January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1351
Be it resolved that the National Convention desires to recommend to His Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom that the
following form of government be placed
before the people of Newfoundland in the
forthcoming national referendum, namely
confederation with Canada upon the basis
submitted to the National Convention on
November 6, 1947, by the Prime Minister of
Canada.
If ever I had deep respect for the statesmanship
of Great Britain it is now as I stand to move this
resolution, that we recommend confederation to
be submitted to the Newfoundland people in the
forthcoming referendum. My respect for the
statesmanship of Great Britain is boundless. Just
consider, sir, what the British government could
have done. They decided to allow the Newfoundland people themselves to decide what
form of government they would have for their
country, and they decided to hold a referendum
for that purpose. But they decided at the same
time to ask the Newfoundland people to elect a
National Convention to make recommendations
as to what forms of government should be submitted to the people in that referendum.
The
British government could have arranged to leave
it completely to this Convention as to what forms
of government the people would vote on in the
referendum. If they had done that, then whatever
a majority of the members here recommended
would go on the ballot paper, and nothing else.
The British government could have done that.
They could have left it to a majority of the
delegates of this Convention to decide what
forms of government would be put before the
people. In that case we know now what would
have been recommended — responsible government would have been recommended and nothing
else, for as the whole country knows, the
majority of the delegates here are in favour of
responsible government and nothing else. If the
majority had their way our people would not be
allowed to vote for anything but responsible
government. Thank God this was not done. It is
not up to a majority of this Convention to decide
what our people shall vote on in the referendum
this spring. The British government could have
arranged it that way, but they did not. Thank God.
The British government knew very well why.
They know very well that a majority of members
here in the Convention might represent a
minority of the people. They knew that a minority
here might well represent a great majority of the
population of the country, so the British government very wisely kept to themselves
the right to
decide what should go on the ballot and what
should not. In this way the democratic rights of
the Newfoundland people have been preserved
against usurpation, and I am very grateful to the
British government for doing it.
So I say to our Newfoundland people, I say to
the many thousands of Newfoundlanders who
want confederation with Canada, and I say to the
members of this Convention, that although the
confederates in the Convention are out- numbered almost two to one, although we are
a
minority in the Convention, our recommendation
will be respected by the British government.
There is no doubt about, confederation will be on
the ballot paper in the referendum. Our people
will get their chance to vote for confederation this
spring. The many hundreds of people who have
written or telegraphed or telephoned about this
matter to me, can be of good cheer, for the British
government will protect the democratic rights of
our people against all attempts of a mere majority
of this Convention.
Well, the first stage of our great battle for the
people is nearly over. It was a battle to get this
Convention to adopt my resolution to send a
delegation to Canada to get the terms, but that
battle was finally won. It was a battle to get this
Convention to debate the terms, but that battle
was won. Now we are entering the last stage of
the first half of the battle. We are going to decide
whether, as a Convention, we will recommend
that confederation be put before the people in the
referendum for their verdict. We may not get a
complete victory in this present part of the battle.
A majority of the members here will probably
vote against my motion, but by this time the
British government has a very good idea of how
things stand in this country today. They are not
going to be carried away by a vote of a mere
majority of this Convention, because they know
that 99 Newfoundlanders out of 100 want confederation to be submitted to them after
this Con
1352 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
vention comes to an end. When this motion is
voted on next Tuesday night, that will be the end
of the first half of the battle. Then the second half
will commence, after this Convention comes to
an end. Then a great crusade of the people will
commence, a great democratic people's crusade
to bring the truth before the people, the truth that
we have never had a fair opportunity of bringing
before them concerning confederation. Then, sir,
we will gladly and joyously call on the hundred
and thousands of our people who have already
volunteered their patriotic services to this great
battle for freedom and economic security, for
mark this well, this is not 1869. This time the
people are going to know the truth. They are not
going to be smothered with the lies and propaganda of 1869. It was easy enough in
1869 to bluff
the people with lies about their property being
taxed, but this time the anticonfederates are not
going to get away with it, not even if every
millionaire, half-millionaire and quarter-millionaire in the country rallies to the
side of the
anticonfederates. The day is gone when their
money-bags will tell our people how to vote. That
day is gone, and we live in a different age. Our
people are no longer in the mood to bow down
and almost worship a man just because he has
managed somehow or other to make a great fortune for himself. They no longer measure
a man's
patriotism or his loyal heart by the money he has
in the bank. When we say we have a stake in the
country we no longer mean how much money a
man has, but how many children he has, what is
the size of his family, what is his love for the
country. When we talk of "men of substance"
today, we include something more than money.
Our people are on the march in their tens of
thousands. They have formed great trade unions
and co-operative societies, and cannot so easily
be bluffed any more. They have learned a lot the
past few years, and they ask questions, questions
that they never dared to ask in the bad old days.
They ask questions about our vicious system of
taxation. They ask questions about the cruel and
oppressive cost of living. They ask questions
about a system of taxation and of government that
has held them down and made it impossible for a
working man to live decently and rear a family
by his honest earnings. Yes, our people are in the
mood to ask many questions today that they never
asked before. They are not so easy to bluff as our
forefathers were in 1869, and our anticonfederates are going to find that out in 1948
when
the referendum takes place.
Mr, Chairman, as this present debate will be
my last chance in the Convention to speak to the
people of Newfoundland on this subject...
Mr. Chairman Now Mr. Smallwood, never
mind speaking to the people of Newfoundland.
Speak to the Chair.
Mr. Smallwood Well, sir, I have never opened
my mouth since this Convention started without
speaking to the people, my masters who sent me
here. I speak to them now through the Convention.
Mr. Chairman Address your remarks to me
then, if you don't mind.
Mr. Smallwood I address the people through
you, and you are therefore the most honoured
man in this island.
Mr. Chairman That is a consequence of your
addressing your remarks to me.
Mr. Smallwood Iwant to say a word on property taxes. This is the topic that the anticonfederates
are going to harp on through the remainder of the
period before the referendum. Their campaign
against confederation is going to be based very
largely on this claim. They will set out to persuade our people that under confederation
their
property will be taxed, and also their land and
outhouses and flakes and stages and fishing room
and boats and fishing gear and live stock. You
will have to pay taxes on all these things, the
anticonfederates will tell you. They will try to put
the fear of God in our people about the property
taxes. That is their trump card, so they believe.
They will try the same game that certain people
used in Newfoundland where the people voted on
town councils only last year. Certain people who
were against town councils went around and said
to the people, "Surely you are not going to vote
for town councils — they will tax your garden
and your house and everything in your house, so
much for a cat and a dog and a hen and a pig..."
Mr. Smallwood So much so that they frightened these people to death, till they voted against
town councils. That is what the anticonfederates
are going to try on a grand scale, a national scale
in Newfoundland. They will tell you that your
property will be taxed, and you will be ground to
death by taxes if you vote for confederation. Why
sir, I heard the other day of a certain man address
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1353
ing an audience in a hall just a little while ago.
He was an anticonfederate, and seeing a crowd
before him, he could not resist the temptation to
put over a cute piece of anticonfederate
propaganda. He said, "Do you see that? That will
be taxed under confederation. Do you see this and
that? Everything will be taxed under confederation." He thought he was going to bluff
these
people, but there happened to be some men there
who had lived and worked in Canada, and they
were able to stand up and show up his lies. The
anticonfederates think they have a trump card in
this property tax, but they are not going to get
away with it. We have too many people here
today who have lived and worked in Canada, and
too many who have relatives living and working
in Canada for that bluff to be put over.
Under confederation we will have two governments over us — the federal government
of
Canada and the provincial government of Newfoundland. The federal government of Canada
never yet collected any property tax whatsoever.
They never did and never will. The provincial
government of course will be our own government. We will elect it, and they will sit
here in
this very chamber. They will never pass a law to
collect property taxes from our people — never,
never, never, and if they ever become so foolish,
if they ever become so foolish as to do it, why we
will simply turn them out at the next election. It
is as simple as that. No government in Newfoundland would stand a week if they ever
tried
to put property taxes on us. So the federal government will collect no property taxes
from us, and
the provincial government will collect none from
us. Who is left? The town council if left. If a town
council exists in a settlement, no doubt that town
council will collect a few local taxes, just as most
town councils are already doing in Newfoundland. But it is left to the people of every
town or settlement to decide for themselves
whether they will have a town council or not. If
they want one, they will have one. If they do not
want one they will not have it. It is in their own
hands. Nobody can force them. Mr. Claude Hicks
of Fredericton, in Fogo District, says for example
that he has a house, a barn and two acres of land,
and he wants to know what tax he will have to
pay on that property under confederation. I cannot answer that question until I know
if the people
of Fredericton will decide to have a town council.
If the Fredericton people, including Mr. Hicks,
should decide to have a town council, then perhaps the council will collect a small
tax on his
property — maybe a five dollar bill a year, or
whatever the council decides. Maybe Mr. Hicks
would be elected a member of that town council.
If so he would help to decide what tax to put on
his property. But if Fredericton decides not to
have a town council, then there will be no tax at
all on Mr. Hicks' property, for there is no one to
collect a tax on it. The Government of Canada
will not tax his property, the provincial government of Newfoundland will not tax
it — so who
is there to tax it if there is no town council in
Fredericton? And remember that it is left to the
people of Fredericton to decide whether they will
have a town council or not — it is up to themselves. Nobody can force them to have
it. And what
I say about Mr. Hicks applies to every man in
Fredericton; and what I say about Fredericton
applies to every settlement or town in Newfoundland. But the people of Newfoundland
need
not worry; all this will be explained to them
before the referendum is held. This is one time
the anticonfederates are not going to bluff our
people on this property tax question.
Mr. Higgins did me the honour the other day
of quoting from the speech I made when I introduced my motion more than a year ago,
my
motion that the Convention should send a delegation to Canada to seek the terms of
union. I was
greatly interested in the part of my speech that he
read out, and to tell you the truth I thought it was
very good. I am surprised that I made such a good
speech on that occasion. Anyway, that made me
look up my speech, and there was one paragraph
that struck me very much. I think it is worth
repeating. Here is what I said on that occasion,
and now I quote my own words exactly:
So now, Mr. Chairman, we know all the
factors but one. We know that it is lawful for
the Convention to send the delegation to Ottawa. We know that Ottawa will receive
the
delegation, and receive it cordially. We know
that the opposition party will not oppose it.
We know that the Canadian people will not
oppose it. The only thing we still don't know
is what the Newfoundland people want. We
don't know whether they want confederation
1354 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
or not — and we're not going to know until
they vote in the referendum. All we can do is
get the terms and conditions and that's all this
resolution calls for. The rest can very safely
be left to the people; once they know the
terms, they'll know how to make up their
minds all right never you fear.
[1]
That is what I said on that occasion, Mr.
Chairman, and how true my words were — how
reasonable they were!
First I brought in my resolution that we should
send a delegation to Ottawa to ask for the terms
of union. The delegation went, and we have had
the terms laid before us and we have debated
them. Now I bring in this resolution, that confederation on these terms should be
laid before
the people in the referendum. Could anything be
more reasonable? Could anything be more
democratic? This Convention voted by a good
majority to send a delegation to Ottawa to seek
the terms of union. That delegation, which the
Convention voted to send, and which the Convention elected, cost the people of Newfoundland
over $20,000. Major Cashin says it is $30,000.
Mr. Smallwood Over $20,000 came out of the
public chest to get these terms for the people's
consideration, and what could be more
reasonable than to submit the terms to the people?
We do not own these terms, Mr. Chairman. The
Newfoundland people paid for them, and the
Newfoundland people own them. They have
every right to pass judgement on the terms. They
have every right to decide whether they will join
the Canadian family of provinces or try to stagger
along on our own. That is all my present resolution or motion does. It only asks that
confederation on these terms be submitted to our people for
their verdict, for their decision. Let the people
decide, says my motion. Let the people say
whether they will have confederation. Could anything be more reasonable?
The more I think about that speech of mine
that Mr. Higgins quoted from the other day, the
better I like it. I will read you another part, a part
that Mr. Higgins did not see fit to read.
Mr. Higgins I did not think there was anything
else fit to read.
We are all very proud of our Newfound
land people. We all admire their strength,
their skill, their adaptability, their resourcefulness, their industry, their frugality,
their
sobriety and their warm-hearted, simple
generosity. We are proud of them; but are we
indignant, does our blood boil, when we see
the lack of common justice with which they
are treated? When we see how they live?
When we witness the long, grinding struggle
they have? When we see the standards of
their life? Have we compassion in our hearts
for them? Or are we so engrossed, so absorbed, in our own struggle to live in this
country that our social conscience has become toughened, even case-hardened? Has
our own hard struggle to realise a modest
competence so blinded us that we have little
or no tenderness of conscience left to spare
for the fate of the tens of thousands of our
brothers so very much worse off than ourselves?
I said that, Mr. Chairman, in that speech that
Mr. Higgins quoted from, and I ask now, isn't it
true? As I look through that speech of mine I find
I said a lot of true things, a lot of them. For
example, I said this, and as I read it to you I want
you to notice how true it is. Here is what I said:
Mr. Chairman, in the present and prospective world chaos, with all its terrible variety
of uncertainty, it would be cruel and futile,
now that the choice is ours, to influence the
handful of people who inhabit this small island to attempt independent national existence.
The earnings of our 65,000 families
may be enough, in the years ahead, to support
them half-decently and at the same time support the public services of a fair-size
municipality. But will those earnings support
independent national government on an expanding, or even the present, scale? Except
for a few years of this war and a few of the
last war, our people's earnings never supported them on a scale comparable with
North American standards, and never maintained a government, even on the pre-war
scale of service. Our people never enjoyed a
good standard of living, and never were able
to yield enough taxes to maintain the government. The difference was made up by borrowing
or by grants-in-aid.
We can indeed reduce our people's stand
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1355
ard of living; we can force them to eat and
wear and use and have much less than they
have; and we can deliberately lower the level
of governmental services. Thus we might
manage precariously to maintain independent national status. We can resolutely
decide to be poor but proud. But if such a
decision is made, it must be made by the
60,000 families who would have to do the
sacrificing, not the 5,000 families who are
confident of getting along pretty well in any
case.
We have, I say, a perfect right to decide
that we will turn away from North American
standards and from North American standards of public services, and condemn ourselves
as a people and government deliberately
to long years of struggle to maintain even the
little that we have. We may, if we wish, turn
our backs upon the North American continent beside which God placed us, and resign
ourselves to the meaner outlook and shabbier
standards of Europe, 2,000 miles across the
ocean. We can do this, or we can face the fact
that the very logic of our situation on the
surface of the globe impels us to draw close
to the progressive and dynamic living standards of this continent.
Sir, our country is fast becoming a land of
festering monopoly. Freedom of trade is becoming rapidly a thing of the past. I am
not at this
moment speaking of free made; but of ordinary
freedom of trade, the ordinary right, as it used to
exist, of any man to engage in trade, to import his
own merchandise and sell it direct to the people.
That freedom is fast dying in Newfoundland, and
is fast being replaced by monopoly. A new race
of traders has arisen in our midst. They have
secured exclusive agencies all to themselves,
agencies for this and that necessary and desirable
article of merchandise. (I am not talking now
about our regular wholesale firms). What do they
do, these exclusive agents? Do they add one cent
of true value to the things on whose distribution
they have a close monopoly in Newfoundland?
No, they do not. Do they reduce the price of these
articles to our people? No, they do not — on the
contrary you will find that in many cases an
article becomes dearer the moment some monopolistic trader secures the exclusive agency
for it.
A new race of monopolists has arisen in our
country. They will hate me for pointing at them.
They will hiss at me for drawing the people's
attention to them. But there they are, and their
chief accomplishment has been to drive up the
cost of things and make it even harder for our
people to live.
Sir, I have done my share of pointing to the
shame and infamy of certain tariff-protected industries in this country, some of those
local industries, as we call them, that shelter behind a
high tariff that drives up our cost of living. But
these industries have at least this merit: that they
produce something. They do bring in the raw
material, they do employ a few people, changing
the shape and appearance of those raw materials.
They make something. These monopolistic
traders make nothing, they produce nothing, they
create nothing. They are traders, pure and simple.
They manage to get themselves wedged in between the ordinary traders and the people;
not,
please note, between the goods and the people,
but between the traders who sell the goods and
the people who buy the goods. By getting these
monopolistic agencies, they set up toll-gates of
their own, and they collect their own special fee
that is piled onto the cost of the articles they sell.
It only means that one additional and one completely unnecessary item of expense is
piled onto
the cost of the things we must buy. If, sir, I seem
to be paying a lot of attention to these modern
monopolists, it is because I know how they are
driving the high cost of living still higher. We
have seen some of these men become rich and
wealthy men. I could name them for you. I know
their story. This man in 20 years has raked
together a million dollars for himself by monopolistic practices.
Mr. Chairman What has this got to do with the
subject of confederation?
Another man has attracted another million to
himself. This third one is well on the way toward
his first million dollars. This fourth one has
passed comfortably the half-million mark. I look
about this town, and I see men who in the past
half dozen years, the past ten or 12 years, the past
15 or 20 years, have piled up great fortunes out
of their comfortable monopolies. Where did they
get their money, sir? Was it by the sweat of their
brows? Was it by making two blades of grass
1356 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
grow where one grew before? Was it by starting
a new industry? Was it by helping to carry on our
fishery or agriculture, our paper mills or mines,
or any of our basic industries? No, it was by none
of these things. So far as actual production is
concerned, these men do not toil, neither do they
spin. They are just what the name implies, monopolistic traders, who have managed
to grab to
themselves a convenient and easy way of skimming off an extra, an additional profit
from the
people's needs. I may add that nearly all of these
monopolists are anticonfederates. They are nearly all great supporters of anything
and everything
that opposes confederation. They sit and shiver
in their stylish offices for fear confederation will
come and sweep their monopolies into the ash
can of history.
Yes, sir, here are our new rich, our new aristocracy. Highly successful men, "men
with a
stake in the country" they will proudly tell you.
Men to whom most of us look up — after all,
nothing succeeds like success, does it, sir? And
surely the opinion of a man worth a million
dollars is worth a million times as much as the
opinion of a man worth only one dollar, even on
forms of government, or even advising our
people how they should vote in the referendum.
Sir, I would not mind so much if these monopolists took the money they rake in out
of their
monopolies over the necessities of life, if they
took that money, or a goodly portion of it and
poured it into our basic industries, our fisheries
and mines and forests; if they poured it into those
main industries by which our people live. But no,
most of their monopolistic profits go promptly
into other trading enterprises, other enterprises in
which, from a productive standpoint, they neither
toil nor spin, but from which they reap more
profits. If confederation did nothing else but
smash these monopolies and restore freedom of
trade, then it would be worthwhile to our people.
Sir, what I have said on this point, I have said
with my eyes open. I am perfectly well aware that
in saying it, I am creating more enemies for
myself. But it needed to be said. It cried out to be
said. The people's interest demanded that it be
said. The people are paying me some of their
hard-earned money to be a member of this Convention, and the least I can do is to
speak out for
them against these monopolies. Some people
would greatly prefer me to speak on other matters
— for example, the glorious traditions of the past,
the hallowed walls of the House of Assembly, the
form of government our forefathers bled and died
for, and all that sort of thing. I am sorry, but I
cannot do it. Somebody has got to come out in
the open on these matters that I have mentioned;
somebody has got to bring them out into the open,
even if in so doing he gets nothing but black
hatred and a bad name.
I tell you frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am growing
frightened by the growth of monopoly in this
country; I am growing frightened by the growth
of concentrated wealth. It is a frightening thing
to see in a tiny country with a tiny handful of
struggling people, the rise of a new millionaire
class. This little country is not big enough for
millionaires. They become too powerful, too
strong, too influential. They swing too big a stick.
If they were spread out in a country ten times
larger, they could not make their influence so
strongly felt. But they are not, they are concentrated in a very small country, and
most of
them do business within a mile of each other. I
have nothing in the world against any of these
men personally. I know most of them and for
some of them I have genuine liking and respect.
They do not mean to hurt the country, indeed that
would be the last thing in their minds. But just the
same, it is a perilous thing for Newfoundland that
we have so many millionaires, and above all
millionaires who are merely traders — and worst
of all, millionaire traders who are monopolists.
I was telling you a week or two ago about the
shocking profits made in this country in the year
1945. I mentioned that year, because it happened
to be the latest year for which we had the official
figures, given to us by no less a person than the
Assessor of Taxes. His figures showed us that
105 concerns between them made a clean, clear
profit in that one year of $15.5 million — an
average of $150,000 for each of them in that one
year. $15.5 million clean, clear profits cleaned up
in just one year by those 105 companies and firms
in this little country. But that was only one year.
In 1946 they made even more. In 1947 it was
roughly about the same. Since the war broke out,
sir, down to the present time, our companies and
firms have cleaned up, between them, not less
than $100 million in profits — not less than $100
million of clean, clear profits taken from our
handful of people.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1357
I shall modify that statement, sir. I said "clean,
clear" profits. I take back the word "clean". Their
profits were clear, but they were not always
clean. I wish to choose my words carefully. I want
my words to express exactly what I mean. I say
that never in history, in this or any country, was
any handful of people so looted, so plundered as
our people have been since this late war broke
out. It was in many cases cold, calculated
plunder. If Major Cashin would talk about the
plunder by those firms instead of talking about
the plunder of the public chest, he would do more
good for the people of Newfoundland. They took
all the profits the traffic would bear, and all the
government would let them take, and in many
cases a lot more than the government would
allow them to take. I have never heard or read of
a handful of people whose pockets were so
shamelessly looted as were the pockets of our
Newfoundland people during this war. While
their sons were offering their very lives for the
brave new world they were promised, they themselves were attacked by a looting, monopolistic
plutocracy here in Newfoundland.
I will tell you what this late war has done to
our country. It has strengthened and solidified our
new rich. It has put great fortunes into the hands
of some who did not have them before the war,
and it has doubled the fortunes of those who did
have them before the war. It has drawn the reins
of monopoly closer, it has fastened the chains of
class domination more securely upon the masses
of our people. Our struggling masses have
managed to renew the wallpaper in their homes;
they have managed to get together a bit more
furniture and household utensils, to paint their
houses, and generally to do a bit of replenishing.
Those of them whose families were not large, and
who were not quite so far down when the war
broke out, have even managed to lay aside a little
modest savings. But the great majority of our
people are fast falling back to where they were
before the war broke out, back into the same
shameful old rut of poverty and insecurity. It has
widened the gulf between the people and their
economic masters. If the poor have not become
absolutely poorer, it certainly cannot be said that
the rich have not become richer, for they have
become richer. The gulf between them has
widened and deepened. And of few countries in
this world today can the poet's words be more
truly spoken:
Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.
[1]
This has got to stop. I know our Newfoundland people. I am one of them. I am blood
of their blood, bone of their bone, soul of their
soul. I am descended from a family that has lived
in Newfoundland for over 150 years. My ancestors were fishermen, farmers, shop-keepers,
manufacturers, skilled workmen and artisans. I
have dug deep into my country's history, and in
so doing I have paid special attention to the story
of our people's labours, their battles against nature and against injustice, the story
of their endless search for a square deal. I have travelled my
country, north, east, south and west, into a
thousand of the 1,300 settlements in it. I have
been closely and intimately associated with our
people. I have fished with the fishermen, logged
with the loggers; I have gone down underground
with the miners; held trade union meetings right
inside the paper mills. I was never so close to our
toilers as during those years of the dole, and
always, so long as I live, I will remember those
years of the dole, and always, so long as I live, I
will remember those friends of mine, those toilers
who were stricken down by beri-beri, those
children who felt the pinch of hunger. I saw the
heartbreak in the eyes of patient mothers who had
not enough to give their little ones. I saw the
baffled, sullen rage of fishermen whose greatest
toil and endurance could not provide their
families with enough to eat or wear. I attended
meetings of the unemployed here in St. John's,
but who was I to refuse their invitation to go and
speak to them? I saw them in their despairing
hundreds waiting around the street corners, waiting for the jobs that never turned
up, and around
the dole office, and helped to gather second-hand
clothes to distribute to those who were half-
naked, not for a day or a week or a year, but all
through the depression. I saw them, and I swore
an oath to myself that never would I be a party to
allowing such things to come back to our people
again. I would never be a party to any form of
government that would make us know that thing
again, and that's why I became a confederate. I
became a confederate and discovered that confederation would give our people a half-decent
1358 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
chance in life, and wipe away some of the worst
obstacles in their life, and remove some of the
millstones that hung around their necks.
They don't expect riches, but only the widest
opportunity, by the toil of their hand, to earn an
honest living. They have no extravagant ambition
to become millionaires, but they do ache for
common justice in their own land.
When wilt Thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
Not kings alone, but nations!
Not thrones alone, but men!
Flowers of Thy heart, O God, are they;
Let them not pass, like weeds, away,
Their heritage a sunless day.
God save the people!
Shall crime bring crime for ever,
Strength aiding still the strong?
Is it Thy will, O Father,
That man shall toil for wrong?
"No", say Thy mountains; "No", Thy skies;
Man's clouded sun shall brightly rise,
And songs ascend instead of sighs,
God save the people!
When wilt Thou save the people?
O God of mercy, when?
The people, Lord, the people!
Not thrones and crowns, but men!
God save the people; Thine they are,
Thy children, as Thine angels fair;
From vice, oppression, and despair,
God save the people!
[1]
Mr. Chairman Order, please. There is too much
noise altogether.
Mr. Smallwood Sir, I call upon every member
of this Convention to vote for this motion. I call
upon even the bitterest anticonfederate here to
vote for it. Hate confederation all you like. That
is your privilege, but do not vote to deny our people
of Newfoundland their rights to decide the matter.
We here in this Convention have not been
given the right to decide what form of government this country shall have, the people
have
been given that right, and they will exercise their
right in the referendum. If the anticonfederates
here in the Convention want confederation to be
defeated, let them go out amongst the people, and
try to persuade the people to vote against it in the
referendum; but it would be mean and contemptible for them to try here in this Convention,
just because they have a majority, to try to cheat
the people out of their chance to decide the matter.
Since the terms of confederation arrived here
and were debated, new hope has arisen in the
hearts of our people. They see in confederation a
new hope for the common man. They see in it a
new hope for justice and fair play for themselves
and for their children. They see in it the dawn of
a new day for Newfoundland. Let no man dare to
crush that hope that has arisen in our people's
hearts. As for myself, I have accepted the words
of the English mystic and poet, William Blake,
with the substitution of just one word in his
moving poem:
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In OUR green and pleasant land.
Mr. Banfield Mr. Chairman, the greatest honour I consider I have ever had in my life is at this
very moment, as I rise to second Mr. Smallwood's motion. I could not hope to find
words to
express what pleasure it gives me. I am a native
of the southwest coast and a resident of there, and
as such I would be ashamed ever to go on that
coast again if I failed to support this motion with
all my heart. I would be ashamed to look those
people in the face. I doubt very much if ever a
member in any district expressed the wishes of
his district any more than I am expressing the
wishes of Fortune Bay, and indeed the whole
coast when I stand up here to advocate confederation.
Ever since 1869 there has not been a month or
a day when those people were not in favour of
confederation. In the 1869 election on the southwest coast they elected confederate
candidates,
and up there today they are only longing for the
day of the referendum to come, so that they can
march into the ballot booths in their thousands to
mark for confederation. Sir, our southwest coast
people know a lot about confederation. They
know a lot about Canada. In their thousands they
have worked in Canada, fished in Canada, visited
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1359
in Canada. They know what conditions are like
in Canada, and their greatest hope is that some
day conditions on the coast and in their country
will become as good as they know them to be in
Canada, and as they know them to be, sir, from
close personal experience.
We often hear talk in this country about the
Maritime Provinces. We often hear it said that the
Maritime Provinces are down and out, poor, up
against it, and opposed to confederation. Our
people on the coast get a great laugh out of that
kind of talk. It is a great joke to them, for they are
extremely familiar with the Maritime Provinces
of Canada. I have been told that the people down
in the Straits, in fact on both sides of the Straits,
are something like ourselves on the southwest
coast. Like us they know Canada too, not perhaps
the same part of Canada that we know so well,
but a more northerly part. They travel back and
forth across the Straits to that part of Canada
which is just across the border, and they know the
people well, and know what living conditions are
like, and what prices are, and how much better
these people live and get along than they do
themselves. And it is a very interesting fact that
the people of Labrador and in the Straits of Belle
Isle are such strong confederates. As Mr. Burry
has told us, I understand that the entire population
of Labrador and northern Newfoundland are
practically unanimously for confederation, and
are waiting longingly for the day to come to vote
for confederation.
It is a cant word in all the district, Mr. Chairman, that the Newfoundland people
who know
Canada best are the strongest confederates. That
gives you something to think about. Those people
down north and our people along the coast do not
look upon Canadians as strangers. They do not
look upon Canada as a strange country that is
trying to gobble us up. They do not look upon the
people of Canada as a people who are taxed to
death. They know the difference. Of all the
people on the southwest coast who favour confederation our fishermen are the strongest.
The
merchants too favour confederation. Fishermen
and merchants are alike in that, but it is the
fishermen who are the strongest of all for it. That
is because they know how the fishermen live in
Canada. Our fishermen for many years fished
with the Canadian fishermen. They have been
going up there since long before I was born, in
fact fishing alongside the Canadian fishermen in
the same vessels and the same dories. Better than
anyone in Newfoundland our southwest coast
fishermen know how the Canadian fishermen
live, and that is what makes our fishermen such
strong confederates. If all the fishermen of Newfoundland could spend one season fishing
with
Canadian fishermen on Canadian vessels, no
power on earth could hold these men back from
fighting for confederation.
Their greatest worry on that coast today is that
confederation might lose in the referendum. I will
tell you why. They have been in the habit for
many years of going up to Canada to work, but
Canada has been tightening up her immigration
regulations lately, and what many of our people
are afraid of is that if confederation is turned
down that avenue of employment may be closed
against them. It would be a very bad blow to our
coast, if that did happen. No matter what we talk
in this Convention, every man of us knows very
well that hard times are going to come again to
this country. They are bound to come, and what
our people fear is that when hard times come
again they might find themselves bottled up in
Newfoundland, unable to travel freely to Canada
to earn the dollar that they can't earn in their own
country. Many millions of Canadian dollars have
been earned in this way in the past, and the day
is coming when we will need the chance to earn
those Canadian dollars again. But I would not
have you think that I am advocating confederation only because the southwest coast
is so
strongly in favour of it. I am advocating confederation because it would be good for
the whole
country, and for all our toilers wherever they may
live, north, south, east or west. All our people
may not want to have Canada's door open to them
to seek work, when they can't find it at home, but
it is not only the chance to work in Canada that
makes confederation good for Newfoundland.
At the present time, if we want the advantages
of confederation we have to go to Canada to get
them. We have to work and live in Canada to get
them, but if Newfoundland joins up with Canada
most of those advantages will be brought right
into Newfoundland itself. Our cost of living will
come down, and although it may not come down
quite as low as in Canada, yet it will come down
a lot. Free trade with Canada will see to that, for
it is plain common sense that when we take off
1360 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
all customs import duty on goods coming in from
Canada, our cost of living will fall. And just as
surely as the cost of living falls, the standard of
living must go up. Our dollar will be worth more.
It will buy more, and it will go further. Our people
will live better. Then on top of that, our taxes will
be lower, and not only will they be lower, they
will be more just, they will be fairer. Under
confederation the heaviest burden of taxation
will fall on the broadest shoulders, not on the
poorest where it is in our own country today.
Mr. Chairman, those two reasons would be
plenty to justify confederation: namely that it
would bring down the cost of living, and bring
down taxation, and make taxation more just and
more fair. But there are many other reasons why
confederation would be good for our people,
especially the toiling masses amongst our people.
They may call family allowances immoral if they
like, but I for one cannot see anything immoral
about a plan to pay cash allowances to every child
under 16 in the country. I cannot see anything
immoral in sending a cheque every month of the
year into every home that has children under the
age of 16. I can see how it would be immoral to
deprive our children of the chance to benefit from
family allowances, but I fail completely to see
how any man can stand here in this chamber and
say that it is immoral to protect a country's most
precious heritage, her children. We have been
told that we have in Newfoundland 120,000
children under the age of 16. That is more than
one-third of our whole population. I can think of
nothing better, nothing more Christian than to see
that these future citizens are guaranteed every
month of the year at least enough to eat, and that
is exactly what confederation will do through
family allowances.
If they call family allowances immoral, why
don't they call old age pensions immoral as well?
If it is immoral to pay allowances to all our
children under 16, isn't it just as immoral to pay
allowances to wornout toilers who have reached
the age of 70? We have 10,000 old people who
will receive that $30 a month if we become part
of Canada. Why don't they get up here and call
that immoral? They can call these things immoral, butI know that our people, and what
they
are going to call the man who calls these things
immoral. It won't be complimentary.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into the
details of confederation. That was done in the
debate on the terms, and there is no need to go all
over that ground again. Our people understand
confederation now, at least the great majority of
them do, and if there are still a few who don't,
then no doubt they will get the chance to understand them before the referendum comes
around.
A great effort was made here to try to make it look
as though confederation was too hard a thing for
our people to understand, but those who bank on
this are banking on something that will not stand
up. Our people are not what some persons think.
They have gathered around their radios in their
thousands, all around the country. They have
studied this thing, and understand it far more than
some people realise. You will see how rightI am,
sir, when the votes are counted in the referendum.
In common fair play, Mr. Chairman, confederation must be placed on the ballot. Our
people must have the chance to vote for or against
confederation. The choice must be theirs. It
would be a criminal and shameful thing if this
Convention voted against letting the people
decide. I know that a majority of the members
here are against confederation. Well, that is their
right. They have a right to be against confederation, but they have no right to deny
the people
their chance to pass judgement on it in the
referendum. Some members may be quite careless of what the people think of them. Some
may
even be carried away with the fact that here in
this Convention they happen to be lined up with
a majority, but this Convention will soon be a
thing of the past, and then that majority will be a
thing of the past. Members would be short sighted
indeed to defy the people just for the sake of
pleasing the majority here in the Convention.
Mr. Higgins I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we
might have a recess for five or ten minutes?
Mr. Banfield I have only one minute, and if you
will not mind waiting that long, I will be through.
Newfoundland cannot stand alone, all our history proves that. We need someone at our
back.
We need a strong partner. We cannot and dare not
face the fight on our own. That great and wealthy
nation, Canada, invites us to go into partnership
with them. They hold out their helping hand. Our
people would want to grasp that hand. Let us give
them the chance to do so in the referendum.
Mr. Chairman We will take a brief recess. I
wonder Major Cashin, in the meantime, if I could
JANUARY 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1361
see you and the members of your Drafting Committee for a few minutes?
[Short recess]
Mr. Cashin I am not rising for the purpose of
making any remarks in connection with the matter now before the Chair, but to suggest
that as
many members who want to make addresses on
the subject would want to prepare some notes, I
would move the adjournment of the debate until
Monday afternoon. Whilst making that motion, I
want it distinctly understood that I do not want to
hold the floor on Monday afternoon. Also, while
I am on my feet, I would like to read the answer
to one of my questions. I will read the question
again:
I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask
His Excellency the Governor in Commission
to ascertain from His Majesty's Government
in the United Kingdom the following information:
If, in the referendum proposed to be held
in the spring of 1948 for the selection by the
people of Newfoundland of a future form of
government, such referendum will be
decided by and such future form of government will be selected on the basis of:
(a) The form of government on the ballot
which receives at least 51% of the total votes
cast;
(b) The form of government on the ballot
which receives a majority of the total votes
cast;
(c) The form of government on the ballot
which receives a greater number of votes
than any other individual form of government on the ballot.
Here is the answer and as usual, it is vague:
Commission of Government
Newfoundland
January 23, 1948.
Dear Sir:
With reference to the question asked by a
member of the National Convention on
January 13, requesting His Excellency the
Governor in Commission to ascertain from
His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom certain information, I am directed
to inform you that a reply has been received
from the Right Honourable the Secretary of
State for Commonwealth Relations to the
effect that the issue raised in the question will
be dealt with in the legislation governing the
referendum. This legislation will not be settled until after the report of the National
Convention has been received and considered by His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom. Before it is enacted, the bill
will be published to enable interested parties
to comment thereon.
Yours faithfully,
W. J. Carew
Secretary.
I said the answer was vague. We are just as wise
now as when we asked the question. I think
copies of this have been placed on members'
desks.
I move now that the debate be adjourned until
Monday, and that it be understood I am not going
to speak first on Monday.
Mr. Vardy In rising to second the motion, I wish
to say it is a well-known fact that Mr. John
McCormack, one of our fellow delegates has
taken unto himself a wife, and seeing this is the
day after "the night before" I am sure it is the wish
of all the members to wish Mr. and Mrs. McCormack many years of wedded happiness.
I
second the motion to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Fudge I am anxious to get through with this,
and I am also anxious to accommodate members
who are not prepared to speak at this time. But
there are a number of supporters of this resolution, and I look upon it as their day,
and I see no
reason why they cannot come on and give us the
"good stuff". I want to get clear and get away as
quickly as possible.
Mr. Chairman That has to be decided by the
House. It has been suggested by Major Cashin,
and I think I am justified in attaching very considerable importance to his observations
and to
those of his seconder, that there may be some
members who would want time to consider their
remarks before making replies. The motion is
before the Chair and I am entirely in your hands.
What takes place is to be determined by you.
[The motion to adjourn was carried by a majority
of 19 votes to 10.[1] Other orders of the day were
deferred, and the Convention adjourned]
