Mr. Chairman The motion before the Chair is,
"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. I take it you are speaking to the
motion?
Mr. Penney Yes, sir. I was going to say when
interrupted, that I never expected to live long
enough to see a bunch of Newfoundlanders trying
to barter away their country under such a barefaced pretence...
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Penney has already in the
first sentence imputed dishonourable motives to
those of us who believe in confederation. Do I
have to stand for that?
Mr. Chairman I do not think you ought to say
that. They may be bartering away their country;
but I do not think you ought to say "under barefaced pretence".
Mr. Penney I never expected to live long
enough to see a bunch of Newfoundlanders trying
to barter away their country, but lo and behold,
that very thing is on us now. It is not my intention
to delay the work of this Convention in its final
stages with a long-winded address, no more than
I have done heretofore. Rather, I prefer to let it
die in peace. There are, however, a few remarks
I would like to make in regard to forms of government and the confederation issue
in particular,
and in doing so I will confine myself chiefly to
an aspect of the confederation proposition that to
my way of thinking at any rate, has not been
sufficiently stressed, and is one of the key points
to the question.
First of all, however, may I take you back to
October and November 1946, when the confederation issue was first raised through a
motion
suddenly thrust upon this assembly to send a
delegation to Ottawa to seek terms of union. That
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1363
was at a time when we had not gotten anywhere
in our studies of our own country's affairs, but
which up to that time we were all endeavouring
to do, calmly and dispassionately. So it seems
clear now, if it was not then, that there was
something behind that move that certainly was
not helpful to this Convention, because it
definitely split us into two groups, and the gap
created then has opened wider and wider through
continuous confederation propaganda, until we
find ourselves today lined up in two opposing
sides awaiting a final decision. In pointing to the
reason and cause why this Convention has not
been able to perform the duties assigned it sooner
can be definitely attributed to confederation
propaganda, no matter what may be said to the
contrary, I have come to believe that there was a
planned scheme to try and sell out our country to
Canada from the very beginning.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. "Planned
scheme to sell out the country to Canada from the
beginning." Every time this man gets off that kind
of insulting remark, I am getting on my feet. I am
a member of this Convention. I was elected here.
I have the rights of a member. These rights say I
shall not be insulted by a member's imputing
dishonest motives to me, even by a man such as
this man.
Mr. Chairman I am cognisant of the fact that
you are a member of this Convention. I am compelled to rule that you are not permitted
to use
language that is calculated to impute dishonesty,
and which is offensive in character, to any member of the house. I have to rule that
Mr.
Smallwood's point is well taken and I have to rule
you out of order, Mr. Penney.
Mr. Penney Could I be permitted to use the
word "barter"?
Mr. Chairman I do not think you ought to use
language to impute dishonest motives. You may
disagree with his motives or his politics, but I do
not think you are entitled to impute he is
dishonest in his beliefs simply because of the fact
that you do not agree with his beliefs.
Mr. Penney I was trying to follow down the
history of confederation and to show it was a
planned move in this Convention.
Mr. Chairman Please do so, but do not impute
dishonesty to any member of the House.
Mr. Penney The one thing I cannot understand
is that when a motion was moved that we send a
delegation to Washington, we were turned down
flatly. Having opposed the first attempt (I was
home with the flu when the second attempt was
made) to force confederation over and above all
else on this Convention, I feel it my duty to say I
am opposed to all attempts to make terms with
Canada at this time, until at any rate the people
of Newfoundland have been given a fair chance
to elect their own government and initiate trade
talks with Washington, in the belief that no true-
blooded Newfoundlander would dare consent to
barter away — is that all right, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Penney Before making absolutely sure that
the price is the very best obtainable and nothing
less than the best, if and when we should be
obliged to sell at all.
The so-called terms as contained in the Black
and Grey Books are most certainly not the best
obtainable for Newfoundland, notwithstanding
the persistent and sustained efforts of the confederate-in-chief and his supporters
to try and
make you believe otherwise. The pros and cons
of these so-called terms have been debated since
November 1947, so that now all are wise to their
implications. The able addresses of delegates
Job, Higgins, Cashin, Crosbie, Harrington, Butt,
Fudge, Hollett, Reddy, Hickman, Cranford and
others, have shown clearly what is involved in
this proposition, while one could, I was going to
say, smell the scent of senators' seats in some of
the supporters of this scheme.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. Is this man permitted under your guidance and under your control
to make these remarks, and then having made
them, force me to a point of order after they are
made? Is he going to defy your ruling? You have
ordered that he is not to impute dishonesty. Now
he has made the remark imputing dishonesty, that
we who are advocating confederation are doing
it for senatorships. Is that honest on his part? Is it
parliamentary? Have I got to stand for it? Have
Mr. Ashbourne and Mr. Burry to stand for it?
Mr. Chairman Never mind Mr. Ashbourne or
Mr. Burry. You take your seat. I am compelled to
remind you of the provisions of standing order
21, "No member may use offensive or unbecoming words." This is the third time I have
had to
remind you. You are not to use any more offensive language. If you do I will definitely
have to
rule you out of order, and I will not be prepared
1364 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
to permit you to proceed with your address.
Mr. Penney I would like to say that you are the
only person, as Chairman of this Convention, that
I am afraid of in this Convention.
Mr. Chairman I do not like my job here
anymore than perhaps you like the way I am
doing my job. If I am appealed to, I have to
enforce order as best I can. I do not think you are
entitled to use unbecoming language.
Mr. Penney I accept your ruling. I do not intend
to use any personal remarks, nor do I think I have
done so, to this time.
Mr. Chairman Certain gentlemen are well-
known to be ardent confederates by this time —
that is an inescapable conclusion. I do not want
it to be misconstrued that you are speaking under
my guidance. I have not seen your address. I can
only deal with the points as they are delivered.
Mr. Penney Since I cannot convey the meaning
I intended to convey, I will have to do the best I
can. Now that we have reached the crossroads,
surely it is a time when self-respect alone should
compel us to stand firm. It is your country and
mine, where in the outports every man and
woman is comparatively free from special taxes;
where we can obtain our living from land and sea
unhampered by periodic calls from tax collectors.
Why then give up your life-long freedom because
champions of confederation ask you to do so?
When you must feel in your heart and soul there
is something behind the move? I dare not do
anything or say anything to knowingly harm our
future prospects, for posterity will eventually
determine whether we are right or wrong. Believing this, I cannot be a party to selling
out our
country.
Mr. Smallwood Point of order. That is once he
has offended since you gave your ruling.
Mr. Cashin I rise to a point of order. Mr. Penney
stated he cannot tolerate the selling out of our
country. What is this? We are making a deal; they
are taking over our national debt, consequently
we are handing them over something for something. Therefore it is a sellout.
Mr. Chairman I will deal with the point. I see
nothing wrong with the word "sale" when it is
employed in this sense. After all, if we go into
confederation, it is a contract of sale and there is
no stigma to be attached to the sense in which you
have employed the word "sale"....
Mr. Penney Do I understand you right, there is
no objection to the word "selling"?
Mr. Penney It is, in effect, to me a sale and the
price is those terms we have been discussing.
Mr. Chairman You are at perfect liberty to
refer to it as such.
Mr. Penney Thank you. I have some words here
you may not permit me to use — I had better not
use them. I want to tell this Convention to act
warily. Elect your own government first and
foremost, controlled by the people of Newfoundland, and represented by a body of selected
Newfoundlanders, so that you may control the keys.
Good men and true with adequate control of our
treasury. The form of government we now have
— am I allowed to refer to that?
Mr. Chairman Not at this stage. You had better
confine yourself to the form contained in the
motion.
Mr. Penney I will end it up this way. There are
four days to go before this Convention dies, and
I have no regret about that whatsoever. But I will
not likely have another chance to talk to this
Convention as a body, so I want to make a few
remarks concerning the history of the Convention, in closing. Now that our term of
service here
is approaching its end, for which I have no regret
because it has lasted many months longer than it
should have, and has been swerved from its path
of duty because of the projection of controversial
political questions in the early stages of our
studies of Newfoundland affairs. This, however,
is past history. Now as we come to the end of our
service here ... may I say in closing that it was a
great privilege to meet and know the delegates of
this Convention, most of whom I had not met or
known before.
The sad side of this get-together was almost at
the very beginning of our Convention sessions
when our revered and respected Chairman, in the
person of the late Judge Fox, was claimed by
death. The suddenness of his passing shocked us
all, for we knew we had lost a Chairman of
outstanding fitness for the tasks ahead, an
eminent judge, whose guiding hand and sound
judgement was recognised in the loyalty and
respect of all delegates. May his soul rest in peace
as his revered memory lives on. Then, too, this
Convention lost another outstanding public
leaderin the person of Mr. K. M. Brown who was
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1365
taken suddenly ill while addressing this Convention, and who has not recovered sufficiently
to
return to his service here. No member of this
assembly can truly estimate what this Convention
has suffered in this way, for we all know Mr.
Brown had much experience in the public life of
his country, was and is a father of the fishermen,
a man of great leadership and ability. May I send
him our greetings and best wishes for an early
recovery, so that he may be able to participate in
the testing days for this country ahead. To all
delegates (I almost want to say friend and foe
alike), may I wish good health, good luck in your
service for the future generations of Newfoundland. To our Chairman also who, I believe,
holds
the respect and goodwill of all, may I wish better
health as soon as freed from honourable service
here. You have, sir, in my opinion, served faithfully and well under difficult testing
conditions
during heated debate.
I go on record as opposed to the confederation
scheme to barter Newfoundland to Canada at this
time, believing our future safely lies in the election of our own government as a
first step on a
plan suggested by Mr. Hickman, and for a better
deal for Newfoundland.
Mr. Hillier When last I rose, I rose to support a
previous motion which had been brought to this
house, with the understanding that these two
political set-ups which were then introduced
would be placed before the people of Newfoundland; because I was fully convinced that
the
people wished that to be so. They do wish it in
the district which I happen to represent. They
wish to have these political set-ups which I rose
to support under those conditions at that time,
placed before them. I again rise to support a
motion. This time it is the motion which is at
present before the Chair...
During my time in this Convention I have
never committed myself to any political view. I
felt that I was not called upon to do so. I had made
up my mind that I wanted to see the whole picture. I wanted to weigh matters thoroughly.
I
realise to the full that any political view which I
might have might not be shared by all those I
represent, and they could very properly say to me
that they did not send me here to champion any
particular form of government. We are going to
decide that when that day comes. We came here
to inquire into the general position of New
foundland, to find out all the facts possible, and
to place these facts before the people in plain,
simple language, as a means whereby they could
be assisted when the day comes for making a
grave decision. We came here to consider forms
of government, and we were supposed to inquire
as to the possibilities for Newfoundland under
these respective political set-ups, and pass it on
to the people. The people were to make the final
decision, and any help we could give them, it was
our bounden duty to give it....
It is quite possible in this world of ours to think
independently. We live and move and have our
being, as it were, in a certain political atmosphere, and because we live in that
political atmosphere it is quite possible that we are going to be
influenced thereby, and not at all times think and
act completely independently. The influential
powers around us will often take us out of the
track into which we at first started. It is my
personal feeling that this is one time in our history
when we should think independently; for the
question before us today is one which will concern us individually, and we should
think independently after weighing the whole situation
from every angle, and, having decided that we are
on the right track, then it is an honourable thing
for us to carry on.
As we look out upon world conditions, and as
we consider Newfoundland's general position,
we consider the lack of industries in this country,
and the irregular earnings of a large number of
our people, that no one year compares with the
other, that there is no section of our country in
which in some year there is not a failure from a
fishery point of view. I understand that three-
quarters of our people are fishermen. Having
therefore in mind this one burning question and
looking back on this Convention and what we
have learned, and weighing matters in general in
Newfoundland — there is this burning question:
for what shall I vote in the national referendum?
And it is a reasonable question. It is a question
which I ask myself, and I know of lots that are
asking the same question... I am fully aware ...
that whatever form of government Newfoundland may have in the future, our path will
not be strewn with roses. There is the possible
aftermath of war. What shape it will take I know
not, but history usually repeats itself. We had a
great depression after the last war, and it is pos
1366 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
sible that we may have another, I do not know.
To me, sir, it is a very serious question. I don't
know if any person thinks the same as I do, but it
is a question which has been tormenting me considerably ever since the first day I
stepped into
this assembly, and it will be a serious thing until
the time comes and I go from this assembly and
look about on the whole scene and weigh the
matter from every angle, and then finally make a
decision. When that decision is reached I shall
vote as I then think, conscientiously, rightly or
wrongly, to be in the interest and general welfare
of Newfoundland.
It seems to me, sir, with my little knowledge
of public affairs in Newfoundland — I own I have
not the experience which some of my good
friends have in business and politics; I admit my
shortcomings in that respect. I have never before
come out in public or spoken in public, and this
has been my first time speaking in this Convention, and it is an honour which I shall
never forget,
and it is something which I shall take with me to
the end of my days. But I feel, Mr. Chairman, that
— and I believe there are others who feel the
same — whether now or in two or five years time
I do not know, the people have to say, but I feel,
sir, that Newfoundland will at some time or other
be obliged to unite with some larger power for
her general welfare and progress, and as I think
of that I ask myself this question — I do not make
a definite statement, but I ask myself this question
— would it not be as well to do that now? I say
we probably might do worse than unite with the
Dominion of Canada.
The question, I realise to the full, rests with the
people of Newfoundland. I must be one of the
many, as I remarked just now, not one of preliminary experience, not one who has been
connected
with public life in this country as some here, or
greatly associated with the business life of this
country as many gentlemen on the other side. The
question rests with the people, sir.
This, Mr. Chairman, will be my last time
appearing in public. It will be the last opportunity
I shall have of standing in this assembly, but I
have this to say, that I shall take back with me
happy memories of association with fellow
delegates from all over Newfoundland. It has
been a great privilege and a great pleasure to meet
these men, because I have from them gathered
much valuable information. I have gathered
something of what life is like in Newfoundland
as a whole. I have been able to draw comparisons,
and I find there is a great similarity all around
Newfoundland. To all my listeners, sir, I say a
cheery good luck, and good luck to Newfoundland!
Mr. Job Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few
remarks. They will only take a few, perhaps five
or six minutes. I feel that I am one of the juniors
here, that have not to speak too long, while the
bigwig on my right, and the two bigwigs on my
left will have a good deal to say, I expect. But I
want to deal with this motion before the Chair. I
am not at all opposed to giving our people the
opportunity of expressing their views in connection with the well-considered plan
for confederation with the great Dominion of Canada, and I
want to make it absolutely and completely clear
that I am not against confederation in principle,
and on terms which would ensure justice to Newfoundland. But I am definitely and positively
opposed to the motion before the Chair for the
following reasons. Now one of these reasons has
already been dealt with quite nicely and extensively by the member for Carbonear,
Mr. Penney,
and I am not therefore going to go over that
ground again, except that I feel that if we should
enter into confederation before endeavouring to
utilise our great strategic position as a basis for
seeking joint help or assistance in some way from
Great Britain, Canada and the United States on
the lines I have advocated on several occasions,
I think we would be casting away a most valuable
bartering opportunity for seeking something
which might be very much better for the future
of this country than anything we can gain from
confederation with Canada. I feel that if we conclude arrangements with Canada on
the basis of
the terms indicated, without trying for something
better, we shall live, or some of us will, to regret
it, as the opportunity for expansion of our own
resources, especially those of the fisheries on the
basis of trade with America, will be lost forever.
I believe it is entirely wrong in principle to
place before the electorate, for a decision which
will be irretrievable and irrevocable, terms which
have not been the subject of negotiations in any
form whatever, but which are simply the ideas of
one of the parties as to a fair and equitable basis
for union. And I further believe that the terms
indicated can be improved upon, and unless they
can be, we should be inviting future financial
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1367
trouble or financial discomfort by deliberately
accepting a position which will leave us with a
deficit in our financial budget. No reliable figures
have been produced to show that under the terms
indicated there would be sufficient revenue left
to carry on our provincial duties on a reasonable
scale without running into debt. I believe that
with incomplete information to work upon, the
people of Newfoundland will not be in a position
to fulfill the condition imposed by the Government of Canada, as expressed in the
letter dated
29 October last from the Right Hon. the Prime
Minister of Canada, to the effect that before finalising any arrangement for union,
"the people of
Newfoundland should indicate clearly and
beyond all possibility of misunderstanding their
will that Newfoundland should become a
province of Canada." How can they come to a
well-considered conclusion with incomplete information before them? I ask also whether
Canada's expression of views mentioned in the
same letter has been carried out, namely, "that it
is essential to have a complete and comprehensive exchange of information and a full
and careful exploration by both parties of all the issues
involved."
I believe that the issues to be placed before the
people in the forthcoming referendum will be
seriously befogged and confused if this Canadian
issue is included in the referendum. By excluding
it, the people of Newfoundland will be much
better able to come to a definite choice between
responsible government and Commission
government, and later on will have an opportunity of considering the confederation
issue. If
the confederation issue is on the referendum
paper it can definitely be dealt with at some not
far distant date, perhaps within six months from
the date of the referendum, as it should then be
put before the people as a single issue, instead of
being mixed up with two real forms of government. These two forms of government, if
unsatisfactory, can at some future date be discarded,
while acceptance of confederation would be an
irrevocable and irretrievable step. If this motion
is turned down by the majority of this Convention, as Ibelieve it will be, it must
be remembered
that the British government still has the option, if
they deem it wise, of keeping the confederation
issue in some form on the referendum paper. I
hope that if they do so they will see that it is
simply not common sense to place on the paper
for final decision, for final decision, a scheme
which has not received the approval of any Newfoundland government or assembly, and
which is
almost certainly capable of improvement.
Just a few words more, sir, and I am finished.
I must refer to Mr. Smallwood's statement that
the whole truth should be put to the people, a
point with which I entirely agree. In his, shall I
say fiery speech of a few day ago, he made the
statement, which I think was afterwards confirmed by Mr. Ashbourne, that confederation
with Canada would not be an irretrievable step,
and in fact Mr, Smallwood indicated that it would
be comparatively easy to get out of it should
Newfoundland find that she has made a mistake.
I don't fear to state definitely that this is simply
not true, as it has been definitely decided that the
only way in which provinces can secede, or be
expelled, is through an act of the United Kingdom
Parliament. In actual fact a select committee of
Lords and Commons decided in 1935 that Parliament was, by constitutional convention,
not competent to deal with such a matter upon petition of
a single province or state. Their decision emphasised the fact that in practice, as
well as in law,
no right of secession rests with any state or
province acting alone. If there is any doubt on that
point, and if Mr. Smallwood would like confirmation, I have quoted almost from the
views of
our own constitutional adviser, Professor
Wheare, who issued a textbook on federal
government and very strongly pointed that out,
quoting the actual case on which I have based my
views. I hope that Mr. Smallwood will correct his
statement, before we "marry in haste and repent
at leisure." I thank you.
Mr. Cashin Mr. Chairman, the question now
before the Convention, as I see it, is simply this:
is this Convention, having reviewed the terms
and conditions of confederation as contained in
the Black Books and the Grey Book, of the
opinion that union with Canada should be recommended to our people as a possible form
of
government in the forthcoming referendum? On
this we are, as representatives of the Newfoundland people, asked to make a decision.
For
myself, my conclusion in the light of all the
information at my disposal is, that it would be
neither wise nor profitable for us to recommend
such a form of govemment to our people; and I
1368 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
propose in my remarks to give my reasons for
saying so. I will as best I can explain to you why
I believe that the so-called proposals are not alone
without the virtue of being properly negotiated
terms, but that they fail to present either a true or
complete picture of the real position. Indeed, for
myself, I find them more remarkable for what
they conceal than for what they actually tell us;
that instead of being possessed of the dignity or
standing of a legitimate contractual agreement
between two countries, they resemble more the
brief of a slick salesman trying to sell a defective
bill of goods to a gullible people. In short, Mr.
Chairman, I regard them as an insult to the intelligence of this Convention, and a
reflection on the
sound common sense of all the people of Newfoundland.
I have said, sir, that these terms are more
remarkable for what they do not tell us than for
what they do, and the glaring instance of this is
given in the manner in which they deal with
taxation. Some weeks ago I told this Convention
that in the event of confederation with Canada the
people of Newfoundland had better get out of
their heads any idea that we were going to get
lower taxation. I went further, and I said that
instead of any decrease in taxation we would
suffer from even a higher and much more oppressive burden under confederation. We
have all
witnessed Mr. Smallwood's failure to satisfactorily balance the budget which he brought
in
here some weeks ago — his own personal budget,
made to order, which contains his own chosen
figures. Now I ask you, when this budget could
not be balanced even in theory, how can we
expect to measure up when the real thing comes
along? And remember too, that in addition to this
provincial budget we will have to pay, I say have
to pay, our definite share of taxation to the federal
government. In commenting on this matter I estimated that the people of Newfoundland
would
be called upon to find a total annual sum for
taxation of nearly $80 million annually. I said
that some weeks ago, and I am still waiting for
someone to prove to me that my estimate was not
correct. I have heard, as you have heard, pro-confederates make somewhat feeble attempts
to indicate how our provincial budget might be
balanced, but not one of them gave us a satisfactory answer. Mr. Smallwood indeed
seems to
realise the awkwardness of his position in this
respect, and so in the past whenever he is faced
with an issue with which he is unable to deal he
starts to duck, he dodges, he evades, and failing
everything else he sends out a smokescreen, as
you have heard him do when he tried to distract
us from the issue by an attack on or vilification
of those engaged in the business of this country.
Now, no one has ever yet accused me of being
champion of Mr. Smallwood's local millionaires, and I am not concerned with them as
such
in this debate, but I do realise, as everyone with
intelligence must realise, the value of free
enterprise. A11 democratic peoples know that
capital and labour depend upon each other for
existence. I know and you know, that without the
so-called capitalists the great United States
would not be where she is today. Canada, the
much vaunted Canada, had her resources
developed and her railways constructed, and their
country opened up only through and with the
driving power of capitalism, and the same thing
applies to the British Empire, and if we look at
our history we find that the same thing applies to
this country. I know and you know, that today the
country which is the envy of all the world, whose
people enjoy the highest standard of living, is also
the country which has the greatest number of rich
individuals per square mile than any country on
earth. Must we put two and two together? Do we
not also know what happened to those countries
in which agitators arose to turn the people of the
country against those possessing money? Yes,
these people destroyed the capitalists, but at the
same time they destroyed their own country — a
Hitler, a Mussolini, and a Stalin replaced the
banker and industrialist and the merchant. Would
anyone want that sort of thing to happen here?
Listening to the heated abuse which Mr.
Smallwood directed at the successful business
organisations of this country, and the
businessmen, the same businessmen who furnished the fishermen with their ships, the
men
who built the factories, the men who started new
industries, the men who employ thousands of our
people at union wages, the men who, is estimated, pay large annual sums to our treasury
by
way of annual taxation. Listening to his unreasonable attacks on these people on Friday,
I
somehow got the idea that for the first time a new
and unsavory and even alien note had been injected into the proceedings of this Convention.
It
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1369
seemed to me that a foreign influence was loose:
the spirit of Trotsky, the virulent harangue of the
soapbox orator playing on the discontent of an
unthinking and innocent people. If patriotism, it
has been said, is the last refuge of a scoundrel,
then it seems to me to be equally true that the
setting of class against class is the last refuge of
the political demagogue. When all else fails,
when his case can't be won on its merits, there is
always available the red banner with the words
inscribed upon it, "Down with the rich."
Political history shows that there is only one
worse thing, and that is the setting of creed
against creed. Let us hope that such a foul thing
will never be allowed, as I am sure it will not be,
to raise its ugly head in this country. The people
of Newfoundland, in spite of Mr. Smallwood's
words, were always ready to put their trust in our
businessmen. It has always been so in the past and
it is just as true today, for have we not here in this
very chamber many of them — prominent and
well-known businessmen, some of them even
representing Mr. Smallwood's hated corporations? These men were selected by the people
to
represent them and to protect their interests, and
I know, and our people themselves know, that
these men will do their jobs as best they know
how. Certainly, I admit that our businessmen and
our Newfoundland corporations have made
money, just as similar businessmen all over the
North American continent have made money,
and this applies, as I will show later on, even in
that place of perfection, the Dominion of Canada.
Many Newfoundlanders are well aware of that
because we send them each year some $40 million. But let us be fair about this matter.
Let us
see if our wealthy men are the evil characters that
Mr. Smallwood would have us believe. Is it not
to these same individuals that a great portion of
our people must look for wages? Union wages,
sir, based on a mutual agreement between the
worker and employer. Must we not also give
them credit for keeping money in this country,
circulating amongst our people instead of it being
drained off by foreign corporations?
I admit that in some cases the prices charged
our people are too high, but whose fault is that?
Is it not the fault of the present Commission of
Government which, in order to get higher taxes,
refused to put any ceiling prices on during the war
years, and who incidentally, in order to increase
the amount they could bleed from our business
people and the people generally, passed a law
practically forcing businessmen to charge higher
prices than they wished to charge? Mr.
Smallwood seems to forget that every single,
solitary thing which he says about our local
businessmen also applies, even to a greater extent, to the businessmen in his beloved
Canada,
and even further, he is throwing these charges, he
is launching these slurs upon the very men who
are sitting in his own confederate camp. To this
extent he is fouling his own nest. Let us take a
glance, sir, for a moment, at some of the things
he said. He went to great pains, and probably
thought he was scoring a point, when he said that
in 1945, 105 business concerns in Newfoundland
made a total profit of $15 million (and I think paid
taxation of $5 million out of that), but did he also
tell you, this Convention and the country, that of
these concerns by far and away the greatest individual profits were made by the local
branches
of Canadian corporations and other foreign corporations, and that it follows that
the greater part
of these profits were shipped out of the country
to Canada and other places? And did he tell you,
or did he conveniently forget to tell us, that in that
same year of 1945, 29 companies doing business
in Canada — 29 — made a total profit of what?
$250 million.
Canada cannot afford to dissipate her revenues much longer. I have already told you
that
Canada is in an unhealthy financial position, and
that the time is not too far distant when a general
cutting down of expenditures will take place if
Canada hopes to remain solvent and continue its
ambitious march to nationhood. Then again, did
not Mr. Crummey, who was a member of the
delegation to Ottawa, tell us in windingup the
debate on this confederation issue, in committee
of the whole, that the delegation was told in effect
that it should not have gone to Ottawa when it
did, that it was interfering, so to speak, with the
political mood of the Canadian government at
that time, and that it had been intimated that the
delegation should return to Newfoundland and
come back to Ottawa again in September? What
does this indicate? It conveyed to me that it might
be part of the plan of Dominions Office to stave
off, as it staved off successfully the holding of our
national referendum last August; so that the
United Kingdom government, through its local
1370 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
agents, the Commission government, might further expend the monies of our treasury,
which
they have done and are continuing to do at the
present time. Did not Mr. Crummey tell us that
the Ottawa delegation was told that in case Newfoundland could not successfully balance
its
provincial budget under the present Canadian
proposals, that it would be necessary to impose
additional taxation on our people to do so? Did
not Mr. Crummey tell us that under the present
laws of Canada there did not exist any legislation
which would permit our Fishery Board to carry
on as it is doing at the present, and that consequently it would be abolished, and
that our
fishery products would then come under the
federal authorities, and that the present system of
our marketing would cease to exist? Is it not a fact
that some members of the Ottawa delegation
advocated a subsidy of $8 million instead of the
$3.5 million transitional grant, and were turned
down? Other matters of great national importance were also given attention and were
not
reported to this Convention because it does not
suit the plan of the pro-confederates. I have stated
in this assembly that the estimate of possible
revenues which the Canadian experts made that
Canada would derive from union of our two
countries, amounting to slightly over $20 million
annually, are fraudulent; that in my opinion the
amount they would receive would be over $30
million. And this does not take into consideration
the possible increase in revenues that would accrue from the development of the Labrador
iron
ore project. I repeat that statement today, Mr.
Chairman, I repeat that the deficit on the
proposed provincial budget would be not less
than $9 million annually, and that in order to
balance that account increased taxes would have
to be placed on our people in the way of further
sales tax, hospital tax, property tax, educational
tax, municipal tax, and God knows how many
other kinds of taxes.
I know that the advocates of confederation do
not look at this matter in the light of what would
accrue for provincial administration. Their sole
ambition is to stress to our people the advantages
to our people that would accrue from the payment
of baby bonuses, and the vilification of our merchants, etc. I know that is their
policy, but I tell
them now that knowingly or unknowingly they
are traitors to their country. Some of us have been
accused of national treachery...
Mr. Smallwood Mr. Chairman, isn't that hitting
a bit below the belt? If I were to tell Major Cashin
that he was a traitor to his country he would not
like it.
Mr. Cashin No, I would drive you through the
window.
Mr. Smallwood Well now, you are 50 pounds
heavier than I am, and if I weighed as much as
you do, and if it was the other way around, maybe
I could throw you out the window. I think that's
hitting below the belt.
Mr. Cashin Well that's my opinion, and I am
entitled to express it.
Mr. Smallwood Is he entitled to express that
opinion, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman No, I don't think you are entitled
to that, Major Cashin.
Mr. Cashin All right, I throw that insult back in
the ocean. I will take it back if you like. "Some
of us have been accused of national treachery."
How is that?
Mr. Chairman No one has any right to impute
treachery to any person simply because they are
divergent in opinion.
Mr. Cashin I would throw that back at the faces
of those who so accuse us, and tell them that the
proposals contained in the Grey Book sent us by
His Excellency the Governor by Prime Minister
King are not such as would constitute an equitable basis of union of our two countries,
and
should not be submitted to the people at the
coming national referendum. I tell those that
would accuse us of national treachery, and who
would advocate such proposals, that they themselves can by their very own actions
claim the
first right and title to this dishonourable name. To
me sir, it seems that any Newfoundlander, or
group of Newfoundlanders, who deliberately set
out to pass all that they are and have across the
traitor's counter, I say such people owe an explanation of their attitude.
I have yet to hear them give us that explanation. To trifle with a people and a country,
to
compromise the lives of future generations, are
no small things. Yet that is the very thing that is
now being attempted, to the end that we shall
cease to exist as an independent country, and that
Newfoundlanders shall be no longer Newfoundlanders. I would go on at much greater
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1371
length than the time allotted to me in showing
why this country of ours should not and must not
allow itself and its nationhood to be absorbed by
the dominion to the west of it, but I think that I
should avail of the short time left to me in attempting to boil this whole thing down
to its
broad outlines, and see the thing at its proper
worth. Does not all this confederation business
come down to a matter of a cold, commercial
business deal, whereby we were asked to sell out
our country and our future to Canada for a certain
sum of money? And speaking of this attitude, I
confess it seems to me to be a terribly serious
thing for any country or any people to place
themselves in the balance against the pull of
Canadian dollars. What is the price, or shall I say
the bribe, they offer us? The prize bait seems to
be that a certain number of our people will get
this thing called the baby bonus. But do they tell
us that this bonus is an unsubstantial thing, that it
is something that we cannot depend upon? That
it may vanish overnight, and that in the event of
a depression in Canada it will die a quick death?
Indeed, my own personal opinion is that it will
not exist longer than two years. Do they tell us
that when our babies reach the age of 16 they will
spend the rest of their lives paying back to the
Canadian government the amount of their bonus?
Do they tell us that when our babies reach
military age they will almost certainly be conscripted into the Canadian military
forces? Do
they tell us that in the event of confederation a
big percentage of these young people will have
to emigrate from this country to seek employment which cannot be found at home? Of
course
they do not tell us those things, because they
know, and know well, that if we saw the truth of
these things this baby bonus would be no longer
able to bluff and deceive us.
Then they next offer us an enticement. Here
again they cover the bitter pill with a thick coating of sugar. You don't hear them
tell you that
many of those who receive this old age pension
will have to surrender their property to the state,
and that in the final result all it seems is that the
pensioner has to sell his property to the Canadian
government with the hope of getting paid back in
some small monthly installments. Then there is
the matter of our industries. Do they tell us that
if confederation comes to this country it will
mean death to many of our small industries? That
it will close the doors of numerous factories
which cannot hope to meet Canadian competition, that hundreds, probably thousands,
of our
working people will find themselves jobless, and
if they want work will have to get out of the
country to find it? And that in many of our larger
settlements our tradesmen or storekeepers will
find that our dwindling population will do away
with most of their customers and threaten them
with bankruptcy?
Now we come to another matter, which means
much to the religious and law-abiding people of
our country. With us, the matter of our educational system is one of great importance,
and we have
evolved our own system of denominational
schools, which time has found to be most suitable
to the wishes and requirements of Newfoundlanders. In the event of confederation there
is a threat that, as Mr. Crummey has pointed out
to this Convention, is a most serious threat to the
destruction and overthrow of that system. He has
pointed out to us that if Canadians take charge of
our country in every probability we will have
imposed on us, even forced on us, the adoption
of non-denominational schools. What right have
we to jeopardise the moral and religious lives of
the coming generations in this matter? Why, to
my mind this particular thing in itself is sufficient
to warn us that the road to confederation is the
wrong road for Newfoundland. But it seems that
our people are asked to regard this matter from
the standpoint of dollars and cents. Well, if we
talk of dollars and cents we must also talk of
taxes. Are the people of this country ready to take
on a burden of taxation, the like of which they or
their fathers have never known? Are they
prepared to chip in an additional $35-40 million
because you, Mr. and Mrs. Newfoundland, you
are the ones, out of your pennies and dimes, who
will have to pay for Mr. Smallwood's baby bonus.
Now in this matter I am not speaking from
hearsay. I have lived in Canada and I can speak
from hard, actual experience, and I tell you that
under confederation the people of this country
will find themselves smothered and suffocated
under an avalanche of federal, provincial and
municipal taxation. I have heard Mr. Smallwood,
when asked some embarrassing questions about
taxation, evade the issue by saying, "Oh, the
federal government will not impose such and
such a tax. That would be a matter for our own
1372 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
provincial government." Now what difference
does it make to us, Mr. Chairman, to whom we
have to pay these taxes? We lose our money
anyhow. Our dollars are taken from us. The
fisherman, and I hope they hear my words, will
have to pay taxes on every stick and article that
he owns — his boats, his nets, his house, his
barns, his cattle and his meadows. That is the
price, or part of the price the Newfoundland
fisherman will have to pay for the privilege of
calling himself a Canadian. Mr. Chairman, it is
no surprise to me that the people assembled in
this Convention, representing every district, representing every man, woman and child
in this
country, are, the great majority of them, absolutely opposed to having this country
confederate
with Canada. The reaction and the attitude of
intelligent and patriotic Newfoundlanders could
not be otherwise.
I see that my time is running short, and that I
will be unable to proceed at any further length in
showing why I am not voting for this motion. I
wish to explain that irrespective of any of the
reasons which I have named, my main reason for
being against it is because it is a violation of the
1933 agreement, and I refuse to be a party to the
violation of that agreement. In one of the early
sessions of this Convention, delegate K. M.
Brown of the district of Bonavista South, told you
he had in his possession a letter which, if published, would kill this confederation
issue absolutely
and forever. I too have had access to a document
which, if I were at liberty to publish, would show
this country that a concerted plot, an international
plot, was being hatched as far back as 1941...
Mr. Cashin To bring Newfoundland under
Canadian control, by force if necessary. The
question I ask you now, has that plot been put into
effect? Are its agents in this country today, and
are we witnessing the desperate attempts to force
it though by the setting up of this Convention, and
the frenzied attempts of those who are behind the
scenes of this confederate issue? Soon I trust, Mr.
Chairman, our people will be called upon to once
again mark their cross upon a national ballot
paper.
Mr. Cashin All right, thanks very much. That
"X" will be written by every real Newfoundlander on a day not too far distant. It
too
will indicate, if correctly placed, our love and our
affection for the land of our birth. I ask you
gentlemen to ponder and hesitate before you
make that little mark by which you, your
children, and your children's children can be
blessed or blasted. That cross must be the kiss of
love given by every loyal citizen to our own
mother — Newfoundland. Take care, I say, that
it is placed with zeal and loyalty just where it
belongs, just where she wishes it, and tremble
like Iscariot ere you place it on your own shame
and future despair, in the place that means your
traitorous denial of your mother country's best
interests. As Iscariot planted his traitor's kiss
upon the Master's brow, once done it cannot be
undone. It is final, irrevocable and unchangeable,
if placed after "Confederation with Canada",
should that be on the ballot paper. Incidentally,
Iscariot had the decency to hang himself. Would
that I could say to all traitors, "Go thou and do
likewise."
In closing, I can think of no more appropriate
words to say than that which I regard as having
been prostituted for another purpose in this Assembly a couple of weeks ago, for this
is the time,
this is the hour, this is the moment when from the
hearts of every one of us who love this country,
who wish her, well the prayer should go forth:
"God guard thee, Newfoundland."
Mr. Hollett Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to the
motion, but I would like an intermission if it is
agreeable.
Mr. Chairman I would like a ten minute intermission very much if it is agreeable to the members.
We will take a ten minute recess, the
chamber is very hot.
[Short recess]
Mr. Hollett First and foremost I want to draw
your attention to a statement made by Mr. Hickman two or three days ago referring
to the Clarenville boats. You will remember he asked a
question, and the reply came back, and Mr. Hickman stated how evasive that answer
was. I would
refer you to the BNA Act, 1867, and I think the
answer is to be found there quite clearly and
distinctly. Section 92: "In each province the
legislature may exclusively make laws in relation
to matters coming within the classes of subjects
next hereinafter enumerated".... They go on to
state the items on which the provincial government is empowered to make laws. Section
92
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1373
sub-section 10:
Local works and undertakings other than
such as are of the following classes:
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways,
canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with
any
other or others of the provinces, or extending
beyond the limits of the province;
(b) Lines of steamships between the province and any British or foreign country...
In other words, the Clarenville boats will be
absolutely under the jurisdiction of the federal
government, and therefore it will be up to the
federal government to administer them and send
them where they please. I want to point that out
so that Mr. Hickman can rest assured that the
answer was given in an evasive manner in order
to cover up that particular point.
Now Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smallwood criticises
what he calls "the responsible government
majority" in this Convention for not wanting to
recommend to the Commonwealth Office that
confederation upon the basis submitted to the
National Convention be placed on the ballot. I
would point out to him that in addition to voting
that responsible government go on the ballot, we
have also voted to have Commission of Government placed thereon. We have done that
because
we are being consistent, and demand that the
British government fulfil their pledge to the
people of this country. After all, it was to the
people that they pledged their word.
I shall vote against Mr. Smallwood's motion
because I see in it a deliberate attempt to ignore
all pledges and rush us into confederation regardless of the welfare of our people.
Who makes this
deliberate attempt? In my opinion, sir, the British
government and the Canadian government, and
they are aided and abetted by the Commission of
Government and their servants. Certain individuals amongst the legislative and administrative
bodies in this country are working tooth and nail
to implement this high imperial policy.
Do you seriously think, sir, that either Great
Britain or Canada is deeply concerned about our
people? Were they ever so concerned in the past?
Decidedly not. But why, you ask, are they so
anxious now that we should confederate? The
answer is quite simple. How else, I ask you, can
they get American troops off British soil? Under
confederation it would be quite simple, for under
the mutual defence pact between Canada and the
United States, it would be quite an easy matter.
Let Mr. Smallwood answer me a few questions if there is any doubt left in our minds
about
this imperial policy which the Commission of
Government would assist. Why was the Convention Act worded as it is: "form or forms"?
Why
was Mr. Smallwood sent to Canada by someone
shortly after the election?
Mr. Smallwood He is implying that I was sent
to Canada. He has no right to do that.
Mr. Chairman Either he is implying it or
making a statement, I do not know which.
Mr. Hollett It is an actual fact. Mr. Smallwood
did fly from Gander. I ask him why was he sent.
He can interpret that how he pleases. Why did he
call together certain people to a meeting held here
in St. John's in August 1946? This was held
before the Convention met.
Mr. Hollett Why at that meeting was it decided
to introduce a resolution to send a delegation to
Canada as soon almost as the Convention was
opened?
Mr. Chairman I will make a note to deal with
these matters. I am not going to have these exchanges. I have already warned you.
Now Mr.
Smallwood, please. I have already warned you
once today, and I am doing it the second time, and
I hope I will not have to do it the third time.
Mr. Hollett Is that statement to be left on the
record thatI am a liar?
Mr. Chairman That is a statement thatI am not
prepared to deal with at the moment. I will investigate that, but I will not deal
with it at the
moment, because I have not the facts before me
to make such an investigation.
Mr. Hollett Can Mr. Smallwood state that
another delegate is a liar?
Mr. Chairman Now Mr. Hollett, don't give me
any further trouble here this afternoon.
Mr. Hollett I will ask Mr. Smallwood not to
give me any further trouble.
Mr. Chairman I will deal with Mr. Small
1374 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
wood's statement, and I will deal with you, after
I have investigated the facts. I have not the facts
before me.
Mr. Hollett Why were the microphones put in
this building? Why, sir, did the Commission of
Government arrange the trip to Canada, the Ottawa delegation? Why, sir, were the so-called
proposals of Ottawa not delivered to us by the
delegation? Mr. Chairman, I can answer all these
questions to my own satisfaction, and I am sure
every man in this Convention can do likewise.
Now sir, I may not be against union with Canada
under certain conditions, but I certainly am under
these unnegotiated terms, terms which I honestly
believe would redound to the economic sabotage
of the country's resources and the country's future. Vote against putting confederation
on the
ballot? Of course I shall, knowing full well I shall
incur the displeasure of some people in this
country, but also knowing this full well that I am
doing my duty by the people whom I serve. If our
people want confederation, in Heaven's name let
them elect a government with a clear mandate to
negotiate. The delegation had no power to secure
proposals. Why then did Canada send proposals
to His Excellency the Governor of Newfoundland, who afterwards passed them on to us?
When the people elected us, did they authorise us
to discuss proposals for union with Canada? No,
they did not, and we exceeded our duty in discussing them at all. It seems to me that
we have
discussed nothing much else than union with
Canada since this Convention met. Have we, I
ask you, discussed any other form of government? Have we discussed the particular
form of
responsible government we may want? Have we
discussed Commission of Government, or any
amended form thereof? No, sir, we have not been
allowed to.
Mr. Smallwood complained on Friday that he
had never had a chance to bring the facts of
confederation before the people in this Convention. I ask you sir, when has any other
form but
confederation been brought before the people in
this Convention? Never, until Mr. Higgins
brought in his motion the other week. Mr.
Smallwood made much ado about monopoly and
monopolists on Friday, and my friend Major
Cashin has referred to that already. I agree with
Mr. Smallwood, I do not like monopolists either.
I know that monopolies exist in this country in
connection with the sale of Canadian war assets,
and particularly do I refer to 6,000 Canadian
blankets which were sold in Gander. The man
who put the corner on these 6,000 blankets, was
he or was he not a monopolist?
Now Mr. Smallwood, on Friday, very magnanimously gave us an opportunity to say a few
words on taxes on property, and I availed myself
of that opportunity. He spent two hours last week
replying to me, telling us that the federal government did not tax property. Whoever
said they
did? I did not, or that the provincial governments
taxed real property. I now find out, however, that
the provincial governments did tax real property.
For instance, in Saskatchewan in 1943 the
province collected altogether in taxes just over
$11 million, and of this amount something over
$3 million was collected on real and personal
property. (These figures which I am quoting are
taken from the Comparative Statistics of Public
Finance). The Province of Alberta collected
$1.25 million on real and personal property, and
British Columbia $1.3 million, and the thought
of the whole matter is that every province of
Canada, with the exception of Quebec, collected
some taxes from real and personal property. But
the point I endeavoured to explain was that
generally the provinces, having the power to tax
real and personal property, delegate this tax collecting power under the BNA Act to
the
municipalities or town councils, and herewith I
submit some figures to show the great extent to
which the municipalities have gone in collecting
their necessary revenues by taxes on land, buildings, farm equipment and fishing equipment,
Mr.
Smallwood, and other real property.
For instance, in the province of Nova Scotia
1943 the total municipal taxes were $10 million,
and $7.5 million of this came from taxes on real
and personal property. In New Brunswick the
municipal taxes amount to $5.8 million. Now of
this, $4,417,000 came from taxes on real and
personal property. In Quebec province the total
taxes were $75 million, and of this $61 million
came from taxes on real and personal property,
on such things as I have quoted there, that is to
say on land, buildings, farming equipment, fishing equipment and other real property.
In Ontario the total municipal taxes were $114
million, and of this $104 million came from taxes
on real and personal property. In Manitoba the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1375
total municipal taxes were $19 million, and of
this $17 million came from taxes on real and
personal property. In Saskatchewan the total
municipal taxes were $24 million, and of this $22
million came from taxes on real and personal
property. They had to get it off of that, there is
nothing else to tax. No customs, no income tax
— the federal government has it all. In British
Columbia the total municipal taxes were
$21,677,000, and of this $21,306,000 came from
taxes on real and personal property.
Now if anyone has any doubt in his mind on
the system of taxation in Canada, which would
and must be the system which would prevail in
Newfoundland if we go into confederation, then
I ask him to consider well these figures. These
figures are correct, and only serve to show how
largely the system of taxation in the provinces
depends upon the taxation of land and buildings,
farm machinery and fishing equipment, and other
real and personal property. In the new province
of Newfoundland there is being collected today,
by means of such taxation, less than $600,000. In
my estimate made a few days ago, I came to the
conclusion that under the proposals forwarded to
us by the Prime Minister of Canada we should
find ourselves storing up deficits to the extent of
over $5 million a year unless we resort to further
taxation on real and personal property. I submit
therefore, sir, that we shall find that within a
period of two or three years under confederation
anybody who is still living in this country will be
able to find that the total municipal taxes were
$5-6 million, and of this amount some $4 million
or over will have been collected on real and
personal property.
To show you how serious and how far-reaching this method of taxation in Canada is,
I direct
your attention to the Ontario Gazette of September 6, 1947, pages 1441 to 1462. You will find
there listed some 542 lots of property which are
listed under the heading "Treasury's Sale of Land
for Arrears of Taxes." You remember, sir, last
week I endeavoured to point out how the
municipalities, and the provinces too for that
matter, have the right to sell your property if you
cannot pay your taxes. We have the right here in
this country, but it has not been exercised. In the
last 40 years here in the town of St. John's there
has not been a piece of property sold for payment
of taxes. That is an authoritative fact. Yes, they
have the power, they must have the power, but
they don't resort to it wholesale as they do in
Canada. You will find listed some 542 lots of
property under the heading "Treasury's Sale of
Land for Arrears of Taxes." Now this is in the
Province of Ontario alone. Here is one instance:
"Widow, Frances M. Kelly, Lot No. 17, one
half-acre of land, arrears of taxes $10.36 — cost
$2, total $12.36." Now, sir, this widow, unable to
pay $10.36, had her half acre of land sold by the
municipality because she was unable to pay. And
there were 542 pieces of a like nature in the said
province in that particular quarter of the year.
Yes, when our main sources of taxation have
been taken over by the Government of Canada,
Mr. Smallwood will have to resort very largely
to taxation on such real and personal property as
we have in this country. Let us point out, sir, that
in the whole of Canada the total of their provincial and municipal taxes collected
in 1943 was
$649 million, and of this amount $274 million
came from taxes on real and personal property.
Now this is much more than one-third of the
whole of the taxes collected by the provinces and
municipalities. Apply this to the case of Newfoundland. I estimated a week or so ago
that we
would need some $17.3 million to run the country
as a province, and I believe myself to be at least
equally as capable as Mr. Smallwood when it
comes to dealing with figures. I have pointed out
that more than one-third of the taxes collected by
the provinces and municipalities in Canada are
derived from taxes on property. Is it not therefore
reasonable to anticipate that we as a province
would be collecting more than one-third of this
$17.3 million, and that will make more than $5
million?
Now I quite agree with that. There are many
people holding vacant and unoccupied land, and
I have no objection whatsoever to their being
made to pay taxes, but when the taxes affect the
primary producers of this country, then I feel in
duty bound to warn those primary producers,
such as the fisherman, the farmer, the miner and
the logger, of what they can expect.
Now I want to direct your attention to a question I directed to the Department of
External
Affairs at Ottawa as to the probable expenditure
to be incurred by Canada in Newfoundland in the
event of confederation. This item, you will
remember, is found on page 16 of Annex IV of
1376 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
the Grey Book.
[1] You will note there that under
the tax agreement their estimate is $6,820,000.
This amount, I pointed out, depended on the
population of Newfoundland and the gross national product of Canada, and I as these
two were
variables the amount could not be guaranteed as
being $6,820,000, but that it should be listed as
$6,211,756.60. That is to say the irreducible minimum payment is the only amount which
we can
guarantee, or at least which the Canadian government can guarantee to us. Under the
next item you
will see that they have listed for old age pensions
an amount of $2 million to $2.6 million. Now this
is merely guesswork. They admit that themselves.
By the way, Mr. Smallwood has said very
little about old age pensions of late, because he
failed to point out in the first instance that the
federal government demands that the Province of
Newfoundland will have to assure it that the
recipient of the old age pension has made over
his property to the province, which on his death
will be sold, the amount paid to the pensioner
prior to his death to be taken therefrom and
forwarded to the federal government. It is assumed, I take it, that the balance, if
any, will be
paid over to his heirs. But the main question in
that particular item which I refer to was the sum
of $9.4 million under the heading "Other
Departmental Expenditures." You will remember that I asked the Canadian government
to
break down that amount under the heading of the
various services on which it would be spent. They
have done that, and the answer is before you in
that memorandum. I won't go through it now, I
will just refer to some items. You will note that
they intend to spend $1.7 million on Veterans'
Affairs. That is to say, if we become a province,
Canada proposes to spend $1.7 million on
Veterans' Affairs in Newfoundland. Now let us
look and see what we spent last year under
Veterans' Affairs. You will find by reference to
the government's estimates that we spent the
following sum, that is to say:
| War pensions |
$722,200 |
| Civil re-establishment |
735,000 |
| Land development |
39,883 |
| Travel |
30,000 |
| Construction land
development areas |
642,000 |
| War pensions, administrative |
24,331 |
| Merchant Navy hospital |
48,521 |
Making a total of $2,141,935 as against $1.7
million which they are to spend when they come
here. How in the name of goodness can they
expect to come in here and handle veterans'
affairs in this country with $1.7 million? I don't
know, and it's anybody's guess. Under the heading of Transport, Canada says she will
spent
$1,393,000; last year we spent $4.5 million. Take
Posts and Telegraphs, Canada says she will spend
$1,164,000, last year we spent $1,995,000. Take
the Department of Fisheries, Canada says she
will spend $600,000 when she comes in here
(God forbid!). Our own government last year
spent $1,031,000 as against $600,000. Finance,
Canada will spend $275,000; last year we spent
$507,000. Canada will spend $500,000 on the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police (I suppose they
are expecting some trouble, some disturbance);
last year we spent $726,000 — the Ranger Force
cost this country $726,000. Under the heading of
National Revenue, including income tax, Canada
says she will spend $325,000. We ourselves last
year spent $665,000. 1 am drawing your attention
to these figures, sir, in order to show how very
unreliable are the estimates which Mr. Mackenzie King received from his various federal
departments of the cost of the existing services in
Newfoundland, when they quoted the figure of
$26.5 million.
I would also like to draw your attention to
footnote no. 3, on the same page 16 of Annex IV,
where they state: "That any cost in respect of the
Newfoundland Railway or the auxiliary steamship services taken over by Canada are
not included in this $9.4 million" — and yet in this
reply you have $1,393,000 under the heading of
Transport in the breakdown of this $9.4 million.
The more one looks at these terms in the light of
the financial experiences of the various provinces
of Canada during recent years, the more one has
to come to the conclusion that Prime Minister
Mackenzie King surely thinks we are really too
green to burn, and yet Mr. Smallwood has the
temerity to tell his countrymen that these terms
are generous! Well, a good many of his countrymen have heard him tell his fairy stories
before.
They have heard him tell his bedtime stories in
the north, the south, the east and the west, and by
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1377
this time a good many of these people will know
how to measure the credence or otherwise of this
latest Superman thriller.
Has Mr. Smallwood told us what he is going
to tax to make up for this deficit in the first or
second year of confederation? He himself, sir, in
the Black Book, admits there will be a deficit.
This deficit he admits is $1 million. It is called
"Additional Provincial Taxation — $1 million".
Actually it is $1.2 million. Very well, what is he
going to put his taxes on to get this? In the second
year of confederation he will have to find a further $350,000. As you will remember
the transitional grant is reduced year by year for 12 years
by $350,000 a year until it gets down to nothing,
and so on year after year, until at the end of the
12th year the Newfoundland people will be
paying, mark you, $4.7 million in taxes more than
they are paying today. They have to make that up.
Very well. All I want to know, sir, from Mr.
Smallwood is just what he is going to levy these
taxes upon? It seems to me some indication ought
to be given us. We enter confederation now with
the prospect of having to raise more revenues
year by year than we are raising now. Does this
make sense? God knows we are taxed enough
now. Most countries today are endeavouring to
lower the taxation burden. We are told, however,
"Oh no, you must be taxed more year by year if
you desire this inestimable privilege of being a
Canadian citizen." Any fool can see that according to these terms, ten years hence
the Newfoundland people will have to raise nearly $5
million more by way of taxation than we are
doing now. And all this makes no allowance
whatsoever for new construction or repair to
roads, schools, buildings and other construction,
and makes no allowance whatever for increase in
public health services, educational facilities or
fishery improvement. Let us forget all this and
merely ask Mr. Smallwood just how is he going
to raise that money, that $5 million, say ten years
hence? Is he banking on the possibility of having
been gone by that time to his reward, eternal or
otherwise? No, he won't tell us, but I have indicated a method to you, and I hope,
sir, that you
will be here to be witness to the truth of that which
I have spoken. It may be, however, that by that
time communism will have overrun the world,
and that a suitable commissar will be found to
rescue the Newfoundland people from the appall
ing burden of taxation imposed through the
machinations of present-day confederates. One
thing I do know is that the present administration
has set up such a huge spending machine, that
whatever form of government the people decide
on in the future, that government will be hard put
to it to find the money necessary, for the greatest
good to the greatest number of our people can
only be achieved by the fullest development of
all our natural resources.
In this development government must lend a
hand, and more than that, a controlling hand.
How necessary therefore is it that govemment
should be truly representative of the people. The
brightest hope I have seen so far for the future is
the present organisation of labour throughout the
country. I have watched its development for a
number of years, and after close association with
some of its leaders I believe it to be the only
development in self-government that has come to
Newfoundland during all her past history. With
wise leadership I believe that labour can save this
country and her resources for the benefit of all. If
labour cannot make this country a better place in
which to live, then nobody else need try. One
thing is absolutely essential, and that is a very
close co-operation between all the unions in
every branch of industry. They must get together
and put up a solid co-operative front with capital
to the end that all may benefit.
Going back to the motion. I cannot support it.
I would have supported Mr. Higgin's motion with
Commission of Government included, had it not
been for the pledge of 1933. That pledge still
stands, hence our legal choice in the matter can
only be one of two forms, and it should be put to
the people in this manner: "Do you desire the
return of responsible government —answer 'yes'
or 'no'." If the majority say "no", then Commission of Government carries on. If the
majority say
"yes", then we get back our former status, and
begin to put our house in order. Mr. Chairman, I
put it to you that is of the very essence of the
meaning of the word "referendum". The dictionary tells us that the meaning of the
word is the
"referring of some social or political question to
the electorate, who will decide it by either a 'yes'
or a 'no' vote". The introduction of this confederation issue at this time prostitutes
the very
language in which it is written. It makes confusion worse confused. It renders the
Convention
1378 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
act ultra vires of law as handed out to us by the
mother of parliaments, and its passing and
implementation violates that which I humbly
believe to be a sacred pledge.
Some of us, sir, have been accused of talking
politics. Maybe we are. Mr. Bradley, in speaking
to Mr. Higgins' motion a few days ago, said that
before he was elected he regarded the Convention as a non-political party, but it
had not turned
out so. I am in accord with Mr. Bradley in that
statement, but will the confederates get up and
tell us about the secret gathering in St. John's in
August 1946, after Mr. Smallwood's return from
Canada, prior to the opening of this Convention?
Will they tell us about the meeting of these 12
members of the Convention in the Newfoundland
Hotel in 1946, shortly after the Convention
opened? Will they tell us of their having Mr.
Smallwood read them his speech which was to
have been delivered on the introduction of the
first confederation deliberation motion? Oh no!
Do the 12 remember how he was advised not to
give that political speech, and how he promised
not to read it? But did he give that speech? I ask
you gentlemen, did he give it? Oh yes, he gave it,
and so brought into this Convention political
controversy which has been present ever since.
How futile, how silly, to now accuse some of us
of playing politics. I wonder what you would call
the speeches which the introducer of this motion
made? Oh no, not political speeches, just little
fireside chats, sir. Now I am not blaming Mr.
Smallwood for talking politics. He is right in
doing so. He believes in confederation I take it,
just as I would deny it as being in the best interests
of this country. As for me, I shall not be satisfied
until every man and woman in this country is a
politician, and then you may expect good government, whether it be confederation,
responsible or
Commission or some other form.
Now, although I cannot conscientiously vote
for this motion, there is very little doubt in my
mind but that it will be placed on the ballot. In
fact, unless Commonwealth Relations Office has
had a change of heartl feel sure that it will be on
the ballot. Incidentally I believe Mr. Smallwood
visited my constituency, if you might call it that,
a couple of weeks ago, and I believe he was asked
a certain question relative to that very point, if I
can lay hands on it. No. At any rate I remember
it very well. He was asked this question a few
weeks ago in Grand Falls: "Do you not really
believe that it was the intention of Great Britain
and Canada to put Newfoundland into confederation when they drew up the Convention
Act?"
I am informed that Mr. Smallwood's answer was
"yes".
Mr. Chairman Just a minute, Mr. Smallwood,
Mr. Hollett did not say you made the statement.
He says, "I am informed that you made the statement." Don't interrupt, Mr. Smallwood,
please.
Mr. Hollett I have no objection to confederation
going on the ballot whatsoever. I have pointed
out that in my opinion it is not legal for it to go
there. That's my opinion, and I may be a liar on
that too, but as long as I live I shall express my
opinion, and let me say this: in answer to a nasty
editorial which appeared in one of our evening
papers on Saturday past, let me say that the
Convention members who are lined up in favour
of the restoration of responsible government
have no fear for the results of the referendum; but
let me also say that the Convention members who
have lined up in favour of confederation are
indeed a sorry, sorry group.
Now, sometime ago when discussing these
proposals for union with Canada I outlined briefly the history of the tax agreement
which the
federal government was endeavouring to reach
agreement on with the various provincial governments, and I wound up by referring
to Canada as
"united in war, but divided in peace", and that is
undoubtedly a fact. Only the other day Premier
Duplessis of Quebec hoisted his provincial flag
with great fanfare. No longer will the Union Jack
fly from the Quebec provincial legislature building. They will consent to fly it over
a side
entrance however, should the Governor-General
consent to visit Quebec. Are these the people
with whom we are to federate? I realise of course
that this is a gentle hint to the federal government
to keep hands off as far as Quebec is concerned,
but even Quebec cannot break away from confederation is she wanted to, except by force
of
arms. Once we join up with Canada, we join up
for keeps. We cannot secede. Mr. Smallwood
will tell you that we can, but of course he spoke
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1379
out of turn.
Speaking of Quebec, both Mr. Duplessis and
Mr. Godbout now wish to contest the Privy Council award of 1927 with reference to
Newfoundland-
Labrador. They both want our Labrador. Said Mr.
Godbout in the Legislative Assembly of Quebec
on January 21 of this year, "Newfoundland, logically speaking, should be annexed to
Canada. We
would be the first to bite our fingers if Newfoundland, with its possibilities of
vast natural
wealth and natural resources, especially in its
Labrador section, one day passed into the hands
of the USA."
Mr. Cashin I suggest that we adjourn until 8
o'clock.
Mr. Chairman Yes, it is 6 o'clock, Mr. Hollett.
I will leave the Chair until eight.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Hollett When we broke off for the day, I
think I was saying something about Quebec. I
would point out that any graciousness shown by
Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of confederation, has been with Quebec's interest
paramount. I have it on first-hand authority that
Quebec has been endeavouring to force Ottawa's
hand. Mr. Chairman, it is my considered opinion
that union with Canada under these terms would
lose us all control over these resources in
Labrador, and all control over where we may ship
our products, and it would be only a matter of
time before we would be reduced to the status of
the Canadian Indians.
Believing this as I surely do, can I conscientiously vote to do anything which would
help to
put this country into confederation? If I were the
only man in this country, sir, who was against
confederation and believed as I do, I should vote
against the motion. The same evening paper I
referred to before, sir, states that we men of the
Convention were not required to advise upon any
one cause or the other. It definitely states that. I
refer to this, because a good many people are
lately thinking the same thing. I believe you will
agree that section 3 of the act is quite clear on that
point. I believe it states clearly that we are to
make recommendations. How else can we make
recommendations in an assembly of 45 men,
other than by the vote? I will admit that London
does not necessarily have to accept our recommendations. But I will submit that London
would
be creating a very serious situation did she ignore
any recommendations which this assembly did
make. We are a constituent assembly, elected by
the people of Newfoundland to make recommendations on their behalf. We would not be
worth
our salt if we did not act on our own convictions,
apart altogether as to whether or not these convictions were in accord with those
held in the
sanctum sanctorum of some newspaper. My
blood boils when I see such editorials.
Mr. Smallwood may feel aggrieved that he
finds himself in the minority. God knows he used
every effort to gain a majority. That is democracy
at work.
Mr. Hollett We just have to accept that fact. If
the dictatorial power at No. 9 Downing Street
sees fit to ignore our recommendations, then, sir,
we shall have to accept that too. For you see, as
yet we are but the slaves of that dictatorial power,
and we shall be the slaves of that dictatorial
power just so long as we are governed under a
regime like we are today.
I know of no other way to decide this issue
here in this Convention than by the vote. How
else can we do it? Suppose there were ten different motions brought in here, for as
many different forms of government; obviously we could
not recommend the ten of them. How then shall
we eliminate what we consider the undesirables?
How else than by the vote? That is exactly what
we are doing now, and our whole desire is to point
out the necessity for the restoration of our political liberties and the regaining
of our self-respect.
I do not intend to take any more time, except
a moment. We have been here 16 months. In my
opinion we could have finished this job in four
months but for certain things which happened.
The country knows what happened. I am quite
sure we could have finished the job in four
months instead of dragging it on for 16 months.
It just goes to show, one never knows.
We have in Newfoundland today a position of
prosperity; and I say that having due regard to the
numbers of people who today in this country find
it impossible to make a living. We all know that
is something that is present in every other country
in the world today, and without reference to
Europe or Asia, without reference to these parts
of the world, I say it is true of this side of the
Atlantic Ocean. Why, even in the Maritime
Provinces 3,000 wage earners had to leave their
1380 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
homes and go to other parts of Canada and some
to the USA, to earn a living. That is something
which is apparently unavoidable. We are bound
to have with us at all times, irrespective of our
form of government, irrespective of our state of
prosperity, a percentage of people who find it
difficult to make a living; we have them today.
And with that qualification, I say that Newfoundland today is more prosperous than
ever in
the past. The whole country is being developed
slowly but surely. Her population has increased
and is increasing, and I am quite sure that, given
an opportunity, the people of this country can
make the necessary industrial and commercial
deals with other countries, whereby we can sell
these things which we produce. We are producing today much more than our ancestors
or forefathers. They stood up and fought like men for
the privilege of governing their own affairs.
If we cast our minds back to those days of Dr.
Carson, John Kent and many others — and, sir, I
have heard what I consider disrespectful words
used towards these ancestors of ours — I say they
were brave men. They had nothing much to stand
up for at that time, but still they believed in the
right of mankind to have a say in the way in which
they lived and the way in which they should be
governed. They were brave men. God grant that
this day and generation has produced enough
Newfoundlanders to see that we shall regain our
political independence and thereby enhance our
opportunities to achieve our economic independence.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, the question now
before the Convention is the one which is causing
so much confusion in the minds of our people,
and there are a very large number who cannot see
why they should not, if they want to, vote for
confederation with Canada in the referendum in
the coming spring, and it is these very people who
must be protected against themselves, for their
fickle minds are their own worst enemies, for
surely if such an important step is really good for
this country, it is worthy of the closest study and
negotiations between our two sovereign governments, who on our side would have full
powers
to argue for the best possible terms for Newfoundland. It is utter folly and nonsense
for
anyone to argue that Newfoundland has not got
a much greater bargaining power today than ever
before. It is also idle trash to argue that she is not
in a better position today to take care of her own
household, and for my part, if there is going to be
any real serious outside bargaining done with the
very thing we should value most — our liberty
— it will be every step of the way with the power
who will give the greatest liberty commensurate
with the greatest amount of economic and social
security.
If the federal government of Canada will
equalise our debts in some way or other so that
we can enter the union on equal terms, and with
a guarantee of sufficient revenue to balance our
budget as a province, then and only then would I
feel justified in recommending to our people that
they vote for confederation this spring. The
people of Newfoundland elected us to do a job
for them. We took it upon ourselves to study and
place a value on a certain deal, the very serious
matter of confederation. We have carefully
studied this matter, and in the opinion of the great
majority, the price or terms offered are not conducive to the best interest of our
people. That
being so, I would say to our critics, "Would it be
honourable or honest on our part to advise our
people to close the deal?" If Mr. Smallwood sent
me out to look at a piece of land he was considering buying, and I considered the
land worth
$2,000, and the price was $5,000, would Mr.
Smallwood consider me honest and honourable
to advise him to pay the five, at the same time
knowing in my opinion it was not worth over
two? If he would pay the five, would he not
forever after curse and abuse me for falsely advising him into a bad bargain?
We are the trusted servants of the people who
sent us here. We have a serious duty to perform,
and that duty is to honestly represent the people
who have commissioned us to do an intricate,
serious and responsible piece of work. We cannot
be swayed by our emotions, or the emotions of
anyone else who may be grasping for the
shadows without counting the cost. It is not correct for anyone to even imagine that
the majority
of the members of the Convention are prejudiced
against confederation, or even entertain one
single hard feeling against Canada or Canadians,
for it is an undeniable fact that as two separate
countries, we are now the closest kin and the most
united of any two countries on the face of the
earth, and it is my considered opinion that unless
the federal government is seriously lacking in
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1381
ordinary good sense, a union of the two countries
can be finalised within two years. I feel positive,
Mr. Chairman, that those who favour such an
important step are not seriously considering the
grave implications of what might be the result of
a headlong plunge in the dark. Has the Hon. Mr.
Mackenzie King not clearly intimated that the
deal could only be finally negotiated with a
sovereign government of Newfoundland? I am
very, very doubtful that the British government
would recognise a deal sponsored or negotiated
by such an unauthorised and unofficial body as
such matters, and we have no legal or moral right
to attempt to bluff or pretend to our people that
we have. In seeking a basis of terms for union, we
have fully exhausted our rights in the matter and
it now rests with the people who would favour
union to elect a government to negotiate the best
possible terms.
Mr. Smallwood has stated that 99 out of every
100 of our people want confederation. How low
does he think the mentality of our people has
fallen to believe such trash? There may be, and
no doubt are, a lot of people who want confederation if they can get fair and equitable
terms; but
we all mix with most of the same people and we
find that pretty close to nine out of every ten are
a bit dubious about these so-called terms, and
almost all feel we should have self-government
restored, and the two parties enter the field and
test the people fairly in a general election next
fall. A lot of people wanted Commission, but
cursed them less than a year after they were
appointed. This business of confederation must
be a matter put fairly on the shoulders of the
people through their elected representatives, and
if seven men can run the country by Commission,
so can seven men run it by any other form of
government. In my opinion the high number we
have always had to run a one-man business has
been responsible for many of our past ills.
Mr. Smallwood said our people are not going
to be fooled again as they were in 1869, neither
will they be fooled by the lies of 1948. I must
agree with him. I give our people full credit of
possessing good sense to judge fairly who is
putting over the lies and false propaganda in
1948. On the whole our people are a wise,
cautious lot. They have followed the proceedings
of this Convention with a keen ear to every word,
and they will judge wisely on what in their
opinion carries wisdom or hot air.
We heard the best communistic speech here
on Friday that was ever delivered in Newfoundland. In fact, it surpassed anything
I have
ever heard on a soapbox in Hyde Park, and I
venture the opinion that if the same speech was
delivered in Canada, the USA or Great Britain,
the party delivering it would be convicted in court
for such utterances. It was only a few days ago
Mr. Bevin said, "We should not foist our system
on Soviet Russia and they have no right to foist
theirs on us." Mr. Attlee said, "We cannot have
theirs without sacrificing human rights and liberty." Mr. Bevin said, "We are resolutely
opposed
to the Communist way of life." Britain, he said,
was opposed to the Communist conception of
uniformity. "The essence of democracy is difference of opinion, free discussion and
tolerance
of the other people's point of view. The world we
want to see is one in which there are a number of
diverse and different units as compared with the
Communist world, in which, we might say they
try to make Newfoundland a copy of Russia." Mr.
Churchill supported both Mr. Attlee and Mr.
Bevin in their views. I wonder what these
gentlemen will think if they happen to drop in at
the committee rooms to hear the recordings of the
proceedings of the National Convention? Will
Friday's proceedings not give them serious food
for thought? I am all for co-operation. I am all for
democratic socialism; but I am not for installing
a communistic dictator in our midst; neither will
labour or capital tolerate such an individual or
group who attempt to foist it on an unsuspecting
public. Canada is teeming with such soapbox
orators, but now and then their activities are
curbed.
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that a
number of people both in the Convention and
outside it are favouring confederation going on
the ballot paper because they conscientiously
believe it would be the best thing in this country,
and they are seriously trying to improve the
standard of living for those around them. Their
intentions are good, but their actions are premature. The Hon. Mr. Job asks this pertinent
and
pregnant question:
Does he honestly think it is right that terms
indicated (not offered) by Canada, which
have not resulted from negotiations between
1382 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
a government of Newfoundland and a
government of Canada, should be placed
before the people of Newfoundland for such
a far-reaching decision as the complete
change of the constitution of Newfoundland?
Or does he not think it reasonable that any
terms of union should first be discussed between the governments of both countries
so
as to make sure that the best terms have been
obtained before submission to the people of
Newfoundland?
That is the whole gist of the matter, and
regardless of what Mr. Smallwood thinks, the
average John Citizen in Newfoundland still
regards the wisdom and advice of Hon. R. B. Job
as being worth as much as his own. Who will
finance the campaign Mr. Smallwood talks so
much of putting on? Capital? To whom will he
cater if he is successful? Capital?
Mr. Chairman I must request that you address
your remarks to the Chair. You are addressing
anything and everything but the Chair.
Mr. Vardy Mr. Chairman, one thing we are
doing all the way through. We are underestimating the intelligence and statesmanship
in both the
Canadian and British governments. In my
opinion they are capable of properly diagnosing
our case. They may be influenced slightly by
certain international complications, but I am
satisfied that our case will be properly put to the
people. For my part, I have endeavoured at all
time to be fair to every issue brought before the
Chair, to the Chair itself, to my district and the
country as a whole. I have acted according to the
dictates of my conscience, and regardless of the
outcome I shall have no regrets. In closing, Mr.
Chairman, I shall seek your indulgence to hear
just one more verse written today:
It's a bleak cold day, as we shiver away,
on a rock called Newfoundland,
With a carefree roll our caribou stroll
Through the brush of our hinterland.
But our populace brave, tries our pride to
save,
Our appeal will soon be heard,
The Lords and Peers of the British heirs
will examine just what occurred.
Two-thirds, they will say, must have their
way,
That's democracy simple and pure.
Confederation is out, there is now no doubt,
It must be settled next year on the floor.
Then the terms we have scanned, will be
improved grand,
By our neighbours on Cabot Strait shore.
I am sorry if I put everyone to sleep.
Mr. Chairman I think they are intrigued by
your poetic endeavours, like I am myself. I am
forced to remind you that time is running out and
the time limit for this debate is to expire in
expressly 24 hours. I hope there is not going to
be a last minute rush for the floor.
Mr. Spencer Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
motion before the Chair. I am strongly of the
opinion that this Convention must recommend
confederation to be put before the people in the
referendum. I cannot see how even one member
of the Convention can vote against letting our
people decide this question. It is the solemn duty
of every member here to give the people the
chance to say if they want confederation, or if
they do not want it. We all have the same duty,
whether we personally favour confederation or
not. We should not let personal likes or dislikes
enter into the picture at all. After all, we in this
Convention are not deciding which form of
government our country shall have, for that is the
people's right. If we of this Convention had the
right to decide the question, then there would be
no need for holding a referendum. We were sent
here to recommend forms of government to be
laid before the people for their choice. That is as
far as we can go; and it is the plain duty of every
man here to support this motion to place confederation before the people. I, for one,
will be
perfectly satisfied for the people to decide
whether our future government will be confederation or not.
In seconding the motion, Mr. Banfield said he
was voicing the feeling of the southwest coast. I
know that is true. I also know that the people of
the southwest coast want confederation to be on
the ballot in the referendum — yes, and are
anxiously awaiting the opportunity to vote for it.
I do not suppose any man would stand in this
Convention and say the people of the southwest
coast are not Newfoundlanders. I think you
would all agree that they are good Newfoundlanders, and that our fishermen are amongst
the finest in the country. How can any member
of this Convention vote to deny those thousands
of Newfoundlanders the chance to vote for the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1383
form of government they want? Would any member of this Convention say to those people
of the
southwest coast, "I do not care if you want confederation or not, I am not going to
give you a
chance to vote for it?" But that is exactly what
you will be saying if you vote against this motion.
But it is not only the people of the southwest
coast who want confederation to go on the ballot
paper. There are thousands all around this
country and in Labrador who want it; and right
here in St. John's there are many people who
would vote for it. Is any member of this Convention going to deny those people the
chance to vote
for what they want in the referendum?
If this motion is voted down in this Convention, it will only make confederation stronger
in
Newfoundland. Our people have a strong sense
of fair play, and they will know what to think of
members who vote to deprive them of a free
choice in the referendum this spring.
The people of Newfoundland, sir, have
learned a great many things in late years, and they
have begun to realise that we are too small a
country to stand alone. We have a small population scattered over a very large area.
We do not
have a large variety of natural resources. Our
whole economy depends upon three industries —
fishery, forestry and minerals. No doubt our
fishery could stand further development, and we
may some day see more mineral developments
than we now have; but it is doubtful if we shall
see any marked increase in our forestry development. Except for our paper mills, we
have no
highly developed industry. We are a country of
primary production. We still have to depend too
much on one industry, the fisheries, and when
something happens to upset that industry our
whole economy suffers. We still have too many
eggs in one basket, so to speak. When one goes
down, they all go down and our people are left
penniless.
What we have to beware of, Mr. Chairman, is
another depression. Some of our members here
assure us that we need not fear another depression. They have told us that there are
no shadows
on the road ahead. Well, maybe they are right. I
sincerely hope they are; but can we depend on our
not having another depression? I do not think we
can. That is one of the dangers we must keep in
mind. For if another depression strikes us, and we
are on our own trying to paddle our own canoe,
where shall we be? Back where we were in 1933.
Then we would be wishing we were linked up
with a larger country, and that is one of the things
we must bear in mind when the vote is taken on
this motion. We all know what conditions were
like in 1933 and up until the last great war. We
have very vivid memories of our people trying to
exist on six cents a day, and many who were
unwilling to accept relief, working for almost
nothing, to keep their families alive.
You may ask, would confederation guarantee
that these things would not happen again? Perhaps it would not. But as part of a larger
country,
with free trade with that country, the lower cost
of living would better fit us to meet a depression
if it came; and if under confederation a depression did come, the Canadian family
allowance
would see to it that our children under 16 years
of age have something better than six cents a day
to look forward to; and the increased old age
pension would guarantee our old people who
needed it a fair share of the necessities of life. I
am afraid the answer to all these questions is
already known to our people. Our people have
already asked themselves these questions, sir,
and they have already answered them as well.
And that is why so many thousands of them have
made up their minds to vote for confederation.
There is not a member of this Convention who
will deny that there are many thousands of confederates in our country today. That
being so, it
becomes the duty of every one of us here to vote
for this motion.
Mr. Chairman ....Again I have to remind members of the time schedule which this House
handed me the Friday before last, and unless I
receive directions to the contrary, I am bound to
remind members that the debate on the business
now before the House is scheduled to terminate
tomorrow afternoon or evening.
Mr. Hickman I do not want to be premature if
anyone else wants to speak, but I move we adjourn until three o'clock tomorrow. I
do not wish
to put that motion if somebody else cares to speak.
Mr. Chairman Would members care to give me
some indication as to who would care to speak on
this motion now before the Chair, so that we
would have some sort of idea as to where we are?
I am not side-tracking your motion, Mr. Hickman, but I would point out that a motion
to
adjourn the debate, under standing order 35, to
1384 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
which I direct your attention, is put only with the
consent of the Chairman. I know you were only
trying to assist me, but as the floor is now occupied by Mr. Cranford, I will defer
putting the
motion.
Mr. Cranford Mr. Chairman, for five weeks the
proposals for confederation with the Dominion
of Canada was debated in this chamber, and I
wonder if the people of this country understand
those proposals any better than they did when we
began. There is one thing that I am sure of, and
that is our people do not know how they are going
to be taxed in order to finance a province if we
decided to become a province of Canada. That is
one thing I am sure of, as I have taken a very keen
interest in this matter, and as yet I do not know,
and the fact is it has not been outlined to us and
it cannot be expected for any person outside of
this chamber to know.
It has been said in Canada that we are a touchy
and suspicious people, of which I plead guilty, in
view of the goings-on in our political life. If we
were not touchy and suspicious, it would be very
little interest we would have in the support of our
families.
Mr. Chairman, much has been said about
direct and indirect taxes. Now let us consider for
one moment which of the two is best for a fisherman. If the tax is direct, fishermen
will have a
yearly amount to pay, good voyage or bad voyage
— that direct tax must be paid or charged against
him. If the tax is indirect, it is the same as we are
used to. The years of a good voyage we spend all
our money on all necessities of life to replace the
badly worn, and to buy extras that we were not
able to buy when we have a bad voyage. In the
years of a bad voyage we curtail our spending
wherever possible and we mend and re-mend our
clothing and make other things do us for that year,
in order to try and balance our budget; and
believe me, in years of bad voyages we do not
pay much in the form of customs duty, when we
consider the principal part of a fisherman's food
is on the free list. Therefore Mr. Chairman, indirect taxes are better for a fisherman;
because
how is a fisherman going to pay a direct tax in a
year of a bad voyage or even an average voyage,
when he can just square his family account and
try and find something to do in order to try and
carry him through to the next season?
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you can imagine
how odd it sounds to me when a person asks the
question about the political feeling in any district,
when they ask how do the people take the confederation issue? To me, sir, this question
sounds
out of place, inasmuch as I am sure there is not a
person in Newfoundland today who knows what
confederation with Canada would mean to Newfoundland. On one hand we are offered family
allowances and so on. On the other hand, we are
asked to give our God-given rights together with
an assurance that we will not use our surplus that
will foster our industries that will be in competition with Canadian industries. Now,
sir, that
means we are asked to allow Canada monopolies
that would be against us. The word "monopolies"
stinks in my nostrils. I am a man that is against
monopolies — we have had a few to contend
with, and because we have had a few, will I for
spite give the whole of our trade to another
country to be monopolised? Sir, in view of this
how can any person decide on confederation with
Canada? I think, sir, the advocates of confederation should he held responsible for
all the
promises made, as I feel sure they are made to be
broken.
Mr. Chairman, you may consider what I have
just said to be in the nature of a joke, but I was
never more serious in my life, as I consider this
confederation issue of grave concern to all of us,
since in the past we have been made into a
political football without any consideration for
the welfare of the people. It is time for us to hold
someone responsible for their doings. As we all
realise, all the changes that have taken place in
our political life have been done by a few and not
by the majority of the people, and I say it is high
time we call a halt.
Mr. Chairman, I am not one of those who can
be deluded by any flowery offer or promise of
any person, and I would like to call the attention
of this house and the country in general to the
words of Mr. Smallwood when he polished off
his address on Wednesday, January 14, when he
said that $16 million would be given by Canada
yearly to the province of Newfoundland if we
should become such, and the Government of
Canada regards that amount as mere chicken
feed. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe one
word of that statement, not one word. And the
fact is, that statement has caused me to take all
that Mr. Smallwood has said on this matter with
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1385
a pinch of salt.
Mr. Chairman, during my business life I have
had business dealings with Canadians, and I have
found some of them to be as crooked as God is
straight; and if we give them the monopoly of our
trade that Mr. Smallwood advocates, I predict
that within five years, if we can survive at all, the
majority of Newfoundlanders will be obliged to
leave their island home and seek refuge in some
foreign land, or be no better situated than if we
all lived on the most northerly part of Labrador.
I really believe that. After all, Canadians, in the
Canadian government or out, are only ordinary
individuals and are as subject to taking advantage
from monopolies as people from any other land.
And I do not blame them, no more than I do the
people who have the monopoly of trade in this
country. I do blame the governments who give
these monopolies to the people who enjoy them
to the detriment of the people in general. If we go
into confederation with Canada, and that country
takes advantage of the monopolies given, which
is only natural to expect them to do, I will blame
it on the advocates of confederation, and on Mr.
Smallwood in particular. No one in this chamber
knows better than Mr. Smallwood how bitter I am
against monopolies. I do regard them as parasites,
because they are sure to eat into the life of any
business into which they are allowed to apply. It
is senseless, criminal, devilish and the worst
thing to happen in any country. It is a scourge that
everybody in this country should fight.
Mr. Cranford Talk about the TB scourge! Why
the TB germs in this country are only angels
compared with that monstrous parasite called
monopoly, because there is no cure. It is
protected by the laws of the land to devour us. It
has been in the past, and if we the people do not
crush it in its infancy, there is no hope for us. If
there had been no monopolies in this country, I
would have never been seen in this assembly. I
am sure it is the root of all our troubles, and I
would like to go on record in advising the advocates of confederation to be very careful
in their
offers and promises that may cause the people of
this country to make a mistake by voting for
confederation with Canada; a mistake they will
make if that germ monopolies is given as outlined
in the Grey Book. If that happens, and it turns out
within a few years that the people have made a
mistake, I assure these gentlemen there will be a
reaction and Newfoundlanders will be fooled just
once too often.
I intended to speak when the debate on the
proposals for confederation was taking place and
to ask Mr. Smallwood a few questions, but after
hearing Mr. Smallwood's answers to questions
put forward by other members, I took it for
granted that Mr. Smallwood was on a political
campaign and the Black Books were his manifesto — and a dirty one with that, as they
can be
subjected to deception, or in any light they would
persuade the electorate to vote for confederation,
without giving it any consideration if it was bad
or good for this country; and I, not being interested in any party politics, did not
feel inclined to
take part in a political campaign at that time.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we Newfoundlanders were accused of being touchy and
suspicious, of which I plead guilty. I will admit
my suspicions have been greatly aroused during
the past five weeks, and time alone will show me
if my suspicions were well-founded; and the fact
that monopolies have been introduced in the offer
of confederation with Canada. I cannot support
the motion. My not supporting this motion does
not mean that I am taking away the privilege of
the people from voting for confederation with
Canada; because the advocates of confederation
can vote for responsible government to be placed
on the ballot paper in the referendum this spring,
and if responsible government wins, they can
place a party in the field and issue a manifesto
setting forth just what taxes we will be called
upon to pay if we become a province of Canada,
and guarantee the electorate that we will not be
called upon to give Canada the monopoly of all
our trade; also that the province will not be called
upon to pay any property tax, and no settlement
will be forced against the people's will to form
town councils, as promised by Mr. Smallwood —
this will be giving the people something definite
to vote for. If that is done, I will be one of the
most ardent supporters of confederation in this
country.
Mr. Chairman, in June 1946, in my radio
address to the electors of Trinity Centre, I said
that I was fully convinced that one of the pests
that ate the prop from under our economic structure was monopolies, and this Convention
has
confirmed my conviction. I am sure that everyone
1386 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
in the hearing of my voice knows there was only
a portion of our trade monopolised under responsible government, which can, at this
enlightened
age, be remedied by ourselves. But to give
Canada, or any country, a monopoly of all our
trade is ridiculous. What is behind it all? Are
there any selfish motives? That is the question we
may ask ourselves also. What do we see in the
Canadian proposals that may cause us to throw
in our all to them, and give them the monopoly
of all our trade, and leave it to the Government
of Canada to say who we shall deal with or who
we shall not deal with? To me, the idea is
ridiculous. I have come to the conclusion that the
information that we now have is not conducive
enough to cause us to leap in the dark by voting
for confederation with Canada.
Mr. Chairman, maybe this is the last time that
I may have the privilege of rising in this chamber
to speak, but I am sure there are members here
today who will be back. I would like to ask them
that whenever anything arises that is not in the
best interest of the country, such as monopolies,
to think of me. Thank you and God bless you all.
Mr. Chairman There is a motion before the
Chair that the debate be now adjourned. I have
the discretion of withholding or putting that motion. I am reluctant to put it unless
I am satisfied
that no member wishes to address himself on the
business before the Chair. But again, lest my
position on this matter be in any way
misunderstood, I am personally ready to sit here
until seven o'clock tomorrow rather than have
any suggestion subsequently arise that I was
hindering directly or indirectly any member from
addressing himself to the business before the
Chair. But again I have to remind members that
according to the schedule laid down for me by the
members of this Convention, the debate on the
motion is scheduled to end tomorrow evening.
Mr. Smallwood Could you ascertain how many
members would like to speak? We have had ten
speak up to now, that leaves 34 still to speak
between three o'clock tomorrow afternoon and
11 tomorrow night.
Mr. Chairman That is why I warn members
that there is a motion before the Chair to adjourn
the debate.
[The motion carried, and the Convention adjourned]
