Mr. Bradley Mr. Chairman, this resolution proposes to submit confederation to the people's decision
upon the basis submitted by the Prime
Minister of Canada in October last. There is not
time for me to go into the provisions of Canada's
proposals in the short time allotted to me, and
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1387
fortunately there is no need to do it, for the details
have all been published by newspaper and radio,
and a long, if somewhat blurred and distorted
debate on the proposals and terms has taken place
in this chamber. I deem it necessary, however, to
endeavour to correct some misconceptions and
misinterpretations which have been placed upon
these proposals, to dissipate some unworthy and
even sneering references to some of the results of
confederation, to dispose of certain unfounded
charges of dishonesty and double-dealing made
against governmental bodies, and to draw the
attention of this Convention and the people of the
country to the grave uncertainties which await us
in this world of seething unrest and insecurity.
Up until today an unfortunate illness has made
it impossible for me to take any part in the debate
on the confederation proposals which were introduced by my motion of last October.
I have,
however, followed the debate in my home, and I
am compelled to admit that it was a most depressing and disappointing experience.
Never in my
whole life have I known the quality of debate
upon so important a matter to fall to such a low
level. During that period I was in the very heart
of the largest fishing town of this country,
[1] and I
have to admit that the people there, and I feel that
the whole country shared the feeling, were shocked by the refusal of many members
of this Convention to treat this great question with the
sincere impartiality and the friendly spirit of cooperation in search of truth which
its importance
demanded. I can assure you, sir, that their comments were caustic rather than complimentary,
and they were unanimous, nor did they hesitate
to express their disgust and indignation. Sir, I
could not deny the justice of their criticism — it
was too true.
While the people were expecting what was
their undoubted right, a straightforward and impartial and cooperative discussion
of what confederation would mean to them, they were treated
instead to a senseless barrage of heated misrepresentation and distortion, to pretty
prejudice
and personal antagonism. The Convention became a veritable battleground. Instead of
making
an effort to understand the terms and make them
plain to our people, some members seemed determined to make it appear that confederation
is
such a complicated and confused question that
nobody in or out of the Convention could possibly understand it. I shall not soon
forget the disgraceful climax to that unworthy campaign of
obstruction which I had the misfortune to witness
here on December 12 last, when we were closing
for the Christmas vacation, when a majority of
members walked out of the chamber with the
perfectly obvious intention of preventing any
reply to several hours of twisting and distorting
of the Canadian proposals.
Now there is a very urgent need indeed that in
the interests of clear thinking a number of misconceptions that have grown up or been
thrown
up around this whole question should be corrected. Amongst these, sir, is the utterly
foolish
notion that the very fact that we are discussing
confederation at all is the result of a breach of
faith by Britain, that if she had carried out her
obligation to us no confederation question would
have arisen at all. Great currency has been given
to this notion. Indeed it has been actively and
sedulously circulated. This notion has grown into
the more vicious and equally unfounded charge
that Britain is false, that Britain is not to be
trusted, that Britain is trying to cheat us out of our
rights, including the right of responsible government, that Britain is actively plotting
to thrust us
into confederation whether we want it or not, that
Britain is plotting to retain Commission government. In fact about the only political
crime that is
not charged up to Britain today is that of trying
to foist responsible government on us. It is in no
way surprising, therefore, to find that almost
invariably, if not exclusively, every one of these
charges is voiced by a supporter of responsible
government.
Now what are the bases of these charges? The
argument runs something like this: in 1933-34 the
British government promised that when Newfoundland became self-supporting responsible
government would be restored if the people
wanted it. Newfoundland is now technically self-
supporting, and it remains therefore only for
Britain to give us back responsible government
and clear out. "Give us back what we had, give
us back responsible government", that is the cry.
What are the real facts? It is quite true that the
British government of 1933 did promise to restore responsible government to Newfoundland
if and when she became self-supporting, and if
1388 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
the people requested it. Of that there can be no
doubt whatever, and it is also true that Newfoundland, at least in the official sense,
is self-
supporting today — we do not presently require
grants from Britain to pay our government bills.
But just where and how has that promise of
Britain been broken? Is there not to be a national
referendum? Are not the people of Newfoundland to vote at that referendum? Will not
responsible government be one of the forms for
which they may vote on the ballot at that referendum? And if the people of Newfoundland,
by a
majority, request a return of responsible government does anyone here suggest that
Britain will
refuse to carry out that wish? Where, I ask you,
is the broken promise? What then is it that rouses
the ire of these responsible governmentites almost to the pitch of frenzy? I will
tell you. It is
not that Britain has failed to carry out that
promise of 1933, but that she has done more than
honour what these people are pleased to term her
bond. She has not only undertaken to give us back
responsible government if we want it, but also to
give us any other form of government (within
reason, of course) which we may request.
Let me put the position to you by a very simple
illustration. Let us suppose a man takes his young
son to a house which he, the father, owns, and
says, "Son, when you are 21 years of age I will
give you this house if you want it." The boy
reaches the age of 21, and the father now says to
him, "Son, some years ago I promised you this
house if you asked me for it when you became
21. You are now 21, and I intend to keep my
promise, but before you ask me for it I want to
show you two other houses that I own." Thereupon he shows the young man these two
other
houses, and says, "Now you can have your choice
of the three." Has that man broken his promise to
his son? He has not, he has enlarged it, he has
extended it. In exactly the same way Britain has
fulfilled her so-called bond to the people of Newfoundland. She says to us, in effect,
"You Newfoundland people may have a return of
responsible government if you want it, or if you
prefer you may have Commission government,
or confederation; or tell me what you do want and
I will give you anything within reason." Britain
has given us more than she promised. And so we
see that the real complaint of these followers of
responsible government is not that Britain failed
to honour her promise, but that she fulfilled it
pressed down and running over. She has given us
more than she agreed to give, and it is that more
to which the responsible governmentites object.
They don't want anything but responsible
government. "Give us what we had", is their cry.
In their hearts they want no Convention, no
recommendations, no referendum, no choice for
the people. In fact their real desire is to thrust a
return of responsible government on the people,
whether the people want it or not. They see in this
free choice a grave danger that their own faith
may be cast out. They stand in deadly fear that it
will. These people who profess the democratic
way of life, and who would destroy the referendum by a resolution if they could, and
thus wipe
the people out of the picture, complain bitterly
that Britain has broken her promise, and is false,
and is not to be trusted, because she has given the
people more than she agreed to give.
Let us have no more of this stupid, and in some
instances I fear, dishonest chatter about Britain
having broken faith. Responsible government
will be on the ballot. The people can, if they wish,
request its restoration. And if they do it will be
restored. And if anybody holds that confederation should not be discussed, let him
not blame
the British government, nor the Commission
government, nor the Canadian government. It
was this Convention, I remind you, that voted 24
to 16 to send a delegation to Ottawa to ascertain
conditions of union. Let no one be blamed for
what we did ourselves by a substantial majority.
And even more fantastic is the misconception
that has been stated again and again here and
elsewhere, that we must get responsible government before considering confederation
at all.
There are several points that are overlooked
by those who repeat this absurd contention. First,
what guarantee have we that the people will vote
for responsible government? And yet they must,
according to this contention, before confederation can be considered at all. If a
consideration of
confederation is to be postponed until our people
vote for responsible government, then it will be
a very, very long day indeed before we come
around to a consideration of it. And again, assuming that the people want confederation,
will some
one kindly explain to me just why they should be
saddled with, why they should have forced upon
them, a form of government which they don't
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1389
want in order to get what they do want, why the
responsible government which they reject should
be imposed upon them in spite of their wishes?
Why, if a majority of Newfoundlanders want
confederation today, they must be subject to
responsible government which they don't want?
Will somebody kindly explain that to me? Such
a proceeding, sir, has about it a very strong smell
of Hitlerism, of that dictatorship which these
persons who advocate the idea profess to hate so
utterly. It is coolly suggested that the people shall
be forced to vote for what they don't want in order
to get what they do want. If that is not the very
spirit of dictatorship I do not know what it is.
Again, these anticonfederate addicts have
another refrain. They tell us that the Ottawa
delegation had no power to negotiate, and that a
duly elected government would have authority to
enter into a bargain with the Canadian government, and that therefore an elected government
would get better terms. "Oh yes", they say, "these
terms are pretty good, but an elected government
would get better." Let us take a look at that theory
for a moment. In the first place there are two
alternatives involved in this idea that an elected
government should get the terms. Firstly, that
having got the deal with Canada the elected
government would put that deal through without
consulting the people. The people would then
have no voice in the terms at all — none
whatever. Is that what they want? Or second, the
elected government would, after making the deal,
submit it to the people, in which case they would
have had no more authority to speak for the
people than our Ottawa delegation had. And
make no mistake about it, sir, it is the voice of the
people of Newfoundland that the Canadian
government wishes to hear, and not that of a
government forced upon them by Britain or this
Convention. And let no one imagine that
Newfoundland's entry into the Canadian union is
a matter of horse-trading, or that the statesmen of
Canada, that greatest dominion of the British
Commonwealth, are trying to put a shady deal
over on this little people who are their own kith
and kin. I well remember the words of Canada's
Minister of External Affairs, the Right Honourable Mr. St. Laurent, who was chairman
of this
conference — words uttered by him at the very
outset of our discussions: "What we are trying to
discover", he said, "is whether union of our two
countries will work. Whether it will work to the
mutual advantage of both. We must discover
whether confederation under the British North
America Act will actually work out in practice."
And that, sir was the spirit that permeated all our
discussions. Those are not the words of a truckling tinhorn politician, but of a statesman
who is
held in profound respect by all shades of opinion
in Canada, a man who was never a politician, but
who was called into his country's counsels in the
early stages of the war because of his character,
his skill and his unimpeachable integrity. And it
is with him, and with statesmen of his calibre that
it is suggested that a delegation sent by a responsible government no less, a responsible
government forced upon the people perhaps against its
will, might do a little horse-trading. Sir, I wonder
if those who visualise the making of the terms of
federal union as something akin to the chattering
of a housewife over a basket of vegetables in the
marketplace, I wonder if they appreciate the true
Canada of today? Do they realise that this Canada
is a great and a generous nation, the third largest
exporting country in the world, whose generous
policy towards the mother country, both during
the war and ever since, is eloquent testimony not
only to her great wealth, but to her realisation of
the high moral obligation which rests upon her as
a member of the Commonwealth. While the conflict was in progress she gave and loaned
to
Britain literally thousands of millions of dollars,
and since then she has continued that policy, as
well as the policy of supplying that war-torn and
impoverished land with millions of tons of food
at amazingly low prices. And yet this is the
country that the anticonfederates would liken
unto a housewife haggling over a basket of
potatoes. Don't they realise that confederation is
not the making of a merely commercial bargain
between a couple of private businessmen? Confederation is a proposal for political
union. A
partnership between Newfoundland and Canada
presupposes that we shall become one more
among the provinces that constitute that union.
Far from being a trading corporation, those
nine provinces are bound together by a constitution known as the British North America
Act.
This act, which was passed by the British Parliament 80 years ago, lays down the terms
and
conditions of that union, and this act must govern
the entry of any country into that union, be it
1390 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
Newfoundland or any other. Confederation
therefore is not a case of a couple of businessmen
driving a bargain; it is not a case of a couple of
horsetraders, each trying to outsmart the other; it
is not a matter of haggling, or bargaining, or even
negotiating, except in the very broadest and
loosest sense of that term. It is a case of ascertaining what are the terms of union
as laid down by
the British North America Act, and by the various
regulations and agreements having their roots in
that act. Nor can the federal government discriminate against, or unduly favour any
province
or proposed province. It has a duty not to unduly
favour any province at the expense of others. All
that any delegation, whether it be from an elected
government or from this Convention can do, is to
learn the limits of what is possible under
Canada's constitution.
Sir, that has been done by the Ottawa delegation, and the Prime Minister of Canada
himself
tells us plainly in his letter to His Excellency the
Governor, that on the financial side the proposals
he has laid before us are the best that Canada can
offer. No delegation of an elected government, or
any other government could do more. But notwithstanding all these hard facts the anticonfederates
continue their refrain. "Give us back
what we had", they insist, "and in the first general
election the confederates can enter a political
party. If they win a majority they will be the
government, and they can go to Ottawa and
negotiate terms." That is the plan they have rather
clumsily worked out. Let us take a look at that. I
have already pointed out that responsible government might not win at the referendum.
The
people may refuse to vote for it, for the simple
reason that they don't want it. In that event confederation would not be submitted
to the people
at all, if the anticonfederate plans were worked
out. Thus would they cheat the people out of their
right to consider confederation by forcing them
to vote for what they don't want in order to get
what they do want.
And if we assume, if we assume that responsible government is accepted under these immoral conditions. it might
well happen that no
political party favourable to confederation would
enter the field, for it requires both money and
organisation to fight an election. That alone could
defeat the wishes of tens of thousands of Newfoundlanders who want to vote on this
question
of confederation. And even if a confederate party
were formed, what assurance is there that it
would win a majority of the districts? It might
have no election funds, or it might have some but
still be smothered under the weight of anticonfederate money. All these possibilities
exist. We
all know what has happened in elections in this
country before, and the same things can happen
again. A general election is no way to decide so
vitally important a matter as the very nature and
very form of the future government of this
country. In the noise and excitement of party
contest, amidst all the hysteria and propaganda,
with all the charges and counter-charges and
political catch-cries and abuse, the promises of
grants to sectional interests, jobs and concessions
to individuals, in all that chaos of excitement
what possible chance would any form of government have of being calmly considered
on its
merits? People might indeed desire to give it that
calm and careful consideration, but they would
be badgered and hounded, and confused and bewildered by the propaganda and personalities,
and the wild political charges and promises so
characteristic of general elections in the past. No
sir, the time for the people to give careful consideration to such a vital matter
is not in the heat
and bitterness of a general election, where candidates are vying with each other to
get votes, but
in the far cooler and more rational atmosphere of
a referendum, where there are no candidates
seeking election, and where the people themselves are selecting the very form of government
of
their choice. They are not true friends of Newfoundland or of her people, who would
plunge
this country and her people into the boiling pot
of a party contest, and subject it to the distorting
and fighting and squabbling of a general election,
where the personal popularity, the promises, and
speaking ability of candidates are such important
factors.
In this connection there is another point which
is of great importance. This plan might easily
bring a decision contrary to the wishes of the
majority. I want to repeat that, sir. This plan
might very well bring a decision contrary to the
wishes of the majority. What guarantee have we
that the party which secures the majority of the
seats in the House of Assembly will have a
majority of the total vote polled? I have seen
candidates elected by five votes, and others by
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1391
2,500. It has happened before, and it might well
happen again, that the successful party would poll
less than half the number of votes cast. Thus
would the majority of the people — the will of
the majority — be completely defeated by a
minority vote.
And let me ask this further simple question:
why is it suggested that forms of government
should be split up in this unreasonable fashion —
two to be submitted to the people for their choice
at the referendum, and a third to be held back and
subsequently thrown into the confusion and
chaos of a general election? Three forms of
government are on men's lips today. Why should
one of them be put to such a disadvantage? It is
noteworthy, sir, that the suggestion comes not
from those who want our people to have a free
choice, but rather from those who would force
responsible government down the people's
throats like a dose of evil-tasting medicine. I ask
you to remember that it is the anticonfederates,
the responsible government champions, who
would thus prevent the people from giving their
verdict upon a form of government laid before
them by this Convention itself as a result of
Britain's complete good faith — who would
force the people to vote, not for what they want,
but for what they don't want in order to get what
they want.
And finally, does it not occur to these anticonfederates that the referendum is the
proper, the
only just method of deciding the issue of forms
of government? It is the people, and not political
parties, who will be subject to the new government, whatever that new government may
be.
Who, then, should directly, and without the meddling of any political party, decide
the matter? Is
anyone going to tell me that the people are not fit
to make that decision? Is anyone going to say that
the people should not be trusted to decide the type
of government by which they shall be ruled? And
yet these anticonfederates would say, they do say,
to the people, "No! You shall not choose from
these three forms. We don't believe in one of
them, therefore it must be postponed. You must
accept first the one which we want. When you
have done that, perhaps you will get a chance to
vote for the other. Even though you don't want
our form, you must vote for it. You must vote for
what you don't want in order to get what you
want. You shall not vote for confederation unless
you vote for responsible government first."
Only once in our history has the question of
confederation been submitted to our people. That
was in 1869, two years after the then four British
colonies on the mainland were united to form
Canada. The Canadian union was then in its
experimental stage, and there was no certainty
that it would succeed or even survive. It lacked
financial strength, the prairies were unpopulated,
the transcontinental railway not even contemplated, and the country's economy almost
entirely agricultural. Here in Newfoundland our
people were uneducated. Few ever saw a newspaper. There was no radio. The whole question
of confederation was deliberately turned into a
political squabble. The anticonfederate party was
led by a great merchant who spared no expense
to win. An army of party hacks were sent around
the Island to poison the people's minds against
confederation. These henchmen traded on the
people's ignorance and assured them that their
property would be taxed — their homes, their
furniture, their gardens, boats, flakes, stages,
fishing gear, their poultry and animals, the very
panes of glass in their homes. A horde of
Canadian tax-gatherers would swarm over the
land, the anticonfederates declared, and woe
betide the unfortunates who didn't have the hard
cash to pay up, for the hungry tax collectors
would seize their property, put them on the street.
Canada would seize their young men to fight her
wars, and their bones would be left to bleach on
the desert sands of Canada. Their very babies
would be used as gun-wads in the Canadian cannon. Sir, if you cannot credit these
statements,
you have only to turn to Prowse's
History of
Newfoundland. There was no secret ballot in
those days. There was no manhood suffrage.
There was no woman's vote at all. The unfortunate voter had to declare his vote aloud
in the
presence of the party agent — often the employee
of the local merchant, and it was a bold man who
would brave the anger of his supplier in those
semi-feudal days. As we look back upon that
story of 1869, it is difficult to believe that any
men voted for confederation; but thousands did,
and it is of tremendous significance that out of 30
members elected to the House of Assembly, ten
were confederates.
[1]
How vastly different is the whole prospect
today. Canada is a rich and powerful nation —
no longer a strange and foreign land, but a friendly neighbour in which many thousands
of our
own Newfoundland people are prospering at this
very moment. And our Newfoundland people are
educated today, they are better informed, they
read the newspaper and magazines, they have
radios, they have relatives and friends in Canada.
No longer are they under the thumb of anyone,
merchant or otherwise. They have full manhood
suffrage, both men and women. And they have
the secret ballot. And, sir, they have something
more: they have experience of two forms of
government, Commission and responsible.
There is, however, one thing which has not
changed. The same policy of twisting and distorting and misrepresenting the facts
is again to be
seen. The tax scare, which worked so well in
1869, is again put to work.
But these despicable political dodges are a bit
stale and ineffectual, and so the anticonfederates
have coined a new one, the Labrador scare. "If
we become part of Canada, Quebec will chisel us
out of Labrador." Sir, these men in their desperation forget that our people know
full well that
Labrador was awarded to Newfoundland by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and that
there is no way whatever to upset that award.
They know further that the terms of union now
before us contain a definite undertaking by the
Canadian government that Labrador shall form
part of the Province of Newfoundland. They
know that the British North America Act, which
even the Government of Canada must obey, distinctly and clearly lays down the condition
that
no territory of a province can be taken from it.
That is one of the terms of union. This silly
catch-cry will fail, sir, as will the old and mouldy
wail about taxing people's property. I do not
know whether these anticonfederates are aware
of it, but it is strictly true to say that since the
beginning of Canadian confederation some 80
years ago there never has been, and there is not
now, any tax of any kind whatever imposed by
Canada upon people's property.
It is a grave decision which faces our people
today — the form and nature of their future
government. Only three forms seem to have been
considered at all, whether in this Convention or
among the citizens. They are the Commission,
responsible and confederation forms. I understand, sir, that I am not permitted to
discuss now
either responsible or Commission government. I
would have liked to do so, for neither of them is
all good nor all bad. I must, however, bow to your
ruling and confine myself to the third form, confederation, which proposes that Newfoundland
should enter the Canadian union as the tenth
province or partner. Notice, please, that it is not
a case either of annexation or absorption or taking
over. We go in as a partner, retaining our own
identity, governing ourselves as to local matters,
and sharing in the government of all Canada in
matters of national interest. We will retain our
own legislature right here in St. John's, with
which nobody will interfere. We will also send
elected members to represent us in the Canadian
House of Commons, just as each province now
does. We will not be a dependency without a
word in our cheeks, but a partner with a full voice
in Canada's councils, and complete control of
local Newfoundland affairs.
Eighty years ago it might have been sound to
say that to join in the union then would have been
risky. The union had no assurance of success or
even of continued existence. Today the prospect
is far different. Those four weak provinces have
grown and expanded into a mighty nation whose
institutions have a world reputation for soundness and stability, and whose social,
commercial
and financial services are in the front rank of
sane, modern development, and whose standard
of living is far ahead of ours. If you doubt this
latter statement, ask the people of the southwest
coast, and of Labrador and northern Newfoundland, who are in constant touch with
Canada. Truly, Canada has proved that in union
there is strength, and it would now appear inevitable that had we joined the union
in 1869, the
Newfoundland people would be better off today.
Of course the standard of living is higher in some
parts of Canada than in other parts, just as in
Newfoundland the people of the paper towns are
better situated than those of the fishing settlements. These variations are inevitable
in any
country, as they depend on the resources of the
particular locality. But there is no province of
Canada which cannot show a better standard of
living than we have experienced. That is a
definite result of union, the system of taxation
and distribution of revenue, and the power which
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1393
the united provinces wield in the world. The
individual provinces don't count for very much,
but when Canada speaks the nations of the world
listen.
Under confederation we would be relieved of
the cost of many public services which at present
are a terrible load for this little country to carry.
We would be relieved of that terrible but necessary burden, the railway. The postal,
airport and
veterans' services would be taken off our
shoulders and improved. In the field of social
service we would enjoy the benefits of family
allowances, old age pensions, unemployment insurance and sick mariners' and fishermen's
hospitalisation.
I have heard some strange pronouncements
voiced both in and out of this chamber within the
past couple of months, but none more curious
than the assertions that Newfoundlanders were
lazy and that family allowances were immoral,
degrading and would result in people ceasing to
earn a living. The first of these statements I pass
by as beneath contempt. But the latter cannot be
allowed to go unchallenged. Family allowances
are paid by the Canadian government to every
child in Canada (and that would include Newfoundland if our people chose confederation)
from birth to the age of 16 years. The amount
varies according to age from $5 to $8 per month
for each child, or from $60 to $96 per year per
child. The purpose is obvious. It is to ensure that
every child in Canada shall have as far as possible
appropriate food, sufficient clothing and education, notwithstanding that its parents
are not
prosperous. And, in order that the stigma of
pauperism might not attach to the payments,
these allowances are payable to all children, rich
and poor alike.
Sir, I wonder if these professors of moral
science, these dilettante arm-chair philosophers
with their smug noses in the air, their full bellies,
warm clothes and comfortable homes, can find
one solitary clergyman of any denomination in
the whole length and breadth of Canada — or
Newfoundland — who has ever condemned these
family allowances. On the contrary, they have
hailed them as one of the most Christian pieces
of legislation ever placed upon the statute book
of any country. Are these clergymen immoral
also? In Australia, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom and every other country that is for
tunate enough to have them, this Christian and
highly moral method of fostering child and family life merits and receives unstinted
praise from
all thinking men. It was quite moral, I suppose,
to condemn thousands of our children to the dole,
but to pay them family allowances is immoral.
Sir, I wonder if these people do really mean What
they say? Are they lost to all sense of sympathy
for the innocent child who is unfortunately
placed? Would they deprive him of proper food,
clothing and a chance to attend school? Have
their hearts become gizzards and their bowels
bass rope? I think not. I wonder if the truth is that
this eminently Christian and moral protection of
the children will constitute a powerful factor in
attracting thinking people and fathers, and more
particularly mothers, to confederation, and away
from that dearest wish of their hearts, responsible
government?
Much has been said of taxation. I have not the
time to go into that matter. I would point out,
however, that the Canadian government's
expenditures here will be at least $36 million a
year, and their receipts from us in taxes are officially estimated at $20 million.
Moreover, as to
more than half our provincial revenue, it will be
provided by the federal government, leaving $5-6
million to be collected in local taxation. In other
words, in return for our paying a total of $26
million a year in taxes, we shall in federal and
provincial services, both public and social,
receive the equivalent of $51 million a year. The
red herring of per capita debt has been drawn into
this matter, and we have been told that every man,
woman and child in this country will be saddled
with his share of some $1,400. Why don't these
distorters of fact go to the logical limit of absurdity and tell us that unless this
is promptly paid a
writ will be served on every infant in the cradle
and his napkins sold to pay the bill? I never heard
such trash before. Of course that debt is serviced
out of the general revenues of Canada, which is
collected mainly by income tax from corporations and individuals best able to pay,
according
to their profits. That is the whole policy of
Canadian taxation — to put the burden on the
broadest shoulders.
Sir, the whole campaign against confederation
has been a continuous barrage of bald statements
unsupported by any logical proof. "Give us back
what we had", they cry. "Canada will tax your
1394 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
property; Quebec will get the Labrador; responsible government will get better terms."
Mr.
Chairman, here are the terms of union. The
people have them now. Let them decide the issue.
It is their absolute right, and if the members of
this Convention in inconceivable arrogance attempt to cheat them of that right, I
warn them that
the people will know how to deal with them.
Sir, my duties as a Convention member are
now all but ended. What I have done throughout
is to try as best I could to reach no decision as to
the comparative merits of the different forms of
government until all the facts possible had been
ascertained and discussed. And for that reason I
have made no confession of political faith in this
chamber. Some of you will remember that years
ago I strongly opposed the introduction of Commission government. While I did not
then and do
not now favour that form, my hostility to its
introduction was based mainly upon the fact that
it was imposed upon the people without even
asking their consent. It robbed the people of the
right to say how they should be ruled. What was
done then was undemocratic and politically indecent. Again I am faced with a similar
question
today. There is to be a referendum at which the
people are to decide what form of government
they want. The defeat of this motion may rob
them of their right to vote for one of the forms of
government. I would not be a party to such robbery in 1933, and I will notbe a party
to it in 1948.
I will not join the enemies of the people. Who are
the 45 individuals who sit here to say to the
Newfoundland people, "You shall not have an
opportunity to vote for confederation?" What
right have we to tell them that we will save them
from themselves by denying them that right
which was always theirs morally, and which
Britain has returned to them now in full measure?
I shall vote for this motion. In my view it is
the only course open to an honest man and a
democrat. But I have, like every member, a
preference of my own. I have given the matter a
great deal of thought within the past 18 months,
and I have at least had as good an opportunity to
judge of the merits of the several forms of
government as any man in Newfoundland, and I
have come to a definite conclusion. I am not
bound to disclose that conclusion here, but as
many have made this Convention the means of
proclaiming their political faiths, there is no
reason why I should not tell the people where I
stand. Naturally I hope the people will agree with
me, but whatever form of government they
choose I shall accept it loyally.
Because confederation will reduce the cost of
living for our people and raise their standard of
living;
Because confederation will reduce the burden
of taxation on our people and apportion the burden more fairly amongst them;
Because confederation will give our people
social services such as no other form of government would give them;
Because confederation will provide our
people with wider opportunities of employment;
Because confederation will provide our
people with greatly improved railway and other
transportation services;
Because confederation will stabilise government revenues by means of definite federal
cash
grants;
Because confederation will make Newfoundland one of the family of Canadian provinces
and bring her into union with the great,
wealthy and growing Canadian nation, which has
flourished under union while we have marched
with snail's pace under isolation;
Because of these irresistible benefits offered
our struggling people, sir, I am a confederate.
Mr. Higgins First of all, I would like to offer my
congratulations to my learned friend Mr. Bradley
on a very fine Speech indeed. I have admired Mr.
Bradley's forensic ability for some time and
today his speech was of the same order. It was
also fully apparent to me that Mr. Bradley was
pleading a case which he himself was not fully
satisfied with. With respect to the remarks made
by Mr. Bradley in his address in referring to the
conduct of members here prior to the Christmas
recess, whatever that conduct was, we have been
very fair. Nobody can say that this confederation
proposal has not been given anything but the
fullest attention of the house for a longer period
than any other form of government or any other
report, and as Mr. Smallwood admitted at the end
of the debate, he was fully satisfied with all the
publicity given it.
I would also like to say I concur with the
previous speakers in the views expressed by them
on the cornmunistic tinge of Mr. Smallwood's
remarks during this debate. I would also like to
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1395
draw your attention in this respect to the remarks
made by him in speaking to the resolution we
recently adopted. "They" (meaning the people)
"are heartsick at seeing our governments feeding
the fat sow. Truly, this is a country of which it
can be said 'To him that hath shall be added, and
from him that hath not, shall be taken away, even
the little that he hath'." Then he said:
I am of the people and for the people of
the working class, to the last drop of blood in
my veins, the last ounce of flesh on my body.
I come from the working class. I belong to
them. My brothers toil for a living. I share
their feelings and the feelings of the toilers of
this country. They have never gotten a square
show and a deliberate attempt has been made
to stack up the powers of government and the
powers of taxation against them, so as to keep
them down. I share that belief. I have no
shame in saying it. There is nothing aristocratic about me. There is not a single
ounce
of blue blood in me.
Mr. Chairman, I work for a living, you do also.
All of us here do. We were sent here for a specific
purpose, to endeavour to assist the people of this
country in making up their minds as to what type
of government they wanted. Not to inflame them;
not to set class against class. I feel that I work as
hard for a living as any of my countrymen. In a
different way, I will admit, but still I feel, just as
hard. I may not be a producer, but a necessary
evil. I earn my money, and it is clean money. I
resent this type of inflammatory talk. It is unnecessary and not part of our job to
indulge in
propaganda of any kind, and certainly not of this
kind. If confederation means this manner of
thinking being introduced into Newfoundland, I
want no part of it — now, or any other time.
I agree that the rights of labour should be
recognised. I agree that the producers in the
country should be recognised. I agree that labour
must be represented in any government of the
future, and represented in a manner that will
protect fully the rights of labour. But, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, expressions
such as I have
drawn your attention to, are doing a disservice to
labour. In Newfoundland, to my knowledge, relations between capital and labour have
been
happy. None of us in Newfoundland are
bluebloods. Some must necessarily be masters
and some employees, but I say without fear of
contradiction that no country in the world has as
happy a relationship in this respect as we have
here. If Mr. Smallwood's form of oratory is considered to be in the best interests
of Newfoundland and of the representatives of labour in
Newfoundland, then, Mr. Chairman, I just cannot
be thinking straight.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that an article
in a local newspaper, of which you, Mr. Chairman, are legal adviser, is very pertinent.
It is the
paper dated January 25, Sunday last, and is an
article written by a Newfoundlander — Mr. F.
Reardon of 1988 Notre Dame St. West, Montreal.
Mr. Reardon stated that he had been persuaded
by a friend to attend a meeting of the local union
which had headquarters in Montreal. The meeting was actually a dinner for one of the
union
leaders. The hall was decorated with pictures of
Lenin and Stalin. In the course of the speech by
this union leader, he stated that labour in Newfoundland was ripe for the sowing of
communism
and that of the 43,000 workers in the country,
4,000 were already organized for communism.
The speaker stressed the importance of helping
to make confederation a reality.
In referring to a statement I made during the
debate on this matter in committee of the whole,
Mr. Smallwood quoted me as saying, "Here is
Newfoundland sitting with a pat hand." What I
meant to infer, of course, was that Newfoundland, for all the reasons I had enumerated,
her
strategic position and her mineral wealth, was in
an excellent bargaining position. As an answer to
this Mr. Smallwood said, "I wonder if Mr. Higgins is aware of the factthat we have
nearly 1,200
veterans of the late war out of jobs right here in
St. John's tonight? I wonder if he is aware that
we have thousands on the dole in Newfoundland
at this moment?" I am by no means unsympathetic in this unfortunate situation, but
in justice to our country I would like to point out the
following with respect to unemployment here
and in Canada. I have taken the Newfoundland
figures from the Evening Telegram. It was stated
in one of their issues of last week that 8,076
persons who were able to work but could not
secure employment received assistance for the
year. These were figures released by the Department of Public Health and Welfare —
8,706
people for the 12 months ending in December.
The latest figure of registered unemployment
1396 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
applicants in Canada totalled 135,000. The latest
available figures are up to December 18, 1947.
They show an increase of 29,000 since November 13, 1947. This 135,000 unemployed merely
represents the number who have actually
registered at unemployment offices. How many
more there are unregistered is unknown.
There are some statements made by Mr.
Smallwood when we debated this matter in committee of the whole that I want to draw
your
attention to. In replying to Mr. Northcott, who
asked him what the position would be in respect
to divorce in the event of Newfoundland's entering union with Canada, Mr. Smallwood
stated:
[1]
....I am going to say something about divorce
in case we become a province of Canada. Sir,
we have no divorce laws in Newfoundland.
We never did, and I hope we never will.
Those provinces of Canada that are in union
now, some of them had divorce laws, before
confederation was started in 1867. They took
their own laws into the union with them.... I
don't think that any other province since then
has passed a divorce law of its own. If Newfoundland goes into confederation, I would
give it as my opinion that it is ... highly
unlikely that our House of Assembly will
pass a divorce law.... If Mr. Northcott was a
member of the provincial House of Assembly, I don't think he will vote for it I don't
think Mr. Starkes, Mr. Vincent or Mr.
Jackman or any of us here will ever vote
to pass a divorce law. That's very unlikely.
I say to you that by these words Mr. Smallwood
was making a deliberate attempt to deceive the
members of this Convention and possibly the
people of this country. He attempted to convey
the idea that in the event of federal union it was
a matter for the parliament of the province
whether a divorce law was passed and divorce
courts set up here.
That is definitely untrue, and Mr. Smallwood
when making the statement knew it was untrue.
The fact is that in the event of union, the matter
of divorce is taken out of the hands of the parliament of Newfoundland. The parliament
of Newfoundland would have no power to either set up
divorce courts or to prevent them from being set
up. That is a matter solely and entirely within the
province of the federal government. I would refer
you to the British North American Act and to
your Black Book with respect to this matter. Then
again in the course of his reply to Mr. Northcott,
Mr. Smallwood said, "Mind you, there are only
two grounds for divorce in Canada — adultery
and desertion." That is definitely untrue and Mr.
Smallwood knew at the time he made the statement that it was untrue. I would refer
you again
to your Black Book on this matter. Mr.
Smallwood is always bragging about his wonderful memory, so what are we to understand
by
these mis-statements? I would suggest to you quite
definitely that they are deliberately misleading.
I have pointed out to you the definite fact that
in the event of federal union with Canada, the sole
right and authority to pass a divorce law and to
set up divorce courts in Newfoundland rests with
the federal government at Ottawa and with that
government alone. With union between the two
countries the provincial legislature of Newfoundland would have no discretion to say "yes"
or "no" in this matter. Unless a provision was
included in the terms of union, clearly stating that
the federal parliament at Ottawa would forego for
all time the right to legislate for divorce in Newfoundland and undertake to have
the British
North America Act amended accordingly, then
without such provision, such terms would be
unacceptable to the Catholic people of Newfoundland. As no such provision is made
in the
proposals received from the Right Honourable
the Prime Minister of Canada, I must advise you,
Mr. Chairman, that the proposals cannot be accepted by our Catholic people.
Mr. Smallwood, during that same debate,
stated that I said, "Yes, the terms appear to be fair
but an elected government could get better
terms." That is not exactly what I said; however,
he then went on to explain what wonderful men
the Ottawa delegation were, and having
described those having confederate views in the
delegation in somewhat glowing terms as to their
personal accomplishments, stated:
... There you have the Ottawa delegation and
in intelligence, ability, integrity, ... [they]
would be the equal of any delegation that a
government would send up there. They were
absolutely as competent to ascertain the
terms of union as any cabinet committee or
delegation. We got the very best terms that
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1397
the Government of Canada can offer. No
Canadian government could possibly offer
Newfoundland better terms, not even if an
elected government fought for it. It may be
smart tactics to say ... "Yes, the terms appear
to be fair, but an elected government would
get better terms." That may be smart tactics,
it may even be smart politics, but it has this
serious point against it. It just is not true.
I would like to repeat again what I did say on that
occasion to which Mr. Smallwood made answer.
I quoted from the reply from the Canadian
government to our request for these discussions.
"The Canadian government is of the opinion that
the questions to be discussed with the delegation
are of such complexity and of such significance
for both countries 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, so that an accurate appreciation of the position
may be gained
on each side." I drew your attention to the wording of this reply and, in particular,
"the questions
to be discussed with the delegation are of such
complexity" and again, "so that an accurate appreciation of the position may be gained
on each
side." I then stated:
As you are aware, our delegation had no
expert assistance of any kind. Application
was made to the Commission of Government
for such assistance, but the application was
refused. On the Canadian side, the cabinet
members designated to take part in the discussions were flanked by some of the top
men
of the civil service of Canada. Moreover, the
problem of confederation had been under
active study by this particular group since
October of last year. Actually, Canadian
government officials have been studying the
proposition for some years.
As you are aware, our delegation had no
such opportunity of preparation and certainly
no such assistance during the discussions. In
my opinion, our delegation was not competent to discuss fully such an important matter
without proper assistance and without an
adequate study of the problem. I say to you
quite sincerely, that for any person, member
of this Convention or not, to advise the
people of this country to join in federal union
with Canada without the necessary study of
all the implications of such union, is nothing
less than criminal.
What you say, is the proper approach? In
my opinion before union should be recommended, a complete study of the Canadian
system should be made by the various
departmental heads of our civil service, to see
and advise the effect such Union would have.
The heads of these departments would then
confer with a delegation having full powers
to negotiate. In other words, the case for
Newfoundland would be carefully prepared
and fully understood by those who are to
present it, and moreover, the delegation representing Newfoundland should have with
them these same departmental heads to advise and assist throughout the negotiations.
I trust that my fellow members of the
delegation will not take it that I am making
any reflection on them when I say that the
delegation was not competent to discuss the
matters we were discussing. This is not intended to be a reflection on the ability
of any
one of them, but simply (except possibly in
the case of Mr. Smallwood), that none of us
had studied the matter thoroughly before the
appointment of the delegation, and we were
at a tremendous disadvantage with no technical advice, and lastly, but most important
of all, we had no power to negotiate.
I must frankly confess that the offer we
have received appears to be fair, but I am
fully confident that a delegation properly informed, assisted by competent advisers,
and
with the power to negotiate would receive a
better offer from Canada than we have
received I say that with full knowledge of
what I am saying. From information I
gathered from various sources during our
visit to Ottawa, I am certain that the Canadian
government would have given us a better
offer than we have gotten had the case been
properly presented Again I repeat with full
knowledge of what I am saying, that we can
still get a better offer or, if you will, more
favourable terms of confederation, if the approach is made by a government elected
by
and representative of Newfoundland.
I mean no reflection on the members of the
delegation but I say again, that we were not
competent to bargain for terms of confederation
1398 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
as we had not given sufficient study to the
problems, we were without proper assistance and
above all, we had no power to negotiate. I say,
and repeat again, that I am certain that We would
have received a better offer if the approach had
been by representatives of a duly elected government properly informed and with full
powers to
negotiate. Mr. Smallwood says that that is not
true. I say it is true, and I leave it to you to decide
who is telling the truth. Mr. Bradley read an
extract from Mr. King's letter: "The Government
of Canada believes that the arrangements go as
far as the government can go under the circumstances", meaning "with the facts presented
to them".
Mr. Smallwood in his reply in that same
debate stated positively that if we entered federal
union and did not like it, we could always leave
the union. I feel certain that the incorrectness of
this statementhas been proved to you quite amply
by Hon. Mr. Job. I would quote to you further
from the book by Professor Wheare: "It is indeed
significant that the one modem government
claiming to be federal which grants the right to
secede, the USSR, is the one where the exercise
of the right is least likely to be permitted." Yet
Mr. Smallwood says we can always leave the
union if we join up with Canada — maybe it is
Russian.
In attempting to discredit me, Mr. Smallwood
described me as a weather-vane That may be Mr.
Smallwood's opinion, but I should hope, Mr.
Chairman and gentlemen, that you will appreciate that I am merely an honest person
who
is sufficiently broad-minded to be able to change
his opinion, and with the courage to say so. I do
not, moreover, deal in untruths. The two points
on which I changed my opinion were some statements by Major Cashin relative to the
set-up of
the Convention, and the question of discussing
union with the USA as raised by Mr. Jackman's
motion. Only two members of the Convention to
my recollection supported this motion — Mr.
Figary and Mr Reddy. With respect to union with
the States. As we are aware, there does exist a
very definite wish amongst a number of our
countrymen that the ballot at the referendum
should include union with the United States. It is
too late now for this Convention to explore the
possibility of union with that great country, and
consequently the Convention will be unable to
recommend that this form of government be
placed on the ballot. Whilst it is quite definite that
the future economic security of Newfoundland
makes it essential that we have a definite arrangement with the United States, this
now must be
left for an elected government to handle. If this
country were to federate with Canada, the opportunity to negotiate with the United
States for trade
concessions would be impossible, and any wish
to join in union with the United States would be
lost forever. Most thinking people agree that at
some time in the future the North American continent will be in union. That is, the
United States
will assimilate Canada. The time when such
union takes place may be greatly accelerated by
world events. What a position to bargain Newfoundland would be in, if she was independent
when such union takes place!
In mentioning the United States, another most
important matter in considering confederation
with Canada arises. We have listened for many,
many months to the advantages of joining with
this land of heart's desire — Canada. Would Mr.
Smallwood in his reply care to state why so many
Canadians are leaving Canada to reside in the
United States? In the 90 years between 1851 and
1941, 6,700,000 people immigrated to Canada.
With all the hard work put in by the Canadian
government, and all the money spent in 90 years
to encourage immigration, the net gain was
400,000 people. In the last boom period from
1920 to 1930, Canada lost some 500,000 of her
citizens to the United States, an average of 50,000
a year. Since the end of the war in Europe in 1945,
it is stated that about 40,000 Canadians per year
have made applications to emigrate to the United
States. How many Canadians go across the border without being granted permission is
impossible to estimate. It is stated that two-thirds of all
those emigrating to the United States from
Canada are under 37 years of age. Due to United
States immigration requirements, those granted
permission are usually a picked group, and the
result is Canada is losing her best type of citizens,
the thrifty and better-trained people. The chief
reason for the immigration appears to be the
better wages paid in the United States. The earnings in manufacturing in the United
States
averaged $1.20 per hour to the Canadian 78 cents
per hour. The statement that the increased wages
in the United States is equalised by the higher
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1399
cost of living does not appear to be correct. It
would appear that for the same standard of living
of a middle-income group, the weekly expenditure for cost of living is $5 higher in
the States
but wages are $20 higher per week there than in
Canada. The reasons given for the difference in
the wage scale is that business firms in Canada
cannot afford to pay the same wages as paid in
the United States. This argument, however,
should not apply to the pulp and paper industry
in which the Canadians believe they lead the
world. In this industry, the average hourly earnings of pulp and paper workers in
Canada is 85
cents and in the United States $1.43. The real
reason however, for this difference in wages is
not in industry, but in the Canadian people themselves, because of what they pay their
citizens in
Canadian schools, colleges and the civil service.
Canadian agricultural research should lead the
world, because of the necessity for such research
in farming a land which requires it so much. It
should be, as a writer puts it, "a mecca for agricultural scientists". Yet at the
experimental farm at
Ottawa, of which Mr. Smallwood has talked so
much, a man was employed who started at 35
cents per hour. After eight years, one of which he
took off to get his master's degree, he was getting
$1,800 per year. He had a chance then from the
United States to earn a salary while working for
his Ph.D, He said that, "After the successful
completion of two year's study I was informed
that the highest salary I could expect on return to
Canada was $1,800."
With respect to teachers. One young man has
stated:
In Canada there are about 12 provincial
normal schools as well as a few universities
which train teachers. I wrote to each asking
if they had any faculty openings. Only two
offered any hope. One, a normal school,
listed a beginner's salary of $1,800. The
other, a university, offered an assistantship at
$1,500. In the United States there are over
100 teachers' colleges and normal schools.
Innumerable universities also train teachers.
I wrote only a few, but I was offered a position in a state teachers' college at $3,600.
And so on down the line; but I am sure the facts
are known to you. I would, however, recommend
you to an article by Mr. Blair Fraser, the Ottawa
editor of Maclean's Magazine, dated October
1947, and entitled "Why Canadians Leave Home".
And now, permit me to refer to the famous
matter of taxes — particularly property taxes on
which Mr. Smallwood has been harping so much.
He has told you that this is a provincial matter and
therefore in the event of union you will never
have property tax imposed in Newfoundland.
This is absolute nonsense, as Mr. Smallwood
well knows. How many provinces of Canada
have property taxes and why are they imposed?
Let Mr. Smallwood answer, if he likes. Would
they be imposed in Newfoundland in the event of
union? Of course they would, by the provincial
parliament. They would have to be if the country
is to continue to keep up the necessary services
and to make the necessary improvements.
As a province, Newfoundland would lose her
main sources of revenue, yet some of our costliest
services would be left to be kept up — our public
health and welfare, our education and our roads.
Who would provide the money for the roads in
the outports? Canada will not. With the amount
left to the provincial parliament they cannot, except with extra taxes. The provincial
parliament,
instead of collecting these taxes directly may
avoid it by forming town councils. However, if it
is done, it will necessitate increased taxation.
And what is the logical way this taxation will be
imposed? The logical way and one of the ways it
is done in Canada is by property taxes. All those
taxes which Mr. Smallwood has been crying out
would not be imposed by the federal government
in the event of union will of necessity have to be
imposed in Newfoundland whether it be by the
provincial government or by town councils
which will have to be formed. They will have to
be imposed or the provincial government will not
be able to carry on.
Now let me revert to our so-called iniquitous
taxation system here at present. Our customs
duties: well, whether it is high or low, it is being
collected solely by Newfoundland and is being
spent in Newfoundland. I would submit that the
monies being collected by our customs duties are
being used in a great measure to provide services
for the not so well-to-do people in our country.
They help pay the cost of public health and welfare, which is to a large extent helping
our less-
privileged people, in providing hospitalisation
and other public health services, in pensions and
relief, etc. The chief recipients of our public
1400 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
health service are the less fortunate people of the
island. The same applies to education. Even if our
tariff is high, our people are still getting the
benefit of it. It is merely robbing Peter to pay
Paul. Mr. Smallwood may say, "Oh yes, but the
wealthy are still making money out of it." That I
admit, and under any form of government, however the taxes are raised, you will always
have
some people making more money than other
people. That is the capitalistic system under
which we live and under which Canada lives. If
Mr. Smallwood wishes us to become converts to
Karl Marxism and bow down to the doctrines of
Joseph Stalin, he should now make a motiOn that
we federate with Russia. But even in holy mother
Russia, the share-the-wealth policy is by no
means universal.
I should like to refer to a very important statement made by Mr. Crosbie some few
days ago.
He said, Mr. Chairman, that our sales of fish to
Spain and Italy were only possible because of
trade arrangements made through the United
Kingdom government. In the event of confederation these arrangements would not apply,
consequently Newfoundland would be unable to make
a sale to these countries. Last night, in an address
at Burns Night, Mr. Gushue, Chairman of the
Newfoundland Fisheries Board, said that Newfoundland produces for export around a
million
quintals of salt cod per year. At least half, at times
more than half, is sold to European markets. The
loss of these markets would be a death blow to
the industry. Our trade has been made possible
by the use of sterling convened into dollars.
Before the war, when two of these countries were
short of pounds, our exports were able to be
continued as a result of our being included in
trades and payments agreements made between
these countries and the United Kingdom. As a
result we received payment in dollars. Whilst Mr.
Gushue did not say so last night, I know for a fact
that Canada wanted to sell fish to these countries
at that time and could not. Mr. Gushue admitted
that due to abnormal after-war conditions, we
could not convert the sterling into dollars and the
government had to step in and help out the situation. Then he said we must satisfy
ourselves
which of the forms of government under discussion can make sure the continuance of
this trade,
without which we would be in a very awkward
position. That, said Mr. Gushue, was one prob
lem that had not been discussed in the Convention, and the other was the type of currency
best
suited to Newfoundland. Newfoundland is tied to
the Canadian dollar and the Canadian exchange
control. For some years we had a surplus of US
dollars which the Canadian exchange control got
the benefit of. Canada has a huge recurring deficit
in its dollar account with the United States. If
sterling cannot be converted what will our position be? We sell to Europe much more
than we
buy. Then he said, should we not satisfy ourselves which currency is best suited to
the complex
trading position of Newfoundland? There is no
man or body of men in Newfoundland today who
can answer that question, but the question cannot
be ignored as probably the whole future of the
country depends on the answer.
I would suggest to Mr. Smallwood, who is
most anxious to be prime minister of Canada's
tenth province, that there is no reason why he
cannot realize this announced ambition of his.
Canada, as he has told us so often, is the third
largest country in area in the world, yet only has
a population of 12.5 million. Even now she is
bringing in immigrants, displaced persons, from
Europe, and any others that she can encourage to
enter Canada. I would imagine with the contacts
Mr. Smallwood has with the Canadian government that he might very well have an area
set
aside from which a new province could be
founded. As was suggested before in one of our
local papers, this province might very well be
named Small-Brad-land. He might take with him
all those people who want to be Canadians. He
could be the prime minister and those in this
Convention who adhere to his ideas could very
well be his cabinet. Then with the government of
his heart's desire, as he described it, in his new
province he might very well exercise all the
power he is so anxious to acquire. Why, he might
be even as powerful as the gentleman he
described as that Fascist, that Nazi, that slimy
person, the Premier of Quebec. There then he and
his supporters could really ascertain if a fair and
equitable basis for union is present. He could give
a true account of the taxes that would be necessary to be paid and the value of all
the wonderful
services. After ten years he could come back to
us here in Newfoundland and tell us the real
picture of life in that wonderful country, and then
we will make up our minds on the whole idea. To
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1401
me it seems a very fair suggestion, everybody
will be happy then.
For the benefit of the member from Bonavista
Centre, I would quote to him the words of Sir
Walter Scott:
Breathes there a man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
"This is my own, my native land?"
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If such there breathes, go, mark him well:
For him no minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim,
Despite these titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentrated all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured and unsung.
Mr. MacDonald Mr. Chairman, in spite of the
quotation just made by Mr. Higgins, I heartily
support the motion now before the Chair with the
same sense of duty as a member of this Convention, as I did when I supported Mr. Higgins'
motion to recommend two possible forms of
government to be placed before the people at the
forthcoming referendum. I contend, sir, that any
member of this Convention who does not support
this motion places himself in the unenviable position of trying to restrict the people
whom they
represent in their free choice of forms of government. I suggest to the gentlemen
who have political aspirations, and who intend to oppose this
motion, that they are making a political mistake.
Our Newfoundland people generally — and I
know them fairly well — are a fair-minded race,
and although there are some who will oppose
federal union with Canada, yet they will likely
resent any attempt to restrain their friend or
neighbour from exercising his or her right to
choose the form of government he or she wishes,
even though his neighbour's political leanings
may not be the same as his own. The spirit of fair
play is one of the attributes of our people. I throw
out the hint to members concerned freely, Mr.
Chairman.
I do not know, sir, whether any of the members
of this Convention came here with any mandate
from their district to choose or support any par
ticular form of government. I certainly did not. I
understood, and I think rightly, that I was chosen
to come here to consider and discuss the financial
and economic position of Newfoundland and
recommend possible forms of government as it
applied to the welfare of Newfoundland in
general; not any district in particular. We are a
National Convention, not a group of men representing districts only. And in passing,
I consider
it was a good idea of the Commission of Government to have residents representative
of the
country as a whole, inexperienced and all as they
might be. Otherwise, we might have had a National Convention made up of residents
of the
Avalon Peninsula, who might possibly hold the
same opinion, as one of the members of the
Convention from St. John's, who intimated that
as far as he was concerned, the Avalon Peninsula
was Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman, I have endeavoured during the
life of this Convention, to maintain an attitude of
neutrality as between the different political
ideologies. Indeed, I was named by a certain
radio commentator as "Middle-of-the-road MacDonald". I take that as a great compliment
and
thank the commentator for pointing out that I was
trying to do the job I was sent here to do.
Now that our work as a Convention is at long
last coming to an end, and we are asked as individuals to make our preference as to
the particular form of government which, in our opinion,
will be for the best interests of our country and its
people, I find it is time to step off the middle of
the road, and I must admit that it has been pretty
lonely there for a long time.
Mr. Chairman, after due consideration, and
trying not to be influenced by the impassioned
oratory of my friend Major Cashin, or the fiery
eloquence of my friend Mr. Smallwood, but judging wholly by the evidence before us,
I have come
to the personal conclusion that federal union with
Canada is the most acceptable form of government for Newfoundland out of the three
choices
before us, and the one which will be in the best
interests of our country and for the following
reasons:
1. We will not forfeit the democratic way of life
we talk so much about; no person can reasonably
think that the Canadian way of life is not
democratic.
2. Federal union with Canada will reduce our
1402 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
cost of living generally. I think that must be
admitted.
3. Federal union will do the greatest good for the
greatest number; which I am sure is or should be
the object of all the members of this Convention
It will place the burden of taxation where it
belongs, on the shoulders of those who have the
capacity to pay. It will give our people social
security in the way of old age pensions to an
extent which we have been unable to reach either
under our own government or Commission in the
past, and I doubt if we could ever hope to reach
to that extent in the future under the governments
I have mentioned.
Federal union will give us the benefits which
family allowances will bring, not only directly to
the persons concerned, but indirectly in the way
of general business. It is estimated that 120,000
children under the age of 16 would be eligible for
the family allowances. At an average of $72 per
child per year, this would amount to $8,640,000.
It is also estimated that the number of persons
over 70 is 10,000. When we allow that 7,000 of
these are eligible for pensions at $30 per month,
this would amount to another $2.5 million.
Making a grand total of over $11 million per year
put into circulation in this country each year in
these two services alone — and that's no chicken-feed, sir, despite the criticisms
levelled
against it. It has been stated that we will have to
pay for these services. Of course we will have to
pay our proportional share as a province, but we
will have the help of about 12 million people in
doing it. The point is, could we ever hope to
accomplish this on our own?
Federal union will also bring us unemployment benefits, with which I am sure my friends
Mr. Fudge, Mr. Jackman, Mr. Fogwill and other
labour men will not disagree.
Federal union would provide the same
facilities to us as enjoyed by Canadian citizens in
all nine provinces, viz. that of having free entry
to other provinces for our people, particularly our
young people who may wish a wider field of
endeavour in their chosen professions or trades
and not be treated as foreigners and admitted on
a quota. It will not be the first time in our history
that through depression or other causes, our
people have been forced to seek work elsewhere,
in times when there were not jobs enough even
to go around; from what I can hear there are not
enough jobs even now to carry our people over,
in spite of an expression made in this Convention
in connection with a certain place that there was
plenty of work, if the people were not too lazy to
look for it.
Mr. Chairman, we have increasing numbers of
young people graduating from Memorial University. What have we to offer them in Newfoundland
in order that they may carry on their
chosen careers? Federal union will give them an
opportunity on an equality with the young people
of our neighbouring dominion to go forward in
their various professions. If we cannot provide
sufficient employment for our growing population, let us then in the name of goodness
try and
clear the way for them to seek it elsewhere.
Mr. Hollett I rise to a point of privilege. I understand Mr. MacDonald made reference to
something I was supposed to have said in connection with men being too lazy to work.
I have had
another slap at me from Mr. Bradley about the
same supposed statement.
Mr. Hollett You are not worth mentioning.
Before there is any further reference to that supposed statement, I insist that the
full text be
produced.
Mr. Chairman Please, Mr. Smallwood. How
can I deal with a question of privilege if I have
interruptions? I am not going to have them.
Mr. Hollett The point is this. Is Mr. MacDonald
referring to the exact quotation of my speech or
is he not? If he is not, then I maintain he has no
right to refer to it.
Mr. Chairman Unfortunately I am not able to
rule for the obvious reason that I would have to
have the excerpt from your speech in which the
supposed statement was made before I could rule
on it. I do not know if you are being represented
or misrepresented. I do not recall the statement.
Mr. Chairman I am not interested. I am not in
a position to rule at this time. I will have to see if
I can have it unearthed.
Mr. Hollett If any further reference is to be
made, I would like to have the context and not a
mere phrase therein.
Mr. Chairman I think the point is well taken. I
think it is highly improper and unfair for any
member to take a statement or a portion of a
statement without quoting the thing
in toto.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1403
Mr. MacDonald To begin with, I did not say
Mr. Hollett said it. I said it was made here in this
Convention. If Mr. Hollett thinks the hat fits, he
will have to wear it.
Mr. MacDonald I was sitting in the chair
alongside of Mr. Hollett.
Mr. Chairman I hope at this stage members will
please remember that time is of the essence. We
are trying to get through a very important item of
business and we have very little time left, and
interjections and interruptions of this sort are
causing a waste of time. I must ask members to
strictly adhere to the rules.
Mr. Chairman Mr. Hollett rose to a question of
privilege. He wanted his right defined in connection with a statement. He was perfectly
in order
in drawing my attention to it. He did not interrupt.
He rose to a point of privilege.
Mr. MacDonald There are many other points I
could make to show why federal union is my
preference; but they have already been discussed
in the Convention and it would be only repetition
to carry them further. In general, Mr. Chairman,
I believe that federal union with Canada will be
a solution of a great number of our difficulties.
We will be joining a growing nation, and with it
we will grow. On our own, we will possibly find
ourselves within a very few years back to where
we were in the 1920s and 1930s.
Mr. Chairman, as this is probably the last time
I will have the privilege of addressing this Convention, I take this opportunity to
say that it has
been a pleasure to me to attend this Convention.
I have learned a good deal, and I agree with Major
Cashin that friendships have been formed which
will last as long as life itself, and which will
undoubtedly have a good effect on the country at
large in the days that are ahead. Before I resume
my seat, may I personally express my humble,
but none the less sincere appreciation of the manner in which you, sir, have conducted
the
proceedings of this Convention since you were
appointed as our Chairman. It has not been an
easy task, but you have, in my opinion, been
strictly impartial in your many rulings. You have
kept us strictly to the rules of procedure and the
terms of reference as laid down, and you were
always ready to guide and instruct us in every
way possible; and I feel sure, sir, that you have
earned the respect and admiration of the members
of this National Convention.
[The Convention adjourned until 8 pm]
Mr. Bailey Mr. Chairman, before us today we
have a job which now and again crops up in our
history. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I were to
quote Mark Twain, the great American
humourist, who when writing about King
Arthur's court, said of the knights in search of the
Holy Grail, "Every now and again the boys went
agrailing." Again our boys have gone agrailing.
While I know it is not the holy vessel, yet to my
mind it is something just as elusive — to better
your condition by throwing your troubles upon
the shoulders of a second power or person. In my
opinion, if a person or nation cannot solve their
own problems, how can a second person or power
do that, when they have the same troubles themselves? There are aspects of this search
which, if
I may quote a learned jurist, "To me there is an
odour in the state of Denmark."
During the debate there were statements made
either through ignorance or a wish to deceive the
people, for instance the statement of Mr.
Smallwood and Mr. Ashbourne that Newfoundland once in confederation could get out
was a deliberate falsehood. If they knew no more
about it than that, they should have left it
deliberately alone. For we will turn back the
pages of history. The BNA Act "gave all legislative power to the federal government
except over
matters expressly reserved to the provinces.
Power to levy any kind of taxes, to make any and
every regulation of commerce, of money, and
banking and to disallow any provincial statute it
proposed to disallow." The result of this, nothing
was clear in intent, nothing has proven more
fallacious in its issue. The lean kind were to eat
up the fat. The feeble provinces of 1867, apparently denuded of revenue, and devoid
of all
but the meager and necessary, were to be changed
by altered circumstances and by judicial interpretation into the autonomous units
of 70 years
later, a sort of heptarchy (or a country ruled by
different governments) whose members control
the public domain, and vast revenues from sources unknown at confederation. Now, all
that was
to come later. The provinces felt themselves
overshadowed by the Dominion, and no longer in
1404 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
control of home and patrimony. But once in, there
was no way out. Nova Scotia appealed in vain to
Westminster for repeal. How in the light of this
two members of the Ottawa delegation can get up
and say we can get out, leaves me deaf and dumb.
If such was the case, why wasn't it embodied in
the terms? Then we would know there was some
weight in it. But say, if in ten years time we
wanted to withdraw from confederation, what an
argument to present to the federal government
and the Privy Council — the people voted for
confederation with the understanding that they
could withdraw if it did not suit them. They had
it on the authority of Messrs. Smallwood and
Ashbourne. British Columbia for 20 years
demanded secession, but is still in. Now in the
light of this, members of the National Convention, please, in Heaven's name, tell
the people the
truth. I see no difference in a political lie than any
other kind of a lie; and this, in the light of the
knowledge I have, is a political lie. We have
heard a lot about finances, internal borrowing
that don't cost anything! I have found in a
lifetime that I had to pay.
I will try to give a summary of the impact of
the depression on Canada and her industries in
the 1930 crisis. For the truth is, the whole
economic life of Canada was dislocated by the
industrial collapse. She was not alone. Following
1930, Canadian currency in 1933 was inconvertible, like other currency. Then we had
the pernicious system of trade and exchange quotas that
was strangling everything when the war brought
it to a quick end. Canada felt this to the full. First,
because it still depends largely on exports from
primary industries, like Newfoundland. The
second reason she felt it was because, like Newfoundland, she is exporting cash profits
out of the
country because of the large amounts of foreign
investments in the country. It was estimated in
1937 there was some $2,684,000,000 of British
capital invested in Canada. This was held in fixed
obligations and in railway shares; besides this,
there was $3,932,000,000 of American capital,
held in common stocks, municipal bonds and
investments in subsidiary companies. All in all,
it represented a volume of interest payments,
much of it contracted in the terms of foreign
currency. This gave a total of $6,616,000,000 of
foreign investment, which caused both government and people some anxiety. I want to
bring
this to the fore when people say Canada will
invest money here. There is need for money in
her own economy. Perhaps that is the reason, as
Mr. Reddy pointed out, that there is so little
Canadian money invested here. They simply
have not got it and they have furthered their own
economy by handling our finances and insurances, always a cash transaction and a very
lucrative profession. In fact we have been a cow to get
milked, and we have been milked very thoroughly, and if this goes through we will
be beefed as
well. In coming back to this, I won't go into the
case of the individual John Doe Canadian citizen
in this upheaval, but the farmers held out as best
they could while new aid and relief, total or
partial, extended to 870,000 persons in 1938. It
took a war to wipe the slate clean, and I guess
after the war a new slate will be wanted.
Now I'll come to the matter of the Canadian
national debt. I shall not stress it. I think Major
Cashin has done justice to that, but something has
been left out. I agree with Mr. Smallwood that
this is something that our people are afraid of.
They have had some painful memories of national debt and paying the interest on it.
Mr.
Smallwood has gone merrily along, telling us that
it does not matter how large the national debt of
Canada is, as it is held by Canadians. Strange to
say, I agree with Mr. Smallwood to a point, that
interest will circulate again in Canada when it is
paid in Canada, but now I'm perplexed — how?
Because if we go into confederation as new
Canadians, with no bonds or very little bonds
held here in Newfoundland, although we will
shoulder our share of this debt, said to run from
$900 per capita by the confederates to $1,500 per
capita by the anticonfederates, how are we going
to share in the cut of the interest take? Are we,
after confederation, going to cut this island up in
squares and fit the pieces into the nine provinces
that hold the bonds? It seems to me Mr.
Smallwood's arguments are hogwash, for if we
are a province, the money we send to pay the
interest on the bonds in Canada will be just as far
out of the island of Newfoundland and the
Labrador as regards doing us any good, as the
interest we send to England.
Mr. Smallwood went to long lengths to
describe the huge surplus that Canada had last
year, and the sound healthy position she was in,
he poohpoohed the idea that she would have any
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1405
trouble. The dollar bills just showered down in
this rock-candy mountain. But I have a recollection that Britain had a balanced budget
and a large
surplus. I don't think Mr. Smallwood or anyone
else would admit that she was in a strong, healthy
financial position. The reason was, she did not
have exports to buy her imports. You can always
balance a budget with a printing press. You can
also export with the same, but the time comes
when even that won't give you the market.
Britain was in straits although she had a balanced
budget, because she did not have exports to pay
for the imports. Canada is in a jam because the
countries she can export to ... have not the exports
or gold to pay for Canada's exports; a vicious
circle, Mr. Smallwood, but then just the same I'll
forgive you. It's a world's saying that journalists
and lawyers are the world's worst economists.
But you must tell people that you know how you
must keep it up. "Would that God that gift would
to give us To see ourselves as others see us."
I am trying to show this Convention the holes
that are in this proposition, and I think you can
row through them. I have a decision to make, and
I must show the reason why I am making that
decision. In referring to my speech on the
municipal taxes, Mr. Smallwood said I was
shrewd, as I knew what hurt people. Taxes, yes.
Nothing hurts like taxes, especially when you
have nothing to pay them with. And there is a law
saying they must be paid, or else. Now again, I
must agree with Mr. Smallwood's explanation
that the federal government does not tax property.
I think that's clear to everybody, for the Black
Books stated that is left for the municipal government, not town councils — there
are no town
councils mentioned in the Black Books, they are
called municipal governments. I also agree with
him that the provincial government does not tax
property unless there is no municipal government. Take the case of PEI, the provincial
government there and the school districts do tax
property as throughout the other eight provinces.
The municipal governments do tax property and
they collect as much in this tax as one-third to a
half the revenues of the provincial government,
and when it was put before the Ottawa delegation
that we could not run the province on what we
would get from the federal government, the
answer was, "Use up your surplus or put on more
taxes." And we will find out when that royal
commission comes here that they will show the
provincial government how to go about it, and
then fur will fly. I am, shall I say, brutally frank.
I tell them they will be taxed and I'm going to
have a lot of fun out of it, because if we go into
confederation, for a few years in this country it
will be as good as seeing the "Pirates of Penzance". I know I won't be in any government,
municipal or provincial, that will have to put
them on. I am going to try to show the people the
taxes the provinces are using to give them the
conveniences they are having. I am going to let
them read them themselves, and if it does not
change them, and if they get them, it is their own
hard luck. If I were an ardent confederate I would
do that, forI know our people and I want to live
with them, and I know that if you fool them, they
have long memories. I believe this time that
Shakespeare's quotation will be very apt only it
will include men as well as women. I don't want
to be one to fool the people.
In this I am going to quote some of the assessments of our neighbouring province of
Nova
Scotia. Perhaps we are going to do on $15 million
what they do on $30 million, our people have
been told they will have the same living conditions in Newfoundland as they have in
Nova
Scotia. That is the battle cry of those who favour
this form of government. It is strange to me that
in the years I have lived and worked amongst
those people I did not find it so. The sea was
always a struggle, the Gaspé coast bleak with its
small fishing villages, no harbours, their homes
like any fishing village, say Pouch Cove or Portugal Cove. The homes, some better
than others,
some worse. You won't find the chesterfields
there, but you'll find the settle of our father's day,
hand carved by some old habitant. The land is
better than ours on the whole, with the exception
of Howley and Codroy Valley, but to the fisherman-farmer, their life is the same hard
grind and
the same as here, from the boat to the garden and
when the fishery fails, the woods. There is no
luxury. The province has a back log. They have
their factories and the large port of Montreal to
take up the slack, but we have no factories here
to give our people ease from these taxes, neither
have we the great port of Montreal, or any other,
to ease our fishermen's burdens. Montreal collects from all the provinces that ship
through her
every bushel of grain from the Prairie provinces
1406 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
that do not go through Churchill or Vancouver.
The ships that pay the light dues, even pay the
dues to keep nine lights that are kept in Newfoundland waters. It is all right to
compare this
with that, but consider the comparison — go in
Chaleur Bay, Miramichi Bay, talk to the fishermen, farmers, loggers there, you'll
find the same,
just like our own folk doing the same. As a
Newfoundlander told me at Shediac in 1934, "It's
tough", only he emphasised it. Come to Pugwash,
lumber, bricks, you see its counterpart in Smith's
Sound, PEI, where the annual earnings are even
lower than ours, who are looking to Newfoundland for their market for produce, where
the
farmer is getting about $1.50 per cwt. for
potatoes. Time forbids me quoting other prices.
Go to Cape Breton and it is the same, hundreds
of farmers gone back to the country their fathers
got good livings from. The younger generation
has left for the industrial centres, although when
God made Cape Breton he smiled on it, he gave
it coal, lumber, good farming land and fishing
and with Newfoundland ore, it could be a
paradise. The raw material is brought to a certain
point, then it is taken away to be finished in
Ontario or Quebec and as the profits are exported
also, what is left is not enough to give the people
a good living, and certain parts are slums or a
little better.
We go to the Magdalen Islands, they have
been forgotten the past few years. They have had
a representative who has taken a keen interest in
them and who has alleviated their condition
somewhat, but before that, like our Labrador,
they only lived to produce taxes to be spent
somewhere else. Come to south Nova Scotia. The
fine fishermen of years ago, unable to bring ends
together, have moved away to form the bulk, with
Newfoundlanders, of the Boston and New Bedford fleet, which today is using a large
number of
Newfoundlanders to man their vessels. Always
the cry was that taxation was killing them.
I could go on, as their coasts are to me like my
own coasts, and I know that if nature would allow
us to fish from our homes nearly all the year
around ... our people would have a living as good
or better than anybody in the world. Our
fishermen's season is roughly from three to six
months. You'll see there are no bankers outfitting
yet in Newfoundland, but the Lunenburg fishermen are gone nearly a month ago. A draft
of
saltfish is today $14 in Nova Scotia and the same
at Harbour Grace. I could go on like Tennyson's
brook, forever, and tell lots of things about why
fishermen here can't make the wages they make
to the west... To pay taxes, you must earn. I did
not come to this Convention to study confederation. I discovered Canada early in life,
and from
the Gaspé coast to the River St. Croix I have a
very intimate knowledge of the men who with
their hands produce the wealth wrested from
land, woods, mines and sea. I have yet to meet
one that did not curse confederation, I mean from
the rural districts, and my mind goes back to
1912, and we were anchored in the Magellan
Strait, awaiting daylight. The second mate and
myself were on the bridge, and there the talk
turned to confederation. He had been master of
one of Nova Scotia's last iron windjammers. He
said, "Charlie, if our fathers had any savvy and
formed a confederation of New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland, the world would
be a worthwhile place for us today." He told me
that at the time of confederation we had a large
fleet of ships, and if we had joined hands then,
nobody could have touched us. All four provinces owned their own homes and lands,
we could
have sailed ships cheaper than any of the rest of
the world. We could have been a maritime nation
as we had the men, and that's a country's best
asset. "But", he said, "we were forced into confederation, you stayed out. Britain
did not want
any rivals in the maritime field and here are you
and I working under what is to us a foreign flag."
The ship was registered in Britain, owned in the
United States. I could see it then, as he pointed it
out to me, I believe that would be confederation
worthwhile... Nova Scotia cannot get a break
now as all the money is in Ontario and God did
not intend them to be sailors.
I have given this deep thought and I am firmly
convinced even if the people vote against it, we
will go into confederation unless we watch our
balance. For it is a $64 question how Nova Scotia
got in at that time. The Nova Scotia elections
went terrible against the confederation, 54 out of
57 seats being against it. The House of Commons
was advised by a very able member, Mr. John
Bright, not to include Nova Scotia, but to allow
the general election to take place to ascertain the
opinion of the colony; but the government and
the House was deaf to this counsel.... They went
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1407
in with a parliament against it, and today we have
no parliament. I think this time we have the
chance of the celluloid cat in Dante's inferno
chased by an asbestos dog. The only reason this
Codvention was called was to get that $30,000
messenger service to Ottawa, for something that
was there four years before they went, according
to the wise man from the East End in reporting
on the Black Books, the amount of work done by
the delegation there, those secret documents I
have before me — the scratch log, I call it. Never
in the history of human endeavour did so much
come out of so little. What manner of men do they
think we are? They forget Honest Abe said, "You
can't fool all the people, all the time."
There has been a lot of talk about flour and the
price. Everybody seems to forget that in
peacetimes we get flour cheaper than any other
part of the world. I know in 1929, I put six barrels
of flour in my house for $4.86 a barrel. I wish I
could put it there today. About a month later at
Halifax, I was in my sister's home when she paid
$5.60 for the same brand of flour, and a month
afterwards, making up the vessel's accounts at
Gloucester, flour was charged at $6.50 per barrel.
1939 flour cost landed $3.40 per barrel, was sold
to grocers in St. John's for $3.80 per barrel, while
flour was retailing for $5.20 per barrel in Nova
Scotia. But see how they treat us now?... Now the
price of flour is $9.20 per 100 lb. sack. The trade
here wanted to take only enough to fill the northern orders, but Canada forced them
to take the
full allocation, thus depriving Newfoundland of
the advantage of the lower wheat price and forcing our people to pay 46 cents more
per barrel for
flour for Newfoundlanders, we being their best
customer.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this fraud that
is being put over on the people of this country, to
me it is plain power politics. That's the suspicion
I had at the beginning. and the way things have
gone in this house only makes me more certain
that I have taken part in the greatest piece of
codology that was ever foisted on an innocent and
long-suffering people, and I cannot support it. I
must apologise to the people whose money I have
squandered, it's been an education to me. I hope
it has done some good to the country. I have one
thing more to speak about, Mr. Chairman, it is a
speech made a few days ago about politics being
brought into the Convention. By whom? By me?
I had never heard the word confederation mentioned, and I had hardly time to get a
haircut
before I was buttonholed about that form of
government by that same gentleman that made
that speech. Now I hate to lie down under the
accusation that I injected anything into this, that
was contrary to the job we had to do, but try to
ram something down my throat! But a week after
I came in, I found out from Canada and Company
that I was digging my political grave... I said
before that I would not touch it with an insulated
fish fork, and I cannot vote for it in any shape or
form. For if we do not accept it, I know the British
government will put it on. If it goes through I
hope and pray it will be a good thing for the
country. I won't worry if I'm called a fool — only
too glad to be called so. For I want the best for
our people and I do not think this is the best. In
fact, while the world is in the flux and chaos it is
in today, I would put nothing on the country
which the people could not change. I think there
are better days ahead, and if we can reach that
point all will be well. As I see it now, if the British
government puts it through against the advice of
the majority of the Convention, then if it doesn't
work and I do not think it will, then our people
will be in a fighting frame of mind and through
agitation with good leaders they will get a better
subsidy or a bribe to keep their mouths shut. I'm
sure Canada is going to get a bear by the tail if
she gets Newfoundland, and I know it, and I am
not going to support it. I am not going to tie any
leader's hands of the future. I'll be alongside his
elbow if you can come back.
One thing, I listened to Mr. Smallwood's
graphic description of profits. I was glad to hear
that, for I have taken an oath that if it ever comes
again, if it's a crust for one, it's a crust for all.
Well, Mr. Smallwood's idea of the commission
merchant was graphic. I call him a muleskinner.
Now that animal does not work alone in the
woods on Water Street; he is on all the streets and
he is going to turn the world upside down if he
keeps on. Now in that Paradise Harbour that Mr.
Smallwood is piloting this ship of state to, the
woods are full of them. He forgot to mention that,
and our Uncle Sam has so many of them, he has
got them in his beard. I think he invented them or
he brought them up to scratch. Those down here
are only pikers, but they are learning fast. I
remember 1939, we loaded here in St. John's, we
1408 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
had oil on deck. After I had landed it I left the
vessel, and one day went into an oil manufacturer
to see a friend of mine. I saw the oil we landed.
Happened to speak about it to the manager, he lit
in to me, and asked if we were gone crazy down
here in Newfoundland. I asked, "Why?" "I paid
$360 per ton for that oil." "Well," I said, "I can't
enlighten you much, but I know the fishermen got
$89 per ton, but some day I'll find out." Fifteen
months later I came home and I found out the
price was $123 ex-wharf. And who got the difference? I tried two firms, it was the
same price.
I went back to Boston, saw my friend and found
out his agent got $237 less expenses. Not a bad
profit to make with a pencil, and that's how it
goes, gentlemen. In Canada the woods are full of
them. We will have to do more than confederate
to get clear of the mule skinner. The only answer
to it is the co-op. Get a good large wholesale
import and export co—operative society. Your
small retails might change your charter, so
money can be ploughed back in the business. Get
the people together, then we can lick the muleskinner. You can lick them all, but
you have to
organise... There is the answer to it. I agree with
Mr. Smallwood's finding the disease, but he is a
long way out on the cure...,
The time has come to wind her up and I' m glad
to join the old sea—shanty, to "Leave her, Johnny,
leave her" — and to wish our country bon
voyage.
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I
rise at this time to speak on the motion now before
the Chair, fervently believing it to be an evasion
of the rights due to our people under the 1933-
1934 act. We have not at this time, nor have we
had in Newfoundland since 1933 a government
representative of the people. Any decisions
reached by the Commission of Government
entertained no more consideration nor respect for
the beliefs of our people than did the leasing of
our territory to foreign interests bear any reference to individual Newfoundlanders,
many of
whom at that time were paying for the defending
of this island with their blood. As I stated before,
my generation has had the right to fight for Newfoundland, but never the privilege
of speaking for
her, much less voting. In some of the speeches
given in support of this motion reference has been
made not only to post-Convention propaganda,
but also to the sentiments prevalent in various
districts. May I here and now register my heartfelt
disgust in the use of this chamber and the radio
as a medium for this post-Convention propaganda. It has been said by acertain speaker
in support
of the motion, that this Convention has not been
able to give the full truth concerning confederation to the people. If this be so,
then the pilot of
this report should be ashamed, and consider himself incapable, that during the past
weeks of
debate, he has been unable to ice the cake of
confederation sufficiently attractively to hide the
sour dough that lies beneath it. Nothing that Mr.
Smallwood or any other pro-confederate may
concoct or serve to the people can alter the fact
that the terms as sent to us from Canada are final.
No amount of surmising or imagination can give
Mr. Smallwood or anyone else the power to
improve the offer from the Canadian government, of a sprat to catch the Newfoundland
mackerel.
As far as I am concerned I am interested in no
figures or estimates of our country supplied by
Canadians, or outsiders who have never set foot
in this country to see how the ordinary Newfoundlander lives or wishes to live. I
will accept
only the concrete figures given to me by Newfoundlanders for the use of Newfoundlanders.
Today in Newfoundland, her native sons have no
freedom to employ these figures, and until such
time as we have any negotiation with any
country, it is bound to be one—sided and that side
is not likely to be ours. I have no intention of
asserting that the majority or minority of members in this Convention represent the
greater or
lesser proportion of the people. This has just been
another example of naive conjecture on the part
of certain members, but I wish to put on record
that hundreds of men from the district that I
represent have worked and fished with men from
the Dominion of Canada, and as a majority or
minority, they are more adverse to union with
Canada than they ever were. I maintain that no
member in this house has the right to speak for
every individual Newfoundlander who will cast
his vote, regardless of the beliefs of Mr. Starkes
or myself. We have been given no proof that new
taxes will not be enforced on us and I, Mr. Chairman, cannot conceive that the three
types of
government that union will bring us will be run
at a lower cost than the one that responsible
entails, if it ever comes into force.
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1409
I was not sent here to preach against any class
of society — I leave this to a few of my decidedly
pink fellow members —. nor to blame any particular set for the mistakes that have
been made
by our predecessors. If there have been gains by
individuals during the past 100 years there have
also been losses, as may be verified by the change
of large concerns over this period. As far as
squandering is concerned, roughly $30 million
has gone from Newfoundland to Canada during
the last year with negligible relative trade returns.
Mr. Chairman, it is all too plain to see that we
are not now living in 1865. This year of 1948
finds the following circumstances that were not
evident at that time. The largest revenue that
Newfoundland has ever possessed against the
meager pittances of those days. Highways and
transport have progressed. Labrador has been
legalised as Newfoundland territory. We have
been termed the crossroads of the world so far as
air traffic is concerned. We have leased bases
without credit of any kind, for 99 years, which
employ our labour at lower rates of pay than
outsiders. Fish marketing has been revolutionised and a market exists at our back
door.
Hospitals and general public health organisations
have become increasingly evident. Bell Island
and Buchans, not to mention other mining
prospects have been inaugurated. Paper and pulp
manufacture has become a fact. Lastly in this
very vague comparison is the fact that we have
been informed on the highest authority that we
are a self-supporting country.
Mr. Chairman, we are not in the late nineties.
Then we had admittedly little to offer toward an
equitable basis for union. Now we are in a position that is coveted by many. We should
need no
outside housekeeper to run a family concern
whose income is sufficient to feed each and every
one of us. Mr. Chairman, it is my firm conviction
that two and only two types of government
should be inserted on the ballot paper in the
forthcoming referendum. Should any negotiations later take place between Newfoundland
and
any other country, let Newfoundland enter into
those negotiations as free to barter as are her
neighbours, for the best results, and may God
guide our ship of state into kind waters, not in tow
or with tugs, but under her own proud power.
Mr. Reddy Mr. Chairman, "The time has come
the Walrus said to talk of many things, Of ships
and shoes and sealing wax, Like wise Mackenzie
King." Once before in this chamber the walls
rang with the word "union", and if we had acute
hearing today, we might still hear that word
"union" echoing from these walls. All you heard
25 years ago was the "union", the "union". At that
time, it was the Fishermen's Union, which
developed into one of the biggest and strongest
political parties we ever had in this country. That
Union party was founded in 1908. Its founder
used the slogan, "Down with the merchants; and
up with the underdogs." Needless to say, it was a
very popular slogan. The union grew by leaps and
bounds. Tall tales were told of what it would do
for the fishermen and to its support, I am told,
nearly half a million dollars was subscribed by
the fishermen.
The present chief advocate for union with
Canada, the member for Bonavista Centre and
the proposer of this motion was, I am told, one of
the most rabid promoters of that union, and by his
tongue and his pen, did then, as he is doing now,
much to spread that gospel over this country. And
just as Mr. Smallwood is an enthusiastic and
fanatic delegate to this Convention, so he was just
as enthusiastic and fanatic a delegate to the old
FPU convention. So enthusiastic a supporter was
our Mr. Smallwood to that fishermen's union,
that he wrote a book on the life of the founder of
that union.
[1] And if you have read it, you will find
that he says, in effect, that the founder of that
union was only a little less than God. Talk about
idolatry! You haven't seen anything if you
haven't read that book.
Well Mr. Chairman, as they say, time marches
on. And what happened to that union that Mr.
Smallwood talked and wrote and raved about,
and wrung his hands over a few short years ago?
Well, to make a long story short, the fishermen
who put their life savings into that union got little
or none of it back, and many died paupers as a
result; all the older people know the story. And
the founder of that union, who started out a poor
man wearing a pair of three-quarter boots and
blue guemsey, and preaching "down with the
merchants", accumulated himself an estate, I am
told, worth little less than half a million dollars
and resided on his estate in Jamaica, which I am
told by a man who visited there was worth not
1410 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
less than $50,000. And now we have the Man
Friday of that fishermen's union promoting
another union. The only difference is that the
desired placed of residence in his case is not
Jamaica but Ottawa — and the switch he hopes
to make is not from the blue guernsey to
broadcloth, but from his nice little delegate's
everyday suit to senatorial toga.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smallwood is using
the same words and the same tactics today to lead
us into this new union, just as he did to lead the
people into that other union. He believes in the
old slogan that people have short memories, and
many of them are dead anyhow, and if for no
other reason I would ask the people of Newfoundland at this time to heed the more
practical
slogan to stop, look and listen, for it is being
promoted by a man who has shown himself one
of the smartest talkers in Newfoundland, and we
all know that all is not gold that glitters.
Mr. Chairman, a few days ago the member for
Bonavista Centre said that a campaign of exaggeration and misrepresentation was being
spread
over this country by his opponents; and yet, almost in the next breath, this same
gentleman
shouts through the microphone that 99% of the
people in Newfoundland want confederation".
Mr. Smailwood I have already denied that that
was what I said. What I said was, and I repeat,
"99 Newfoundlanders out of every 100 want
confederation to be placed on the ballot paper."
Mr. Chairman You are not quoting Mr.
Smallwood correctly. It is not too much to expect
you to take it back.
Mr. Reddy If I have not got it right, it is OK. But
I know that is a falsehood, and Mr. Smallwood
knows it is a falsehood. And you, yourself, sir,
know it is a falsehood. And if that is not exaggeration and misrepresentation, I don't
know
what is. Another example of his attempt at misrepresentation is his story told here
twice in
recent days — he must think it is good because
he told it twice —— that 110 local firms made a
profit of $15 million last year.
Mr. Reddy If anything is more calculated to
deceive than that, I don't know what is. We all
know that in Newfoundland there are some large
corporations with tremendous investments of
money. Bowaters, for instance, have about $75
million invested in Newfoundland. The AND
Company has about $60 million invested.
Buchans Mining Company has about $15 million
invested. The Dominion Iron and Steel Co. has,
I suppose, another $20 million. And if these
companies between them average 6% profit on
their invested capital, it will amount to $10 million. I am not including in this
the various
Canadian corporations doing business in
Newfoundland, such as the eight or nine insurance companies, the Canadian trust companies
and the Canadian banks — all of whom
together, I imagine, made a few millions and
must be included in those corporations to which
Mr. Smallwood referred. Mr. Smallwood's
words conveyed to the people that the corporations making that profit were the big
bad wolves,
the local merchants, which is a falsehood.
Mr. Chairman, confederation is not the solution — least of all, Mr. Smallwood's brand. Up
to now, and for centuries past, the Union Jack has
been our national flag. I am not of English descent but of Irish descent, but I want
to say that it
is a good flag and I would like to see it continue
to fly and to be our national flag in the days ahead.
In Quebec they have, just a week ago, pulled
down the old flag and put up their own. In the rest
of Canada they have torn down the Union Jack
and for the past 12 months they have been arguing as to what the new flag is going
to be.
There are other things in life that are important
as well as all this talk about three meals a day.
And as for the economic problem over which
they cry their crocodile tears, let us berealists and
not a bunch of fools following a jack-o-lantern,
and let us do exactly as Canada herself did a
month ago when she was in financial difficulties
and had to borrow $300 million. Let us go to the
USA with our economic problems, let us sell the
USA all our fish, paper, ore and other things we
produce. And right there is the solution, and only
solution to our economic problems. And anyone
who says otherwise is only fooling himself and
trying to fool the people.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I ask that,
politically, let us keep the close ties we have
always had with the mother country. Let us keep
the Union Jack flying. And economically, let us
turn our faces towards the richest nation in the
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1411
world — the USA. That is our hope and our
destiny. Any other course would be political and
economic madness.
Mr. Hickman Mr. Chairman, I would like first
to refer to Mr. Smallwood's opening speech on
Friday afternoon when he introduced the motion
now before this Convention. Mr. Smallwood has
referred here before to politics being present in
this National Convention, but I think, sir, that he
topped it all with his speech to which I have just
referred. In my opinion he did not clearly outline
just what those terms that have been offered by
Canada would mean to the people of this country,
and not only the benefit to them, but also the cost.
The address, to my mind, was the start of a
political campaign. He endeavoured to divide the
country and set class against class. This is old-
time political practice, and endeavours to set the
poor against the rich and the middle class against
which ever side is most beneficial to the political
future of the proponent. It befogs the real issue,
and if carried far enough, engenders class hatred
to the exclusion of the common sense and practicability that is needed to make a sensible
decision on the question that is to be put to the
people. The whole speech, sir, sounded familiar
to me, and only after listening to it for a while did
it remind me of the tirades that I have heard from
soapbox orators in Hyde Park in London and in
New York.
Mr. Smallwood states that if the majority of
this Convention had their way, the country would
vote for nothing else but responsible government,
but I think that the people will realise that by the
unanimous passing of Mr. Higgins' motion to put
before the people both responsible and Commission of Government, Mr. Smallwood's contention
is completely wrong. He also stated that it
was abattle to get the Convention to debate these
terms. Here again I cannot agree in any way with
his statements, as I know of no time when members did not wish to have these debated
and I, for
one, was very much desirous of having these
terms of confederation debated here, if for nothing else to show how insufficient
and how
dangerous they were to the future economy of the
people of this country. If I had been the only one,
I still would have voted to have these terms
debated as we have done. Mr. Smallwood also
states, and this has already been referred to by Mr.
Reddy, that 99 out of 100 Newfoundlanders
wanted the choice of confederation to be submitted to them, but I do not believe that
99 out of
100 or any portion of the people would want
confederation submitted to them on what I might
term such crucifying terms. He states that we are
fighting a battle for economic security, but I fail
to find any economic security for the people in
the terms which have been submitted to us. I
would like to say right here, sir, that I am not
against and do not hate confederation just for the
sake of hating it, as Mr. Smallwood would have
you believe. If I thought that these terms would
really benefit the country as a whole, raise the
standard of living of the people, and relieve them
of burdensome taxes, I would be very glad indeed
to recommend it; but on these so-called terms
which we have been offered, I fail to find the
security for which the people of this country are
looking.
Mr. Smallwood states that those people who
are against confederation on the terms outlined
from Canada, have been harping on the property
taxes that the people will have to pay. The property taxes, while they mean something
to those who
have to pay, yet are only a part of what the people
will pay in taxes. The federal tax that will go to
the Canadian government and the provincial
taxes necessary to maintain administration of this
provincial government will be a large source of
worry, as well as taxes on property or school tax.
Nobody here has intimated yet that the federal
government will collect any property taxes. That
has not been stated. Mr. Smallwood says that the
provincial government never will collect property taxes because they would be thrown
out of
office if they attempted to do this; and he went on
to say that the town councils — if you wish to
have a town council — would perhaps collect
these property taxes if they so desired. But let me
point out, sir, that if there is no town council in a
settlement, then the roads and public works or
other services in that community have to be maintained by the provincial government,
and they in
turn must tax to collect the money which they will
spend. If those communities that have town councils are to progress and maintain their
townsites,
then they must collect taxes to do so, and whether
you pay a property tax to the federal government,
provincial government or town council, it does
not matter. You will be taxed just the same, and
whoever collects it will not help to ease the
1412 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
question either in your mind or your pockets.
The cost of living here in Newfoundland has
been referred to not only by Mr. Smallwood but
by other speakers, and one would think to listen
to them that with the stroke of a pen the cost of
living will come down considerably. This is
another false idea which people may get into their
minds. If you will refer to the report made by the
Federation of Labour on the cost of living today
and the amount required by a man with a family
to live, you will see (and here Mr. Fogwill can
support me, as he was one of the members of the
committee that drew up the report) that the duties
paid on foodstuffs consumed amounted to not
more than approximately 5% of the earnings
spent in this direction, and if you further take into
consideration the local products which such a
family would buy here in a year, like potatoes,
turnips, fish, etc., the total duty on that family's
outlay would amount to not more than about
4.5%. Union with Canada will not bring us
geographically any closer to the mainland and we
will still have to freight our imports to this
country and distribute them as before, and union
with Canada or any other country cannot get
away from this factor in the cost of goods to the
consumer. Mr. Smallwood has referred to special
freight rates operating east of Quebec which
should reduce the rates, so that it would in turn
bring down the cost on the goods. I might say,
firstly, that freight rates are not a large percentage
of the cost of the goods, but in any event this
reduction of rates would apply only to those
shipments through the Canadian National Railway...
Mr. Hickman And the larger percentage of our
goods coming into this country do so by steamers,
operated by lines and companies other than those
of the Canadian National Railway and the CPR
or the Newfoundland Railway. From the time of
opening of navigation in Montreal in May, to the
close around the end of November, the larger
portion of our goods are moved direct by steamer
from that port to the west coast through Corner
Brook and to the east coast through St. John's;
and these boats, as well as those from Halifax and
New York, are operated by the Furness Red
Cross Line, Shaw Steamship Co. Ltd., Newfoundland Canada Steamships Ltd, Clarke
Steamships Ltd, and other corporations in the
shipping business. Therefore there will be no
resulting benefit to any great extent in the movement of goods by freight from Canada
to here by
the CNR or CPR.
On this cost of living being cheaper, I wonder
do people realise that at present there is no duty
on flour, salt beef and pork, cooked corned beef
in tins, butterine and tinned milk, which are all
staple products in the people's diet? In addition
to this, we have items coming in duty free such
as fresh fruit, prunes, currants, raisins, feeds, long
rubber boots, fruit juices and vegetable juices. All
I have mentioned are duty free, and will not be
affected by union with Canada. There are additional items which have a very low duty
basis
such as peas, beans, rice and barley at 1 cent per
1b., oatmeal and rolled oats at 1/2 cent per 1b.,
cornmeal at 1/8 cent per lb. The elimination of
duty on these and a lot of other items will have
no obvious effect on the cost of living, because
the duty is so low that the removal of it will not
easily be seen. But, however, union with Canada,
while it may remove some of these very low
duties, will place an 8% sales tax and excise duty
on some of these items, and indeed on some of
the more staple ones; the sales tax in many cases
will more than offset the reduction of duty.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Smallwood did not point
out to the people that fishermen could buy their
salt for approximately $2 per hogshead cheaper
in Newfoundland; that oiled clothing per suit is
not any higher in Newfoundland than it is in
Canada, although we pay 20% duty on it; that
herring nets in this country are slightly cheaper
than in Canada; that rubber boots are cheaper
here today than they are in Canada. To get this
comparison of figures, I have used the ones submitted in the Black Book against local
prices
here, and I have written to Halifax and compared
the prices existing in Canada only a month ago,
because those in the Black Book were probably
compiled six months ago. There may be some
reductions in some items, but one must remember
that this will be offset to a great extent by federal
sales taxes, import duties and excise duties. In
referring to the price for salt to the Newfoundland
fishermen, which is $2 cheaper here, I might say
that I cut down the Canadian hogshead to the
Newfoundland hogshead... If Canada, as
claimed by some, can do so much better for us
(and with which I cannot agree), then why should
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1413
we throw away an opportunity of some union
with the USA, which country could, in my
opinion, do so much better for us?
Mr. Smallwood reached the height of his class
versus class propaganda when he took upon himself to tell you of monopolies and monies
made
here. I am afraid, from what Mr. Smallwood has
said, that he does not know very much about
business and I refer to the general channels
through which trade is done. Business is done
exactly the same as it is done in Canada, the
United States, Great Britain or any other country.
With regard to his reference to agencies that have
sole monopolies, he is away over his head when
he goes into the fundamentals of business and
distribution. Canadian firms do not distribute or
sell their goods to every Tom, Dick and Harry in
this country or any other country. They themselves are the ones that use the principle
of one agent
or distributor, so that their goods may be better
handled with more concentration of sales through
one individual, and so that they may, through
their distributorship methods, keep down the ultimate cost of their product to the
countries to
which they sell. You will find that where there
are agents or distributors or representatives of
any Canadian or American firm, it is by the policy
of these firms that there are sole agents, and that
it is to further Canadian export business and at
the same time keep down the cost of their
products that they adhere to these methods that
Mr. Smallwood has taken so much trouble to call
"monopolies". He has referred to the large
volume of money made here in the last several
years, but he omitted to say that a tremendous
volume of the sales were made to American and
Canadian firms who were contracting and building bases, and that the sales to them
took not one
cent out of the pockets of the people. In fact, it
was the construction of these bases that first gave
the people an opportunity to earn this money, and
they were fed by these firms through the goods
that were purchased in this country. He refers you
to 105 firms that made a profit of $15 million or
an average of about $150,000 each. He did not
tell you, however, that this included Bowaters
and the AND Co., and the Buchans Mining Co.,
which would account for the larger part of this
profit and would probably bring the average of
the 100-odd Newfoundland firms down to around
$80,000. He did not tell you that only 29 firms in
Canada made something like $250 million to
$300 million — an average of over $10 million
each. Compare this to what he has given you for
the 105 firms in Newfoundland, including the
paper companies. If there is any profit that can be
seen, it is in Canada and not here. The profits and
mark-ups allowed by the Canadian government,
even under the price control system, are away in
excess of those here in Newfoundland, and in a
lot of cases they are double. Yet this is the
country, which to quote Mr. Cashin, "is the land
of milk and honey". This again is only further
propaganda to set class against class, and divide
the people of this country to their own detriment.
Mr. Banfield, in seconding the motion, said
that with confederation, the bulk of the taxes
would fall on broader shoulders and not on the
poor as today. Let me correct that right now. The
sales taxes and excise duties in Canada will fall
on those here in proportion to their purchases, but
when you come to one of the real federal taxes,
you will find that in Canada the income tax
collected by the Canadian government is what
will really hit our people here. In 1945 people
earning less than $1,000 — which is not taxable
in Newfoundland — paid to the Canadian
government $19 million in income tax; the
people earning between $1,000 and $2,000 a year
paid $146 million, and those earning between
$2,000 and $3,000 paid $137 million. For these
last three income group brackets, that is $3,000
and below, they paid a total of $300 million out
of a total collected by the federal government of
$680 million. In other words, the income tax paid
by the lower-income group paid practically half
of the $680 million collected, and then Mr. Ban field tries to tell you that it will
fall on broader
shoulders than it does today. The federal government on today's basis estimates taking
about $3.2
million in personal income tax out of this country,
but I feel sure that this will be closer to $5 million
because there are so many today not paying income tax in this country, who will have
to do so
if we become part of Canada. While I am on this
question of taxes, I might say I have heard a lot
of talk here about the vicious system of indirect
taxation in this country, and that our union with
Canada would get us clear of this system. Perhaps
Mr. Smallwood does not know that the revenue
of the Canadian government for the fiscal year
ending 1947 was largely derived from indirect
1414 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
taxes. Out of $3 billion taken in this respect, over
$1 billion was from indirect taxes, such as customs duties, excise duties, etc., and
$1.5 billion
from direct taxes. One-third of their total receipts
in this respect was from indirect taxes, and yet we
are told that union with Canada will banish this
vicious system.
We have also heard the oft-made remark about
the bottom falling out of fish prices, etc, and the
price going down to $5 per quintal, but surely the
members who make these statements do not expect that union with Canada is going to
prevent
fish or any other commodity from dropping in
price? That will be the result of world conditions,
and Canada or any other country cannot stabilise
or prevent the drop in prices of fish or any other
product. In fact in my opinion, union with Canada
will have a destructive effect on our fishing industry, inasmuch as we will be unable
to make
the marketing arrangements that we have today
with European markets, particularly Portugal and
Spain and perhaps Italy, and also I can see nothing in the terms of the Black Book,
nothing
official, that will show me that the Newfoundland
Fisheries Board will be able to continue its
present work which is resulting in the better
marketing and selling of our products. It can only,
as far as I can see, be the agent of the Canadian
Prices Support Board, and this has nothing
whatever to do with markets or export, and to lose
the Fisheries Board in its present capacity would,
in my opinion, not only be destructive, but also
have a very far-reaching and bad effect on our
whole industry.
It has also been said by some of our most
ardent confederates that it is very difficult to
provide full social services in this country because the population is so scattered
over such an
area. Do they mean to tell me that union with
Canada would make our population less scattered
and Newfoundland any smaller? We will have
exactly the same problems under confederation,
and to my mind this is just one more of the red
herrings that are drawn across our trail, and if Mr.
Crosbie had thought of it in advance, he could
have put his herring factory here in the Convention because there are more red herring
here than
in Bay of Islands.
The people will want to consider what effects
confederation may have on our industries. I have
already told you briefly the detrimental effect it
will have on our fisheries; but here is also the
effect it will have on our paper mills and paper
industries. Newfoundland has one of the most
economically operated paper industries in the
world today, and while the demand for the next
few years will be such that total outputs or
production may be sold out, yet it may be that in
the near future paper mills under union will have
to restrict their output — to go on the quota basis
as they did in Canada. If this happens, Newfoundland, under its own government, being
operated so economically, the industry could still
work at capacity without restriction; but as
operated in Canada, our paper mills would be
placed under production restrictions, with the
result that perhaps 1,000 of our people would be
put out of work in the mills and in the woods. The
effect on our industries, as I have mentioned,
must have consideration by the people, because
it affects them directly in the amount of employment available, which might be reduced
in this
respect through confederation with Canada.
Our agricultural industry today is producing
around $12-15 million and if we should become
part of Canada, I hesitate to say what effect it
would have on our agricultural products and on
our farmers generally, particularly in view of the
increased land production that we are endeavouring to obtain. This is one very good
reason why
Prince Edward Island would like to see us in
confederation at the expense of our west coast
farmers, as well as those on the east coast. It
would provide the Canadian farmers with an
opportunity to increase their profit at the expense
of the Newfoundlanders.
Do the people of this country realise that we
are now discussing the terms offered by the
Canadian government, which are based on a tax
agreement that over 50% of the people in Canada
have not subscribed to, and to which they do not
agree? Both Quebec and Ontario have not accepted this federal-provincial agreement,
and it
might be of interest to you to know that I understand that the Ontario government
brought in
some experts from the United States to go over
the whole question and to advise the Ontario
government as to whether it was wise or not to
accept this tax agreement, and they have not done
so. Yet we are trying to be pushed into an agreement that over half of the people
in Canada have
not accepted, and for the Canadian government
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1415
to offer us terms on which half the Canadian
population cannot agree, I think would be a very
strong factor against recommending it ourselves
to the people.
We have been interested in listening to the
reasons which several members have been offering for acceptance of these terms of
confederation, but there has been one very significant fact
in these last weeks of discussion, and particularly
in the debate just recently finished covering the
finance end of it and the estimated provincial
budget. This very significant fact, sir, which
stands out as a weak link in the chain of the
confederation-backers, is that they have not mentioned anything about the provincial
budget, or
how we are going to fare operating Newfoundland as a province, or how the people are
going to pay for the benefits they might receive
from confederation. I have heard eight or nine of
these members speaking in favour of confederation on generalities alone. They have
not stated
any solid basic facts to back up their recommendation to the people. They have glibly
skipped
over the most important part that the people
should consider, and that is, sir, how can we
operate a province and who is going to pay for it?
I was most surprised indeed by the impression
I received of what Mr. Burry said on January 13.
He spoke very feelingly of the people on the
Labrador, and quite rightly so, and pointed out
the benefits to them; but my impression was that
he spoke through the eyes of 5,000 people on
Labrador as a basis for recommending to the
other 300,000 people of Newfoundland that confederation would be good for them. I
realise that
Mr. Burry has the people of Labrador at heart,
and I have every respect for this gentleman, but
to me his sole argument was based on and around
only that small percentage of the whole country
and I cannot accept his argument as referring to
the rest of Newfoundland.
Our number one senator, Mr. Ballam, described the wonderful country that Canada was
and the
sights they saw and which, no doubt, were seen
from the back seat of a car or at garden parties
which he attended while in Ottawa. Did he see
the horrible conditions in the slums in Montreal
and around other cities or walk down through the
poorer sections? He apparently did not, or he
would have seen conditions there that we have
never known in Newfoundland. I am afraid I
could not recommend confederation based on the
arguments I have heard here which are pure
generalities, without foundations or anything
solid on which people can base their future hopes.
I want to make it quite plain that I am not an
anticonfederate, I do not hate the thought of confederation. I naturally prefer our
own independence, but if we were offered terms that
would really benefit this country, raise the standard of living of our people, and
secure or improve
our national economy, I would be the first one to
vote for it. But looking at it on the basis of the
terms we have been offered, I cannot sincerely
recommend it to the people of this country.
Mr. Ashbourne said on January 16 that he
could not see why we always want to remain
independent. I can hardly believe Mr. Ashbourne
seriously considered this remark, as surely it is
the wish of everybody in this country to remain
independent if they can do so without sacrificing
too much. Mr. Ashbourne also mentions the fact
that under confederation a man could leave here
after the fishing season for winter work in
Canada, but surely he realises that people in
Canada are in similar industries as ourselves, and
that they are in the identical position as us, and
the volume of work to be obtained in Canada
during the winter months would affect such a
small part of our population, and would benefit
us so little, that this is hardly a reason for his
strong recommendation of confederation. If conditions become poor in this country
and work is
hard to get, it will also apply to Canada, and the
jobs that are available in Canada are being filled
by immigrants consisting of displaced persons
from Europe who are coming to Canada on very
low salary to start with, such a salary as
Newfoundlanders could not exist on, and which
would not give them sufficient returns to pay
their fare up and back again. He states that we are
dependent on Canada to defend our shores...
Mr. Ashbourne I maintain that I referred to
Great Britain as well as Canada.
Mr. Hickman Surely we are more dependent on
the United States who already has three bases
established here and who is by far the strongest
nation in the world today. It would be to them that
we would have to look to defend our shores rather
than Canada who would only be a part, with the
USA, in a joint defence of the North American
continent. He feels that Canada is at our back,
1416 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
presumably to support us; but the people must
realise that they will not get anything for which
they do not pay, and that Canada is not Santa
Claus. Mr. Ashbourne also stated that if Newfoundland needed assistance after our
surplus
had been spent, we would know where to look for
it. I can well see why he brought this question up
because he, no doubt, anticipates that our surplus
will soon be gone, and under those terms that
Canada has to offer, I can well agree with him.
We have a provincial budget based on those
terms presented to us, and on which even Mr.
Smallwood, who compiled this budget, estimates
a $1.25 million deficit each year. No doubt he
shaved the figures as close as possible, but still
could not show how we could operate under
union with Canada with less than a $1.25 million
deficit. However, he did not take into consideration that he cut the Public Health
Department,
with its yearly expenditure to $5.25 million,
against our present general expenditure of $6.25
million, and he did not take into consideration
that with the completion of the General Hospital
here at St. John's and the sanatorium at Corner
Brook, with a 250-bed capacity, and the extension of the Western Memorial Hospital
at Corner
Brook, that our maintenance of these public services under the department will require
closer to
$7 million a year, so that we would require approximately another $2 million in addition
to the
deficit brought in by Mr. Smallwood. That makes
approximately a $3 million deficit. The education
grant has been left at just over $3 million, but here
again the Department of Education will require
about $4 million, although they may not be able
to obtain this from the revenue of this country,
but they will certainly need another $500,000 to
maintain the educational services for the children
in this country, and this further increases the
deficit under union to somewhat just under $4
million.
There has been no provision made here at all
for reconstruction, and the amount of money
provided in Mr. Smallwood's budget is merely
suffcient to cover the maintenance of existing
roads. To build further, or to increase the remaining public works, as well as any
other reconstruction programme, would certainly require another
$2 million, which gives us a yearly deficit of
something near $5 million and which would
bring the total expenditure of the provincial
government up to something like $19 million per
year. This deficit is to be collected from the
people in additional taxes — whether these be
sales taxes, property taxes, school taxes or some
other kind of tax, the cost of government would
have to be paid for, and those terms under which
we have been offered confederation do not provide us with sufficient revenue to balance
our
budget without resorting to increased taxation
and you cannot get away from this fact. Under
these terms I am sorry to say that as far as I can
see, we will have built our last hospital, we will
have put the last bed in it, and we will have laid
our last mile of road...
Mr. Chairman In the interest of brevity and
efficiency, members should distinguish between
the motion before the Chair and the debate on the
confederation terms. Our attention is directed to
the fact that the Canadian terms or proposals were
fully debated and spoken to by every member of
the House who wished to speak to them.
Mr. Hickman These are the facts that the people
of Newfoundland should want to know. There are
undoubtedly some benefits that me people will
derive from the terms that have been put before
us, but the whole picture cannot be seen until the
benefits are accounted for by the cost to the
people. The members who have spoken for confederation seem to have missed this fact
as they
have avoided any reference to, nor did they substantiate the facts as to how they
can raise the
revenue that will be necessary for this country as
a province. They have skipped over the fundamentals and have generalised. They have
painted a very rosy picture and have put two coats
of paint on the baby bonus to distract attention
from the adverse or bad factors of the terms that
have been offered us. They have referred to their
dislike of responsible government, but what will
we have under union with Canada but a responsible government? A provincial government
is a
responsible government, identically the same except that our control will only be
over our provincial assets and the remainder of the country,
including our resources and everything important
to us, will be under the control of the Canadian
government. These terms of confederation, sir,
can be obtained at any time, These are the minimum that Canada could offer us and
they are
below the minimum that we should accept, or that
I could recommend to the people myself. They
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1417
are now being supported by propaganda to divide
the classes in the country, as I have stated before
— a "soak the rich" attitude. But however, the
Canadian Finance Minister, Mr. Douglas Abbott,
has stated himself that this is an impossibility
even in Canada, and has said that there are not
enough rich in Canada to soak. If that applies in
Canada, then so does it most certainly apply in
Newfoundland. It is all political propaganda to
hide the real cold facts, and to stir the people up
so that they cannot see what the future may hold
for them. You cannot legislate a standard of
living. People have to work to live, and there is
nothing in the British North America Act that
provides that all peoples in union shall have a
high standard of living.
If I were the most ardent confederate, and yet
sincere with the people of Newfoundland, I could
not possibly recommend these terms to them. It
is not a question of recommending confederation
or not. It is a question of doing so on those terms
submitted by the Government of Canada, and to
recommend them to the people of this country is
more than I would care to have on my conscience.
If I thought sincerely they were good enough to
benefit the people as a whole, raise the standard
of living and give us economic security, then I
would heartily support them and do all I could to
have the people accept them But I have looked
at these terms, sir, and have studied them to the
best of my ability. I have used the experience I
have gained in 20-odd years in this country in
work, and I can only say it is a one—sided argument —— one sided for Canada. I am
willing to
prophesy — which I hope will not come true —
that if we have union with Canada, that anywhere
from three to five years after we have entered into
union, the people of this country will curse the
day they ever voted for confederation on these
terms. I hope that I am wrong, but that is my
sincere belief, as well as that if the people of
Newfoundland enter confederation on the terms
submitted to us, it is nothing less than criminal.
Mr. Harrington Mr. Chairman, I think you will
agree, and every right—thinking Newfoundlander
will agree, that it is most regrettable that the chief
advocate of the cause of confederation should
have introduced his resolution in the final stages
of this Convention on such a note as he did, which
several speakers have already suggested strongly
resemble the tactics of class war and sectional
agitation, that have been and are being employed
by the vanguard of men who propose the Communist world order. I say it is most regrettable.
Surely, confederation has more merit than that it
has to be boosted in such a desperate manner.
Surely the argument for putting confederation on
the ballot on the basis submitted to the Convention by the Prime Minister could have
been
presented in a fair and reasonable manner dealing
with the proposed arrangements laid down in the
Grey Book.
Instead, he said very little about the many
aspects of confederation which are still seen
"through a glass dimly" by our people, and the
only real connection with the confederation question established by Mr. Smallwood
that I could
see, was his reference to the business of property
tax, and of course his usual assertion that such a
tax would scarcely apply to Newfoundland. He
said that the federal government never collected
a dollar in property tax, that the provincial
government would not dare to collect a dollar;
and that leaves only the municipal governments
or town councils, and we have only ten or 15 of
these councils, and so our people would not be
taxed on their property, real or personal, I put it
to you, Mr. Chairman, in the light of the deficits
we would have in our provincial budgets, how
long it would be before that provincial government would have to pass legislation
to incorporate every settlement in Newfoundland with a
population of 500 and over into a local council,
in order to raise the absolutely necessary
revenues to keep the country going. And then see
where we would stand on the matter of property
taxes. And while I'm on taxes, Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to refer to a couple of passages in one of those
books and documents which we received from
Ottawa — Dominion and Provincial Submissions
and Plenary Discussions at the Dominion
Provincial Conference of 1945, page 142.
If that is the line of tactics that the confederates
are going to employ from now to the referendum;
if that is the way that they going to try and sell
confederation to the people of this country, by
raising the ugly and dangerous head of class
warfare, then, sir, like Mr. Higgins and others, we
are not going to have any part of it,
Up to now the tactics, especially of the chief
advocate of this cause, have been to try and prove,
not that confederation is me best thing for New
1418 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
foundland and her people, but that it is the only
thing. I could not accept that view. I never did
accept it. If the confederates had attempted at the
very beginning to prove in a reasonable and not
too-eager way that confederation with Canada
mightbe a good thing for even a fairly prosperous
and well-fixed Newfoundland, I believe their
cause might have had more success and a less
thorny way than it did have. Instead, that cause
was driven into the Convention's proceedings
with as much diplomacy as a battering-ram, and
kept swinging with all the power that fanaticism.
over—eagerness and agitation could muster. Underlying the whole issue was the insistent
effort
at every turn to prove that Newfoundland was in
a hopeless mess, that she would never get out of
it, in fact that it would get worse, and the only
hope for Newfoundlanders was to have sense
enough to come in out of the wet —— under the big
umbrella of confederation. The attempt to becloud the real issues at stake by this
smoke-screen
of emotionalism, and by an appeal to the underdog, will not succeed, Mr. Chairman.
I resent this
line of argument by the delegate from Bonavista
Centre. It is an insult to the intelligence and the
integrity of myself and others who do not see eye
to eye with him. Of course, he is not trying to
convince us; he tells us that every time he speaks
into the microphones it is to the people, his
masters, he is speaking. I solemnly warn the
people to beware, to "beware the Greeks, when
they come bearing gifts."
I resent also his statement that he is getting
ready to go out and tell them the truth, which they
have never got in this Convention. I consider that
a reflection on us all, including yourself, Mr.
Chairman, for we have honestly striven to give
the people the truth, and that is why these so-
called terms, this basis for confederation has been
the storm—centre of such a prolonged discussion.
What kind of truth is Mr. Smallwood going to
bring to the people when he begins his crusade?
Is it the same sort of inflammatory doctrine that
he spewed forth on Friday last? If that is the kind
of truth the people are to hear, then I say, God
help them and God guard thee, Newfoundland!
But, proceeding from this point, Mr. Chairman, there is one statement that Mr. Smallwood
made in his remarks that I made special note of.
After he had made it perfectly clear that he
believed his motion was going to be defeated,
which was a fair assumption I grant you, he
nevertheless went on to state emphatically that he
had no doubt that confederation would be on the
ballot. Then what are we here for? What is the
sense of this debate or the month—long debate on
the so called terms? What does it matter then if
this motion is defeated? Why is Mr. Smallwood
appealing for support? Because he knows that the
British government will take the recommendations of this Convention; that it cannot
afford to
do otherwise.
"Let the people decide" is the confederate
slogan. Therefore they vote to put Commission
government and responsible government on the
referendum, but declare they themselves will
vote for neither one nor the other. Mr. Chairman,
as I see it, the line of least resistance in this
Convention is taken by those who will vote to put
everything in sight, every form of government on
the referendum. They put the onus on the people.
"Let the people decide", they say again and again.
But I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, who will the
people blame if they make the wrong choice?
They will blame this Convention, and rightly so,
if they make the irretrievable mistake, and I submit that the only form of government
put forward
here that admits of the possibility of the people
making an irretrievable mistake, is confederation
with Canada on the basis submitted by the Prime
Minister of Canada, In the other two cases, the
other two forms, there is a second chance. But
there is no second chance under confederation,
no matter what specious arguments its
proponents may offer in that regard.
The Confederates argue we have no right not
to recommend any particular form of government
- put them all on the ballot, let the people
decide. But they overlook the fact that this Convention months ago took to itself
the right not to
recommend a certain form of government which
has far more supporters in this country than confederation with Canada, that is union
with the
United States. It voted Mr. Jackman's resolution
right out of the House without even making an
attempt to investigate the whole matter or to even
discuss it, despite the fact that the constitutional
expert stated in answer to a question put by Mr.
Fogwill, that to send a delegation to discuss terms
of union at Washington was within our famous
terms of reference. And we have heard Mr.
Smallwood, when his own resolution was being
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1419
first debated, say that he would vote to send a
delegation anywhere, to Timbuctoo if necessary.
That was before his own resolution was carried.
After that he sang a different tune.
In speaking to Mr. Higgins' motion, Mr.
Keough, a few days ago, went to great pains to
rule out several forms of government which
might be possible future forms of government for
Newfoundland, on the grounds that, as far as l can
see, they were unsuitable from his point of View.
None of these forms had ever been discussed in
this Convention, none of them had ever been
given the slightest attention. One of them was
union with the USA, and Mr. Keough' s argument
for ruling out that form was that the issue raised
"matters of conscience" that he was not prepared
to raise among our people. I would like to know
what matters of conscience union with the United
States would raise that confederation will not
raise. The educational and divorce problems are
present in each case, and the only other matter of
conscience is that of a change of flag and loyalty.
And I would ask Mr. Keough, pursuing his own
line of thought, how would that affect the fisherman on the bill of Cape St. George
as long as he
gets his three square meals a day?
No, Mr. Chairman, the argument here is that
this Convention has discussed three forms of
government, therefore it should recommend
three forms, ignoring the fact that there are
several others which can be dealt with under one
or both of the forms discussed in Mr. Higgins'
motion, which are forever discarded if this Con—
vention should recommend and the people accept
confederation on the so-called terms of November 6, 1947.
As I said before, nowhere in the Black Books
or the Grey Book does the Canadian government
refer to them as "terms"; neither, I note, does Mr.
Smallwood in his resolution, where he simply
calls them a basis for confederation. And I submit
that's what they are, a basis for a future sovereign
government of Newfoundland to negotiate the
final and satisfactory terms of union. We had a
month's discussion on these arrangements for the
entry of Newfoundland into confederation. 1 disagree most strongly with Mr. Smallwood's
assertion that these are the only terms we could get,
the best terms we could get. That is unmitigated
nonsense, "trash and nonsense" to use his own
words. I also strongly object to his statement that
we could get out of confederation. How? Thirteen of the United States of America tried
it in
1861 and they had a four-year civil war, and when
it was over the 13 states were still a part of the
federal union. We'd look nice declaring war on
the rest of Canada if we found that confederation
was a mistake, as it will be under the present
circumstances.
Speaking of the United States reminds me that
Mr, Banfield said, "Newfoundland is too small,
too poor to stand alone. She must have somebody
at her back." If Mr. Banfield believes that we
should have a big country at our back, then I say
let's have the United States at our back, either in
economic or political union, whichever the
people desire at the proper time under their own
elected self-government.
Mr. Chairman, I spoke for an hour and a half
in committee of the whole during the debate on
the proposed arrangements for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation, and gave
my
reasons why I could not accept them. I do not
intend to take up too much of the limited time
allotted for this debate to rehash my arguments,
or to go over the ground covered by other
speakers, but there are a few points I wish to make
at this time with respect to Canada and confederation.
Confederation with Canada represents a complete change of the constitution of Newfoundland;
a complete alteration beyond
recognition almost of the whole basic concept of
the life and the living of our people — 450 years
of history as a distinct unit with a separate life of
its own. "Newfoundland... still remains
sui
generis and an exception to the rule in the British
Empire", states Rogers.
[1]
The apartness of Newfoundland from the
rest of British America has persisted for a
long time, and its history has for many centuries contrasted with the history of other
colonies in two or three essential characteristics... In the first place there is
an immobility in the history of Newfoundland, and a
fixity of character in the Newfoundlander,
which is unique in colonial history. Somersetshire, Devonshire and Irish peasants
are
1420 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
there and have there from the first...preserving their ancient types...Newfoundland
has
lived a continuous life and has kept its identity inviolate for more than 300 years...
For
three hundred years, that is to say, during the
whole of its colonial life, the colony has been
menaced with complete or partial extinction;
not by force but by incessantly reiterated
arguments. From the very beginning until the
very end of its life clever people proved over
and over again...that the colony ought not to
exist....
That is the end of the quotation, and though the
arguments of those clever people alluded to failed
to carry a decision, it would seem the argument
is still going on.
I have said that confederation would mean a
fundamental change in our national life. That
need not be a bad thing necessarily. But it can be
a bad thing, and will be if the people of this
country are stampeded into such a union against
what would be, under other circumstances, their
better judgement.
What seems to be overlooked in this whole
affair is that to be a success and a good thing for
Newfoundland, confederation must work, and
work a whole lot more smoothly than it does in
the Maritime Provinces, for example. For these
provinces are part and parcel of confederation,
they grew up with it and within it. We have
remained aloof until now, and in the meantime
we have labouriously built up a country, a culture, traditions, faiths, hopes and,
indeed, a certain kind of charity and a hospitableness that is
unique. We are as separate a race of people, with
ideas and standards of our own, as different from
the Canadians as the Canadians are from the
Americans. The adjustment of our whole lives,
and our outlook on life, government, religion,
everything would be a tremendous and shaking
process. We might easily never become emotionally, psychologically or mentally adjusted
to
living under confederation at this stage in our
development as a separate people. and might end
up as the last and most neurotic and hard-to-live-
with member of the confederation family. For a
period now of 14 years, over three ordinary parliamentary government administrations,
we have
been without a vote or a voice in the control of
our own affairs. To rush into confederation at this
time would be to wake up tomorrow to find we
had a vote and a voice —— but that the control of
our affairs, at a time when that control could be
used to immense advantage to ourselves, is gone
forever to a capital 2,000 miles away where our
faint protests would fail to reach; of if they did,
would fall on deaf ears.
Therefore Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this
motion, anymore than I could not support the
resolution to send a delegation to Ottawa on the
two occasions it was debated in this chamber. I
again reassert my unshaken belief that the main
decision that confronts our people is to say if they
will let others govern them, as they have in the
past 14 years, or if they will again govern themselves; and that if they do decide
to run their own
country and control its internal and external affairs, then the way lies open to them
at any time
to enter union with any other nation to the west
or east of us, on the best possible terms that can
be obtained by a sovereign government with
power to negotiate.
Mr. Crosbie Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I
wish to oppose the motion brought before the
Chair, I am against this motion because, in my
opinion, the terms have not been properly
negotiated and have far too many loopholes for
me conscientiously to support it. In fairness to the
people of Newfoundland, I do not believe the
motion should go on a ballot.
We hear a great deal of talk about the size of
our country, and about our being too small to
stand on our own feet, I would like to call your
attention for a few minutes to Iceland. Iceland is
a very small country having a population of only
120,000; yet this small country is standing on her
own feet and since the war finished, they have
had the British withdraw and also the Americans.
If Iceland can stand on her own feet and make her
own trade agreements, surely we in Newfoundland can do the same, that is if we have
the
courage of our convictions and the guts to carry
on.
The greatest danger that I see to Newfoundland under the present suggested terms is
to our
fisheries —— and this, gentlemen, can be a very
real danger. I pointed out before the exchange
difficulties that we would run into. Mr. Ashbourne in replying to my remarks led me
to
believe that this exchange could be available in
Canada. Well, I see no guarantee in the terms
before us that it would, and there certainly is not
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1421
any guarantee in any remarks Mr. St. Laurent
may have made. Mr. Ashbourne said that we got
our exchange for our Spanish fish through London, and this is true: England purchased
oranges
through which we received our sterling exchange. I would like to point out that it
was
England purchased the oranges, and not Canada.
Last night I listened to Mr. Gushue's address
and I listened very carefully and I am sure other
members here must have done the same. If it is
Mr. Gushue's opinion there is danger to our
fisheries under confederation, well I, for one,
believe what he had to say, and I will take his
word before the word of anyone else, and certainly before any members of the fishery
committee
on the Ottawa delegation. There is a very great
danger to our fisheries, there is danger that they
might be in difficulties overnight, there is a
danger that we will not be able to sell to the
European markets and this, gentlemen, is a very
serious matter for Newfoundland. In fact, gentlemen, it is so very serious that it
leaves me no other
course except to vote against confederation going
on the ballot.
I am not an anticonfederate, if the terms are
properly negotiated and if sufficient guarantees
are given Newfoundland to protect her against
any upheaval that may take place. I am convinced
that Newfoundland's necessity to export in order
to live requires that she should have the right to
make her own trade agreements without reference to the over-riding authority and interests
of
the Dominion government.
I think in the first place that we should have
an agreement with Canada to whom we export
six times as much as she buys from us. I do
believe that a means may be worked out for a
closer relationship with Canada short of federal
union, which would be good for both countries;
but on the question of political union, I am from
Missouri. Canada has not been too liberal with us
in the past. I have yet to be convinced that she can
do more for us that we can do for ourselves. I have
the friendliest sentiments towards Canada and
Canadians, but it would take a good deal to
convince me from my study of the situation that
a federal union would not be the worst decision
that Newfoundland could make.
Mr. McCormack I do not propose to take up
much of the short time at our disposal, but in
rising to record my stand on this motion, I wish
to say that in not supporting it, I am not anticonfederate, but rather one who has
Newfoundland's
best interests at heart. An issue of such importance needs to be examined from every
angle and
in every aspect, so that we will know the disadvantages as well as the advantages.
I hold that
even after 18 months and being free of the responsibilities of affairs of state, we
still do not know
all the answers. I am of the opinion that we can
unite in many ways with Canada without surrendering our political sovereignty. We
can form
associations and share problems to our mutual
advantage.
I would remind you that social services and
other benefits are not the basis of our country's
prosperity; rather our productive economy and
markets and at the present time, in particular,
general world conditions.
To those who vilify responsible government
and talk of the graft and dirty politics we would
have, I would say that under confederation we
would have a federal responsible government and
also a provincial responsible government with
twice the opportunity for such dirty politics. If the
Canadian confederation is such a happy family,
why are so many of the provincial governments,
particularly the Maritime Provinces, continually
up against the federal government?
In any event the chief consideration in my
opinion, and one which has not been very clearly
presented, is our position re trade, and we would
do well to ask ourselves whether or not our interests would be subordinated to those
of central
Canada.
Gentlemen, most people will admit that the
federal government must collect more from the
provinces than it gives them, otherwise it could
not continue its services. We are not naive
enough to think that Canada is going to give us
something for nothing, and we can be prepared
to pay additional taxation if we are to receive
additional benefits or services.
Mr. Chairman, having these ideas and feeling
that the people do not know enough about the
difficult aspects of confederation, I do not see that
I could conscientiously put them in the position
where they might unwittingly vote this country
into a union which, despite Mr. Smallwood's
statements, would be irrevocable. Some
delegates claim we are failing in our duty to the
people if we do not give them the opportunity to
1422 NATIONAL CONVENTION January 1948
vote on confederation. In my opinion we are, by
our terms of reference, and after our discussions,
to make recommendations on suitable forms of
government to be placed before the people at the
referendum. How can we conscientiously recommend a form of government to go on the
ballot
paper when we are not fully informed as to how
it will affect our people? I cannot but vote against
the motion.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat I wish
to unite with other speakers in recording my
sincere appreciation of the able and impartial
manner in which you have conducted proceedings since you assumed your position as
chairman. I would also take this opportunity of
thanking all delegates, particularly my friend Mr.
Vardy, for the big hand you gave, during my
absence, on the occasion of my recent marriage.
I assure you that both Mrs. MacCormack and I
are deeply appreciative of your good wishes. I
thank you.
Mr. Watton Mr. Chairman, I wish to address
myself very briefly to the resolution now before
us, namely that confederation be submitted to the
people in the forthcoming referendum.
Within the next few days this Convention will
come to an end, and in spite of its shortcomings,
I feel that it has done a lot of good and has
justified its existence, if for no other reason than
that it has aroused the people out of a sleep that
has lasted for 14 years. Throughout the life of this
Convention I have tried to be as fair as I possible
could. I have not tried to hide or deprive the
people of this country from obtaining any information that this Convention has been
able to give,
in spite of the fact that it has been stated here that
those who do not favour submitting confederation to the people are trying to deprive
the people
of something that is rightfully theirs. I plead not
guilty to that charge. I am not going to vote in
favour of this motion under the present circumstances. I shall try as best I can to
give
reasons why I make that statement.
Our terms of reference provide that we shall
examine and discuss among ourselves the changes that have taken place in our economy
and
recommend forms of government as a result of
our findings. It did not specify or even suggest
that we should examine or discuss the economic
or financial position of any other country. We
were not empowered to do any such thing. Proof
of that was supplied as a result of a conference
held between the Commission of Government
and a delegation of this Convention. It was
pointed out that this Convention had no power to
discuss or negotiate (I think that is the word used)
with the USA or Canada on economic, financial
or political questions. We were politely told that
such negotiations were none of our business, and
that it was a job to be dealt with strictly between
governments. In spite of that, it was still maintained that we should send a delegation
to Ottawa
to ascertain terms of federal union, with absolutely no power to dispute or question
any proposals
that might be put forward by the Canadian
government. Mr. Chairman, what a position for
an independent and free people to be placed in!
And we are expected by the advocates of confederation to place before the people of
this
country a situation such as that! No matter what
we find in those terms which we do not understand, or any points on which we are clear,
we are
still urged to recommend it as being a form of
government, without being able to question or
dispute any of these things. To my mind, Mr.
Chairman, the situation, to say the least, is
ridiculous.
As a body of ordinary Newfoundlanders, I
maintain that a pretty good job has been done as
far as investigating our position as a country. I
think that the reports tabled in this Convention
point to that fact. We know probably as much
about the country as a newly-elected government
would know, with only 16 months of experience.
We send a delegation to Ottawa to get the terms.
What position are they in? The Canadian government gives them what? Precious little.
They did
not even give them the terms to bring back, in
spite of all their knowledge of Newfoundland.
Even if they had been given the terms, what could
they have done? Absolutely nothing. They could
read them, that was all. Any clause in those terms
which they thought could be improved upon, or
which they thought could be made more fair or
equitable, they could do nothing about it; and
worst of all, this whole Convention could do
nothing about it. But Mr. Chairman, if they had
the power to do something about it, how different
the situation would be. I would have had no
hesitation in recommending it. Even if we had
that power to negotiate or bargain, and had used
it without being able to alter any of these terms,
January 1948 NATIONAL CONVENTION 1423
I would still support its recommendation and let
the people decide. But because we do not know
that, and because we have not been able to get
satisfactory information on questions that have
been asked, I cannot support it. I am convinced
that it can be done by consultation between an
elected government of Newfoundland and the
Government of Canada. As Mr. Higgins pointed
out, there are possibilities for good in these
proposals and they are a good basis for negotiation.
Another thing that the people need more enlightenment on is how we are going to fare
as a
province. By that I mean, how is the provincial
government going to raise sufficient revenue to
take care of provincial matters such as public
health and welfare, education and so on? We have
had a so-called budget presented to us, a provincial budget that would apply to this
country if and
when we became a province; not a budget covering one or two years, but for a period
of eight long
years, during which time anything may happen,
from a war to a world depression. Incidentally,
the author of this budget prophesied only a few
days ago that we were going to have a depression
and have it very soon. To my mind, it is a budget
based on anything but sound, solid facts. In fact,
it is based in some part, if not for the most part,
on supposition. For instance on how our $28
million surplus will be handled, $16 million of
which is out of our reach and will remain so for
some years to come. The supposition is that some
means may be found to get that $16 million back
in dollars, whereas now it is in sterling. Are we
going to base our recommendations on suppositions such as that? Without knowing for
sure
whether it can be done or not?
Again, this budget says that we shall need $15
million to cover ordinary expenditure as a
province. Others in this Convention contend that
it will take around $18 million, and these contentions have been based, to my mind,
on sound
reasoning. Who is correct? More than that, how
are these monies to be raised, and in the raising
of it, how is it going to affect the ordinary Newfoundlander, the fisherman, the logger
and the
miner? These questions and many others have not
been answered to the satisfaction of thousands of
our people. Again, Mr. Chairman. how are our
fishermen going to be affected by confederation?
Are they going to be affected adversely or other
wise? What is going to happen to our very efficient Fisheries Board, our system of
inspection
which has done a tremendous amount of good,
our system of marketing? And also, how will our
markets be affected? Every fisherman in this
country wants to know that. Do they know it?
They most certainly do not, and until they do, I
cannot see how we can justify ourselves in
recommending confederation as a form of
government. Some of these questions have been
answered, after a fashion, by Mr. Smallwood; but
I am not prepared — neither are thousands of
people in this country prepared — to accept these
answers at the last word. Our people deserve the
best, and the best is none too good for them.
Confederation may be the best, but do we know
that it is the best? I am quite sure that the majority
of them do not.
I am a young Newfoundlander, Mr. Chairman,
and will in all probability spend the rest of my
days here. I do not want to be a party to recommending something to the people of
this country
which they might regret for the rest of their days.
In my opinion, government means a great deal to
a people. It has been pointed out here that as long
as people have three square meals a day, a decent
suit and a tight roof. they do not worry who runs
the government. Personally, I cannot subscribe to
that. What about our educational system? Our
social services? And many other things that are
equally important as food, clothing and shelter.
Would I, as a Newfoundlander, be satisfied, as
long as I had enough to eat, enough to wear and
good shelter, to see Adolph Hitler as the head of
our affairs? I hardly think so. Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I do not want
to deprive
the people of anything that may affect them for
good. But in view of all the circumstances, as I
see them, I cannot in all sincerity support this
motion of Mr. Smallwood's.
Our days in this Convention are numbered.
We have learned a lot since we came here. I hope
that what we have learned will stand as in good
stead in the future and will be of some help to our
people. Now, Mr. Chairman, like others before
me, I wish to express a feeling of gratitude to you
for the way in which you have helped us since
you occupied the Chair. You have kept us in order
very impartially and I am sure we shall be forever
grateful to you for the way in which you have
conducted the affairs of this Convention.
