Mr. Miller Late in yesterday's session I asked
whether or not any discussion took place in London as to possible future relations
between the
United States of America and Newfoundland. I
did not receive a satisfactory answer; in fact, I
received no answer. So now I ask again:
1. Was the matter discussed? 2. If so, why
was it not included in the report of the London
delegation? 3. Is the delegation, having not
reported on the matter, at liberty to answer from
this floor? 4. If there is a "hush-hush" policy on
this question, who, in the opinion of the delega
tion, are the parties behind it?
I have one further remark to make, I think it
very unfair for Lord Addison to pledge our
delegation to secrecy on matters that concern us.
I think that British diplomacy was gone pretty
low when that happened.
Mr. Chairman As chairman of the delegation I
have to say, as far as my recollection goes, there
was no discussion as to possible future relations
between United States and Newfoundland. It did
come up in connection with the bases; beyond
that I have no recollection as to discussions of
556 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
trade, except as to the possibility of securing
concessions in consideration of these bases. The
matter was not discussed. That being so, there is
no answer to your second question.
Mr. Chairman Was the matter discussed? It
was not included in the report, first, because it
was not discussed, and secondly the report of the
London delegation consists of the memorandum
of the British government and of the delegation.
I am unable to tell you why it was not included.
Mr. Miller I think it follows that the answer to
the first question answers the others. The matter
was not discussed in London by the delegation.
What I mean by future relations of United States
of America with Newfoundland is political and
fiscal and other relations.
Mr. Chairman There was no discussion except
on the question of the bases.
Mr. Crosbie I do not think that is quite correct.
I think in connection with the base deals Lord
Addison said there was a conference going on at
Geneva, and that the question of trade could be
discussed. I understood we had representatives
there.
Mr. Chairman We have representatives to discuss general world trade relations.
Mr. Crosbie I think he said it was a question for
us to decide.
Mr. Cashin In connection with that matter, you
will remember the base deal came up at the first
meeting; we asked if any effort was made to get
tariff concessions in return for the bases. They did
not say "no" or "yes". With regard to their taking
the matter up further, they told us plainly that if
we had our own government we would be able to
take up the whole matter.
Mr. Hickman I do not wish to delay the
debate... From the report of the delegation and
from references made by the delegates themselves, it is quite clear where we stand
now. My
thoughts over the last few months, and what
knowledge we have gained here, have been
clarified by the report from London. It is obvious
there is only one solution for us. We have to get
out and fight for ourselves and stand on our own.
We do not want anything from anyone; we do not
want charity; we are sounder financially; our
credit rating is higher than it has been for some
considerable time.
The delegation report refers to the question
which Mr. Miller just raised, further discussions
on the bases agreement. We have been told that
that is a job for our own government. I think the
sooner we can get on our own feet so that we can
take up the question of the base deals with the
Americans the better. Those interest-free loans
should be applied to the reduction of our debt and
so cut down on debt services. That is important,
particularly in view of the lower rate of interest
we will receive next January. presumably.... We
have the ability and the brains and the people....
Our future lies in ourselves, and we should get
out and fight for ouselves and talk later about
what we want to do.
Mr. Newell ....We know what the result of the
trip to London is. We know it in clear and unmistakable terms. We have all said it
is what we
expected. Perhaps there was not much else we
could have expected. Responsible government
means we accept responsibilty for our own affairs. Commission of Government means
that the
British government accepts responsibility for our
affairs. We knew that. But it was not a waste of
time to send a delegation to London. A good
many points were cleared up — points which
would have been indefinite if any other method
had been used to seek the information. I have just
said Commission of Government means that the
British government accepts responsbility for our
finances. Having said that, there is a bit of a catch.
Whereas the British government accepts responsibility for any deficits, it retains
the power to see
to it that we do not incur any deficits. In other
words, the aid we receive from the British
government may mean something or it may mean
nothing. And if we are to rely on the impressions
brought back by the delegation to London, we are
inclined to believe it will mean nothing, or very
little. It is good for us to be clear on that....
Throughout our deliberations, we have allowed our own personal politics to obtrude
too
much into the discussion, and history will
remember us perhaps just as much for what we
said on these occasions, as for what we did. I
regret it has been found necessary in discussing
the report, to have anything to say about forms of
government, and that questions of politics should
be dragged in again, Were it not for the fact that
there has been so much political colouring to our
discussions, they might have been over before
this.... Since, however, the question of forms of
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 557
government was raised, I would like to make this
one brief statement. When we have reviewed the
report that has come back from London; when we
see where we stand as far as the British government and Newfoundland are concerned;
and
when we receive the report of the delegation that
is to proceed to Ottawa — when we get all these
reports, together with the facts we have gleaned
about our own country and its finances and
prospects, and the people of this country should
make the decision to stand alone, though that
decision should involve a certain amount of
poverty — in other words they are prepared to be
poor but proud — I want to say that they will earn
my undying respect, and that I will do whatever
I can. But there are two observations I want to
make. One is, I have never been prepared to
compromise that such a decision must be made
by the whole people of Newfoundland, including
the people to whom the future may be hardest,
because it has always been our fate that when the
boot has been too small it has always pinched
hardest on the smallest toes. I think the people
most directly concerned in any sacrifice should
be heard from before that sacrifice is imposed
upon them. If they take it willingly, more power
and more credit to them. Secondly, ... regardless
how much you or I may come here and talk of
what we will do in the future, there has never been
in this country any equality of sacrifice on the part
of all people. If there had been, perhaps we should
never be in the position we are today. When we
are prepared to stand together and take that
equality of sacrifice, perhaps we shall have the
right to tell other people they are not what they
should be. Let us not scorn any man for looking
to the security of his future, when our own future
is as secure as we want it to be.
Mr. Vincent Mr. Chairman, the London delegation, back from the heart of empire, brought to
members of this assembly a memorandum, endorsed by only five of the seven delegates
comprising that delegation....
I was much impressed to hear one of the
delegates say, in effect, yesterday, "The Dominions Office told us, if you want to
negotiate and
discuss the matters listed in this memorandum, or
this seven point program to which I referred a few
minutes ago, go get yourselves a government."
Strangely enough, however, the London visit
seemed to give added support to the strange
opinions that some of the members already held,
for one of the members of the delegation yesterday implied in his talk that all was
long ago
decided, meaning, of course, Newfoundland's
future form of government. Other implications
were that we were being sold up the river, and
that dark and sinister influences were at work,
and some cold, grey, forbidding morning the
300,000 of us little people would wake up in a
sunless world to find that we had been pawned
off to some other nation. Somebody talked in
platitudes to say what we need is faith in Newfoundland, but I say what we really
need is faith
in ourselves, faith to believe that the fishermen
down in Lumsden, the good housewife in
Gambo, the enterprising farmer in Eastport, all
have enough ordinary common sense, enough
average intelligence, to prevent anybody, even
Mr. Smallwood, from selling us anywhere, and
that they don't need the 44 men of this Convention to do their thinking for them.
I do not care if Mr. Fudge, proud, patriotic and
loyal though he be, uses as his slogan "Thou too
sail on, O ship of state, Sail on O country strong
and great", or if Mr. Smallwood, fired and enthused with his federal union idea, walls
his appeal to Canada to throw out the lifeline — no, I
am not in the least concerned. I have one vote,
and I do not have a price, and like myself there
are many thousands of my fellow countrymen
who, in the hour of decision, will be guided not
by catch cries or slogans, not by impassioned
speeches, not exactly by what this Convention
thinks collectively or individually, but by what
they find to be in the best interest of the Newfoundland we love. Why then should
this Convention become obsessed with its own
importance, worried by fears of its own imagining, so much so as to darkly contemplate
outside
influences, and internal traitors banding together
to work our economic, financial and political
collapse? Gentlemen, the main conclusion I draw
from this debate is that the mother country gives
us a guarantee that is at best provisional upon her
ability to stand behind the guarantee. Should we
then, on this very uncertain assumption, retain in
power a government whose policies we all claim
are not in the best interest of this island? Perhaps
the main objective of the London delegation was
to find out under what terms, if any, the British
government would be prepared to continue the
558 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
present administration. No logical person, view
ing the economic and financial position in which
the mother country presently finds herself, expected any handouts or favours. We are
told that
certain members of the delegation were highly
dissatisfied....
It's time our people made an entirely new
approach to their appraisal of Commission of
Government: a new approach in this way, that
each and every voter ask himself or herself this
question — what assurance have I from the statements of Lord Addison that the British
government will guarantee our economic stability
should we fall upon mean times five or ten years
from now? Or to put it plainer, what guarantee is
there contained in this report that England will be
in a position to help us with anything at any time?
Now quite plainly the answer isjust this: there is,
there can be no such hard and fast guarantee.
I have no illusions as to what a large percentage of our people think of Commission
government, but there are many whose apathy merely
causes them to shrug their shoulders and say,
"This is the best government we ever had. This
government brought us prosperity, higher wages,
and a better price for our fishery products". It's
just as much a truth to say, "Adolf Hitler was the
greatest man that ever lived. He was great because he created a world crisis that
brought us
unheard of wealth and prosperity." The London
delegation brings us just this, my friends: "Any
guarantee of financial and economic aid is
definitely out of the question, and we, the
Dominions Office, can actually guarantee Newfoundland nothing at all." I would emphasise
this
now, lest ten years hence Newfoundlanders,
having made their decision, may once again have
desperate reminders of their choice in the form of
six cents per day guaranteed dole.
In concluding, I cannot altogether agree with
the sentiments expressed so dramatically by my
good friend Major Cashin.... Now I am more
concerned with the welfare of my fellow-
countrymen of 1947, than I am with the hopes
and loves of my great ancestors who, perhaps
more patriotic than practical, waved a flag when
they might have been better employed. Whether
we like it or not, from the dust of old beliefs, old
customs, old loves; from the ashes of old traditions, political and otherwise, a new
order is
arising. Tradition, heritage are fast disappearing,
and with such disappearance is coupled a dissolution and decay of old values. We in
Newfoundland are not unaffected by this historic
dislocation. Only recently a motion was introduced suggesting an approach to a foreign
power.
A few shouted "upstart", "renegade", "secessionist", a few talked of kicking down
any consideration ofsuch a motion, but this will not, this
cannot do away with the conflicting and convulsive sentiment that is slowly, in the
minds of
young Newfoundlanders, tearing down the dams
of the past, and bringing a new thought and
perhaps a new vision for our people.
Mr. Chairman, I am well content to let the
matter of choice of government rest in the hands
of my fellow countrymen. I care not if the
majority view of things differs from mine, but 1
am concerned that they be not misled in their
interpretations of the reports of this Convention.
To this end I submit that l cannot find in the report
of the London delegation sufficient guarantee for
our future well-being as a people, should we ever
need help, to justify my support of the retention
of the present form of government.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, ... the delegation has not accomplished as much as similar
missions in the past. Reference to one such occasion in me past was made here yesterday
by
Mr. Butt, when be quoted the famous
Labouchere despatch of 1857, which has been
referred to as Newfoundland's Magna Carta, inasmuch as it laid down the democratic
principle
"that the consent of the community of Newfoundland is regarded by Her Majesty's Government
as the essential preliminary to any
modification of their territorial or maritime
rights". What a shame that our Newfoundland
Commissioners of the 19405 did not recall the
Labouchere despatch before they collaborated in
"modifying" — or "impairing" as this report says
— the territorial rights of Newfoundlanders for
99 years. Sir Hugh Hoyles and P.F. Little were
the members of the delegation who were associated with this famous despatch; that
achievement was one of many that illumine the pages of
the history of responsible government from 1855
down to almost its very end. Another instance
occurred in 1886 when the House of Assembly
passed the Bait Act which was to sound the
death-knell of French influence in this country.
When the British government refused to ratify it,
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 559
the House of Assembly passed the second Bait
Act in 1887 and sent over Sir Robert Thorbum
and Sir Ambrose Shea to London on the occasion
of Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee. The result of
this delegation and its conference was the
ratification of the Bait Act by the British government, and the weakening of French
influence,
leading to their final withdrawal in 1904 after two
and a half centuries. And as recently as 1927, a
Newfoundland delegation to London, headed by
Prime Minister Walter Monroe, presented a case
prepared in Newfoundland that won for Newfoundland 110,000 square miles of Labrador,
the
greatest asset this country has, and which, come
what may, we mean to hold. These are a few
outstanding examples of what other Newfoundland delegations to London accomplished.
Their accomplishments are no reflection on the
calibre of the members of the delegation from this
Convention. But it is certainly pertinent to point
out to the country the great difference between
these delegations of earlier days and that delegation of recent date. From 1857 to
1927, every
delegation that went from this house to London
went with authority — the authority that is vested
in members of a responsible government, elected
by the people to represent, talk and act for them
in matters of the gravest and most far-reaching
concern. That is a fact we should not lose sight of
— it is the most significant fact of the London
delegation's visit. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Won't we recognise it? Can't we get it into our
heads as a people that the thing that makes all the
difference is authority? I repeat it — the authority
that goes with being a government of the people.
True, the delegates to the National Convention
were elected by the people. True, the delegates to
London — not counting the Chairman — were
elected by the Convention, but we have no
authority, they have no authority, to deal, bargain
or otherwise engage in the legitimate functions of
a government. Not so long ago we were told
indirectly by members of the Bar and the Bench
that we were what Mr. Bailey referred to as a
"glorified debating society" — and our delegation went to London to hear substantially
the
same statement fall in curt tones from the lips of
Lord Addison.
I am not surprised that Lord Addison said what
he did. We know we have no such authority. In
fact, some of us here have been trying to impress
that fact on others. Our principal objection to
sending a delegation to Ottawa for terms on
which the people of this country might be asked
to vote themselves into confederation — into a
set-up from which there would be no backing out
— was that having no such authority to bargain
or negotiate we would be false to our trust by
helping to lead our countrymen down a blind
alley. We knew that we had no authority. The
delegation knew it. My blessing to them just the
same, that as real Newfoundlanders they made
the most of their opportunity, when face to face
with the real government of Newfoundland, the
Dominions Office, to go further than in strict
legality they may have been entitled to go under
our much-quoted and widely-misunderstood
terms of reference. At least five of them believed
they were doing the right thing for their country,
and were not to be hidebound by rules and regulations. I would have done the same
had I been
there. I have read their memorandum to the
Secretary of State; and I see nothing in it that
could be objected to by any Newfoundlander. To
my mind the split in the ranks of the delegation
is the most disappointing feature of the visit to
London.
And yet even without the authority of a
government, and despite disagreement in their
ranks, the delegation was successful in other matters besides obtaining bald answers
to bald questions. It is obvious that they have been able to
speed up certain acts of the Commission of
Government, which it is alleged the Commission
was already contemplating, and which, no doubt
when accomplished, the said Commission will
take the credit for, such as in all likelihood the
reduction of the public debt by the application of
the interest-free loans.
The delegation was quite justified in arguing
the case they did argue, even though they may not
have had the authority. As Mr. Crosbie said, they
asked for nothing that was not fair and
reasonable. No one in this Convention was looking for gifts or handouts.... As far
as I'm concerned, we've had enough of that kind of talk and
attitude of mind in this country — too much.
So in actual fact the delegation has accomplished more than I expected. This Convention
had a job to do to assess the financial and
economic position of Newfoundland. The Convention found that it was necessary to consult
560 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
with the real government of Newfoundland —
the Dominions Office — to get answers to questions which their agents in St. John's
could not
give. This has now been done. We have received
answers couched in the very best language of
British diplomacy. They are very diplomatic
answers in that they say a lot and say very little,
and endeavour at the same time to put us very
firmly in our place. But in this diplomatic language certain sentences have been written
down
— intentionally or otherwise — that no amount
of twisting or interpretation can alter. I refer you
to page 5 of my Lord Addison's memorandum,
second paragraph, on the base deals: "There is no
reason to think that the United States Government would be prepared to agree to any
substantial variation of the basis on which the Agreement
was entered into, or to give any quid pro quo for
rights which were given to them 'freely and
without consideration'. If, however, Newfoundland should return to Responsible Government
it would be open to her to raise the question
of some modification of the Agreement and in
that event negotations would no doubt be carried
out with the assistance of the United Kingdom
Government ...." There is the answer to the many
people in this country who wish for a closer
association with the United States. It bears out
too what I said during the last debate on the
motion to send a delegation to Ottawa, that no
agreements or arrangements of any kind can be
expected to be made with the United States by
Newfoundland until this country is once again a
free agent, able to act through its own responsible
government — that we will never be able to do
so through either the Dorninions Office or the
Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. Again
I refer you to page 7, to the answer to the question
on the "Financing and Control of Newfoundland
Airports". After stating that Newfoundland is to
be responsible for one-third of the operating
deficit of Gander, the Secretary of State says: "In
the event of a return to Responsible Government,
the Newfoundland authorities will decide their
policy with respect to the operation of the airport
and they might if deemed desirable submit a
request to the international organization for
financial assistance...."
These are clear and plain statements. They
should open our eyes — those of us who still need
to have them opened — to the true realisation of
what is at stake. The United States bases and the
great airports in our country are our bargaining
power with great nations — they are a tremendous advantage that this country has never
had in
the past, brought about by the march of progress
and the sad accident of war. They can well be the
key that will unlock the door to the future well-
being of all our people. If their control passes
from our hands irrevocably, then we are finished.
I say that word "finished" in all seriousness. If we
take back our country and its assets into our own
hands, our position will be one to be envied by
every country. At the moment, this control is
temporarily out of our hands — it is in the hands
of trustees who are not going to move very far, if
at all, in utilising that bargaining power to
Newfoundland's advantage.
The Secretary of State has raised the signpost,
wittingly or unwittingly, for Newfoundlanders to
read that they may follow the right road. He did
not say that if Newfoundland retains the Commission form of government, she could
do anything about these matters. He said that if
Newfoundland returns to responsible government — meaning dominion status — she will
be,
and her people will be, in a position to use these
bargaining powers to her own advantage and the
advantage of her people, our people — us. It is as
plain as Cabot Tower on a fine day.
To me that is the most significant fact that has
come out of the visit of the London delegation,
the real find of this game of power politics, this
game of blindman's buff in which we and our
country are involved. They have told us to get on
our own and do our own fighting, for they are in
no position to fight for us. They are too dependent
on the United States and Canada to bargain for us
about matters in which these countries are so
vitally interested.
....In closing I want to tell a story, and it's no
fable; it happened this very morning. There came
in to see me an old fisherman, 80 years old, and
as bright and keen as anybody here. He follows
the Convention with greatest of interest. He told
me that he knew nothing about the country, nothing about what has happened in the
past 15 years
until the Convention started, and he gave due
credit to us all, irrespective of what form of
government we espouse. But he said, "I've seen
a lot of governments, and I firmly believe that our
own govenment, responsible government, is the
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 561
best thing for Newfoundland. All we want is the
right men, and there are lots of them in the Convention, who are a credit to their
race." That's
what this old fisherman said, this old man who
still wants to go on fishing. Let this be a lesson
for us Let us take fate by the throat and go
forward.
Mr. McCormack When this Convention was
convened I understood that its purpose was the
collection and digestion of facts with a view to
determining whether this country was self-supporting, and for how long a period it
could
reasonably hope to remain so. I felt satisfied that
all delegates, as well as all Newfoundlanders,
would want nothing less than responsible government, if after investigation and deliberation
we
came to the conclusion that we were self-supporting. Since that time many extraneous
matters
have been introduced which tended to befog our
original purpose. I realised that we had men
amongst us who were not only more familiar than
I with Newfoundland affairs, but also more experienced in public debate. I felt that
our real job
was the collection and analysis of facts, and not
a political platform or an opportunity to display
our oratorical qualifications. For this reason, Mr.
Chairman, I observed the maxim that speech is
silver but silence is golden, and I cannot but think
that the radio audience often wished that some
delegates did likewise. I remained silent, even
when one of our most loquacious delegates practically insulted all delegates like
myself who
were not in love with our own melodious voices
when, commenting on some letters in the public
press and seeking to justify his long-winded and
repetitious speeches, he conveyed the impression
that any delegate with brains must necessarily
speak to the different reports, and associated himself with half a dozen others as
being the brains
of the outfit. I don't know if the others felt flattered.... I do not make any apologies
for these
irrelevancies, as I have been obliged to listen to
too many since last September.
In speaking to this report I had hoped for a lot
more than it contains. We sent a delegation to
England to obtain facts which only England
could give us, and which were necessary to us if
we were to be in a position to make recommendations on future forms of government.
We
realised that the Dominions Office was in effect
the real government of Newfoundland. We
realised also that the Dominions Office should
have volunteered this information months ago if
the English government meant this Convention
to be more than a glorious stall....
We are told that we will have to take full
responsibility for our sterling debt if we assume
responsible government, regardless of the fact
that the loan when raised was guaranteed by
Britain. We are told that the delegation had no
authority to discuss trade and other matters,
regardless of the fact that they agreed to receive
the delegation, having been fully advised of the
matters the delegation wished to discuss. We are
told that because of dollar shortage they cannot
guarantee to take any substantial quantity of our
fish or iron ore, regardless of their awareness of
what it would mean to our economy, and that we
would accept goods in kind and even lend them
dollars to buy our frozen fish fillets. We are told
that the Commission govemment in its prudence
doesn't deem it wise to apply the interest-free
loans to the reduction of our debt, regardless of
the fact that we have a substantial surplus and that
the saving in interest would be considerable. We
are told that we must pay any deficit on the
Gander airport up to $225,000, regardless of the
fact that we have no use for it ourselves and that
international airlines need its facilities.
We are told that there is no reason to think that
the United States government would be prepared
to make any variation or give any quid pro quo
on the base deals, regardless of article 28 of that
agreement and of the fact that our sovereign
rights were violated by the leasing of our territory
for 99 years with utter disregard for our feelings.
We are even reminded that we owe our wartime
immunity to the presence of the US forces in the
island, regardless of the fact that they came here
for their own defence rather than for ours.
We are warned that should we decide on
responsible government we are on our own but
that, should we retain Commission government,
our financial stability would be guaranteed,
regardless of the fact that when Britain was in a
far better position to assist us, and when we really
needed her assistance, the guarantee of financial
stability amounted to the staggering sum of six
cents a day dole. I say staggering advisedly, as it
left us our present phenomenal expenditure on
public health and welfare, with our hospitals and
sanatoriums unable to accommodate a large per
562 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
centage of our population who need treatment.
This degrading dole left some of us so lethargic
and apathetic that we have lost the spirit of independence for which our forbears
were noted, and
are ready to run begging someone else to do for
us that which we will not do for ourselves.
We did not go to England seeking charity,
rather seeking information which we had a right
to expect, and this report at least leaves us in no
doubt as to England's attitude toward us. Our
confederates are overjoyed at its contents and feel
that it is a real boost for their cause, but I would
remind them that even though civics was never
taught in our schools, the ordinary Newfoundlander, instinctively or otherwise, can
be
depended on to make a common sense decision,
and is not to be swayed by the oratorical powers
of any propagandists in this Convention.
Mr. Chairman, there appears to be a difference of opinion in the delegation as to its
reception in England, but the tenor of the report
leaves little room to doubt the feeling of the
majority. Lord Addison and his colleagues would
seem to have some resentment towards the
delegation, and I am of the opinion that the full
report of the conversations in England should be
laid before the Convention, convened in private
session.
Mr. Smallwood I think Mr. McCormack said
that the British government has told us that if we
go back to responsible government, then the
British government will no longer be responsible
for our sterling debt....
Mr. Smallwood I think it is utterly incorrect. I
do not see in the memoranda from the British
government any such statement. I have not heard
any of the delegates who went to London make
the statement. I am aware there are people in this
town who seem to have got the impression that if
we go under responsible government the British
government will repudiate the guarantee of our
sterling debt. It is wrong. It is utterly untrue...
Mr. Hollett Whilst I appreciate the excellence
of the speech of Mr. McCormack, it was an error.
I believe someone else made the same statement
yesterday. Great Britain guaranteed in 1934 the
interest on the debt, otherwise they could not
have converted it and it could not have gone back
to par. Whether Commission government,
responsible government, confederation or any
other status, it does not matter, because Great
Britain has guaranteed the interest on that debt,
whatever form of government.... I thank
Mr. Smallwood for bringing up this point.
Mr. Smallwood lthought I had a chance to have
a knock at responsible government, but I gave
responsible government a boost. Really, I think
Mr. Hollett should thank me a little more heartily.
Mr. Higgins It would not be that Mr. Smallwood was more worried about Commission of
Government in putting in his five cents' worth for
responsible government?
Mr. Smallwood I am one who wants self-
government for Newfoundland but it is my
opinion that the majority of people want Commission government—I say that as one who
does
not want Commission of Government, but as one
who wants self-government. In my opinion Commission government is the most popular
government in Newfoundland at this moment.
Mr. Higgins In other words, the Gallup poll is
the "Smallwood poll."
Mr. Hollett I believe Mr. Smallwood is getting
off on the wrong foot. Yesterday I addressed him,
and looked up and found he was not in his seat,
and then he cried from across the house, "Here I
am." So you see Mr. Smallwood has already
walked across this House.
Mr. Vardy ....This report should have been
debated when the main report is brought before
the Convention, and I see no point in covering a
lot of ground over which we will have to retrace
our steps at a later date. The information from
London is exactly as I anticipated. What can
reasonably be expected from the British people
they have promised to do, except we feel they
could purchase more from this country. What
criticism we have to offer should be directed to
the Commission as an irresponsible group of
individuals who appear to stop at nothing except
what would be in the best interests of this country.
The Dominions Office assumes no risk
whatever in continuing to guarantee our bonds
while there is a surplus, but the responsibility is
ours to recommend or help to provide our people
with a government which this country should
have, and can afford....
Mr. Bailey ... I am mildly surprised that we have
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 563
received as much information as we have, for
from the first day of the Convention, it has been
clear to me that information was the last thing it
was intended for us to get, and I am sure it is very
patent to anyone who has been listening closely
just as soon as we get into anything worthwhile,
we are up against a stone wall. I could not help
thinking yesterday, whilst listening to the senior
member from Grand Falls, how close he was to
the truth when he said the only reason the delegation was received was because the
powers that be
wanted a delegation to go to Canada.
At an earlier date I said we were going into
confederation with a pull from the front, meaning
Canada, and a push from the back, meaning Great
Britain. We got more from the Dominions Office
than I expected, in fact, all that was intended for
us to get since 1943. It makes my blood boil to
think we have a body of men elected by the
people of this country treated in the manner we
have been treated. I cannot understand how men
with blood in their veins can put up with it. Every
way we turn we are up against those cursed terms
of reference.... They encircle us like the scalloped
shrouds the old folks used to put around a corpse
in the outports. Who made those terms of reference so entangling? Those who wanted
it that
way. The Convention was only intended to show
the world that what would happen to this country
would have a show of democracy, while all the
time an organised minority in the Convention,
backed by the powers that be, led us, an unorganised majority, the way they wanted
us to go,
like a horse is led or driven with a curb bit. The
time has come for us to assert ourselves. I think
the limit has been reached. No greater insult
could be heaped on an elected body, than that
they are not men of honour and discretion, and I
see no reason why the stenographic report cannot
be given to the Convention in an informal session. If the whole delegation concurred
in this I
am sure the people would not take it lightly, but
with only two of seven of that opinion, then it
looks to me like a plot to keep the Convention aw
misinformed as possible, to becloud and to befog
the issue.... Going back a year ago, and listening
to the cheers in both Houses of Parliament when
Newfoundland's sacrifices in both world wars
were mentioned, how hollow do they sound
today to you who are in reach of my voice? Don't
they sound like a travesty of democracy? Why the
change from 1933, one has only to turn to RA,
MacKay's book on Newfoundland, page 503.
[1]
Now the following paragraph in my opinion
is making trouble for us today. This is where we
get the pull and push. This makes Britain and
Canada partners through the ages or until swords
are beaten into ploughshares. This is why today
only a small minority in the Convention is in the
know, and the rest of us are treated like children.
The iron curtain has nothing on it. This paragraph
goes on to say.
The Newfoundland region is of vital strategic
importance to Canada, both for its direct
defence and, if it so decides, for despatching
air to Great Britain in the event of war. It
would be ignominious to Canadians to leave
to the United States responsibility for the
direct defence of Canada's eastern frontier as
would be the case were the United States
alone able to operate in the Newfoundland
region. And now that Canada has become a
substantial air and naval power in her own
right, it would be equally ignominious to
Canadians to leave to Great Britain sole
responsibility for protecting the North Atlantic trade routes if Canada were an active
partner in war. Freedom to operate for
defence purposes in the Newfoundland
region is thus an important consideration of
Canadian defence.
I see nothing wrong with this, being British
and a believer in the old navy axiom, "Twice blest
is he who has his quarrel just, but four times blest
is he who gets his blow in first." The only thing
wrong with it is that we are treated like children.
We are the oldest colony, yet with our record
behind us, ashore and afloat, we are shuffled
around like pawns on a chess board. Why could
not that which has been taken from us have been
given back? And with a government of our own,
meet both the imperial and the Canadian
authorities and let us take our share of the burden.
If we haven't the cash, we have the men, and I'll
wager my life that we will keep up our end of the
stick. We did it before and we can do it again. We
manned the ships for Canada in World War I, and
our record speaks for itself. Everything has been
done by certain members to vilify and cheapen us
in the eyes of the world. This paragraph speaks
564 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
for itself. That is why I draw the attention of the
Convention to it. Only one thing more I'll say,
the Convention must be composed of men from
the districts, so the Convention Act says. I guess
that was so in order that we would have men who
are not conversant with power politics — men
who could have put it over them. Well, that day
is past and I believe that somebody is going to get
a surprise this time, and it won't be Newfoundland. You can't fool all the people
all the
time.
Mr. Banfield ....Today we know where we
stand. Today we know what Great Britain can do
for us or can
not do for us, whatever form of
government we may have in future. In the first
place, we know that if we vote to have responsible government, Great Britain will
not give us
any financial help whatsoever should we ever
need such help. We will be free to vote for
responsible government if we want to, but we
will be on our own from that moment. If the
people feel sure that their country is self-supporting now, and that it will be self-supporting
in the
years to come; if they feel sure that this country
can go ahead on her own, without any help from
anybody; if they have no fears of any future
depression they will no doubt vote for responsible government. Whether they feel such
confidence I do not know. Only time will tell....
The delegation brought back another piece of
information: that if we decide to remain under the
Commission system of government, the British
government will continue to guarantee our financial stability. That sounds like a
lot more than it
really is. I suppose the British government did not
feel like saying that they would chop us off
altogether if we decided to remain under the
Commission system, but when we consider
Britain's own very bad condition, we must
suspect that if they had been free to express their
real feelings, they would have said to us, "You
can have any form of government you like, but it
will have to be without any help from us, for we
are simply not in a position to help you under
Commission government or any other form of
government."
Like Mr. Smallwood, I honour the mother
country for her generous and gallant offer, but I
cannot help remembering what I have read and
heard about her own terrible condition.... I doubt
very much whether Britain will be in any position
to help Newfoundland for many, many years to
come. Britain needs help herself — it is nothing
short of selfishness on our part if we look to her
for help....
To sum it up, Mr. Chairman, it seems that
under responsible government we'll get nothing
at all from Great Britain; and that under Commission government it'll be very little
more, We
might as well face it right now, that so far as the
mother country is concerned, this country is on
her own right now, and will be on her own in the
years to come....
Mr. Fudge ....Unfortunately there were seven
delegates went over. I say unfortunately, because
there should have been only five, and they would
have agreed. Now the position of the disagreement, as I see it, repeats itself back
to the first
time they sent out their three goodwill commissioners to Newfoundland. Some of you
saw them,
and they went back with the verdict that we in
Newfoundland did not know what we wanted.
The second time they sent the Prime Minister of
Great Britain with two others. I understand the
same verdict was marked against us. Now they
have a National Convention set up, wherein the
people can discuss the suitable form or forms of
government they desire.
The manager of the hotel, and his wife, which
housed the Newfoundland delegation, were kind
to us. They did all they possibly could. They gave
us all they had, but I am still convinced that had
any other concern, other than Dominions Office
or the Office of Home Affairs, looked after it, we
would have had better accomodation than we
had. As far as cars are concerned, I think we did
get a couple ofcars once free, but I think I spent
most of my surplus money on cars, getting back
and forth to the Dominions Office.
Now you know the good book reminds us of
the ten virgins who went out, and says there were
five wise and five foolish. I wonder whether or
not this country will think there are two wise and
five foolish. That is up to them to judge. The two
gentlemen who could not see eye to eye with us
in signing this document, they have a perfect
right, but I was surprised to find that the whole
seven took an active part in making the report,
and then later the division came.
On our arrival at Gander on our way over we
were met by the staff at the airport. We were
treated well there, and on our return we were
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 565
treated as well as could be expected. I hope that
out of the visit of the delegation to London some
good will come. The referendum of course will
be put to the people some time, I am not prepared
to say when. In fact there is no guarantee that it
will be, but let's assume that it will. I repeat the
statement that I made over there, that the people
themselves will be in a position to judge as to
what form of government they want at the proper
time.
Mr. MacDonald ....I have been listening to the
speeches of the delegates and I think that 50% of
the information that they gave us, and they gave
us a good deal, is not contained in the report.
Where did it come from? Is it in these secret
meetings that we are not supposed to hear about?
I think that this Convention should be in possession of the proceedings of these meetings.
I
would like to ask if you made a definite mling
that we can't get them, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. MacDonald Thank you.... I don't see anything in this report, as far as I can see, relating
to
item 7: "Any other matters...." Did the delegation
discuss any other matters or not, and if so, can
this Convention have that information?
Mr. Chairman I have no recollection of any
other matters that were discussed. They may possibly have been incidentally mentioned.
One
thing that was discussed, which was not specify
cally mentioned, was the question of frozen fish.
Mr. Smallwood There was one other point that
was mentioned and replied to, the question was
put to the British government, "Could there be
only two forms of government on the ballot?"
Mr. Smallwood Therefore it was raised. Could
there be only two forms, Commission government and responsible government? Their answer
is given — they said, "No, that is not so. The
Convention can recommend other suitable forms
as well to be put before the people."
Mr. Kennedy ....I wish to emphasise the urgency for action in the present position into which
we true Newfoundlanders find ourselves bullied.
The idea of the l939-46 conflict having been
waged to put an end to all tyranny has become
daily more farcical. When men are condemned
by a more powerful nation for merely questioning
the rule of their own country, the situation calls
for more than polite verbal replies. Daily — one
might say hourly — what remains in our dwindling treasury is being disposed of in
the same
manner in which our soil was wrenched from us
for 50 creaking destroyers, a considerable number of which were too decrepit to even
survive
the Atlantic crossing. I wager that the land
wrenched from us for their payment has not
deteriorated in its solidity or value. An investigation 12 months after purchase into
the worth of
the scrap hulks for which part of us were sold, and
into the actual number of these destoyers seaworthy enough to be taken into active
operation,
would no doubt have had interesting results.
During these transactions it was my questionable
honour and privilege to be a guest of England,
and the Dominions Office seemed in no haste for
me to leave. I doubt that they enjoyed my company or presence to any great extent,
but I was
then what my country is proving now, a vassal
and useful pawn. As each newly-acquired
destroyer broke into pieces or failed to float, my
humility was incurred by reminders from English
individuals on the apparent worth of our beloved
country.
I must admit I expected no more than was
received from the dictators that have bled this
island in recent years. Major Cashin has already
told us that Britain herself is in a precarious
position internationally. She is struggling, and
the man in fear of drowning has little thought and
less ability to save a weaker comrade, even be
that comrade in far shallower water. I am consoled by the fact that the majority of
the delegation possessed sufficient common sense,
sufficient love of their country, sufficient faith in
themselves, and sufficient pride and independence to have stood on their feet and
not knelt
on their knees to the big brother with a whip in
his hand.
During early sessions of the Convention the
general public was politely, but at the same time
unfairly informed that they were only to be given
those facts that the Commission decreed they
should know. These same people were to stand
outside locked doors while the disposal of the
assets provided by them, the little people, were
explained away without excuse by their servants,
imported from England. Surprisingly enough
Mr. Newfoundlander took this lying down, as he
has learned to take quite a number of impositions
566 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
during late years.
Now two members of the recent delegation
have decided that, as elected members, they have
the power to keep back knowledge from the very
men that voted to send them to England. I was
elected into a position of trust by my district as
were all other members, and in such a position I
demand here and now to know why two members
have the right to withhold any knowledge that we
sent them out to get....
Mr. Higgins Mr. Chairman, following the
remarks a few moments ago by Mr. Smallwood,
I wonder if you would enlighten the Convention,
as well as myself, on that part of the memorandum in which the British authorities
were asked
as to forms of government, and the answer you
brought back that forms of government other than
responsible government and retention of Commission could be recommended. What I want
to
know is, were federal unions discussed, and did
you get permission, or were you advised that
federal union is a proper form of government that
this Convention could recommend?
Mr. Chairman I am not certain whether the
term "federal union" was mentioned at all.
Mr. Higgins Well, confederation, or anything
of that nature?
Mr. Chairman I cannot remember whether
anything meaning that was discussed.... Probably
some other gentleman can tell you that.
Mr. Hollett The point raised by Mr. Higgins
was definitely dealt with by the delegation in the
conversations, and that is one of the points which
I made yesterday, that you cannot get a true
perspective on that report without knowing exactly what was said. It is all very well
for Lord
Addison to sit down and write an answer to a
question. It is quite another thing when that person is asking questions thereon and
getting
replies. I still maintain that the Convention
which sent us over there should have the right of
access to the conversations which took place
between the delegates and Lord Addison and
Dominions Office. I say that with due regard to
the rule made by you yesterday, and I have a right
to disagree with any rule. I trust we are still
democratic in this country.
Mr. Chairman The simplest way is to ask
Dominions Office if there is any objection to the
disclosure of that information. The arrangement
was made that these documents would not be
disclosed, and we cannot do so without the consent of the other party.
Mr. Hollett I maintain that that was only so that
we could not have newspaper reporters in here.
That was the meaning. It was never meant that
the delegation which was sent over by this Convention should keep things from the
members of
this Convention.
Mr. Chairman The only way is to enquire from
Lord Addison what he meant. My clear understanding is that these things were to be
kept
secret.
Mr. Hollett Might I suggest that before you
give a final decision you peruse these
stenographic notes? I am prepared after that to
accept your ruling, if there is anything which you
feel should not be put before the Convention, but
not otherwise. I am not prepared to accept a ruling
by anybody on something he does not know
anything about, which he has never read.
There has been an impression given by some
members which is wrong. Great Britain is not by
any means starving. Great Britain is not on her
back.... True, she is somewhat crippled and
scarred and bruised, but when a country like
Great Britain can, within the last two years, give
out freely, and without any hope of ever getting
it back, $300,000 million to various European
and Asiatic countries, that country is not broke.
It is merely a matter of the upsetting of currency.... I don't want this Convention
to get the idea
that Great Britain is so poverty-stricken as some
people would have you believe. I have every faith
in the British Empire. I have no doubts whatsoever that the empire to which we belong,
and for
which Kennedy and others of you fought, will not
go down.... I referred yesterday to the treatment
we got in 1933 to 1940. That is not the treatment
of the English or Irish or Scotch people. It was
the treatment of the people in Dominions Office,
who know no more about this country than they
know about Burma, India and other countries that
have been under British rule. One man in that
Dominions Office wanted to know where we sent
our saltfish — was it to Belgium or Holland?
There's nothing wrong with the English, Irish or
Scotch people. They know nothing whatever
about the political position in this country. We
have never publicised it enough ourselves. We
May 1947 NATIONAL CONVENTION 567
have not gone in the right way about it to tell these
people, our own kith and kin, what ignominy we
have been subjected to in the past years. Don't
get the idea that Great Britain, whom we are all
prepared to love and serve and die for, is down
and out, because mark you she will rise from that
crippled state in which she at present finds herself. All we need is for our people
to get together
and forget these petty little differences, and start
to fight our own battles in our own way, and put
men at the head of the government who know
exactly what they are doing, good hard-headed
businessmen — not mealy-mouthed politicians
who think politics are so filthy and dirty that they
would not touch it. No, you want hard-headed
businessmen like Crosbie. I am not saying he
would be any good there, but men like him, who
would be prepared to fight. If you do fall by the
wayside, Great Britain will be ready and willing
to help. Please, I want to make that correction,
Great Britain is still Great Britain.
Mr. Higgins As I was the one who brought up
the matter, I would like to have your ruling. Is it
right and proper to say that members who have
copies of this transcript might refer to them for
the purpose of refreshing their memories, and
then they could answer?
Mr. Chairman They have no right to give the
exact words used.
Mr. Bailey I cannot understand why we as a
Convention cannot get this information. Seven
members got it. ls it because our intelligence is
not as good, or our honour is not as good? I am
sure the Dominions Office did not specify that
that information should be kept from us. If everything else is outside our terms of
reference. I think
this is inside. I move that this information be
given in camera to this Convention.
Mr. Crosbie To settle this question I move that
the Dominions Office be asked if the information
can be given this Convention.
Mr. Chairman It would be better, possibly, if
this motion were made in regular session. As the
matter is not of very grave importance, I put the
motion now, so that we can discuss it. Is the
committee ready for the question?
Mr. Higgins Is this the position, that the copy
we have here is an entirely different one from the
Dominions Office copy? Have they seen our
copy? Â
Mr. Job We could send our copy and see if they
have any objection. It seems a very grave question; either there was or was not an
undertaking
given to keep this private. If there was an undertaking we would disgrace ourselves
if we committed a breach of confidence.
Mr. Chairman Will you permit me to read the
resolution? The motion is that the copy of the
proceedings now in the possession of the London
delegation be sent to the Dominions Office when
transcribed, with a request that permission be
given to disclose this copy to the Convention
and/or the public.
[The motion carried]
Mr. Chairman Mr. Secretary, will you have the
necessary copy prepared so that I can take it to
His Excellency at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Starkes Mr. Chairman, the situation is getting clearer. Bit by bit we are beginning to see
just where our country stands. Slowly we are
commencing to see the light.
I expect to see another depression in this
country. All the figures and all the talk in the
world is not going to drive it out of my mind that
a depression will come upon us before many
years are over. I do not believe that our present
earning power is going to continue. In the past
few years, thanks to the war, our country and our
people have enjoyed greater prosperity than they
ever dreamed of. Some prospered more than
others, but all shared in the prosperity to some
extent. I can see the handwriting on the wall —
that prosperity is going to pass away. We have
heard a lot of talk about our terms of reference.
The most important words in those terms of reference to my mind are these: "and bearing
in
mind the extent to which our prosperity is the
result of the war." That is what we have to bear
in mind all the time — that our present prosperity,
such as it is, is the result of the war. The war is
now over, or almost over, and the cause is
removed, so the result will pass away also. We
would not be very patriotic if we blinked these
facts out of sight....
The time has not yet come for us to discuss
forms of government. We are still trying to get all
the facts we can, so that we can base our opinion
568 NATIONAL CONVENTION May 1947
on solid facts. That is why we sent this delegation
to London We wanted to know just where we
stood with the old country. Did they really mean
it when they told us that we could vote for any
form of government we liked? They told the
delegation that we could vote for any form of
government we liked. We wanted to know where
we would stand if we voted for responsible
government. They told the delegation that if we
voted for responsible government we would be
on our own so far as Britain is concerned. We
wanted to know where we would stand if we
voted for Commission government. They told the
delegation that if we voted for Commission
government they would continue to stand behind
it.
Now, when a man promises to do something
for you, it's only common sense to take a look at
his ability to do what he promises. He may make
the promise in good faith and sincerity, but he
may not be able to keep his promise. And so it is
with Great Britain. She promises to help Newfoundland if we need help in the future
—
provided we stay under Commission government. But then we take a look at Britain's
condition, and we are very doubtful whether Britain
would be able to give us any help for many years
to come.
I have very great doubt about Britain's ability
to help this country. I have no doubt at all about
her sincerity.... If I had to sum it all up, I would
say that so far as Great Britain is concerned, this
country is on its own right now. We' ll get no help
from Britain whatever form of government we
may choose. We needed to have the information
that the London delegation brought back to us,
and at last we are beginning to know where we
stand.
Mr. Higgins I move that having received the
report it be laid on the table for future reference.
[The motion carried. The committee rose and reported, and the Convention adjourned]
