful for the Queen on addresses from the
Houses of the Parliament of Canada, and from the
Houses of the respective Legislatures of the
Colonies or Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince
Edward Island, and British Columbia to admit
those Colonies or Provinces, or any of them into
the Union on such terms and conditions in each
case as are in the addresses expressed and as the
Queen thinks fit to approve, subject to the
Provisions of this Act..."
[1] You will note that it is
only lawful for the Queen to admit us into union
after receiving an address from the House of the
Legislature. And yet there are some people who
want to get "the terms". What terms? Are they
already drawn up? Or are they to be unpigeon-
holed from the closets of 1895 and 1867? Are
there no terms on our side? Not in the minds of
some people who wanted to hike off to Canada
before we had even started our investigations....
Says the Ottawa Journal: "Newfoundland
owes $100 million, she is facing bankruptcy, and
wants to get in out of the wet; she cannot take it,
she cannot face the future". And yet "the terms"
will be so good, I'm told. I tell you there are no
terms; confederation must essentially be a question of bargaining on both sides....
If we are to
unite with Canada, we must do it like men who
believe we have something to contribute to the
partnership and, mind you, we have confederation if the people of this country say
so, and only
if they say so. How may they say so? I submit
there is only one way, and that is under section
146 of the BNA Act and the doctrine of mandate
and that is embodied in the truth that Parliament
ought not to adopt any far-reaching measure
without a mandate from the country. But you say,
"We have no parliament." Ah yes, we have, for
as soon as our constitution comes out of its state
of suspended animation, the voice of the people
can be heard on the issue....
The process of entering into federal union is
clear cut. First you have to have two self-governing entities; second they must have
much in common, and each must have something to offer the
other. One may be wealthy, but lacking something which she needs and which the other,
who
may not be so wealthy, possesses. Third, the
people of both countries must he made duly
aware of the situation. In the fourth place, the
people of both countries must authorise their
respective governments to explore the possibilities of a fair partnership. Fifth,
each government must then report back to its people and get
their final approval, by way of the referendum or
otherwise. There is no other way, except by coer
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 319
cion or trickery. Either of these latter methods is
likely to prove disastrous Witness the case of
PEI, a separate geographical unit like ourselves,
whose prime minister, 72 years after union with
Canada, publicly declared a few years ago, "The
real trouble is, we shouldn't be part of Canada at
all".
I am quite aware that there are a number of
people in favour of union with Canada; so there
were in 1867 and in 1895, and I am in no way
trying to prevent those people, who are undoubtedly loyal Newfoundlanders, from getting
what
has been called "the terms", but I do contend that
these terms must be obtained by the proper constitutional means. I am also aware that
there are
more people who would prefer a closer association with the USA. There are also constitutional
means to attain that end. We know, too, that a
great number of our people are not anxious to get
farther away from the mother country, and particularly so when that mother country,
having
sacrificed her resources to save the civilisation
which we enjoy is for the moment in dire distress.
There is much more that could be said about
this issue, but I shall content myself with once
again registering a continuing opposition to the
idea of this Convention sending any delegation
to Canada at this or any future time on the following grounds. First, our terms of
reference give us
no such authority. Second, the people who sent
us here gave us no such authority. Third, as
"terms" always envisage bargaining, that bargaining must be done by duly appointed
representatives with the mandatory power of the
people behind them.
We come now to the question of sending a
delegation to the United Kingdom. Against this
idea there can be no objection because there are
many matters about which the Convention should
have a clearer picture than we have. To that end,
Mr. Chairman, I beg leave to lay on the table a
notice of motion relative thereto:
Whereas it has been intimated to this Convention by His Excellency the Governor in
Commission, that he is prepared to forward
to the Government of the United Kingdom
any enquiries from this Convention respecting financial and fiscal relationships which
may be expected in the event that the people
of this country at the proposed forthcoming
referendum to be held in Newfoundland,
should decide on any of the following forms
of government:
1. Commission of Government in its
present form;
2. A revised form of Commission of
Government;
3. Responsible government;
4. Any other suitable form of government;
And Whereas His Excellency has further
informed us that should the Convention request discussion of these questions with
the
Government of the United Kingdom by a
delegation from the Convention members,
His Excellency will enquire and inform the
Convention whether such a delegation would
be received;
And Whereas in the event that such a
delegation shall proceed to England for the
purpose aforesaid the Commission of
Government has undertaken to give all possible assistance in making transport and
other
arrangements for the delegates;
And Whereas this Convention, in view of
the importance of the matters hereunder outlined are of opinion that such a delegation
should be despatched;
Now Therefore Be It Resolved that this
Convention request His Excellency the
Governor in Commission to acquaint His
Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom of their desire to send a delegation
consisting of the Chairman and six of its
members to the United Kingdom at the earliest possible moment to discuss with the
said
United Kingdom government the various
matters set forth hereunder;
Be It Further Resolved that as soon as His
Excellency the Governor in Commission informs us of the willingness of His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom to accede to our request said delegation shall be
elected by secret ballot;
And Be It Finally Resolved that the Steering Committee be requested to prepare a
detailed statement of the questions to be submitted to His Majesty's Government in
the
United Kingdom; such statement of questions to be submitted to the National Convention
for confirmation before being delivered
to His Excellency the Governor in Commission for transmission to the United Kingdom.
320 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
Matters to be Discussed by the Delegation with
the United Kingdom Government
1. National debt;
2. Military, naval and air bases in this
country;
3. Gander airport;
4. Interest-free loans;
5. Any matters relating to the future economic position of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman That portion of your address
which contains, apparently, notice of motion cannot be included on the record at this
stage. A
notice of motion must be given at another time.
You may renew your notice of motion before the
House rises.
Mr. Smallwood There are one or two things I
would like to say in reply to Major Cashin and
Mr. Hollett. With one thing Major Cashin said, I
am in the deepest and profoundest agreement. I
jotted down his words: "The fate of this country
does not rest with this Convention, but with the
common people.".... The fate of Newfoundland
will be decided by the people of Newfoundland
when they vote in the national referendum sometime this present year, and not in the
dim, hazy
future that Mr. Hollett has referred to. All this
Convention can do is what the law gives it
authority to do; and the authority is the National
Convention Act under which we were all elected.
Two pieces of authority we got when elected —
one, to look into the condition of the country,
economically and financially. How is she likely
to shape up in the next 15 or 20 years? The second
piece of authority was this; that having taken as
good a look as we know how, to suggest and
recommend to the Dominions Office a number of
forms of government to be laid before the Newfoundland people; so that they will be
able to
decide for themselves, what form of government
they think they want. That is quite a lot of
authority.... In connection with the forms of
government that we may recommend, Mr. Job
very wisely and in the spirit of statesmanship,
brought into this house a couple of weeks ago a
motion. And what did that motion say? That it is
essential that this National Convention take immediate steps to find out what Britain might
be
prepared to do for us if we went on under Commission government or if we went back
to
responsible government or if we had some other
kind of government. And it was essential for us
to find out also what fair and equitable basis there
might be for any federal union of Canada and
Newfoundland.... Mr. Job's motion went on to
say that we should appoint a committee to go and
meet the Governor and the Commission to get
their advice as to what steps we can take to get
that information. The Committee met the government and they gave us their advice.
Their advice
was, "Send over and ask the Government of
Britain what they are prepared to do; with regard
to finding out what fair and equitable basis there
may be for a union of Newfoundland and Canada,
send to the Government of Canada and ask
them." They went further and said, "If you want
to send a delegation to London and a delegation
to Ottawa, the Convention should ask us to find
out whether the British government and the
Canadian government would receive such
delegations, If they say they will, we will pay the
expenses of those two delegations." That is the
report that has come in here. Major Cashin pays
little attention to the advice of the government.
Mr. Hollett pays even less. Mr. Hollett is
prepared to send one to London, but not to send
one to Ottawa. Major Cashin has not made it clear
whether he is in favour of sending one delegation
or another. This Convention has gone on record,
with a small number of us voting against it, not
including myself, in adopting Mr. Job's motion,
to say we consider it essential that immediate
steps be taken to secure this information; also,
whether it is possible to take up discussions with
the United States. In justice to the Commission
of Government, I must refer to what Major
Cashin said about that. He states the government
says this business of tariffs, trade treaties and
trade are matters for government and government, they should be handled through diplomatic
channels. Then he says the late Chairman and
Professor Wheare both said that you can send a
delegation to Washington. Then you, sir, interrupted him and pointed out that what
the late
Chairman and Professor Wheare referred to was
a delegation going to the States, not to deal with
customs or trade matters, but to deal with the
federal union of Newfoundland and the United
States. He acknowledged this, then went straight
on and argued it was inconsistent. Professor
Wheare, he continued, said we could and the
government says we cannot. Two entirely different kinds of delegations were referred
to; one
February 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
321
to deal with trade and tariffs and the other possible federal union. Of course the
government is
right! When we come to talk about making a tariff
deal with the United States, that is a matter for
the Government of Newfoundland, whatever that
may be, not the Convention. We were not elected
as a government to do the job of the government;
not elected to make a trade treaty or get tariff
concessions with the United States....
Suppose we had responsible government in
office today and we wanted to take up with the
United States this question of trade tariffs and
concessions, could our responsible government
do it? Yes! On two conditions. First, if Great
Britain were willing. Up to the last minute we had
responsible government in 1934, the Government of Newfoundland could not go gallivanting
up to make trade treaties on its own. If we had
signed the Statute of Westminster we would be
able to do it. But we never signed that. In 1920
when Sir Richard Squires wanted a treaty with
Spain and when Sir Robert Bond wanted a treaty
with the United States, they had to do it through
diplomatic channels, that is the British ambassador, and the British foreign minister.
That is
how we would have to deal today if we had
responsible government, only if the US were
willing to discuss the matter. Why will they not
discuss it? Because in April they are having an
international conference and until that is held,
they have no intention whatever of making any
separate deals with individual nations....
So the government gave us this advice, and
you have to give credit where credit is due. They
said this matter of trade concessions, allowing
our fish to go in at a lower rate of duty, ought to
be dealt with between government and government; not between the Convention and the
Government of the United States.... I do not like
the Commission of Government. At least, if
anyone comes in here to paint them as a pack of
scoundrels, let us have proof! Then Major Cashin
read out something Mr. Attlee said, adding
"when I made that statement a lot of the members
did not agree with my interpretation of it." The
interpretation was this: Mr. Attlee said and could
mean only that they were here for another three
years. You can hold your Convention and
referendum; they are going to be here for another
three years.... Where is there a scrap of evidence
that the Commission is going to be here another
three years? This year, 1947, there will be a
national referendum, no doubt about it. There is
not a man here but in his heart knows that in 1947
there is going to be a referendum. We do not
know when it will be. If we can get the job
finished in the next two or three months.... I say
here and now that some month this year there is
going to be a referendum and the people will
decide what kind of government we will have.
"Oh!" they say, "you may have the referendum
but what guarantee have we that Dominions Office, this evil genius of Newfoundland,
this octopus on the back of the world, will put on the
ballot what we recommend?" Trash and nonv
sense! Whatever we recommend within reason,
unless it is some cockeyed foolish thing, they will
put on the ballot and the people will get their
chance to vote it down or up. They are the bosses.
Then someone says, "What guarantee have we
that the Government of Britain will give us the
kind of government we vote for?" We have this
guarantee.... They have said categorically that the
kind of government the people vote for they will
have. What is all this nonsense about? Finally,
Mr. Hollett...
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. Was it not
decided here that the use of a person's name was
not to be tolerated?
Mr. Chairman You are right. It is improper,
strictly speaking, to use a person's name.
Mr. Smallwood I shall refer to him as the junior
member for Grand Falls.
Mr. Hollett I would like to know where you get
your authority to refer to me as the junior member
for Grand Falls?
Mr. Hollett I wish to advise the present speaker
who has the floor that if my name is bandied
about as was Major Cashin's, i have no privileges
in this House, but I have privileges outside.
Mr. Chairman I do not wish to hear anything
outside this House. I repeat, in your objection to
the use of your name, you are correct. I have told
Mr. Smallwood he must not name you by name,
but he must identify you. Proceed, Mr.
Smallwood.
322
NATIONAL CONVENTION
February 1947
Mr. Chairman Do you rise to a point in order?
Mr. Fudge Yes, there is too much laughing and
noise going on.
Mr. Chairman That is true. Will the people in
the gallery please remember that there is no disorder permitted in this House.
Mr. Smallwood The member for Grand Falls
gave us the benefit of his researches into the
British North America Act, which is the constitution of Canada. He quotes section
146.... It is
surprising to me, the keen interest he has been
showing in this matter of confederation... Perhaps he wants us to join the union.
Let us take
him at his word. Let us admit that is the way to
join. I see the second senior member for St.
J ohn's West looking at me — I may not mention
his name — I think in the back of his mind he is
hoping strongly we will have our own elected
government in this country. So am I. Let us trace
it. The delegation goes over to the British government and asks them to state what
they are
prepared to do for us if anything. They will tell
us. We send a delegation to Ottawa and ask them
what they are prepared to offer. We have both
these pieces of information and we get down to
talking about forms of government. Let us say we
recommend this: ...(a) that Commission government be continued; (b) that we go back
to responsible government; (c) that we have responsible
government in union with Canada according to
the terms handed to the National Convention by
the Canadian government on such and such a
date.
The referendum is held. You cannot go any
higher than the people of Newfoundland. The
gentleman from St. John's West agreed on that.
They are our bosses. I like to think that when they
see those terms, they will say, "That looks pretty
good, we will vote for it." What are we up
against? You have Commission of Government.
They are here. But the referendum is held and the
people have voted for confederation. Where do
we- go from here? That is what is worrying the
gentleman from Grand Falls. You have your election. Why not? The people have voted
for responsible...
Mr. Smallwood Does that surprise you? For
seven years I scarcely missed a night advocating
responsible government. Do not look too pleased
over that. I am worried about whether we can
afford it or not. I would like to have responsible
government, because I believe in it. The
gentleman from Grand Falls said, "Are you going
to have a better system of government than they
have in the mother country?" I agree, they have
responsible government in the old country, and I
would like to see it here too. i hope they can
afford it over there. It looks a bit doubtful just
now.
Mr. Smallwood The point is this: responsible
government by all means if it does not put too
great a burden on our people and keep up the cost
of living. If union with Canada would help us to
make it pay, let's have it. That's whatl want to
find out, what have they got to offer us. Maybe if
these terms are brought back I will stand up in
this house, and show you a lot of fancy talking
against those terms.
We will say the people vote for confederation,
what is the next step after the referendum?
Simple enough. Call for a general election, issue
your new Letters Patent, call the houses together,
the upper house and the lower house and we
will have our two houses of parliament. I can see
the Major (is it against the rules to say that Mr.
Chairman?), I can see him bringing it in next
January in this house, which would be the House
of Assembly, "Whereas in the National Referendum the people of Newfoundland by a majority
decided to accept union with Canada, therefore
be it resolved that we now address a petition to
His Majesty the King, praying that His Majesty
may be graciously pleased to legislate Newfoundland into confederation with Canada."
I can
see myself scconding it.... It is legal and constitutional, and this is the nice thing
about it, that if
the decision is made it will be made by the
Newfoundland people. I am sure if the gentleman
from Grand Falls were given a chance to decide
for the people of Newfoundland, he would say,
"Oh no, let the people decide that." Well; if the
people decide it, what is wrong with it? Let the
people's will be done if the heavens fall, if they
vote for it that's the end of it. All we have to do
is call our parliament, get both houses elected and
send our address to the king.
There may be other points that the Major
brought in that I ought to deal with, but I don't
want to get him angry, I am so anxious that the
Major and I should be good friends. There are
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 323
tens of thousands of people around the island that
like him, and some of them like me too. I would
like to show him some letters I get saying, "Get
together with Cashin, you ought to be friends".
That finance business looks bad, I can't understand that game, but don't forget this
— if they
have stuck in a couple of million dollars to pay
for these steamers in their budget, if they don't
pay it this year they must pay it next year.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of order. Is this a
conversation between this member and the member from St. John's West?
Mr. Chairman Major Cashin, strictly speaking,
is our of order, but I will let it go.
Mr. Smallwood Don't let's get too formal Mr.
Chairman, or we will be thinking that we are the
Government. I agree with Major Cashin in this. I
hope they are not going to dip into our surplus of
$28 million. We have got that nest egg, and that's
all we have to show for the war and I hope they
are not dipping into that....
Mr. Miller Mr. Chairman, before you proceed
with notice of motion there is one point I would
like to be satisfied on. Since it seems necessary
to be known by certain names I suggest that I be
known as "the very brief speaker." There are only
two things necessary here and that is clarity and
consistency. My friend from Bonavista stated last
fall and reiterated today, and very emphatically,
that we could not approach the United States on
this tariff question. I am not doubting his word at
all, but I am going to refer you to the fifth line in
the paragraph that deals with clause one,
[1] which
was in reference to the tariff question.... Now
that's a report back to us from the Commission
of Government. Am I to believe that the Commission would not hazard an opinion as
to whether
or not we could do this? Why don't they give us
a clear understandable answer that it could or
could not be done? This is a masterpiece of
discreetness. I would accept it with better grace
if I did not think it was in part subscribed to by
our own Committee. The whole thing has been
passed over very lightly. They went to confer
with the Commission of Government with a
resolution that contained three important clauses.
Somewhere along the way they forgot about one
clause, and they come back with this answer,
"that it was doubtful whether the subject matter
of the clause was within the terms of reference of
the Convention or not." I think in the discussion
of any matter the first essential is the establishment of facts. That was not done.
The Commission of Government did not give an opinion,
and the Committee did not give an opinion. The
word "doubtful" stays here, despite the fact that
we have the opinion of the member from
Bonavista, expressed twice, that we cannot do it.
I want to know can we do it or can't we? If we
can't, then I think it should be stated definitely
and in understandable language in this report, and
until such time as this paragraph dealing with
clause one is corrected I certainly will not vote
for the adoption of the report.
Mr. Fudge There is no need for me to go into
the details of the purpose behind sending a committee to interview the government
which arose
out of the Hon. Mr. Job's resolution. However, I
would like to point out I did not vote for this
action on the part of the Convention, and I still
do not agree with it. It has been my contention all
along that the first duty of this Convention is to
enquire into and determine the present financial
state of our country and to gauge if possible what
our future prospects are. Until we know what we
have, and when we will get what we own, we will
only prejudice our possibilities of the best
proposition from the countries we may approach.
I regret that thus far there has been nothing or
very little said of an encouraging nature as far as
our country is concerned. We have been subjected to a steady flow of hot air which
has tended
to hold our little country up to the ridicule of the
outside world. Sometime ago we were given
good advice by our fellow member when he said
if we had any dirty linen to wash, why not wash
it in private? I feel very strongly about the time
which is being wasted. In the early days we had
a resolution to send a delegation to Ottawa and
we are still talking about delegations outside of
our own country when we do not know what is in
our own warehouse.
Mr. Chairman, if any delegation goes from
this country they should know what stock is in
our own warehouse and then find out what the
British government intends to do about the base
deals, as they did not have the consent of the
people when our territory was bartered away. I
324 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
had an interview with Mr. Attlee when he was
here; I told him we were 100% loyal and British,
that we have given and we will give our best, but
we are jealous of what we own. I told him we
must have a voice in what is done with our
property. The war is now over and the people
expect to get back what is theirs or get adequate
compensation for it.
When we finally take stock I would be in
favour of a delegation to England, because I am
convinced there are many things over there
which should be in our stock sheet. I am not
concerned any more about fish than about land
and money on loan and landlease deals, it's all
ours and our people need it all. This Convention,
is an elected body from the people, let's forget
this "asking" and "if you please" business. Let us
stand on our feet and demand. My attitude may
be termed radical, but I belong to the same stock
from across the ocean and I have the same
bulldog spirit and determination to have and to
hold what is ours, regardless of who likes it.
Mr. Reddy I was particularly interested in section one of Mr. Job's resolution, in respect
to
establishing improved economic or fiscal
relationships between the USA and this country,
which was one of my real reasons for voting for
the resolution as a whole. I was keenly disappointed on discovering how lightly this
all-important question, was brushed aside by our
Committee. If there is the least shred of hope of
improving our relationship with the USA, which
is the greatest country on earth, where thousands
of our own blood relations reside, no stone must
be left unturned to achieve this important objective. Any movement in this direction,
will receive
the support of 80% of our population.
If it were possible, for instance, to effect a
reduction in the tariff of a couple of cents per
pound on our fresh fish entering the USA this
would mean the difference between prosperity
and poverty to a large number of our fishermen.
Therefore I am not at all satisfied with the attitude
of the Commission of Government or our Committee on this question. And I hope at some
future
date this whole question will receive the attention
from this Convention it fully deserves.
Mr. Vardy There is plenty of food for thought
in the pamphlet published by Mr. Job and it is
well worthy of study in view of the hold that
Great Britain, the United States and Canada have
on our country as far as our foreign policy and
defence are concerned. This, like forms of
government, is something which must be decided
by the people of Newfoundland, and our
authority is limited to recommendation only. I
have every sympathy with our unfortunate position which prompted the spirit and substance
of
Mr. Job's resolution but we are not the government, and it is strictly outside the
terms of reference. It is correct that Professor Wheare stated
we have got the power to send a delegation to the
USA to discuss terms of union, and we must
admit that the treatment accorded Newfoundland
in 1933 has not been conducive to the promoting
of the cordial relationship so much desired between the mother country and her oldest
colony.
It was the old Conservative Churchill government which set up the machinery for the
National
Convention and the newly elected Labour
government merely took it over as a going concern, and being favourable toward Newfoundland
getting some form of responsible
government, they naturally set the machinery in
motion as soon as it was expedient to do so.
Despite what the first paragraph on page 2
[1] infers, I am of the opinion that should a delegation
go to London on any business pertaining to the
welfare of Newfoundland, they will get a hearing
on any matter affecting this country, even though
it may not be strictly speaking within the terms
of reference. It is also worth noting that the
Governor was a member of the Opposition when
Newfoundland lost her franchise and His Excellency himself voted against the suspension
of
democratic government.
Mr. Higgins Speaking of delegations next year
we have the Olympic Games on, and I think we
could send a very fine delegation from this House
to the Olympic Games! I feel certain that if we
could get them to put on a contest for long distance talking we could make a good
showing.
We are hired, or retained by the people to do
a job as a committee of enquiry, and any man who
consented to be hired must put his own thoughts
and ideas beside the point as a member of the
committee. I may feel equally as strongly about
responsible government as Major Cashin and Mr.
Hollett, But even though I feel as I do, as a
member of this committee of enquiry I still must
February 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION 325
go about doing the job as it should be done. That
should be the feeling of each member. It is not
because we have our own feeling for various
forms of government, not because the honourable
member for Bonavista Centre, has his own ideas
about the form of government best suited to our
needs; he and the other two gentlemen must
realise that the only thing that concerns us is to
get the facts. The interpretation to be put on these
facts is for the country as a whole. Why not stop
trying to colour the business with our own personal wishes? Why not get the facts,
whether we
like them or not? Why not get the terms from
Canada if we can? Why not send a delegation to
England and find out what they are prepared to
do? We should not care what the Government of
Canada will offer us, or what the Government of
the United Kingdom will offer us. As a commission of enquiry we are hired to get these
facts, or
we fail in our duty. For that reason I feel that
motion should be put through this afternoon.
Mr. Miller I rise to a point of information. It is
definitely stated here, "it was doubtful whether
the subject matter of the clause was within the
terms of reference of the Convention or not". I
am not trying to put any hard questions, I just
want plain information on it. If the Committee
can't back up that word "doubtful" then I think it
should be removed. I think it's time we moved in
definite fashion, understood each other and what
we have got to do. I feel quite sure that if we can't
establish certain facts as we go along, we are not
going to do the best for our country's interest.
Once again I must say that the answer to clause
1, which is based on doubt, is not an answer at
all.
Mr. Chairman For your information, that is the
answer given by His Excellency the Governor in
Commission. Whether that advice is right or not
is another matter, but that is the advice they gave
us.
Mr. Job Might I just add that the Committee as
a whole adopted this resolution unanimously, and
thought it was a correct statement of the interview, and it did therefore mean that
they accepted
that advice.
Mr. Hillier I support Mr. Higgins. The people
of Newfoundland are looking for facts, and we
have no right to deny them, and they want all the
information that we can give them and they must
have it; otherwise how can we expect them eventually to make a decision on matters
with which
they are not thoroughly familiar. I am most
anxious that our people be well informed, not
only with regard to the financial and economic
position but with the general make up and possibilities of the various forms of government
considered by this Convention based on facts.
Mr. Chairman Is the House ready for the question? The motion is that this report be received.
All those in favour say "aye", contrary "nay".
The motion is carried.
