Mr. Chairman Orders of the day. Mr. Hollett to
move the following resolution:
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 the Governor in Commission 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
338 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
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 Commission 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.
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. Hollett I do not wish to go into the merits
or demerits of the resolution. I made some
remarks relative to this on Wednesday.
[1] It is
absolutely essential to get information which we
have not been able to get from the authorities in
Newfoundland. I see no way except by direct
contact between this Convention and the Govern
ment of the United Kingdom. The only way is by
means of a duly appointed delegation from the
Convention.... The resolution contravenes no
constitutional right we possess by reason of the
fact that we are a part of the British Empire.
definitely governed by the United Kingdom
government through the Dominions Office and
the Commission of Government. More than that,
we have confirmation from the Commission of
Government that we would be quite in order in
appointing a delegation to interview His
Majesty's Government in Great Britain. I have
the right to reply to any criticism. If any member
wishes to make an amendment he can do so. I
have great pleasure in moving the resolution.
Mr. Butt I second the motion of the member for
Grand Falls.... When this Convention opened, I
put forward a notice of question concerning our
national debt and the possible way of financing a
reconstruction programme. I was not thinking in
terms of asking Great Britain what she was going
to do for us. It came from a mind which remembered how the debt had been built up;
which had,
I hope, a sense of perspective after reading Newfoundland history; and which remembered
a
statement of an Englishman, who had read
English and Newfoundland history, and said, "I
would not like to have to decide whether England
has been of more benefit to Newfoundland, than
Newfoundland has been to England."
I had a whole series of questions, but older and
more experienced men in the Convention and out
of it, seemed to think the questions were of such
vital importance that they would have to be dealt
with seriously before the Convention closed and
that I should leave them until a later date. I
accepted the position. I think these men were
right. The time has now come when these questions will be put forward. A little later
we had a
discussion on the Interim Report of the Fisheries
Committee. I said the question of how we should
go about exploring the possibility of having some
benefit accrue to Newfoundland, other than came
from the construction and maintenance of bases,
should be examined. Later still, I voted against
sending a delegation to Canada to discuss federal
union for two main reasons. Every instinct in me
rebelled against even the possibility of creating
the impression that this was an indication we had
once again reverted to the status of supplicants.
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 339
Secondly, I believed that we should, as a matter
of common sense, know all about our own position before we went off discussing our
affairs
with another country, however friendly and
neighbourly.
Then we got down to fact finding, and the
issues referred to above were left in abeyance
until the rather sudden appearance of Mr. Job's
motion
[1] which raised all three at once. I voted
against that motion. I am proud of it. I would do
it again. That motion should have been the one
that is now before the Convention. If he had given
any serious thought to the fact that the effective,
real government of Newfoundland is in the
United Kingdom, he would have realised that we
ran the risk, by going to the Commission of
Government, of getting an answer to our questions from the Commission itself and therefore
limited; or made by the United Kingdom government through a third party and therefore
limiting
our chances of putting up our case face to face;
that we may have run the risk of obtaining an
opinion from the creator of the real government
which the real government would have found it
very embarrassing to reverse. Whoever made the
final decision, we have accepted certain limitations. Take the case of the reason
given for our
not approaching the United States on the grounds
of the present international tariff conference. I do
not accept that suggestion and it is irrelevant.
There is a clear case to be made for a separate
negotiation, apart from the multilateral tariff arrangements whereby we give something
for
something. We have already given something
and we ought to see what we can do about getting
something in return. There is, however, that little
phrase Mr. Miller used — "it is doubtful if it
comes within our terms of reference." I am glad
that the case is not entirely closed.
Now we come to the motion, and the question
of how we are going to approach this issue. I have
no doubt it will pass. I have no doubt Great
Britain will give us all the facts we need. I am
more concerned with the way in which we approach the problem and the importance which
we
as representatives of the people of Newfoundland, approach the problem of Newfoundland.
This motion can be the instrument
through which we can assert a statesmanlike approach to larger issues which in the
end may be
of more importance than all we have done so far.
I am not a man given to outbursts of patriotic
fervour, but on this occasion I can say, as quietly
as a big issue will allow, let us go forward proud
of our honourable and great traditions but more
determined that in our approach we will lay the
groundwork for a bigger and a better Newfoundland.
Mr. Burry I rise to support the motion. 1 am
going to vote for it; I am enthusiastic about it.
There is another matter relating to it that has
something to do with the matter on which Mr.
Butt ended — the approach to the government. I
think that the statements and the attitude taken by
this Convention towards that government and its
associates are analogous. Statements which have
been made throughout the session range all the
way from comparatively mild references — such
as not being willing to co-operate with us — to
the one bearing on the expenditure the government is making this year, referring to
it as "a
deliberately planned campaign to bleed the finances of this country" before they go
out of office....
They were not altogether called for. If members
wish to express their feelings in that way, they
have a perfect right to do so. I respect their
sincerity; they are just as sincere in what they are
saying as I am in what I say now. I do not rise to
object to that in the least. I do rise to declare
myself, not in the spirit of being holler than thou,
not in the spirit of having a better plan for the
future of this country, but in a humble spirit to say
to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that
I am not a part of that. I feel that though the
relationship we have had with Great Britain
throughout our history, including the past 12 or
13 years, may not be all it might have been, these
statements are not called for, and this approach is
just not the proper one. I am not building up a
case for Commission of Government. The kind
of government which is going to get my vote is
that in which the Newfoundland people are going
to get a fair chance. If Commission is not the kind
of government which the people want, then I am
going to vote the Commission of Government
out. I recognise something of the great value they
have been to this country; I realise also the errors
they made; I hope I can see the good with the bad.
Now, if they go out, our ushering or kicking them
out should not be done in just this way. It is not
340 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
going to hurt them.... But it is going to hurt
Newfoundland. If this goes on we will do an
injustice that will take a long time to live down.
This delegation to be sent to England should
not be put in the embarrassing position of going
over there with the record of this Convention and
some of the ungrateful and unkind remarks behind them, about the British government
in its
dealings with this country. We are not out of the
woods yet. We might have to go to the British
government again....
Mr. Smallwood I believe in London there is
information that this Convention needs to have
and the people of Newfoundland need to have. I
am very much in favour of sending a delegation
to London to get it.
Mr. Bailey I think this is a move which should
have been taken, not in 1947, but every year since
1934. I fail to see how any country can govern
another country without some connection between.... I have listened carefully to the
remarks
of our learned friend from Labrador and I appreciate what he said. I honestly believe
that what
we have said here should have been said long
before because — as I told His Excellency and as
I told members of the Commission — the greatest
crime that any nation can do against another
nation is to take away from it something that men
had given their very lives for, the right of self-
government. For the sake of $2 a head, we lost
that. There may be members who do not feel the
way I feel about it, but I will never forgive the
British government, whether Conservative, Tory
or Labour for the wrong they have done in taking
our liberty from us.... I have read the Amulree
Report through 27 times. I am sure if everyone in
Newfoundland had read that report they would
have realised that our government should have
been restored in 1942; now we find that Amulree
had no right or authority to make the people of
Newfoundland believe the things contained in
this report, and it is nothing to our credit. Nobody
has made any representations at all, and in fact
the members who are in the British House of
Commons today don't know what to do. Had
there been six or seven men each year going over
to the British House of Commons, and letting the
people of Britain know what we want, it would
have been all right, but I doubt if there are 50
people in the British House today who know what
is going on in this country.
This is the first right thing we have done in the
Convention. We should let them know what we
want.... If you are directly connected with somebody else you have got to stand as
their equal, and
we have dwelt too long upon the fact that we have
been given a rotten deal. A lot of our ancestors
served in the Royal Navy and their naval salute
comes from pulling the forelock. We have not got
past that yet, we have not set it right. We should
have been sending delegations over there the last
12 or 13 years. I don't know how to approach the
British government, but I believe we should go
in and put our cards on the table, say what is on
our minds; don't go into hysterics, but tell them
what is what. Let us help this country have a
government that she never had.
Mr. Vincent The six point resolution sponsored by Mr. Hollett of Grand Falls, covers all the
facts required relevant to the political situation existing between the island and
the mother Parliament of Great Britain.... Our first approach must be the UK — it
is important that we find out just what our actual national debt really amounts to.
From being called the backwater of the North Atlantic sea-routes, we have been named
the junction of the North Atlantic air-crossings, focal point of the great commercial
air routes of the world, the bastion of defence, the Gibraltar of the North. High
sounding titles, but is our strategic position our fortune or misfortune? We are not
too strong financially, so we'd like a little talk about that interest-free loan....
But seriously, I want to make it clear that I am not so confined as to close my mind
to other issues that may or may not be recommended by the Convention. If the people
of this country want to express their views on Commission of Government, I shall endeavour
tof fairly present the Commission of Government case, yet I hold absolutely no brief
for that form of dictatorial government.
What of that vexing topic confederation? The
sovereign will of the people elected this constituent assembly. Is this will so petty
that because I am the elected representative of
Bonavista North, at district predominantly pro-
Commission, that I must not entertain any consideration for the good folk of the district
of St.
John's West? Why are we here? To accept a
cheque every 30 days and get up and tell 300,000
people, hardworking, industrious Newfoundlanders, "Oh you can't vote on this or that
February 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
341
issue, because I think, or I know, it's no good, at
least it's not what I want." Some of our professional politicians are in for a rude
jolt when the
people next go to the polls. Iam not trying to build
up a case for confederation, but the charge made
by some few that there is not a strong sentiment
in favour of union with Canada is fantastically
unmre. If I were asked to voice an opinion I
would content myself with saying that there is a
strong warning of caution against a reversion to
the unrestricted politics of the past. I know nothing of what confederation might
offer. I have
bothered very little about it, yet in fairness to a
large minority of my intelligent fellow
countrymen I would like to see the approach
made to Ottawa, and if terms are offered it would
be unfair to dispose of them without a thorough
and honest examination. If they offer political
stability and promise of future security, better
things for Newfoundland, then they should go on
the referendum next autumn.
I am content to leave the ultimate choice of
government to the intelligence of my fellow
Newfoundlanders. I would not dare suggest that
this country has no choice but to accept literally
the wording of the Amulree recommendation. I
am not concerned about somebody clse's
interpretation of the terms of reference setting up
this Convention — and under no illusions as to
what Bonavista North and Newfoundland expects of me My position is this, I shall support
the examination of every issue that promises
economic betterment to Newfoundland...
Mr. Higgins Reading over this resolution, on
the bottom of page I it says: "To send a delegation consisting of the Chairman and
six of its
members to the United Kingdom at the earliest
possible moment..." I was under the impression,
although it may have been altered since the
original notice was given, that the question of
time was to be set there. I don't want to complicate matters, but I wonder if the
Chairman would
state whether or not the delegation would proceed
until all the reports had been tabled, except perhaps the economic side of the Financial
Report.
Mr. Chairman Yesterday, in consultation with
the Steering Committee, Mr. Hollett decided to
alterthe wording of his resolution somewhat. The
motion before you now is the result. It is possible
to amend that resolution. If you have any sugges
tions Mr. Hollett might be satisfied to incorporate
them without the necessity of an amendment.
I suggest the use of"the earliest possible moment" is very elastic, and it will be
impossible to
set a date until we receive a reply from the United
Kingdom government anyway. We must not get
it in our heads that if we send this off tomorrow
we are going to get a reply the next day. It may
be a week or two and in the meantime I think the
bulk ofour reports will be concluded. The Steering Committee has work to do before
the delega»
tion can go at all. However, the matter is for you
to decide; Ijust suggest these considerations for
thought, but the Convention must do as it pleases.
Mr. Hollett The phrase was purposely left more
or less elastic. We could not say whether or not
the Convention would be satisfied to allow a
delegation to proceed to Great Britain before all
the reports were in. It was felt by some that
possibly if we had the meat out of these reports
which have not yet been filed, and had the financial side of the Financial Report
and not the
economic, that the Convention might allow the
delegation to proceed as soon as word was
received. The government of Great Britain is a
pretty busy organisation and would want to fix
the date when they would receive us. If we embody a statement saying that the delegation
should not proceed until all the reports were in it
would be impossible for them to fix a set date. I
felt that if we made it elastic then if we got
permission to send a delegation with the reports
already in and the meat out of the others, and the
financial side of Major Cashin's report, then I
think that we might be prepared to go. We will
have to have sessions, without the microphones,
to draw up the questions which will be asked. If
Mr. Higgins and Mr. Job will suggest some
amendment I will be perfectly happy to have it
altered.
Mr. Higgins I merely brought it up as a matter
of record. Mr. Hollett's explanation is quite satisfactory.
Mr. Miller Would the departure of that delegation mean there would be an immediate adjournment
and that the reports would not be considered
any further? As it is most likely that the delegation would be accompanied by the
Chairman of
the Convention, would that not be the order?
Mr. Chairman It would appear the Convention
342 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
will have to go on without its Chairman if he is
ordered to London. I would be entirely in the
hands of the delegation. Is the House ready for
the question?
Mr. Reddy I support the resolution. I believe
that a delegation going to the British government
may accomplish far-reaching results which will
benefit generations of Newfoundlanders yet unborn. The approach should be firm, stating
clearly and firmly Newfoundland's position.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Smallwood to move the following resolution:
Resolved that the National Convention
desires to send a delegation consisting of the
Chairman and six other of its members to
Ottawa to ascertain from the Government of
Canada what fair and equitable basis may
exist for federal union of Newfoundland and
Canada; and
Resolved that the National Convention
requests His Excellency the Governor in
Commission to ascertain whether the
Government of Canada will receive such a
delegation for the purpose stated; and
Resolved that should the Government of
Canada be willing to receive such a delegation, then the said delegation shall be
elected
forthwith by secret ballot, and shall proceed
to Ottawa as soon as possible after the Convention shall have received from His
Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom that government's replies to the
questions adopted by the Convention pursuant to Mr. Hollett' 5 resolution of even
date,
but not before.
Mr. Smallwood I believe that in Ottawa there is
information that this Convention needs to have,
and that the people of Newfoundland need and
want to have. I believe that a delegation ought to
go and get it if they will receive the delegation.
However, the delegation to London should go
first, and return to bring its report before the
Convention, before the delegation goes to Ottawa
on the mission stated in this resolution of mine.
That's about all I have to say. My personal position is well known. I do now move
the resolution.
Mr. Job The whole object of this motion is to
get information on this subject of confederation.
There is no doubt there are numbers of people in
the country who want that information, and l
think we ought to get it. I second the motion.
Mr. Chairman The motion as read has been
moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Cashin I want to thank the honourable
delegate from Labrador for an opportunity of
clearing the atmosphere. I know when the cap
fits. Mr. Chairman, before I deal with this matter
before the Chair, I want to clean up this insidious
propaganda that is going on inside and outside
this House. I have been accused of being anti-
British, and I want to tell those individuals who
make such vile accusations that they must be
possessed of very diseased minds. I want to point
out that some 32 or 33 years ago I offered my
service to King and country in western Canada;
1 was young at the time and my father telegraphed
me and suggested that I return and join the Newfoundland Regiment. which I did. I
went overseas, and my friend across the way here, Sergeant
Northcott, went overseas at the same time.... Following that I commanded a unit of
an English
regiment on the other side, and still it is insinuated that I am anti-British. Also,
in the last
war, although well over 50, I offered my services
and took a contingent across from Canada, but on
account of my age I had to get out. If I hear any
more of this I am going to take further steps, not
in this House, but outside of it.
Now with regard to the motion. I have from
the beginning been an exponent of a return to
responsible government based upon the choice of
the people. But before we discuss this I want to
place myself on record as still retaining that view,
and consequently I feel that I will probably have
to bore the House somewhat, and I trust they will
excuse me. Go back to 1932. I have here the
manifesto of the Prime Minister
[1] of that year to
the people of Newfoundland. In this document on
page 6, I will just read it: "The trouble indicates
the only remedy. Confidence in this country and
its administration must be restored. Government
business must be conducted in an honest, efficient, economical and business-like way.
And I
must see an end to the extravagance and waste of
recent years. I undertake that with the return of
my party that result will follow. I am convinced
that it will be possible to obtain the financial
accomodation necessary to meet immediate
demands and to tide the country over this next
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 343
difficult year; that taxation should and can be
reduced; that business, at present strangled, can
be given a breathing space, and the purchasing
power of the people increased; that our fisheries
and industries can thereby be assisted towards
recovery and prosperity; and that our really great
and valuable resources can be intelligently used
to bring about these benefits without the need of
continuing the humiliating and extraordinary
conditions that now exist."
[1] Then I will read the
second last paragraph of that historic document.
"Before concluding, let me repeat the pledge
recently made through the daily press, that one of
my first acts will be the appointment of a committee, the members of which will serve
without
remuneration, to enquire into the desirability and
feasibility of placing the country under a form of
commission government for a period of years. In
case the proposal is favourably reported upon, it
will then be submitted to the electorate for their
approval. No action will be taken that does not
first have the consent of the people."
That is a definite pledge to the people of this
country. On that pledge that party was elected to
office. They carried out the first part of the program. A royal commission was appointed,
came
here in February or March 1933, made certain
enquiries into the affairs of the country, officially, economically, personal and
everything else.
On February 28, 1933, the same gentleman, now
the Prime Minister, introduced a resolution
which I am not going to bore you by reading: It
is interesting to note extracts from his talk on that
momentous occasion. He said, "We are a part of
the British Commonwealth of Nations and it is a
proud boast that no British Dominion ever went
back on its pledged word. Are we to be the first?
What will it profit us if we retain responsible
government and lose our souls, our honour, in the
end?" Mr. Alderdice said — and I want this to be
listened to attentively — he had always felt that
after all the vote was a theoretical thing and not
all that it was cracked up to be. He said, "In the
new form" — meaning the Commission — "not
one man will know the difference and he could
see as a result of it more prosperity in the
country." He could see more capital invested
because capitalists would see they are taking no
chances. Commenting on the conversion of our
debt to 3% he said, "The United Kingdom
government will see to it that the steel interests
of the United Kingdom give us a large share of
their orders for ore. This means a prosperous
Conception Bay. She will see thatour codfish
gets preference in British mandated territory." He
wound up his remarks on this famous or infamous
resolution: "And finally I speak on behalf of all
Newfoundlanders when I say that we thank His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
for the generous offer that they have made to us
in our extremity. We are grateful for the promised
development of our resources; we trust implicitly
in their honourable intentions, feeling confident
that a full measure of responsible government
will be restored to the island when we have been
placed upon a self-supporting basis and we fully,
frankly and freely accept the Report and the
conditions laid down in the White Paper and
subscribe to the Address, the adoption of which
I have now the honour to move."
These words speak for themselves. These
resolutions were passed on November 29 or 30,
1933. The people were given to understand that
certain things were going to happen. I defy any
man to get up here or anywhere else and say one
of these pledges was carried out. What happened? You, sir, as leader of the Opposition,
asked that the resolution be deferred for a week.
That was refused. You moved many amendments. All were turned down. After this legislation
had been passed, and the Address to His
Majesty forwarded, the British Parliament introduced the Newfoundland Act confirming
these
resolutions, in which it was stated that as soon as
Newfoundland became self-supporting and upon
request of the people, responsible government
would be restored. That legislation was passed in
Great Britain during the early part of December,
1933; and as pointed out by my friend Mr. Hollett, the Commission government was inaugurated,
with pomp and ceremony, on l4
February, 1934. Every man who voted for that
legislation, particularly those who were paid off
with jobs, understood definitely that as soon as
Newfoundland became self-supporting, responsible government would be restored. However
I
state authoritatively that Newfoundland suffered
more hardship and privation than any time in its
history. And, despite what my friend from
Labrador has said, we have nothing to be grateful
344 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
for to the United Kingdom during that period....
Why therefore should I apologise? I am pro-
Newfoundland. I am not anti-British.
In the early stages of this Convention, when
this confederation matter came up, we passed an
amendment to a resolution brought in by the
member forBonavista Centre that until all reports
were prepared, there would be no discussion or
conversation regarding sending a delegation outside the country. These reports cannot
be
prepared until we get information from the
government in the United Kingdom, because the
Commission is not the government. We have
asked the Commission government for definite
information regarding the economic condition of
this country — they have refused that information. We have to go to the only place
we can get
it....
After Mr. Penney's amendment was passed,
we went along fairly smoothly. Finally we come
to Mr. Job's motion
[1] that we go to Government
House to have a discussion with the Commission
government. I voted against it. I explained my
position in a few remarks which were evidently
construed that I was trying to hold up the work of
the Convention. But Mr. Job brought in a resolution of some kind regarding the same
matter and
it was kicked out. We get back from the Commission government the answer that we cannot
deal
with the United States — it is a matter for
diplomatic negotiations. We agreed on that. We
get the answer that they are prepared to ask the
Dominions Office or the United Kingdom
government whether they would receive a
delegation from this Convention to discuss matters, and also they would be prepared
to ask the
Canadian government whether they would be
prepared to receive a delegation — not to get or
discuss terms, because the answer distinctly
states we have no authority to discuss fiscal,
financial or economic matters, As I see it, the
delegation going to Ottawa would mean going up
as postage stamps. We meet the Prime Minister
and say, "We are here to find out if you have any
offer to make regarding confederation." The
Prime Minister of Canada says, "Here, you take
that and bring it back. You cannot open it and say
whether or not you accept it." We have no
authority. There is only one authority — a Newfoundland government has power to discuss
con
federation on behalf of Newfoundland because in
1940-41 they took bases and gave them away to
the American government for nothing. If they
have power to do that, they also have power to
give the country away tomorrow. Therefore as far
as the delegation to Ottawa is concerned, I am
voting against that motion....
In reading the manifesto of Prime Minister
Alderdice and after the assumption of office of
Commission government, the people of this
country, particularly those in Conception Bay,
felt they would never see another hungry day. We
were going to sell all the ore; capital was coming
into the country; all the money was going to be
protected — everything that did come in was well
protected — and finally we arrive down to this
Convention. How are we going about the fixing-
up of Newfoundland? I have stated that it was
designed to keep the Commission in office so
they could dissipate the treasury and clean out the
balance, and l defy any man to bring evidence
that that is not so.... When I am asked what
evidence I have, my reply is to ask the Commissioner for Finance — he told me so.
I repeat, the
treasury is being cleaned out deliberately. I make
a further forecast, that the policy of the government is to clean out the $22 million
in the Bank
of Montreal belonging to the people of Newfoundland and the $10-12 million on the
other
side belonging to us....
This delegation to Ottawa is entirely unnecessary. When the delegation comes back
from
Great Britain, then will be the time to decide
whether or not a delegation should go to Ottawa.
If that delegation comes back from Great Britain
empty-handed; if they say we refuse to cancel any
portion of your national debt because of your
bases — which they gave away for nothing while
acting as trustees. Your legal mind tells you that
when anyone dissipates the assets of a trust he
goes to jail. What would you say to a government
acting as trustee of the assets of Newfoundland,
which takes those assets and gives them away for
nothing? True, our people got work out of it, and
some people are so pro-British and anti-Newfoundland they say our people are not entitled
to
get the same rates of pay as Canadian and
American workmen. They restricted the rates of
pay, using the excuse that it would upset the
economy, when merchants on Water Street were
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 345
paying more than some of the men were getting
on the bases....
I say Newfoundland is entitled to the cancellation of that sterling debt.
[1] What does it amount
to? Let us look at the debt of Newfoundland to
date — extemal debt; $72 million against which
there is approximately $8 million in the sinking
fund, $64 million; $12 million more over there
belong to it, $52 million; $22 million down in the
bank belongs to the people of Newfoundland —
down to $32 million; $6-7 million that we owe
here locally — say $40 million net national debt.
The wealthiest country in the world per capita,
less than a $150 a head. Let us take the other
countries. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for bringing in parts of the Financial Report,
but I can't
help it. This is an historic time in the country. And
I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm not yet
prepared to accept the position offered me indirectly some time ago, of Sergeant-at-Arms
in
the House of Commons in Ottawa. What is the
position? $40 million debt —- $150 a head. We
go up to our friends in Ottawa. What's their
position? $1,380 a head. We go across to Uncle
Sam, $1,800 and odd a head. We go across to the
United Kingdom, over $1,900 a head.... Now that
is the position, and going off begging, knowing
that this country is self-supporting. I maintain
that if this country is self-supporting, it's only
humiliating itself to go to outsiders and say,
"What are you going to offer for the privilege of
taking over our customs revenue and government?" I would not ask them. It is time
enough if
we are hard up, particularly in view of that scurrilous attack made on Newfoundland
by the
Ottawa Journal:
Reuters Despatch reports that special
Newfoundland mission is coming to Ottawa
shortly to ascertain on what terms Newfoundland might enter Canadian federation
as tenth province, have given rise to considerable editorial comment across the
Dominion. For most part little enthusiasm is
shown the proposal and general Canadian
trend of opinion is that Newfoundland, shom
of wartime prosperity is looking around for
means of eluding bankruptcy. Ottawa Journal wrote: Britain's oldest colony is reported
as desirous joining Canadian federation. It
would be more accurate to say that Newfoundland regards confederation with
Canada as a lesser evil than reverting to her
former status as a British colony or becoming
an appendage of the United States like an
Atlantic Alaska. The Journal said, "Newfoundland would bring Canada as her dowry
a debt of something like $100 million."
In my opinion, what is contained in that
despatch emanated from Newfoundland. It is interesting to note that it wasjust about
the time Mr.
Job's delegation was over talking to the Commission and we had incorporated in Mr.
Job's resolution that we were going to send a delegation to
Ottawa, that this thing was published in the Ottawa Journal. The Ottawa Journal is the mouthpiece of the Canadian government. Grattan
O'Leary is the editor. It is one of the three papers
read by Mr. Mackenzie King every morning —
the Montreal Gazette, the Ottawa Journal and the
Winnipeg Free Press. We have a distinguished
gentleman from the embassy here with a watching brief who will be able to confirm
what I say.
I have shown that the Commission government was brought about by skulduggery. I state
now that the Commission government was
brought about by bribery, and corruption indirectly. Let us trace the members thereof,
since
its inception. The first three Newfoundland commissioners were two members of that
government, the Prime Minister and the present
Commissioner for Public Health and Welfare,
and the late Mr. Howley.
[2] At that time, Mr.
Emerson stated publicly that he had expected to
become Commissioner for Justice. However, Mr.
Howley was pushed over...
Mr. Chairman I must draw your attention to the
fact that we cannot permit personal references
here.
Mr. Cashin When the first Commissioner for
Justice,
[3] was transferred as Registrar of the
Supreme Court, the new Commissioner was Attorney General at the time of the passing
of that
346 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
resolution, and he was appointed Commissioner
for Justice.
[1] The Speaker of the House, following
the death of the deputy chairman of the Commission, was appointed Commissioner for
Home
Affairs and Education.
[2] When the Registrar of
the Supreme Court passed to his eternal reward,
the former Speaker of the House
[3] took up that
position. He was replaced by his brother, who
became Commissioner for Justice and is now a
judge of the Supreme Court. Two of them are in
the Supreme Court now. In addition to which
many others have been appointed to lucrative
positions. Have any other persons been appointed
Commissioners? They were promised that if they
voted for that resolution, they would be looked
after.
[4]
Mr. Chairman You are making a charge which
it is doubtful you can substantiate.
Mr. Chairman I must ask you again not to
indulge in personalities.
Mr. Cashin I am speaking of the financial condition of the country, and the financial condition
is dependent on salaries and other charges of
government. They have been increased 25% and
40% by these same individuals. Have all the other
civil servants' salaries been increased and
handed out motor cars? That affects the financial
position of the country. But as long as you do not
want to hear it, I will wait until the Financial
Report comes in and we will have it in style. I
have registered my protest against this trip to
Ottawa and I will sit down.
Mr. Keough ....It is some time since I have
spoken at any length and some friends are beginning to wonder why. Since we have recently
had
so much emphasis put upon the need to vote
rather than to eat, some are perhaps beginning to
wonder if I have retreated to the position where I
am prepared to be content with two square meals
a day for all instead of three, and with a suit of
clothes somewhat patched and a roof that leaks
just a little. The contrary is the case. I have been
hearing so much about the brightness and
prosperity which lie ahead that I have been
seriously thinking of upping the minimum requirements to three square meals a day,
a mug-up
going to bed, and two pair of pants with every
suit.
I support the motion, because I cannot see how
in conscience I can do anything else —- notwithstanding all the ranting and roaring
like true
Newfoundlanders that has gone on and all the
hysterics that have been engaged in.
For all of us this is the year of consummation
of a most important mission. For all Newfoundlanders it may well prove to be a year
of
momentous decision — of conclusions as will
determine the shape of things to come in this
island for longer than we all shall live. We have
come upon an opportunity unique in the history
of empire, unique, perhaps, in the history of the
world, without passion, without prejudice,
without fear, to take the measure of what our
resources in natural wealth and manhood will
permit us to rise to — and then to shape the future
to the best advantage.
At least this once, I hope, the people of Newfoundland will be advised of all the
facts, and
then will be left to decide for themselves. I hope
nobody with an axe to grind will try to hold the
noses of Newfoundlanders and try to cram down
their throats the particular form of government
that he wants as a grindstone.... God grant that we
shall measure up in this day and generation to the
making of the most of this greatest opportunity
that has ever come to any people. I can hardly
imagine that any man or group of men would be
so utterly foul as to want to interpose his or their
private plans between this opportunity and the
making of the most of it. I can hardly conceive
that any would deliberately and with malice
aforethought, seek the accomplishment of their
own designs at the sacrifice of all the moment
offers. But if such were to rise, they could be
eternally certain that their memories would be
cursed forever more by every succeeding generation of Newfoundlanders....
This Convention has a most urgent and essen
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 347
tial task to perform. We are here by the will of the
people, not by gratuitous assumption of our own
capacity to perform the work that we have in
hand. However we must not forget that it is of
essence of the endeavour to which we are committed that it should be debated with
open mind
and utter impartiality. I should not be prepared to
see the condition of approach to the matter that
we have in hand altered by anything short of an
act of God.
I support the motion because I am concerned
primarily with the best arrangement with regard
to government that we can make for the future.
And that arrangement will be the one that would
seem to offer us the best chance to eat as well as
to vote. I do think that there are people left who
think that it is of some importance to be concerned with eating ... people isolated
in many
places who are not quite certain of their meal
ticket for the next decade, and whilst I would
hesitate to say that these people think food is
more important than votes, I think that they
would decidedly like to have their breakfasts on
the morning they go out to vote for their favourite
politician.
To some it may seem a truly strange form of
political thought to drag food into politics, to
speak of stomachs in the same breath as ballot
boxes, to assert that to eat is as important as to
vote. But those who have followed through history the impact of hunger upon the body
politic
will find nothing so very strange in all that. Those
who know history know, for instance, that all the
great revolutions began in the pits of men's
stomachs. And history has a habit of repeating
itself.
I do find, however, that those who talk of
strange forms of political thought do seem to
become somewhat inconsistent in their thinking
when they come across some utterances bearing
upon the economic that seem to serve their purposes. Thus it does seem a strange inconsistency
that can attribute bad faith to the British government in setting up this Convention,
yet can immediately change when the representatives of that
government suggest that we are self-supporting....
It may be well that the problem of Newfoundland cannot be dealt with as a problem
in
mathematics, that the question of self-support
cannot be resolved by the rule of three. We should
consequently not hazard the resolution by the rule
of thumb. And so we shall have to exercise a little
more than snapjudgement in the matter. It would
not contribute to our prestige if we were to troop
down the front steps outside someday singing,
"Let all the people rejoice; you are hereby
declared to be self-supporting again", only to be
met at the bottom by one of those who are again
on the dole holding out his hand....
Just to keep the record straight I should like to
make it clear that I am not one of those who
believe it is the duty of government to wind the
life of the individual in a cocoon of economic
security. But I am one of those who believes that
this minimum all men may demand of life — the
opportunity through honest effort to make a
decent living according to the standards of his
times, and not on the basis that what was good
enough for his grandfather should be good
enough for him.... And ifyou say that not all men
can have that, then I shall have to ask you just
what men are you going to require to be satisfied
with just how much less? The giving of such an
answer might well serve to demonstrate the urgency of the economic to any Doubting
Thomas
politician who would care to undertake the giving
of such answer the night immediately before an
election....
The best political arrangement for Newfoundland is the one that will make for the
greatest measure of civic liberty coincident with
the greatest opportunity for all to come by three
square meals a day and a decent suit of clothes on
the back, and a tight roof over the head. And I feel
quite confident that out of the choices presented
to them the people will decide for that political
form most likely to have such result. And so I
repeat we are committed to assist the people to
make such choice. As a matter of fact we ourselves have no choice in the matter. Mr.
Chairman,
the ultimate position is as simple as this: even if
there should be but one man in this island who
wants to hear the terms of confederation he is
entitled to hear them — even if that one solitary
individual should happen to be Mr. Joseph
Smallwood. Even if there should be but one man
on this island who wants return of responsible
government to appear on the referendum ballot
paper he is entitled to have it appear thereon —
even if that solitary individual should happen to
be Major Peter Cashin. And this too, gentlemen
— if there should be but one man in this island
348 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
who wants to have an opportunity to vote for
retention of Commission of Government or some
modification of it — he is entitled to have that
chance, even if he should happen to be my last
forgotten fisherman on the Bill of Cape St.
George. And I do hereby give solemn warning to
the members of this Convention that the names
of all of us will go down to historic dishonour, if
we do not prove as solicitous for the wishes of
that last forgotten fisherman on the Bill of Cape
St. George, as for the wishes of Mr. Joseph
Smallwood, or Major Peter Cashin or anybody
else in this Convention or anybody else in this
island. On that score too, Mr. Chairman, we who
are gathered here cannot escape the verdict of
history.
Mr. Vardy ....I support both the spirit and words
of this motion. When it first came in my mind to
represent the district of Trinity North the sending
of certain delegations seemed to me unavoidable.
Now some have suggested leaving the matter of
a delegation to Ottawa until the results of a
delegation to England are examined. They argue
that the terms from England may be so good that
it may not be necessary to send a delegation to
Ottawa. I can do no more than assure this Convention that there is no member here
more
anxious to find that this may be so. If it is, what
has anyone opposed to it got to worry about,
because the people of Newfoundland, you can
rest assured, will vote for what in their opinion
they consider best....
I am not going to take up any more of our
valuable time than is really necessary, but I
would just take you back for a few moments to
1932. Iwas the only independent candidate in the
1932 election. Just prior to going to the district a
gentleman who is now living, and undoubtedly
will hear my voice tonight, gave me a letter of
introduction to go to the then acting Prime Minister, with the suggestion that I go
to the same
district that I eventually faced but for that party.
I spent about two hours in that interview, and
asked for their platform as a result of my determination to do all possible to prevent
Newfoundland from losing her franchise. I told that
gentleman,
[1] who is now passed on, that I
regretted that I could not, under any circumstances accept his offer, but was going
to face the
District of Trinity North as an independent. I was
not admired by my own family or friends for
taking such a stand. It is well remembered in the
District of Trinity North that I said from every
platform that I stood on, that they were going to
be sold like cattle on the auction block. I had as
my authority the well-remembered words of the
acting Prime Minister, when he assured me that
he could not take the risk of going back to the
people, that the Prime Minister that he had succeeded
[2] could not under any circumstances be
given charge of this country again, he was
branded as a crook. He came to the railway
station when I went out with my manifesto, and
he asked me to destroy it and come back and have
another one printed. He followed me in his car to
Manuels and I still refused, and I have never
regretted it.
As far as Commission of Government is concerned I have tried to give them full credit
for
everything they have done. I took the trouble to
write them a letter a few days ago congratulating
them in connection with what they have done for
the farmers of this country. Everything good I
have seen I have taken occasion to remind them
of it, and everything they did to the detriment of
the people of this country and their liberty as well.
I have never felt that those who associated with
the Commission of Government went with that
body for any other reason except to enrich their
pockets at the expense of the people. I remind this
House that as a much younger man than the
gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago I served
in the first war, and was held up on account of my
age in the last war, being wounded at least four
times in both wars. But as sure as I gave all I had
for the purpose of saving this island home, just as
sure I would most willingly give all that's left of
me for what I consider to be the best for this
country. I have been dragged through the mud by
the Commission of Government. They have attempted to bribe me (I hope they are listening).
As long as I hold my head up I will defend this
country in the way I think will be to the best
interests of the people coming after me. My boys
served in the war as well as myself, and I do not
have to make any apology for saying this, and I
hope no one who thinks differently towards this
motion will at any time accuse me of being dis
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 349
loyal to this country, because I want them to
remember that there is no length to which I would
not go to defend the people I represent and Newfoundland as a whole.
Mr. Hollett May I ask a question without losing
my right to speak to this motion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Hollett Is Mr. Smallwood prepared to
amend the third section of the resolution,
[1] which
reads: "and shall proceed to Ottawa as soon as
possible after the Convention shall have received
from His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom...." Is Mr. Smallwood prepared to
delete that and insert the following words: "as
soon as possible after the return of the delegation
from the United Kingdom Government" without
my name being appended to it? I intend to make
that amendment when I rise, if he is not prepared
to do it now.
Mr. Chairman ....On the question asked by Mr.
Hollett have you any answer to make, Mr.
Smallwood?
Mr. Smallwood I am in absolute agreement
with the suggestion made by Mr. Hollett. It appears that our minds think alike, because
I have
written here a change in that third section that I
thought would be an improvement, almost the
same as his was worded, perhaps slightly better.
In the seventh line of the last paragraph, the two
first words of that line are "after the"; after the
word "the" omit the rest, and substitute these:
"after the delegation pursuant to Mr. Hollett's
motion of even date shall have returned from
London and submitted its report to the Convention, but not before." Does that make
the same
idea?
Mr. Hollett Yes, quite acceptable. There is a
possibility, and it may not be a remote one, that
the United Kingdom government will say, "We
can answer these questions without having you
fellows come over here, and answer them in black
and white." As the motion of the member from
Bonavista Centre expresses it, his delegation will
go to Canada whether or not there is one going to
England. I would like to make sure of this because I can't express here now what I
feel about
the matter, but I have my doubts about something. While I am on my feet, if you will
permit
me I will speak to the motion under consideration, but before that I would like to
say that I, too,
have felt the cold icy blast from Labrador this
afternoon....
Mr. Chairman Will you permit me to get this
quite straight now. Mr. Hollett suggests all the
words after "the" in the last paragraph of Mr.
Smallwood's resolution should be stricken out,
and the following substituted therefore: "return
of the delegation elected pursuant to the resolution proposed by Mr. Hollett and adopted
by this
Convention on this date, but not before." Now
that's acceptable to you, Mr. Smallwood?
Mr. Chairman Thank you. it now reads as it has
been amended, and that now stands as the original
motion.
Mr. Hollett Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Smallwood. I do feel somewhat as though I were
included in the expressions used by my friend
from Labrador this afternoon relative to certain
things that may have been said in this assembly
with regard to, as he said, the British people.
There is no greater admirer in this assembly than
myself of the British people as such, but I do not
regard Dominions Office as truly representing
the British people so far as Newfoundland is
concerned. Any remarks I have made which may
appear derogatory to the Dominions Office do
not apply to the British people; like Major
Cashin, I have given of my body for the people
of Newfoundland, and when we meet here to
discuss the future of Newfoundland we are not
going to be so very particular about some of the
things we say.
This afternoon there was a resolution passed
that we send a delegation to Great Britain to
interview the British government and not the
Dominions Office. I would not be surprised if we
did land in the Dominions Office, but I want it
clearly understood that any delegation has not got
to go over there with their fingers in their mouths,
or in the conciliatory spirit that was proposed by
my friend from Labrador. That delegation is not
going to look for anything which it does not
deserve. We are not going begging, and the
delegation will not go in a conciliatory mood but
350 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
in a fighting mood.... I realise I have said some
things concerning these matters, but I meant them
and I believe they were true and I have a right to
stand up and express my opinion without having
someone jump up and reflect on something I have
said.
With regard to this particular motion, you
know I have repeatedly expressed the idea that
we have no mandate whatever to go to Canada
and look for terms, no mandate under the Convention Act. Before you take any drastic
steps
with regard to any change in the constitution, you
must have the mandated power of the people
behind you. You cannot sneak in the back door
as this is an attempt to do. I have nothing against
the Canadian people or government; I have no
objections to going into confederation, when and
only when our people have been given an opportunity to say definitely that that is
what they want
I must stand by that strongly. We are told by the
Commission of Government we cannot talk fiscal things; we cannot talk on economic
matters;
we cannot bring up politics. How can we possibly
go to the Dominion of Canada to look for terms
if you cannot talk fiscal things, economic matters
or politics? Is the committee or government so
anxious because they know they have some very
attractive terms to lay before us? I fail to see what
good can be derived by any approach to the
Canadian government by a delegation from this
Convention. The Department of External Affairs
in Ottawa is the department with which a delegation would have to deal; I fail to
see how they can
possibly talk to a delegation from here if they
cannot talk about the things pertaining to the very
matter about which they are going to enquire.
There are some who want these terms. They
want to know what Canada is handing out. I
maintain Canada is handing out nothing. The
Canadian people and government are too shrewd
to commit themselves to an absolutely unauthorised body like this with terms of confederation.
I am quite sure any delegation sent from this
Convention would be wasting its time unless and
until they have, as I said before, the mandatory
power of the people behind them. It is immaterial
to me whether a delegation goes or not, because
I am convinced they cannot submit final terms to
this Convention. They may offer terms, broadly
speaking. I was looking over the discussions of
1895 when we had a delegation proceed to Ot
tawa to discuss terms of confederation. There
were 30 or 40 subjects discussed and every one
referred to matters fiscal, economical and political. Yet we are foolish enough to
send a delegation to Canada to talk confederation.
I do not want the people to be fooled as in 1932
when the then Prime Minister promised the
people of this country that there would be no
change made in the constitutional status until the
matter was referred back to the people by way of
a referendum. It was not, and this status which we
have now slipped in the back door. I would not
be surprised if here is not the same sort of thing.
This squandering of money is such that our
surplus will not last six months, $40 million
expenditure in this one year. How do we expect
to have any government of any kind if the Commission is going to set that standard
before our
people? I pity any government that gets in after
this government goes out — they will just be a
clean-up government. I am against the motion on
principle only. If we are going to deal with our
country and talk about our country, we must do
it by proper constitutional means. On any other
basis you will fail miserably. I shall vote against
the motion.
Mr. Fudge There has been quite a lot said about
"approach." I know something of this question. I
came up the hard way. There is something I lack,
but I have tried to make up for it in other ways.
Some years ago I felt I could be of some assistance to my fellow men, and realising
they had
confidence in me I took upon myself the responsibility of leading and helping the
underdog. I am
afraid if I was to take the attitude some members
advocate, to go along to the employer and say
"Yes, sir" and "No, sir", I can assure you 1 would
not have gotten very far. Our people in Newfoundland should be given a chance to earn
their
living. I have some people over on the other side
in fact I visited some of the old folks in the years
gone by. I feel that we should go to England
because I realise that part of the assets belonging
to this country is over there and it should be on the stock sheet here. We are going
to try and
dicker with an outside concern. I am not at all
satisfied until l am positive all the fittings and
gear are aboard of this one. Therefore part of the
fittings belonging to this country is over there and
I say we should surely see to it that all the gear
comes back to this little ship before we decide to
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 351
make a deal....
Mr. Hillier ....I supported wholeheartedly the
resolution presented by my friend from Grand
Falls, a man for whom I have every respect. I have
no reason for doing otherwise, I have known him
for a number of years and I know he is sincere in
his remarks. One portion of that resolution which
enabled me to support it whole-heartedly was
"any other suitable form of government." I rise
to support the resolution as presented by Mr.
Smallwood, simply because I happen to know
that the people of this country are looking for
information in every particular and not in one
particular. I am convinced that all the information
we can get is not going to hurt anybody and unless
we get the information from every source, how
can we be expected to make a wise decision? Is
it right we should deny the people ofthis country
information which they are expecting to receive?
It does not follow that because we receive that
information we are going to accept it. I say in all
sincerity let us not keep from the people what is
their legal right.
Mr. Fowler It is most important that we be
realistic concerning the whole matter. First I have
to admit that there are a number of people who
possibly favour the idea of federal union with
Canada. There are also a number of people who
may desire that we should continue under the
protecting arm of the Dominions Office and
hence retain the present dictatorial form of
government, which according to the Letters
Patent of 1934 should have been replaced as long
ago as 1942 by responsible government.
With regard to responsible government we
believe that there is a large number who still
consider it the most suitable form of government
for this country. It will be remembered that when
the question of confederation with Canada became a live issue in 1895, we were in
rather dire
straits financially and economically and it might
have been expected that the government of the
day would have grasped at any straw floating
down the stream of necessity. At that time however, Canada, thinking we were actually
on the
verge of financial demise, became so niggardly
that the terms offered were so disgusting to our
government and our people that they would have
nothing to do with her. At that time Canada was
of the opinion that she possessed the 110,000
square miles of Labrador, later awarded to us in
1927, and she saw in this country nothing but a
barren land, where a few thousand poor fishermen eked out a bare existence. What does
she see
today? She sees Labrador with its possibilities for
great mineral wealth, and wherein she has a lease
for an air base for 99 years, and in the building of
which she has expended many millions of dollars.
She sees a Newfoundland apparently economically sound with balanced budgets and surpluses,
a country which last year bought her goods to the
extent of $40 million, which has one of the finest
air bases in the world, and which must, of necessity, for 90-odd years to come, be
in close and
friendly relations with the great and powerful
USA by reason of the bases which that country
has here. As a consequence she looks toward us
with envious eyes, especially in view of the fact
that she herself is bound to the USA by their
recent mutual defence pact. Is it not to be expected that she would be desirous of
obtaining
absolute control of this country and thereby cement more closely her economic ties
with the
USA?
I believe that Canada might be prepared to
offer terms which may appear very attractive. It
is my opinion that the people of this country owe
it to future generations to consider well and carefully the whole issue at stake,
before being carried away by the rosy picture which the agents of
Canada are endeavouring to paint. We have only
to look at the economic history of all the
Canadian provinces except Ontario or Quebec to
see that confederation will by no manner of
means bring us that utopia which some people
would have us believe.
I heartily agree with the opinion which has
often been expressed in this Convention that confederation is of such importance that
it can only
be discussed by the duly elected governments of
both countries. We have it on the authority of the
present government and consequently on the
authority of the Dominions Office, that we have
no right to discuss fiscal, political or economic
arrangements with the Dominion of Canada, as
according to the report of the special committee
appointed to interview the Commission of
Government,
[1] these are, "matters entirely for discussion between governments." Where is the
point in our sending a delegation to Canada? I
352 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
have no desire to withhold the terms from anyone
wishing to have them; but I contend that there is
no need to send a delegation when the Governor
in Commission is prepared to communicate with
the Government of Canada and request such information as the Convention is permitted
to ask,
relative to the terms of federal union.
Some may say that I am inconsistent in that I
voted for sending a delegation to the United
Kingdom. But I would point out, first, our political affiliations with England demand
that this
Convention get in closer touch with the real
government which has controlled our destinies
for the past 13 years; secondly, the Governor in
Commission made no stipulation as to the subject
matter of our enquiries from the Government of
the United Kingdom as they did in the case of
Canada. The more I ponder this question the
more I am convinced that the sending of a delegation is neither necessary, desirable
nor constitutional.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, on the night of
Wednesday, October 20, 1943, at a Jubilee dinner
in the Newfoundland Hotel, I proposed a toast to
Newfoundland. In my toast, besides many other
things, I said: "In spite of even the latest sample
of mismanagement, every bit as deliberate as the
former anti-settlement laws in its eventual purpose to hinder rather than to help,
Newfoundland
today, through a combination of world events is
standing on the threshold of our inevitable destiny, the geographical centre of the
empire of the
air." The "latest sample of mismanagement"
referred to, was as everyone knew, the regime
known as Commission of Government. It was
with a sense of vindication that I heard members
of this Convention during the debate last December on the Report of the Committee
on Transportation and Communications, say the same thing
in different words. Principally it was said in
connection with the sections of the report dealing
with Gander and tourism, and I made particular
note of Mr. Higgins' expressing himself in words
to this effect: "It seems as if the Commission of
Government do not want this country to prosper."
Two months after the speech referred to, I
succeeded Mr. Smallwood as "The Barrelman"
[1]
and as editor of
The Newfoundlander.
[2] I inherited
his historical mantle and as I believed, his political philosophy, which was identical
with my
own. At least it was then. For the past three years
I have made no secret of my political philosophy.
On the radio and in
The Newfoundlander I
stressed the doctrine of self-help; that New
foundlanders would only progress by their own
efforts; that a dictatorship, however benevolent,
was a monument of shame to people who had
governed themselves, wisely or unwisely, well or
unwell, under representative institutions since
1832 and under responsible government since
1855. I believed that in l943. l believed it long
before that. I believe it now.
When I assumed editorship of The
Fishermen-
Worker's Tribune[3] in 1944, and first became
associated with Mr. K.M. Brown, the proprietor,
and later delegate for Bonavista East until his
regrettable seizure in this very House, I expressed
the same view in my editorials. And lest it be
alleged that these views were not mine but some
one else's, l but refer you to a letter which I wrote
to
The Daily News in 1945, in which I stated flatly
that in my opinion there was only one course
open to us, namely, that we should seek to return
immediately to full responsible government.
"Otherwise", I said, "we are a lost people." Had
I been divinely inspired I don't think I could have
been more prophetic.
Early in the spring of 1946 I was asked to take
part in a debate on the resolution "That the National Convention is the best method
of selecting
Newfoundland's future form of government." By
choice I took the negative side. The debate, which
took place in a well-known literary association
[4]
in the West End of St. John's, was won by the
negative which side was favoured by both the
silent and standing votes. I believed in my arguments. I believed that the National
Convention
would ultimately serve to "make confusion
worse confounded" in this country, and who will
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 353
say in his heart that present tendencies will not
bear me out.
For such reasons I intended to have no part in
it. If it was to be a trick, as some have called it, I
would not be one of the tricksters. If it was to be
a Tower of Babel, I would not be one of the
"divers tongues". So I reasoned, in a vain effort
to persuade the thin, small voice of conscience
that told me I was shirking the very responsibility
thatI was urging on my fellow Newfoundlanders.
In the end like Jacob I wrestled with an angel
whose name was reluctance and at 5 pm on
Thursday, the 30th of May, 1946, I decided I
would put my name in nomination the following
day. Even then I felt my chances were very slim,
as the opposition in St. John's (City) West was
tremendous from the standpoint of the calibre of
the other 11 candidates.
I have said all these things merely to underline
the fact that the district that elected me knew what
I stood for. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that
the country knew it. But now that I was into the
fray, I left no stone unturned in order to keep the
minds of the electorate clear on what I represented. In the month and a half preceding
the
National Convention elections, I was engaged in
writing a column for the St. John's Sunday
Herald, under the caption "Looking Ahead." In
one of my columns I wrote, "The more one considers that clause of the statement relating
to the
National Convention, which suggests that candidates should have an open mind, the
more one
is inclined — especially a candidate — to come
to the conclusion that it is either a very stupid
clause or a very clever one. It has put every
candidate in a somewhat embarrassing position,
to say the least, and it has put the voting public
into more confusion than previously existed." In
the light of past developments I am forced to the
conclusion that it was a very clever clause, in the
shady meaning of the word "clever". Far better
would it have been if every man could have gone
out and campaigned on his own particular belief;
when the election was over, we would have had
a pretty good idea of where the country stood.
The delegates who did that, although against the
spirit of the Convention as alleged, were by far
the wisest of us all.
In another weekly column during the same
period subtitled "Confederation" I wrote:
There's a lot of loose talk in certain
quarters about confederation. Proponents of
the union are busily engaged in setting forth
facts and figures". endeavouring to make the
proposition look attractive to a degree. They
have a perfect right to do so.... But one right
that some advocates of confederation are assuming, which does not belong to them,
is to
make the National Convention a possible
instrument of achieving their aims. It is no
secret that some candidates to the National
Convention have every intention of making
the Confederation issue a paramount one".
The National Convention is not, and never
can be even a remote equivalent ofa national
government... Before Newfoundlanders can
seriously consider confederation they must
be free, independent people, in the sense that
they will be represented by a government
which has been elected by a majority opinion.
It certainly cannot be negotiated by an assembly elected by every shade of political
belief, and theoretically without any beliefs
or opinions of their own; representing no
national majority, and in many cases, possibly, representing only local minorities....
It was that belief, strengthened by subsequent
events that caused me to adopt my uncompromising attitude in the debate last fall
on the motion
to send a delegation to Ottawa
On June 14, one week before election day,
over radio station VOCM in a campaign speech,
I said: "Ever since the announcement of the
machinery of the National Convention, and even
before whenever the question arose, I followed
the same line of reasoning, both in my Barrelman
radio program, and my editorials in a local
newspaper. First, we have to make a decision as
to whether we wish to retain the present commission form of government or to return
to self-
government. If the decision is to return to
self-government, then the second step is to decide
as a people what form of self-govemment we
think best for our needs — the 49th state of the
American union; the tenth province of the
Dominion of Canada; a status like that of Northern Ireland with control in London;
or to remain
under responsible government as from 1855 to
I934." My views are no different now than they
were when each of these statements was made. If
anything, lam more certain now that I knew then
what I was talking about.
354 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
As for what I think about the Commission of
Government, I reserve that for a later date when
forms of government are discussed. At this particular time I am concerned with our
terms of
reference. When I contested St. John's West I
foresaw the stretching and manipulating of these
terms of reference which could be carried out by
unscrupulous or undisceming men. If I could
have been assured that the terms of reference
would be interpreted as I believed, I would not,
most likely, be in this House today. But sensing
then what I realise now, I could not leave that
much to blind chance. One of the main reasons
that impelled me to seek election was to help to
forestall any move to submerge the identity of
this country into any larger unit without our first
going through an intermediate state, in which the
people of this country under a duly constituted
and responsible government could thrash out
vital and irrevocable issues in a state of complete
autonomy.
I have made this brief review for a very
definite purpose. I wish to make it quite clear to
everyone concerned that this attitude, this stand,
which I have followed and intend to follow is not
something born of recent months. It is to prove,
if there is any doubt, that I have bowed to the line
of those convictions surely and steadfastly, for a
principle which I believe in....
I believe in Newfoundland, in its people, in its
resources, in its potentialities. I believe that an
independent Newfoundland offers a far better
opportunity for Newfoundlanders today than it
ever did. I believe that the time for union, especially with Canada, is past; that
half a century
ago, after the bank crash, or three-quarters of a
century ago, when the Maritime provinces were
going in, were far more appropriate times than
now. We have come a long way since then. We
have now the beginnings of acountry, of a nation;
the increasing population, the diversification of
industry, a strategic position with immense bargaining power, the spreading grasp
of local and
world affairs which was only the possession of a
few. In short, we are now on the way to becoming
a people, a real Newfoundland people, with a
solidifying national consciousness, a national
culture. Indeed, I fail completely to understand
how Mr. Smallwood, who contributed so much
in the past, to that national consciousness and
culture, can reconcile himself with his more
recent declarations of defeat and despair, that
seeks to make solvency the main condition for
Newfoundlanders' governing themselves in an
insolvent world. I believe that having held aloof
from absorption, from union, so long, that the
step at this time would be next to fatal.
Others will differ, of course. Some of them
will do so sincerely; others out of motive and
design. So be it. I have said what I will say at
much greater length and in far more detail when
we reach the debate on forms of government.
When the Hon. Mr. Job introduced his motion
some weeks ago
[1] I voted against it, for it included
the confederation question which directly concerns the sovereignty of Newfoundland.
I did not
speak on the motion, because my previous attitude on this matter was unequivocal;
it was
plain. I did not say I was an anticonfederate but
thought we ought to see the terms when I opposed
the October motion.
[2] For the question in my mind
was, "What terms?" I shall have something to say
later on that point.
I said then and I reaffirm now, that "the final
decision on confederation must rest with the
people of Newfoundland, and that they should be
asked to register that decision only after negotiations to secure the best offer of
terms from
Canada have been completed on their behalf by
a sovereign government of their own choosing.
If these negotiations were to be considered under
any other auspices, the terms secured would be
bound to be suspect, and even if confederation
were achieved in this manner, it would leave a
heritage of discontent, which might well imperil
the satisfactory operation of the agreement." That
statement was made in an impartial paper on
"The Political and Financial Implications of
Confederation" which was read before the Royal
Institute of International Affairs, Newfoundland
Branch, by Prof. A.M. Fraser, M.A., of the
Memorial University College on March 15, 1946
— months before the National Convention was
even elected. The fact that Prof. Fraser lectures
at Memorial University College and Professor
Wheare at Oxford is no reason why I should
accept the latter's opinion in preference to the
former's.
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 355
Mr. Job's motion, harmless as it may have
appeared on the surface, had too many far-reaching implications, besides being at
odds with my
conception of the duties of the National Convention, for me to support it. Furthermore,
believing
what I do about the Commission of Government,
I could not find it in my heart to ask their advice
on something of so essential a nature. Apart from
the matter contained in the motion, the method of
presentation was above reproach and befitting an
elder statesman, and there was no need for controversy.
The bar of history, Mr. Chairman, is a figure
of speech that has been quoted from time to time
in this chamber by several delegates in recent
months, and I believe they were aware of its
import. But if I were to say I am less aware of the
meaning of that phrase on this occasion, I would
not be correct. In my speech at the opening of this
Convention,
[1] in support of Hon. Mr. Job moving
an address of loyalty, I said that few men who
make history realise at the time they are making
it. I, sir, am trying to realise that; trying to keep
in mind the fact that this is an epochal assembly
— without precedent — and what I say and do
now at this crossroads in our island's story is
more important to me than anything I know. Time
may prove me wrong. I will take that chance.
After my speech in opposition to the motion to
send a delegation to Ottawa, I was termed naive
because I was honest; politically immature because I let the cat out of the bag. I
would rather
be naive and immature and a poor politician then,
and now and anytime, than be lumped with the
quislings in the years ahead, in the event that out
of this Convention this island loses its
sovereignty, and loses it by absorption into a
union that is not the best union that might be
secured.
Major Cashin has condemned this Convention, accusing the British government of lack
of
faith in substituting it in place of the 1933 agreement. He believes responsible government
should be restored without any Convention. Mr.
Smallwood thinks the Convention the summit of
political and democratic brilliance, principally
because he means to use it, and has used it in
every way to further his pet cause: to wage a
complete campaign for confederation with
Canada from almost the Opening day. I agree with
Major Cashin up to a point, which l will explain
later. I disagree with Mr. Smallwood completely.
My interpretation of the functions, duties and
scope of this National Convention lies somewhere in between both their more or less
extreme
views. It is to my mind the only interpretation that
this Convention should have allowed itself. The
terms of reference which outlined the work of the
delegates said in part that they were "to consider
and discuss among themselves, the financial and
economic condition of the country and to
recommend forms of government which might be
put before the people as a basis for a national
referendum...." Actually there was no need for
this Convention. The British government knew
the island was self-supporting and could have
arranged a referendum on the basis of this reasoning: "The island is self-supporting,
we intend to
carry out the 1933 agreement, we will give you a
referendum in which you will be asked to choose
between Commission of Government and
responsible government. If you by a majority
select responsible government, that will be restored." That could have been done.
If it had been,
I doubt if anyone would or could have questioned
it.
However, the British government may have
argued that there were many people in between
both forms of government, who wanted the outside control that Commission represented
with
the satisfaction of at least electing a lower house.
In accordance with the 1933 agreement they
could not put representative government on the
referendum, so they evolved the National Convention to consider and discuss among
themselves and recommend forms of government for a
referendum which could, if the Convention saw
fit, include representative government. If that is
what they had in mind, I do not think the Convention is a stall or a red herring.
Like Mr. Hollett, I
see nothing and can read nothing in the terms of
reference that would permit us to recommend to
the people a form of government (i.e. confederation) which might jeopardise the sovereignty
of
Newfoundland and perhaps result in the loss of
that sovereignty without proper consideration of
such an unalterable decision under a sovereign
government responsible to the people.
That is one interpretation of the reason for the
National Convention. There is another. The
356 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
policy of the present British government appears
to be in good faith to let those parts of the Empire
which wish to assume responsibility, have it. if
that is so in respect to peoples who have never
even had representative institutions, then it
should be doubly so with respect to a country
which has had representative institutions for 102
years, and responsible government for 80 years,
and which enjoyed dominion status, now in
suspension with the Letters Patent. Yet how to do
this?
Major Cashin's petition to the contrary notwithstanding,
[1] the people of Newfoundland had
never directly requested the restoration of the
constitution. That does not prove they did not
want it; it chiefly means they did not have the
leaders. So by means of the National Convention
the British government sees to it that they get at
least representatives, and possibly leaders as
well. Then the British government tells the
people of Newfoundland that financially they can
expect to be on their own. The mother country
cannot help out any further. A report (Chadwick-
Jones) is prepared and submitted to the Convention, which amongst other things informs
us the
country is self-supporting. Commissioner Wild
before leaving the country tells the Convention
the country is self-supporting. The various
reports of the Convention when added up will
show the same situation. What then? What else
can the Convention do but recommend responsible government? As representatives of
the
people, they are the people. Again the 1933
agreement is fulfilled. Why then a referendum?
Why indeed? Why many things? Why, above all,
the introduction of confederation under the rather
loose term of federal union? Why the steady flow
of propaganda reiterating, insisting that the
referendum involve three issues, none of which
is representative government? Why should there
be two forms of one form of government on a
referendum, the second of which, confederation,
is in reality an act of union with a larger state,
which by its very appearance on a ballot paper
presupposes that the people have already signified their desire for self-government?
For we
cannot be a province of Canada with a commission form of government, nor with a representative
form of government. We must have a
responsible form of government before we can
enter a confederation or league of self-governing
provinces.
Why, indeed? On my interpretation of our
terms of reference and the definition of forms of
government for the purpose of this National Convention, I will go along with the Convention
as
set up and with the good faith of the British
government. Up to that point, we see fairly well
eye to eye. At that point, namely the introduction
of what is for the time being an extraneous and
confusing issue, my views, and the view of the
British government — if that is the view — part
company. If, as I and many others in the Convention are being forced to conclude.
and many in
the country, the National Convention was ostensibly set up to give Newfoundlanders
an opportunity to choose between forms of government,
as l have set them forth, but in reality to engineer
Newfoundland into confederation willy-nilly,
without due regard for its effect on the ultimate
welfare of our people as a whole, then it's a horse
of another colour.... We have seen and heard
enough to know that, to paraphrase the poet,
"There is something rotten in the state of Newfoundland", and if we strain our ears
we can
perhaps hear in the distance the jingling of the 30
pieces of silver. So much for the terms of reference and forms of government. I stand
by my
interpretation, Mr. Chairman, in spite of all that
is said at public banquets or by professors of
constitutional history in public sessions of this
Convention. I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional historian, but I know people who
are, and who
agree with me, and we are not ignorant men. In
short, if people are told to tell me a certain thing,
which they would like me to do, is that any real
reason why I should believe them or do it? I don't
think so. Furthermore, I do not think I am being
discourteous when I say that on such vital and
fundamental issues I consider my opinion as
good as either yours or Professor Wheare's.
Now I will leave the purely technical aspect
of the matter for a moment to consider the more
emotional side of this declaration. For obvious
reasons, I shall be charged with several so-called
crimes — a defender of vested interests and
predatory money, which we heard so much about
a few weeks ago. To that charge I will only say
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 357
"tommy-rot" for I am no more a tool of the
merchants than is Mr. Hollett, or Mr. Bailey, as
well as the many other men in this Convention
who in the last analysis share the same beliefs.
The second charge, no doubt, will be that I, and
anybody else who believes as I do, is restricting
the choice of the people of Newfoundland by
trying to block confederation. I have already explained my position with regard to
that matter,
but I intend to go a little further to clear up that
misapprehension and allegation in advance. I
believe we are here to discuss and recommend
forms of government, as I have outlined them, not
forms of a form of government. If we are to
discuss and recommend confederation on certain
terms, for the sake of argument, then there are
several other forms of responsible government
we have to discuss and recommend, and in that
case we shall be here another year, and none of
us want that. The proponents of confederation
know that for every one person in this island that
advocates confederation, there are at least three
who advocate union with or annexation by the
United States. There are others who have a voice
in this Convention in Mr. Bailey, who is a staunch
believer in some sort of union with the United
Kingdom, something on the lines of Northern
Ireland. There are extremists too, who advocate
secession from the Empire, with intent to establish a free state or a republic. These
are all forms
of responsible government. If we are to discuss
and recommend one on a basis of terms like
confederation, then we must get terms or conditions with respect to them all and discuss
and
possibly recommend them all. Where would it
end? Where would we be? What confusion we
would have. It is plain there are four options
under responsible government open to the people
of Newfoundland: 1. Dominion status; 2. Union
with the United States; 3. Confederation with
Canada; 4. Union with the United Kingdom. The
second of these I intend to refer to next, and in
doing so I will rebut the third charge.
The third charge levelled at me will no doubt
be the hackneyed one of narrow nationalism.
Why? Because I believe in an independent Newfoundland and the doctrine that God helps
those
who help themselves; because I believe that in
this world no one gets something for nothing. Yet
the very people who would make that charge will
themselves likely raise a great outcry because it
is merely suggested that if Newfoundland is ever
to relinquish her sovereignty and lose her identity
in a larger unit, she could do worse than seek to
lose it in the orbit of the United States. Just south
of us lies the richest, most powerful nation in the
world today.... If we are to forget such things as
independence and national pride; if we are to
ignore the truth that man does not live by bread
alone; if we are more satisfied with servility on a
full stomach than freedom with an empty one, but
with the means to fill it if we strive; if we are to
take the mess of pottage in exchange for the
birthright, and sell ourselves to the highest bidder, then our calculations cannot
exclude consideration of what the United States has to offer.
It is apparent to everyone that it has been considered by those who control us. I
have always
believed that one of the main reasons why the
report ofthe Goodwill Mission of 1943 was never
published was that it had discovered that a
majority of our people looked to the United States
as a far more attractive possibility than either
Canada or the United Kingdom. And that, Mr.
Chairman, is not to say I am anti-British.
It is just as apparent to everyone that such a
union could never be achieved unless this country
were once again a free agent. That is to say, not
until our people are the masters of their own
house, a sovereign people with a sovereign
government which could sign the Statute of
Westminster. It could never happen while we are
controlled by a puppet dictatorship which dances
when the strings are pulled in London. Equally,
it would never happen if Newfoundland became
a province of Canada. We are no Alaska, as the
Ottawa Journal insinuates. Many Newfoundlanders fail to realise that Washington, D.C., is
only a hundred miles farther than Ottawa, as the
crow flies.
Some months ago in a debate in this chamber
the view was expressed that in time there might
be a federal union of North America. That is a
view I have long held. In ancient times, when a
vast area of Europe, Africa and Asia was included
in the Roman Empire, it was the boast of many
men of many nations, "Civis Romanus Sum" —
I am a Roman citizen. Perhaps that day may not
be far away when "I am a citizen of North
America" may be no idle boast. Such federal
union may not be as far away as some people
think. No one in his right senses then will deny
358 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
that Newfoundland's entry into such a union
would be immeasurably more advantageous as a
sovereign nation than as a province of Canada.
That rapidly approaching possibility is alone almost enough to convince us of the
wisdom of not
taking such an irrevocable step as confederation.
But enough of that digression. Now on this
matter of Canadian terms. I have asked, "What
terms?" The foolish argument is advanced that
some of us are afraid to get the terms because they
will be so good that only a fool would refuse to
accept them. So say the confederates — it is just
as well to give them their names, to call a spade
a spade. An equally foolish argument is advanced
by some anticonfederates, namely, "If we don't
get the terms, even the anticonfederates will
begin to get suspicious and wonder about this
vision of utopia that the Convention is trying to
veil from the eyes of the people." Again I ask,
"What terms?" The British North America Act
lays down the conditions under which Newfoundland may expect to be admitted into the
Canadian confederation. It is alleged Newfoundland will get special considerations
through
this Convention, which same Convention has not
even the power much less the right to negotiate.
Mr. Smallwood himself in a letter in
The Daily
News some weeks ago, in reply to a letter of Mr.
Bailey's, admitted that we already knew 95% of
the terms, it was the other 5% we had to find out
about. Even admitting that narrow margin between our present position and our position
in
confederation, it is plain from the committee's
report of the interview with Commission of
Government that the 5 %, the special concessions,
cannot even be discussed by a delegation; I refer
you to page 2 of said report,
[1] which says that
"Your Committee was advised that the words 'or
what other fiscal, political or economic arrangements may be possible,' appearing
in clause 3 of
the resolution, should not be included in any
enquiry or in the terms of reference of any delegation to the Dominion of Canada as
these are
matters entirely for discussion between governments." In other words, we are told
indirectly that
to properly negotiate satisfactory terms for entry
into confederation we must do so through a
proper government, and that, as far as I am concerned, is responsible government.
The only
ground upon which I would be satisfied for this
Convention to get any terms from Canada would
be this: if I were assured that such terms would
be merely for the information of this Convention
and the people; that they would be used only as
a basis for negotiation in the event that at the
referendum the people expressed a preference for
responsible government, and that the Convention, having obtained such terms, would
not be
levered into putting confederation on these terms
in the referendum. But there is no such assurance.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I will say that I see
underlying this indecision about the merits of
confederation as a form of government, the fear
of some members in this assembly that in the
event of confederation not being on a referendum
the country will approve the status quo and these
members will never get into politics. I do not
share this fear. I think the majority of our people
will repudiate Commission government when the
time comes. If I am wrong, and they do not, then
as much as it is against my grain, I will abide by
their decision. Others will claim that if we get
back responsible government we will never again
hear tell of confederation. That is absurd. Any
man or group of men can form a confederate
party and go to the country. If that democratic fact
and right is not convincing enough proof of the
absurdity of the above claim, then I believe it is
within the right of this Convention to put responsible government on the referendum,
with a mandate which will ensure the people that should they
accept responsible govemment, that government
will undertake to explore all other feasible constitutional forms of responsible government,
besides dominion status, to enable the people to
determine whether or not they would be better
served by entry into one or other of the unions I
have mentioned.
On these several counts I agree whole-heartedly with the very able and statesmanlike
speech
made by Mr. Hollett yesterday which lucidly and
thoroughly summed up the present situation and
showed the international web with which we are
entangled. His appraisal of the facts and his unimpassioned though pungent delivery
of his convictions will stand out in the records of this
Convention as one of the finest pronouncements
ever uttered here.
The resolution to send a delegation to London
to thrash out matters of extreme importance to
February 1947
NATIONAL CONVENTION
359
Newfoundland is sensible and well within my
reading of our terms of reference. The British
government must have some attitude with regard
to Newfoundland's future position in the world,
and it is only right that we should meet tdghfghhem with
cards on the table, find out what the position is
with regard to our national debt et cetera, so that
we may be better able to assess the financial and
economic position of our country.
About the Ottawa delegation, I have said all I
have to say. Mr. Smallwood's suggestion that the
people of this country be asked to make a decision
to go into confederation on terms handed to a
delegation of this Convention without bargaining
or negotiation is fantastic. The Canadians would
think we are fools if we accepted such a position.
Accordingly, I propose the following resolution:
In view of the vital necessity of getting
certain information relative to this country's
financial and economic position, which must
properly be known by this Convention before
it can decide whether or not there is a further
necessity of approaching any other countries
within or without the British Empire for
terms of any kind whatsoever; the matter of
a delegation to Ottawa should be left in
abeyance until such time as the delegation to
London (if and when said delegation is
despatehed) has returned.
Mr. Northcott I wish to second Mr.
Harrington's amendment for the following
reason. If we cannot discuss the fiscal, political
and economic situation of Newfoundland and
Canada intelligently, then just what are we to talk
about? This is the people's house and the government of the people only should enquire
into this
all-important matter, This issue can only be
decided by the people and not by a few of us here
present tonight wanting to know the terms. I am
not opposed to getting these terms through the
proper channels. The only means I know of is,
first to elect our own government which will then
decide what they want, and open negotiations
with the Dominion government and see what
arrangements can be made if any. I am not anticipating, after we have the terms, on
living with
silver spoons in our months. We are the
crossroads of the world today, and hold in our
hand the ace card. May God give us strength in
this opportunity to think wisely and well...
Gentlemen, when we sign our names to any
terms. let us be sincere and honest in all our
dealings and may our hand not waver in this
all—important issue.
Mr. Crosbie I have listened for some four or
five months to the question of confederation
debated by confederates and anticonfederates.
When I was elected in the West End of St. John's
I did not know confederation could or would be
an issue. However, we have been told by the late
Chairman and by Professor Wheare that it is a
form of government that might be recommended
by the Convention for the referendum. This being
so, I do not see why this House should be delayed
any longer objecting to a delegation going to
Canada and coming back with the terms. I agree
with Mr. Harrington that there is an awful lot of
loose talk of federal terms and propaganda going
around, and I think the time has come when we
should pin down the loose talk. If Canada has
terms, let us get them; let us know what we are
talking about. We were elected for the purpose of
finding out the financial and economic position
of this country, and personally I am going to vote
against the amendment. The question of con»
federation can be safely left in the hands of the
voters.
Mr. Chairman There is a slight correction Mr.
Harrington wishes to make in his amendment.
Mr. Harrington I request that the words "left in
abeyance" be stricken out and the word
"deferred" substituted.
Mr. Chairman Does that meet with your approval, Mr. Northcott?
Mr. Chairman Those who have not spoken on
the motion should confine yourselves to me
amendment. If you should speak on both, then
you will not be allowed to make any further
speech.
Mr. Newell In the matter of this amendment, I
do not see the purpose of it except if it is intended
to stall us a little while longer. Many, who on
previous occasions voted against getting the
terms of confederation, said at that time that it
was part of our duty to get them, but that the
matter was premature and that we should not send
a delegation anywhere at that time. That technicality has been destroyed by the fact
we have
already voted to send a delegation to England. I
see no reason why, in order to facilitate the work
of the Convention, we should not get this busi
360 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
ness disposed of.
I feel that the proceedings of this Convention
and the extramural activities of some of its members must be very disappointing to
the people
who sent us here. The talk of political intrigue
that is going on, of ganging up in groups, the
determination beforehand of attitudes that should
be resolved in debate, the closed minds to everything that one does not approve, are
a very
definite setback to the birth of democracy in this
land. But I suppose it will be heartening for the
whole country to learn from the remarks of two
of the most outspoken, if not the most unbiased
members that the people are our masters. I had
begun to wonder if we were forgetting that. it is
very encouraging to note that we are not going to
tell the people of Newfoundland what they must
do. Let us hope that spirit continues.
Meanwhile we are here. And if the people are
our masters, what is it they want us to do? They
want us, surely, to secure the facts, the information on which they can base their
decision. They
did not send us here to devise methods for limiting their choice in that decision,
or to inaugurate
political careers for ourselves. Above all, they
expect us to behave as rational, sensible men.
They expect us to have the mentality of a jury.
They expect us to be fair-minded, not supermen.
As reports come in here they do not expect them
to be coloured by the political views of the
authors — or maybe by this time they do. If we
cannot be honest, objective and impartial about
this thing, what are we here for? Who cares what
form of government we, as individuals, believe
in? We each have one vote in the referendum and
no more.
This Convention is unique not because it is a
stall or a sham or a makeshift — that's baloney,
and we all know it. It's unique because we have
the opportunity to sit down coolly and soberly
and figure out possible forms for a future constitution for our country. Upon the
basis of our
findings the whole people will decide the form
they prefer. Nothing could possibly be more
democratic than that. We can make a good job of
it, or we can foul it up. It's up to us.
Meanwhile, our mandate from the people is
clear and unmistakable. At least, mine is, A year
ago the people whom I represent were holding
meetings and discussing their future government.
Some of them, in their community study groups,
have been discussing things like economic
security for five or six years now, and doing
things about it too. I think I can claim that they
are more politically alert than many parts, even
the Avalon Peninsula, from whose glittering
highways I first took my bearings. Some thought
a revised form of the present system might be
workable and desirable, at least for some time.
There were a great many who thought that, and
no doubt they still do. Others wondered if union
with Canada might not be more practicable, particularly from an economic standpoint.
Perhaps
therein lay economic freedom. They wanted to
know. I don't know how they feel about it now,
but i imagine they must be pleased to learn from
the member from Grand Falls that he thinks they
still have a chance to qualify as loyal Newfoundlanders. Most of them, frankly, found
it difficult
to make up their minds. They know what they
don't want — ever again. They weren't so sure
of what they did want. So I'm here to get certain
information for them. And that is why I support
this motion. I cannot conscientiously do otherwise. I wouldn't want to decide the
issue. Let
those who will suffer or enjoy the consequences
make the decision. If we are ever confronted with
the choice of freedom or poverty — and with
poverty there is no freedom — and we choose to
be poor but proud, let that decision be made by
those to whom poverty is something more than a
polite expression, and who have often in the past
had to swallow their pride and accept a handout
in one form or another. Whatever the choices are,
they must be put as clearly as possible. That is
our work. The choosing is for the country as a
whole. I not only believe in the right of the people
to decide, but I have faith in their ability to decide
wisely.... if any of us believe that we are the
servants of the people who sent us here, we must
do the work for which we were sent. And we must
stop inventing excuses for not doing it.
Mr. Crummey I do not think I can be charged
with using up very much time in this Convention.
I do not intend to say much now. During the
debates, there have been many issues brought in
foreign to the subject matter, and the same thing
applies tonight. We are talking about confederation. There is no such issue before
the Chair. Why
then talk about confederation? The motion as
tabled by Mr. Smallwood is that a delegation be
appointed to be sent to Ottawa and that motion to
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 361
be voted on forthwith. The amendment says that
the question be deferred until the delegation
comes back from England. What right have we
to believe that any delegation will be permitted
to go to Canada? All we do know is that the
Commission of Government is going to see if the
English government will receive a delegation,
and what happens there will certainly have a
bearing on the delegation's going to Canada —
if it is necessary. As I see it, it is doubtful whether
our terms of reference permit a delegation to go
to Canada at all. I have looked into the matter and
I am prepared to believe that to be the case and I
would like to read excerpts form an editorial in
today's issue of the
Daily News.
Mr. Chairman If these editorials are calculated
in any way to prejudice the debate, I cannot allow
them to be read. The
Daily News has no seat in
this House; its pronouncements are not permissible as such. If, however, you wish
to state it as
your own viewpoint and not the
Daily News
viewpoint, it is allowed.
Mr. Crummey I state it as my own viewpoint.
"On the third point of the Job resolution an
answer has been made that is quite unequivocal
and substantiates the position that the negotiation
of terms of union with Dominion of Canada is
between governments. On the question of steps
to establish economic or fiscal relationship... the
position is that it is doubtful if the matter comes
within the terms of reference." That is exactly my
position. I am not prepared to vote for the motion
before the House. Do the members think the
Dominion of Canada would risk the chance of
holding themselves up to ridicule by giving to a
wholly unauthorised body terms of union, when
nobody is assured that Dominions Office will
allow it to be put on the ballot paper?
Mr. McCarthy Mr. Chairman, when the debate
on this resolution started it was not my intention
to make a speech. It is not my intention to do so
now. But since a lot of delegates seem to be
explaining why they are going to vote for the
resolution or against it, I think that maybe I
should make my position clear also. I am going
to vote for the motion and in doing so want to
make it clear that I am not necessarily for confederation; that is something upon
which I shall
make up my mind if and when we hear the terms.
In the issue now before the Convention I am
concerned only that the people of this country
should not be restricted in their choice. I stand
with Mr. Keough that it is important for the
people to have enough and a little to spare.
I want the people to hear the terms of confederation because I know that some of them
are
expecting to hear them; to have a chance to vote
for Commission of Government in its present
form or modified form, if either be possible if
they so wish; to vote for responsible government
if they so wish. It is all a matter of what they wish.
I do not want to see them restricted in their choice
in any way. And so, I stand to support the motion.
Mr. Roberts After the impassioned speeches
made here by quite a number of the delegates, I
will not delay the House long with my feeble
remarks. Some time ago I voted against a motion
such as this, not that I thought it should not have
been made, but because I thought it premature.
This time I do not think it premature and I am
going to support the motion. I will give you a brief
history of the political life of St. Barbe district,
known as the forgotten northwest coast, forgotten
not only by Commission of Government but by
all responsible governments; and although I
would at the moment vote for return of responsible government, I would not bind myself
to it if
I saw a better form. The man who runs for member in the St. Barbe district on a responsible
ticket
will have to be a superior gentleman to be able to
convince these people that responsible government will be the cure-all for their ills.
As far as I
can gather, and I know a good deal about the
political feelings of our people, Commission of
Government with all their mistakes would get a
substantial vote in St. Barbe, on account of the
founding of the co-operative societies which
have played a large part in the economic well-
being of our people, as well as the building of
hospitals and roads in the Bonne Bay end of the
district. These things came during the tenure of
the Commission, not responsible government.
On the other hand, our people have had so much
contact with Canada from the days of the first
settlers up to the present, that quite a bond of
friendship has grown up between our two
peoples, and I have no hesitation in saying quite
a number ofour people would vote for confederation, terms or no terms. I have received
since I
came here letters and telegrams from quite a
number of respectable and intelligent people
from all parts of the district asking me to vote to
362 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
get the terms of confederation, and how can I, in
fairness to these people, deliberately vote against
this motion? I can't see what all this bally-hoo is
about. Send the delegation and if there are no
terms that will put an end to delegations going to
Canada for many years to come. Whether we
want it or not, a delegation will go to Canada
some day, either from this Convention or from
some future government. So, why not now, and
get it over with?
Mr. Fudge I rise to support the amendment. I
think you are all aware of my feelings. I believe
that first we want to have a government so that
we can decide in the right way. I paid particular
attention to my friend from White Bay wherein
he told us they have had quite a lot of meetings,
and talked about certain forms of government. I
presume he was speaking for his district. He did
say there was one particular form of government
they did not want. I have an idea what form he
meant. Suppose I want that form, have I not got
the right to recommend it? As far as Humber
district is concerned, I am here as a representative
and I have endeavoured to do the best I can. I am
not afraid to return home. If they want something
better than I recommended, they are entitled to it.
Mr. Newell I think the member from Comer
Brook has misinterpreted something I have said.
I did not say some have expressed preference for
two specific forms of government — what I did
say, however, and in my own mind I was thinking
of economic conditions, was they were quite
certain what they did not want — ever again.
Mr. Higgins I have listened carefully this afternoon and evening to some fine addresses from
all
shadows of political opinion — if you put it that
way —- those who profess a leaning towards
confederation and those who lean towards home
rule. At times I have been somewhat amused, at
times somewhat sorry at some of the expressions
I have heard....
In that speech today there was too much digging up of the graves of people who never
had
any possible hope of being represented here —
they are dead. Records of dead people do not
concern this Convention. What is the point in
bringing up the records of prime ministers? What
is the point in bringing up records of commissioners? It has nothing to do with this
Convention. There is entirely too much of the broken
record, too much of this 1933 agreement, this
broken pledge. That has nothing to do with us.
We do not care if the Prime Minister made a
pledge he did not keep. We are here only as a
board of enquiry. We are not trying prime ministers; we are not trying commissioners;
we are
merely trying to find out under the terms of our
Convention Act certain information, and
anybody who brings in other things befogging
that issue is not playing the game by us in the
Convention. Today the Hon. Labour member for
Humber was discussing the ship of state and the
various articles we should have on the ship. One
important thing he forgot, one part of the equipment we should have is a bilge pump
— we are
going to be sunk unless we can get rid ofthe bilge.
We have the suggestion that they will not
discuss the matter of terms with us. Who says
that? The only way we can find out things of that
nature is by written briefs. We have some official
accounts from Canadian ministers who said they
would discuss the matter with Convention representatives, if they so desired. One
of the speakers
tonight who delivered a fine speech, said that
some people were anticonfederates but they
wanted to hear the terms. I say that lest there be
any misunderstanding about my anticonfederacy
— I am definitely pro-responsible government
and nothing else — but between pro-responsible
government and not doing my duty as a member
of this Convention, there is a job. When the time
comes there is no doubt in my mind about how I
am going to vote, and no doubt about the way I
feel on this approach to Canada or any other
country. It is only because we have a job we must
do. Much has been said about our not having the
power from the people. I am certain that we do
have a mandate from the people to make all the
enquiries possible into all the forms of government that we think might possibly come
within
the purview of the national referendum. I am no
constitutional lawyer — merely an ordinary
general practitioner — but at least I have sufficient common sense to interpret the
simple terms
of reference. The other angle by the people who
are against these terms, is what is the point of
going to Canada, you have not the power to
bargain, you are merely a post office. I do not care
if we are a rubber stamp, we will get what we can.
Once we have gotten that we have discharged our
obligation, and for all who are pro-responsible
government, if we could get better terms by bar
February 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 363
gaining and if we cannot bargain, then we are in
a better position.
I do not see any argument against getting
whatever we can get in the way of information —
and as Mr. Nowell properly put it, when this
matter was discussed the last time, we had all the
same arguments for two days and everyone, except one or two, did agree we had to get
those
terms sometime.... I do not feel like belabouring
the question, but we have had much more talk on
the matter than is needed under the circumstances. I am prepared to move that the
question be
now put.
Mr. Burry Before the question is put, I would
like to say a word. I would like to speak against
the amendment because it is going to deny me
some information I was sent here to get. The
people whom I represent want to get it as they
might want to use it in the future. Four months
ago I voted on a motion similar to the motion
before the Chair now. I am convinced more than
ever that I should be in favour of a motion like
that at the present time. I have studied and
laboured with the rest of you on various committee work and I am not convinced yet
that we are
self-supporting. I can see where a budget might
be balanced, and leave many people in this
country and Labrador in the same living conditions they have been in all down through
the
years, when fishermen have had to live on $100
a year. Balancing a budget like that, we could do
it. I am not convinced that that is what we are here
to do. When I think of that $20 million surplus, a
strange feeling comes over me I am not very
proud of that surplus I would like to get information on the possibility of joining
up with bigger
units, on the possibility of better living conditions
and a better system than we have had in the past.
I was very interested in the speech of Mr.
Keough. I figured to myself that that comes from
the background of a man of service to the poor
people of this country. I noticed the spirit he was
giving it in; knew what was in his mind; knew his
feelings. I have had experience such as that
myself; I have lived among people who are living
in poverty, degradation and misery, great numbers of them.... I am wondering what
kind of
government we can get to enable these people to
get a more decent living.... I am willing to take
any chance to get information that will enable me
to come to a decision later that will get this
country of ours a better government, one that will
give the people a higher standard of living. I am
not voting for confederation, and whether I do so
later depends on the information I receive....
Mr. Hollett ....Mr. Burry states all he wants is
information. If he would read the British North
America Act he will find the information there.
The only thing they cannot give without argument is how much per capita are they going
to
pay us in the event of our giving up income tax;
that is the only information a delegation can get.
All the other things are laid down in the act and
unless the British government amends that act,
there can be no other terms, except these. At the
present time in Canada the federal government is
in deep argument with the governments of the
provinces trying to arrive at a satisfactory amount
of taxes. The idea of sending a delegation to
Canada is unconstitutional and on that I firmly
stand. I care not whether the delegation goes or
not; I am merely stating the point; I do not think
we have sufficient authority to go there....
Mr. Watton We have a motion here before us
similar to one we had last fall, At that time I
supported that motion. I still contend the people
of this country should know the terms of confederation. Early this month we sent a
delegation
to confer with the Commission of Government to
get their advice on certain matters; one was the
sending of a delegation to Canada to discuss
terms of federal union. That committee brings
back a report which says that fiscal, political and
economic matters are matters entirely between
governments. If the delegation to Canada cannot
discuss these things, what are they going to talk
about? If the Canadians
did give us the terms, we
could not discuss them. It is a matter between
governments. In that case, would a delegation
from this Convention get the same terms as a duly
authorised government of this country? We cannot bargain. We cannot talk back. I want
to get
the information and I would like to see the terms
of confederation, but I honestly cannot support
the sending of a delegation to Canada under these
conditions. It would be a waste of time. I am
going to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Job I would like to clear up a matter that has
been raised once or twice. "Fiscal relations" was
not intended to refer to confederation; that matter
was raised by me in the event of confederation
not being discussed; whether we could discuss
364 NATIONAL CONVENTION February 1947
other matters. That was ruled out — there was no
ruling out of the idea that we could discuss anything which the Canadian government
was willing to discuss. This discussion is getting to a stage
where it is tiresome, it is such a simple matter.
We are not committing ourselves to confederation; we are simply trying to get some
information which we know some people in the country
want and some people in this Convention want.
Why we should object to getting that information, I really cannot tell.
Mr. Bailey I have listened to many speakers
here today and tonight. I am not worried about
the legal aspects of what we should do, or what
we can or cannot do. I came into this Convention
after 30-odd years travelling on this earth and I
am here tonight for one reason, because I have
not found any place better to live than this island
home of ours. I am not interested in the terms of
confederation. I am interested in the way the
people in that country live. I have never believed
a large country could be as well governed as a
smaller one Everybody seems to be afraid of the
future because of the past. We talk about a transinsular road. In Canada during the
depression of
1931-32 they put men working on the roads; they
were paid $5 in the summer and $10 in the winter,
they put the men in camps, 100 men to every five
miles; sometimes they received a cheque for 8
cents or 10 cents. They worked in temperatures
of 60 below zero. The Dominion government
handled the depression their way If the Newfoundland government had done that, we
would
certainly have had a cheap road During the
depression of 1929 I went lo the United States I
stayed there until 1936 because 1 could not get
enough money to get out of it. From October,
1931 to April, 1933, I received $378.78. There
was nothing for me but the Salvation Army soup
kitchens and the Sisters of Charity.
Mr. Chairman We are not concerned in this
resolution with conditions in the United States of
America. Please confine yourself to the resolution and the amendment.
Mr. Bailey They had depression in other places
besides Newfoundland, that is what I am trying
to show. I do not believe anyone in this world can
do anything for Newfoundland, only her people;
and I am afraid if we go off the deep end and do
not trust the right people in this country now, we
are going to pay in the future. I do not believe in
confederation because I do not believe it can do
anything for Newfoundland — Canada did not do
it in the past when they had a chance I vote for
the amendment and against the resolution.
[The amendment moved by Mr. Harrington was defeated Mr. Smallwood's motion then carried,
and the Convention adjourned]
